End of the Red Button....

Fyldewhite said:
If a news channel depends on advertising revenue to exist. Advertising revenue predominantly from big business who tend to benefit most from right wing policies and right wing administrations......which way do you think they will lean? The point of the BBC is that it's neutral and tries to be balanced in it's coverage. Now, that is admittedly very difficult to achieve and they will inevitably get some things wrong but at least it's an objective starting point. To someone on the right the coverage may appear left biased, to someone on the left it may appear right biased. With a very right wing government in power I believe they have an agenda to weaken or change the BBC because it is really the only voice not subject to the commercial pressures that bring about right wing bias above. It's a constant thorn in the side of the Tory party which I'm sure they would prefer wasn't there.
Click to expand...

Are they?
 
MegaSteve said:
Think we can thank a certain Australian born American for the way the Beeb is being hobbled at present...

Georgie boy currently to be found hanging out of his rear end...
Click to expand...

Exactly. Don't confuse the current governments stance on the BBC with any thinking on what is good for the nation. But it is mostly what is a good for Murdoch's commercial interests and the government protecting any media outlet that basically agrees with them politically, and trying to rein in any that does not.

Said it before and said it again but the BBC has had a great influence on who we are as a nation and is one of the most respected, if not the most respected broadcasting organisation in the world. To begin with we'd be nowhere as good and as influential as we are in the world of music without them.

If it was not for the BBC then everything you watch and hear would in some way be influenced by advertisers and would ultimately be there to make money. And the people paying the most money would be able to steer the output to align with the political and social beliefs. You only need to look at the printed press and Fox News to see what would happen.
 
Fyldewhite said:
If a news channel depends on advertising revenue to exist. Advertising revenue predominantly from big business who tend to benefit most from right wing policies and right wing administrations......which way do you think they will lean? The point of the BBC is that it's neutral and tries to be balanced in it's coverage. Now, that is admittedly very difficult to achieve and they will inevitably get some things wrong but at least it's an objective starting point. To someone on the right the coverage may appear left biased, to someone on the left it may appear right biased. With a very right wing government in power I believe they have an agenda to weaken or change the BBC because it is really the only voice not subject to the commercial pressures that bring about right wing bias above. It's a constant thorn in the side of the Tory party which I'm sure they would prefer wasn't there.
Click to expand...

I agree with your theory but would question just how good is the Beeb's reporting. I tend to watch news from around the world via various media. The Beeb often miss big stories from around the world in favour of a piece on the price of a bag of spuds in Wurzle Gumidge land.

But to put another slant on it. Do we really want a state run news organisation? It has been said in the past that the Beeb is a govt mouthpiece. Even during the last 6 years there's been news put out by the Beeb that has a pro Govt stance. Unfortunately the Beeb often switch from reporting news to giving opinions on the news. If they are going to do that I'd like them to be not state run.
 
Alex1975 said:
Become commercial like everyone else... If they are as good as you say they are they will have no problem at all and will even make a profit!

Or we could go on being taxed for it so people like Jeremy Clarkson can be paid millions.

I pay for Sky, why should I be forced to pay twice. Also not at the nature program part of my life yet... Still rather be out in it!
Click to expand...

The Clarkson point is so wrong as Top gear earned the BBC many times more than what they were paid in overseas revenue, and also kudos. It's a lazy Daily Mail argument that financially is complete and utter garbage.
 
Hacker Khan said:
The Clarkson point is so wrong as Top gear earned the BBC many times more than what they were paid in overseas revenue, and also kudos. It's a lazy Daily Mail argument that financially is complete and utter garbage.
Click to expand...

Oh no, not labelled a Daily Mail argument... nurse, nurse! The yoghurt knitters are out again...:D
 
Hobbit said:
I agree with your theory but would question just how good is the Beeb's reporting. I tend to watch news from around the world via various media. The Beeb often miss big stories from around the world in favour of a piece on the price of a bag of spuds in Wurzle Gumidge land.

But to put another slant on it. Do we really want a state run news organisation? It has been said in the past that the Beeb is a govt mouthpiece. Even during the last 6 years there's been news put out by the Beeb that has a pro Govt stance. Unfortunately the Beeb often switch from reporting news to giving opinions on the news. If they are going to do that I'd like them to be not state run.
Click to expand...

Yeah, tend to agree on quality but I think that applies to everyone....they all broadcast complete drivel at times.

Fully agree on state broadcasting too. Probably the worst of all scenarios but I really don't think the BBC is that or even near that. In it's current/past form it is often the critic of the government of the day rather than the mouthpiece. Like I said above it's all relative as well as subjective. Two people will have completely different opinions on the validity/bias of a piece depending on where they stand on the political spectrum. I suppose the point I'm making is that the BBC is our best attempt at impartial, objective and balanced news reporting and interfering with that for political rather than pure economic reasons by the government is a bad thing. I suspect strongly that the current government are doing that under the smokescreen of "reforms".
 
 
Last edited:
Liverpoolphil said:
People pay £146 a year - £11 a month for four channels - countless amount of radio shows and some of best telly without it being interrupted by an advert every 5 mins - imagine watching The Hunt and it being disturbed constantly by an advert. The BBC gives us the one bunch of programmes that can be shown without the need to advertise Pringles etc etc etc

People like Clarkson earned the BBC millions due to the amount of money they earned by selling the rights to other countries and will continue to earn the BBC millions which then goes back into the pot to make more television. Add in all the countless projects and funds they have to encourage musicians and emerging talent giving them a platform to display their talents. The BBC does so much work for the future as well as the present. All from people's ten pound a month - peanuts. You can't even watch a film or buy a DVD for that these days.

