What with Murdoch throwing his support behind the Tories, after his much publicised rants against the BBC 'monopoly'*, what chance now for the corporation to remain in its present form when Dave takes over? Won't they just carve it up and sell off the parts to the highest bidder?
*-They're not the only ones: Sky's monopoly over local radio news was covered in a recent Private Eye.
As someone who doesn't have Sky, I look at their schedules and can't see any compelling reason to buy a dish. However, travelling around, every other house seems to have one. So perhaps Sky just needs to improve what they show if they want more people to watch rather than moaning about the BBC.
Would you want it to remain in its present form? Should every UK householder be forced to contribute to the production and dissemination of such mind-numbing banality as "Eastenders", "Doctors" or "Strictly Come Dancing"?Originally Posted by commandlinegamer
Personally I think the BBC should leave such tat to the commercial sector and instead concentrate on being a public-service broadcaster which seeks only to inform and educate. I'd be happy to see such a service funded by a much-reduced licence fee or, indeed, by general taxation. But I strongly object to paying a license fee which funds rubbish programmes and pays the obscene salaries of the likes of Ross, Wogan and Moyles.
There's much I don't like about the BBC, including some of the programmes/stars you mentioned. But I realize they have to provide content for a wide audience and I think even Reith wanted to entertain the public as well as inform and educate.
If the extra digital channels were to go, I wouldn't be too unhappy if it meant an improvement in quality on 1 and 2.
And banality is nothing new. Remember Terry and June?
Opening credits rolling over film of Terry and June wandering around the Whitgift Centre in Croydon. Who could forget such excitement?
Are they relatives Bob?Opening credits rolling over film of Terry and June wandering around the Whitgift Centre in Croydon. Who could forget such excitement?
Everyone in Croydon is related to every else aren't they.
Like this...Opening credits rolling over film of Terry and June wandering around the Whitgift Centre in Croydon. Who could forget such excitement?
I notice Sky doesn't make much in the way of its own programmes, unlike the BBC.
Everyone in Croydon is related to every else aren't they.Croydon is NOT in Norfolk. We have one of the most ethnically diverse populations in the UK.
Fantastic. haven't seen that since... well... a long long time ago. Of course, as we all remember, they actually lived in Purley (nudge nudge wink wink say no more).
Why didn't they just get out their mobiles?
My feelings about the licence-fee BBC are similar to Churchill's on democracy: it's the worst possible system, except for all of the others.
For Murdoch to complain about its monopoly position is ludicrous, considering his obvious ambition to own everything. I flatly refuse to subscribe to Sky, on principle (or buy his newspapers).
Whilst a great supporter of the BBC, especially it's World Service I do think the licence fee is doomed.
I can remember when you had to have a licence for a radio. In the days of valves, radios were big boxes that sat in the corner of the room and took several minutes to "warm up". Then along came transistor radios and things changed dramatically. I can remember the man from the BBC going around (I think it was Brighton Beach) asking sunbathers to produce a licence for their transistor radio.
The problem to me is that there is an establishment that try to hold on the old ways of doing things, despite movements in the technology. TV technology today is simply not the same as it was when the licence fee was introduced and so like it or not, I can't see how it can really be sustained.
Here's an argument for the licence fee - press freedom! With print newspapers rapidly becoming economically unviable, there soon won't be the money to pay proper journalists, so who knows where our news will come from. Blogs? Government agencies? Lobby groups? The BBC may be the last unbiased news source with actual journalists in the country soon.
Is the press doomed? I think people will still continue to buy papers for some time to come, but I was under the impression the vast majority of the income came from advertising not from the cover price. But you can't compete with the Internet for time; second-by-second stories are developing and can be reported as quickly.
Getting back to the original topic, one of Cameron's spokesmen, Hunt IIRC, talked this week about ripping up the BBC Charter when it's up for renewal.
Just because you think it's a good idea does not mean it is sustainable. Good or bad the licence fee system is doomed because technology inexorably marches on.
If it was just for one reason, this reason alone would have me willing to pay my licence fee. The BBC News website - more specifically that they, more than any other site I've happened to chance upon, reference.
Other than that while many of the programs don't suit my taste I accept they are supposed to cater for the whole nation, all of whom pay and therefore if enough want to watch drivel like Doctors, it's justified! Alongside that the BBC is still catering for me, programs like Horizon, and The Story of Maths.
I would be very sad to see it privatised, I have enjoyed it all my life - I guess I'm just not one of the nay sayers.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks