Topic: The BBC

[Titi Camara]

"Why do you need a TV license?
A TV Licence is a legal permission to install or use television receiving equipment to watch or record television programmes as they are being shown on TV or live on an online TV service, and to download or watch BBC programmes on demand, including catch up TV, on BBC iPlayer."
"What is the purpose of a TV license?
A TV licence is therefore effectively a hypothecated tax for the purpose of funding public broadcasting, thus allowing public broadcasters to transmit television programmes without, or with only supplemental, funding from radio and television advertisements."

From an early age I was always told that the BBC was an institution free from political leanings, which meant you could have faith that current events and news would simply be reported on rather than framed.

Depending on your political leanings you may or may not currently feel the BBC has shown political bias in recent years. The obvious example that recently stands out for me it QT, where we've observed a huge disparity in the number of pro-leave guests versus pro-remain. We've also seen some very odd things in the audience, with pro-leave campaigners not only being selected to attend on multiple occasions but also being selected to ask questions repeatedly too!

Whilst this is only one example, my own personal faith in the BBC as an independent, unbiased news source has been completely wiped out. As such I question why I, as a UK tax payer, should continue to foot the bill for this service that I no longer feel is fit for purpose.

I am not campaigning or advocating for the dismantling of the BBC, just that it should source it's funding as an company independent of government/national funding. In doing so, it may not end up as the non-partisan group some think it is today but at least it would be seen for what it is and we could also have the choice to fund it or not!

Ultimately I feel the question is this; why should I be forced to pay for a service with no discernible differences from other broadcasters when all other broadcasting services are a personal choice?

[eddymunster]

Whilst this is only one example, my own personal faith in the BBC as an independent, unbiased news source has been completely wiped out. As such I question why I, as a UK tax payer, should continue to foot the bill for this service that I no longer feel is fit for purpose.

Bingo!



 

[JC the Messiah]

I agree with the QT thing, ridiculous amount of airtime for Frottage and his cronies, normalising their views and agenda. Also, too much airtime given to him on 5live, when there are other people with opposing views to Europe, other than UKIP and whatever that's mutated to now.

That aside though, I think the BBC news is relatively unbiased, especially in contrast to the rest of the MSM in the UK. It will be interesting to hear what people outside the UK think of the BBC.

[classycarra]

I think you'd ultimately be celebrating losing fewer things than you would miss if it was abolished.

Instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, could you not reform the organisation and particularly overhaul the politics (starting with UK) section of the news (which is a whole disaster on its own, aside from the BBC)?

I'd also stop BBC News 24. It's trying to keep up with the joneses that's part of the problem

[redmark]

No. I'd probably put the BBC second only to the NHS in a list of great UK institutions. Undoubtedly the BBC has some right wing contributors and some left wing. My main criticism would be that the consistency in quality has decreased over the years, rather than one of bias.

On the QT/Brexit point - it would be interesting to see some detailed real analysis on the number of guests, questions etc representing each side - because I suspect that the problem isn't in the numbers, but in the simplicity/consistency of the argument being put. It's regrettable, but the Leave side has largely just been better at putting its argument than Remain has. It's had more effective speakers, articulating a simpler message - which inevitably leaves a stronger impression and prompts a stronger audience response.

Where people get this discussion wrong, I think, is insisting the BBC has a duty to fact check, interrupt and challenge every sentence that comes out of someone's mouth (see the Twitter storm on R4Today giving Bannon '15 minutes uninterrupted airtime'; I just listened, it was nothing of the sort). It doesn't. Constant interruptions prevent politicians talking themselves into a hole, too frequently, and give them an escape. The most revealing moments come when a politician has to actually finish a sentence they're expecting to be cut short.

[Craig S]

The left scream the BBC is biased against them, the right scream the BBC is biased against them. Sounds like they are doing a decent job.

It is not just the political side, as soon as you commercialise it you pander to commercial partners and ratings, lowest common denominator shit. Whilst the bbc does this of a sort now for Saturday prime time for example, it would be nothing compared to chasing rating to charge advertisers more.
Say hello to the BBCs version of Love Island etc. Pandering to what will be the most popular for their paymasters to get the most views. What is most popular with most people does not always mean the most quality (see brexit, man united, one direction, the death penalty etc).

Without chasing the advertisers would the BBC have produced so many top class documentaries and educational programmes? Undoubtedly ITV would buy Blue Planet now, but would they have taken the chance to even commission it in the first place?

Imagine approaching a commercial station a few years ago and pitching them a show, with 12 members of the general public baking cakes in a tent. TV Exec : "Get out!". Now that show has been stolen by a commercial channel, but only once it became a success on the BBC.