I would pay double that to keep the adverts away
Click to expand...

This ^^^ in spades

As for many posts on these boards I'm reading a load of 'I'd be all right Jack' type comments (see @Alex1975s posts #41 and #45 for example) - which is a pity but what I'd expect. For the sake of £11 a month.
 
Last edited:
Just to be clear for the folk suggesting not watching the BBC or buying a TV set that doesn't receive the BBC if you don't want to pay for a TV licence, you need to be have a TV Licence if you watch or record programmes as they're being shown on TV or live on an online TV service. This is the case whether you use a TV, computer, tablet, mobile phone, games console, digital box, DVD/VHS recorder or any other device.

So whether you watch the BBC or not has nothing to do with having to have a TV licence and nor does whether you actually own a television or not. If you watch any live TV, be it Sky Sports, the Discovery channel or whatever else, you need to have a TV licence.

And just for the sake of accuracy, a TV licence (colour) is just over £12 a month, not £11 or £10.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
This ^^^ in spades

As for many posts on these boards I'm reading a load of 'I'd be all right Jack' type comments (see @Alex1975s posts #41 and #45 for example) - which is a pity but what I'd expect. For the sake of £11 a month.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I've got to disagree with the tone of this. Its up to any individual where they spend their hard earned money. Whether you like it or not, at least respect the opinion. Fine if someone doesn't want it but calling them greedy because of that is a step too far. Maybe its your moral compass that's skewed too far the other way... but that's just an opinion too.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
This ^^^ in spades

As for many posts on these boards I'm reading a load of 'I'd be all right Jack' type comments (see @Alex1975s posts #41 and #45 for example) - which is a pity but what I'd expect. For the sake of £11 a month.
Click to expand...


What I am seeing is `I need you all to pay for the BBC cos if we don't all pay they will take it away from ME`

I am paying for your entertainment and I might not want to!!!!

Guess what though... In the end it will go... and you will have to pay for your own entertainment.

I wonder if it was optional how many people would still pay. That would be the ultimate barometer of it actual worth the the UK as a whole. I bet you £1000 that it could not support its self!
 
Alex1975 said:
What I am seeing is `I need you all to pay for the BBC cos if we don't all pay they will take it away from ME`

I am paying for your entertainment and I might not want to!!!!

Guess what though... In the end it will go... and you will have to pay for your own entertainment.

I wonder if it was optional how many people would still pay. That would be the ultimate barometer of it actual worth the the UK as a whole. I bet you £1000 that it could not support its self!
Click to expand...

No - we are jointly paying for a shared entertainment.
 
Personally, I think the BBC needs an overhaul from top to bottom and an end to a lot of the money wasting that such an institute has. Look as one example how many people they send to things like the WC or the olympics. Seems a horrendous number of people going to these events and I've no idea what they all do and how they contribute to the coverage.
 
Hobbit said:
Its up to any individual where they spend their hard earned money.
Click to expand...


It is...

So why is my hard earnt being used to subsidise commuters ticket prices? [Whilst the rail companies are still able to pay divi's to shareholders]... I don't get any 'help' with my petrol money to get me to my workplace...

TV licence is a tax same as all the other taxes none of us really like paying for 'things' we don't like paying for...
 
HomerJSimpson said:
Personally, I think the BBC needs an overhaul from top to bottom and an end to a lot of the money wasting that such an institute has. Look as one example how many people they send to things like the WC or the olympics. Seems a horrendous number of people going to these events and I've no idea what they all do and how they contribute to the coverage.
Click to expand...

They wont be sending anybody soon. Not once they start paying billions just to televise the PL highlights!
 
Alex1975 said:
Ill take that as an acceptance on your part that what I am saying is correct and that now the choice is so much, its clear to you that the way the BBC is funded is out of date.
Click to expand...

Don't think so. I'm more happy to pay my £12/month contribution to a service that is of huge benefit to the wider audience and enjoyed in all is facets by so many both in the UK and Worldwide.
 
The BBC has lost its way as a business model.

It has thought it needed to compete for talent and now pays a few 'stars' too much when there is new talent it could bring to the public and freshen up the offerings.

It now buys in most of its programme so that when they are successful it has to bid to keep them rather than be able to exploit the success.

If the BBC retreated from bidding then the other broadcasters would start being able to get 'talent' for less cost, eventually the BBC could do more with less.

I think they are value for money but unfortunately the 'few' who are favoured earn too high a proportion of the income and stay too long. Many of this 'elite' are, in my opinion, not very good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
  • Poll Poll
Not sure I can face the all consuming nature of golf again.
2 3
Replies
44
Views
10K
IanM
IanM
mikejohnchapman
How Come There Is No Mention of Seniors Golf On The BBC?
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
12K
4LEX
4
MarkT
  • Locked
Win a pair of the all-new FootJoy Premiere Series!
7 8 9
Replies
167
Views
43K
abjectplop
A
GB72
Do We Expect Too Much For Free / Would You Pay More for the BBC
2 3
Replies
40
Views
5K
Val
V
Blue in Munich
Stephen Fry, Twitter and the "professionally offended"
2 3
Replies
41
Views
11K
Hacker Khan
Hacker Khan
Top