The vast majority of quality UK dramas over the years have been by the BBC. I find the commercial stations output dreadful in comparison.

[Alf]

This is an interesting question. I don't think the BBC are impartial.

However I have no doubt if you scrap the licence then the quality of programmes will fall into rapid decline. I don't watch anything on ITV any more excluding live Sport.

[So… Howard Philips]

I think to judge the BBC's impartiality by the freakshow that QT has turned into is missing the point.

QT is more akin to Jeremy Kyle that QT when Robin Day was in the chair.

[Elmo!]

I have deliberated over cancelling my license before as I don't watch a huge amount of live TV (apart from football streams....) but for all its flaws (mainly with its news division), the BBC still puts out a huge amount of great content that just about justifies it for me.

[jackh]

Thought this was an interesting read in the aftermath of the recent changes to over-75s provision.

Why the BBC is not to blame for the TV licence fee cuts

At first sight, the current crisis sparked by the BBC’s decision to restrict free television licences for over-75s seems like a spectacular own goal by the corporation.  After all, older people tend to watch more television than younger people and are more likely to favour free-to-air television channels like the BBC’s, so why would the BBC want to alienate its core audience or impoverish pensioners?

In recent days, the decision has seen huge public resistance, with an online petition heading towards half a million signatures and widespread criticism from well-known BBC faces such as Ben Fogle, Michael Palin and Jeremy Paxman.  It has also become a rallying point for candidates in the Conservative Party leadership race to criticise the BBC and has even spawned a Sun campaign to boycott the BBC.  Perhaps predictably, the Sun advised readers to watch Sky instead despite the need for a subscription that is much more expensive than the BBC licence fee.

But should these protests really be directed against the BBC?  Its announcement should really have come as no surprise because the BBC is itself a victim here too.  Behind this decision lies a catalogue of irresponsible government decision-making and some startling hypocrisy among Tory politicians.

It is easy to imagine that a free TV licence for over-75s is an ancient right rooted in the era of black-and-white television, two channels and Hancock’s Half-Hour.  In fact, it is an idea less than 20 years old, introduced in 1999 by Gordon Brown when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer.  Crucially, Brown accompanied it with a government pledge to make up the shortfall in BBC revenue from Treasury coffers.  In other words, free over-75s licences were introduced as a government-funded welfare measure at a time when the real value of the state pension was considerably lower than it is today.

This approach changed dramatically within weeks of the election of David Cameron’s coalition government in 2010 when it launched a raid on the BBC.  George Gideon Oliver Osborne, son of Sir Peter Osborne, 17th Baronet of Ballentaylor and Ballylemon and Felicity Alexandra Loxton-Peacock, educated at St. Paul's and Magdalen College, Oxford informed the corporation that the BBC would henceforth have to fund the over-75s concession.  The justification was the government’s newly introduced austerity policy and the desire to cut the Work and Pensions budget.  But important points of principle were at stake.  Not only was the 2010 cut proposed without warning – neither parliament nor the public were consulted – but it would mean that an arm of government welfare policy was to be funded from the licence-fee rather than from taxation.  The effect would have been devastating for BBC services and its ability to serve the public.

In the end, a rebellion by Liberal Democrats in government and a threat of mass resignations by BBC Trust members forced Osborne to think again.  Negotiating in a single night under enormous government pressure, the BBC agreed instead to a licence fee freeze, to take over funding for the BBC World Service from the Foreign Office and other costly concessions.  This was still a disastrous outcome for the BBC, but at least it had bought time to mitigate the worst effects of a licence fee freeze.  Over the next few years, the BBC cut costs ruthlessly and closed BBC Three as a broadcast channel.

The BBC was also assured by the Treasury that over-75s licences would not be attacked again.  Yet in 2015, the new Conservative government did just that, again with no prior consultation.  Already one of the most efficient public sector organisations, the BBC warned that this time it would be forced to make wholesale cuts to services.  BBC Two, BBC Four, all BBC local radio services and radio news for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would all have to close almost immediately.  These were no idle threats.  Funding free licences for over-75s would cost the BBC nearly £1bn, one fifth of its total revenue.

Alarmed at the likely public backlash against the loss of so many beloved BBC services, the Treasury again changed tack.  It would soften the financial blow for the BBC by ending the licence fee freeze and closing the loophole which allowed viewers to watch iPlayer services without a television licence.  And it would reduce the Department of Work and Pensions contribution to the cost of free licences gradually over five years.  But the BBC would still have to fund this cost in full by 2020.  What’s more, the BBC itself would be given control of the policy of free licences for over-75s.  The Treasury knew exactly what this latter change would mean.  Unable to afford the full cost of the policy, the BBC would eventually be forced to cut it.

And that is where we are today, with licence-fee-payers up in arms, Conservative politicians crying crocodile tears over the consequences their government’s own decisions and everybody bashing the BBC.

The BBC is the nation’s most-trusted news provider, committed to impartiality and fact-checking at a time when unreliable sources and fake news abound.  It has been described as ‘Britain’s most important cultural institution’, which sounds like a huge claim until you try to think of other candidates for the title.  It is easily the nation’s most popular broadcaster, committed to serve the public – majorities as well as minorities – and the national interest rather than shareholders and advertisers.  At a time when Britain seems less unified than ever, the BBC still brings people together.  Only this week, the return of Killing Eve has gripped the country’s viewers, while England and Scotland’s World Cup game was watched by 6.1 million people – half as many again as the largest UK audience for a women’s football match.

Although it rightly attracts criticism at times, the BBC is very good at many things and remarkably good value for money at 42p per household per day.  But it does not exist to fund government welfare policy, nor to be used as a scapegoat by an unpopular government to deflect the blame for a public spending cut. Outsourcing welfare spending in this way is an extraordinary dereliction of the government’s own duty which should be a source of shame.  In the light of this, how hypocritical is it to watch senior Conservative figures lining up to kick the corporation when their own government has set it up to fail, while rivals like the Sun try to cash in?

https://commsmedialiverpool.wordpress.com/2019/07/04/why-the-bbc-is-not-to-blame-for-the-tv-licence-fee-cuts/


Certainly for the use I get out of it, the 42p per day is outstanding value.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

No.

The BBC is ace. This Tory infestation is temporary

[OneTouchFooty]

The left scream the BBC is biased against them, the right scream the BBC is biased against them. Sounds like they are doing a decent job.

Always expect this idiotic both-siderism answer when it comes to the BBC. It’s this view that has given rise to the ridiculous notions of BBC “balance” in regards to climate change and overt racism. It’s been packed with Tory cronies in positions of power for a long while now. But you have to separate the political from the entertainment programming side of the BBC, which is viewed as more ‘left’ simply because it’s become more inclusive (or to others ‘box-ticking’) and more daring.

The political side of the BBC has been weak and rather pathetic for a few years now, since ideologues have been parachuted into positions of power within the organisation and being leaned on by govt. The Vote Leave electoral fraud & the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data scandal was the turning point for me with the BBC, as they attempted to completely brush such huge scandals under the carpet, a complete disinterest in investigating and informing viewers, where they gave prominence and the narrative to the offenders and marginalised the journalists and whistle blowers.

[KillieRed]

I know there is a push amongst SNP Voters/Independence Voters (not always the same thing) to cancel their licences due to perceived unionist bias at the BBC.

For my part I feel unwilling to do so, despite the fact the only services i use are to watch recordings of MoTD/HIGNFY and maybe the occasional thing on iPlayer. I cant recall the last thing i watched live on the BBC. I was genuinely aghast that The Open is no longer on the BBC. What`s left? Wimbledon? Glastonbury? The government really should reserve things that are the fabric of UK culture & tradition if they want them to continue. By all means allow SKY to bid for football, but let the bidding parties know that there red lines and reserved events that will be on the BBC too.

[Craig S]

Always expect this idiotic both-siderism answer when it comes to the BBC. It’s this view that has given rise to the ridiculous notions of BBC “balance” in regards to climate change and overt racism.

Er and fuck you. Not once did I state anything about giving equal air time or anything to experts/non experts, both sides, or mention balance. Something I actually deplore.
I stated that the left and right both cry that they are biased against them. Which is true. It used to be just the right trying to get rid of the funding for the bbc, now the left have jumped on board to assist the daily mail and murdoch in their quest.

[Titi Camara]

Er and fuck you.

Easy there tiger!

[Titi Camara]

Both sides being pissed off about something does not definitively mean there is balance.

I know there is a push amongst SNP Voters/Independence Voters (not always the same thing) to cancel their licences due to perceived unionist bias at the BBC.

Interestingly I have discussed this at length with a couple of Scottish mates. Several years ago, whilst discussing their observed bias of the BBC against the independence vote, I struggled to see their point, mainly because I didn't physically have access to the shows/or lack of them. I have since apologised to them for siding with the BBC.

[FlashingBlade]

Read that the average age of BBC1 viewer is 61....if that demographic correct then pretty soon a generation ( current teens) will ask why do I pay for something I never watch?

The real jewel in the BBC crown is of course Radio and that is worth the licences fee alone.

[OneTouchFooty]

Er and fuck you. Not once did I state anything about giving equal air time or anything to experts/non experts, both sides, or mention balance. Something I actually deplore.
I stated that the left and right both cry that they are biased against them. Which is true. It used to be just the right trying to get rid of the funding for the bbc, now the left have jumped on board to assist the daily mail and murdoch in their quest.

Who are the left and right here? Far left and far right? Labour and Tories? Plenty of centrists and liberals decry the state of the BBC nowadays and their pathetic pursuit of huge newsworthy scandals and their spineless approach in holding power to account. It’s not just 2 left-right factions complaining about it.

[west_london_red]

As RedMark said above, I put it only behind the NHS as an institution that needs to kept. The Brexit coverage has been frustrating to say the least but that’s no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. And while the whole country is concerned with Brexit there is more to the BBC news then just Brexit, and more to the BBC then just news. It’s documentaries are second to none, as is it’s drama and it’s sports coverage where it still holds the rights.

[Titi Camara]

The real jewel in the BBC crown is of course Radio and that is worth the licences fee alone.

I encounter this opinion a great deal. I personally find, from a political perspective, that BBC radio is as biased as the TV stations. As such I do not listen to them but accept that many do.

So my questions would be:

Why should every person able to, have to pay for a service they do not enjoy watching/listening to, or indeed utilise at all?

Would advertisements or a paid for subscription diminish the service beyond it's current level?

[eddymunster]

From a different angle, if the BBC were a subscription service like Netflix, at £12.50 a month (or thereabouts) would you subscribe?

[killer-heels]

From a different angle, if the BBC were a subscription service like Netflix, at £12.50 a month (or thereabouts) would you subscribe?

For the British element of it and what it is supposed to stand for, yes.

I dont think the fee should be abolished. It makes some amazing programmes and again for what it stands for its worth it. Its just their news and journalism around politics which is utter dog shit.

[killer-heels]

No.

The BBC is ace. This Tory infestation is temporary

Its always been a Tory stronghold and will continue to be.

[Titi Camara]

From a different angle, if the BBC were a subscription service like Netflix, at £12.50 a month (or thereabouts) would you subscribe?

I personally wouldn't but it's a very interesting question.

It opens up a wider question too; if you could pick and choose which elements you subscribed to, radio for example, could this lead to higher levels of funding being funneled to those areas being utilised the most? Could this in turn streamline the corporation and ultimately improve services?

It seems very odd to me, that in 2019 we have a service that doesn't feel fit for purpose, foisted upon an entire nation. It should be a choice. It's not a public service, it's entertainment, and as such we should be allowed to choose how we spend our own personal entertainment budget.

[HarryLabrador]

Definitely NOT!

[Titi Camara]

I dont think the fee should be abolished. It makes some amazing programmes and again for what it stands for its worth it.

I don't think we should be conflating issues here.

I'm not asking if we should get rid of the BBC. I'm asking if the BBC should be asked to stand on it's own two feet without compulsory public backing. The programming it makes today, could be made tmw, irrespective of the source of it's funding.

I personally don't advocate the abolition of the BBC, merely that the means to fund it should be an elective subscription and not a a compulsory fee.   

[Titi Camara]

Definitely NOT!

Why?

[killer-heels]

I don't think we should be conflating issues here.

I'm not asking if we should get rid of the BBC. I'm asking if the BBC should be asked to stand on it's own two feet without compulsory public backing. The programming it makes today, could be made tmw, irrespective of the source of it's funding.

I personally don't advocate the abolition of the BBC, merely that the means to fund it should be an elective subscription and not a a compulsory fee.   

I know what you mean. It is a difficult one. We do have legislation around biased news coverage. Sky do a decent job generally with their coverage and are as unbiased as the Beeb, at least its supposed to be.

If that could be guaranteed then maybe yes, the fee should be abolished and they should stand on their own two feet.

It certainly doesnt currently deserve equal footing with the NHS in my opinion.

[Titi Camara]

It certainly doesnt currently deserve equal footing with the NHS in my opinion.

I could not agree more! The funding is not comparable in almost any sense either!

If the NHS was to lose government funding, millions of UK citizens life expectancy would drop over night and hundreds of thousands would be bankrupted by unscrupulous insurance firms in the coming years. The same can not be said if the Beeb.

I may be conflating issues myself now. If people are simply associating the Beeb and the NHS as things that make them proud to be British, fair play, but I don't get why that should equate to me having to pay £150 a year for summit I don't really use though?

[eddymunster]

I know what you mean. It is a difficult one. We do have legislation around biased news coverage. Sky do a decent job generally with their coverage and are as unbiased as the Beeb, at least its supposed to be.

If that could be guaranteed then maybe yes, the fee should be abolished and they should stand on their own two feet.

It certainly doesnt currently deserve equal footing with the NHS in my opinion.

That's not guaranteed when there's a tax funding it though, so what difference does it make?

[Mutton Geoff]

We should keep it but it shuld be means tested for people who cannot truly afford it.

[A-Bomb]

From a different angle, if the BBC were a subscription service like Netflix, at £12.50 a month (or thereabouts) would you subscribe?

Nope.

[Titi Camara]

We should keep it but it should be means tested for people who cannot truly afford it.

To flip this on it's head, Geoff, should I be means tested for Netflix?

[OOS]

I think you'd ultimately be celebrating losing fewer things than you would miss if it was abolished.

Instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, could you not reform the organisation and particularly overhaul the politics (starting with UK) section of the news (which is a whole disaster on its own, aside from the BBC)?

I'd also stop BBC News 24. It's trying to keep up with the joneses that's part of the problem

The likes of Radio 4 and BBC world service have brilliant impartial and inclusive podcasts/ shows around news, business and politics. A wide variety of voices are heard.

Andrew Marr show is good and Panorama are very good too.  There is more to the BBC than QT.

The only problem i have with the BBC, is that they review newspapers and that dictates the debate on some shows. I have no idea how you could solve this problem tho, without banning stories from the nationals.

[Titi Camara]

I think you'd ultimately be celebrating losing fewer things than you would miss if it was abolished.

Instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, could you not reform the organisation and particularly overhaul the politics (starting with UK) section of the news (which is a whole disaster on its own, aside from the BBC)?

I'd also stop BBC News 24. It's trying to keep up with the joneses that's part of the problem

The likes of Radio 4 and BBC world service have brilliant impartial and inclusive podcasts/ shows around news, business and politics. A wide variety of voices are heard.

Andrew Marr show is good and Panorama are very good too.  There is more to the BBC than QT.

The only problem i have with the BBC, is that they review newspapers and that dictates the debate on some shows. I have no idea how you could solve this problem tho, without banning stories from the nationals.

Again, I'm not asking if we should abolish the BBC, merely if it's funding should come from elsewhere, other than a compulsory fee taken from the public.

These shows and services could easily continue if enough of the public chose to subscribe if the compulsory fee was abolished.

[Zeb]

For its problems and errors, it provides an open and near definitive source of reporting. Not just with TV and radio but also online. Murdoch's long been keen to kneecap it even more than it has been.

They are having issues with covering day-to-day politics at the moment. They're not alone in that.

I'd actually move the funding further away from political control myself. Neither Labour nor Tories like the scrutiny when they're in power and both have tried to hobble it. I'm up for different funding models but I see licence fee as a tax we pay to ensure everyone has access to at least something which isn't overtly toeing an editorial line. It's work keeping that aspect however the funding is reached. Whether it's varying licence fee levels to cover different levels of service above basics or whatever.

[Sangria]

I know what you mean. It is a difficult one. We do have legislation around biased news coverage. Sky do a decent job generally with their coverage and are as unbiased as the Beeb, at least its supposed to be.

If that could be guaranteed then maybe yes, the fee should be abolished and they should stand on their own two feet.

It certainly doesnt currently deserve equal footing with the NHS in my opinion.

To the outside world, the BBC represents all that is best about Britain. The NHS is valued more domestically, but from the outside, the BBC represents what the world idealises about Britain.

[HarryLabrador]

Why?

I loathe adverts. We all own the BBC, though it has issues from time to time, I trust it more than any other TV channel. The thought of having an owner like Rupert Murdoch or indeed Fox 

[CheshireDave]

The likes of Radio 4 and BBC world service have brilliant impartial and inclusive podcasts/ shows around news, business and politics. A wide variety of voices are heard.

Exactly. For me it's worth it for that alone. I don't watch TV so not bothered about their news channels, drama etc

These shows and services could easily continue if enough of the public chose to subscribe if the compulsory fee was abolished.

In terms of BBC world service, Radio 4 and the many podcasts BBC produce I don't think they could be produced in the same way as the BBC currently do. There is also the massive archives the BBC have access to. I can't comment on Question Time or Panorama as I don't watch them.

[redmark]

It's not a public service

Isn't it?