To think the BBC really should be shut down?(431 Posts)
After the child abuse scandals, and now this where BBC execs have been given payments far beyond anything they were required to be given, isn't it time that the BBC was just shut down? It can't really be said that it makes the best TV in the world anymore, the best TV programmes come from the US and have done for well over a decade now. I just don't see the purpose of the BBC in 2013. It is arrogant, bloated beyond belief and seems only to exist to provide cushy jobs for the Guardian set.
No... It still makes the best tv and radio in the world - it's news reporting is the finest
Sure the US makes amazing drama but have you seen Fox News?
That would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There's so much good about the bbc.
Radio? Maybe. TV? Not even close. What BBC programme matches up to Homeland, Game of Thrones, Boardwalk Empire, Mad Men etc? And these programmes are full of British actors, why aren't they being made by the BBC?
Most of the child abuse cases are historical.
Shutting down a modern day operation because of something people did decades ago makes no sense.
Spend a month in the US watching TV - or Australia for that matter - and you'll be glad of the BBC
Im with lauri. I thank actually it does make superior programmes and my life would be much poorer without radio 4.
Yes, YABU. Some things need to change, yes, but NOT shut down.
Fox News isn't a drama?!
YANBU to be annoyed the the BBC. I think it needs a major overhaul after everything we've heard.
But I think YABU to want it got rid of completely.
I hate adverts I love BBC radio, like most news reporting and some TV is great like Luthor and Sherlock.
If I spent a month in the US or Australia I'd watch the same programmes I do now, Game of Thrones, Homeland, Mad Men etc.
As nancy says, bar the overpayments to employees, most of what you are talking about is historical.
Have you seen most US TV? <shudders> The BBC might not always be amazing, but it's better and ITV, C4 and C5 put together.
Oh, and The Fall was excellent.
BBC news is highly biased. Presentation is good, but they are selective about what they report and biased about how they report it.
I work for the Beeb. I am not involved in any child abuse scandals. Nor did I unexpectedly get a big fat payment.
It is a huge and wonderful organisation, highly regarded as the best of its kind in the world. One bad
Daily Mail story (aside from the 70's and 80's abuse horror) does not represent the entire organisation.
Should Corrie be taken off air due to it's recent and ongoing horror?
Because, apart from Homeland, the other three are bollocks?
Mitch Benn expresses it much better than I do: Proud of the BBC
Have you not watched BBC4? There's some excellent programmes on there. We have Virgin XL package but at least 80% of our family viewing is BBC2 or BBC4. HBO make fabulous drama, my DVD library is full of them but (wo)man cannot live on hot totty and action alone
"It is a huge and wonderful organisation, highly regarded as the best of its kind in the world."
Yes, as the BBC keeps telling us.
Coronation Street isn't publicly funded.
YABU, the BBC is brilliant. Yes, it has some (major) flaws, but they don't override all the good things about it. In regards to the shows, have you seen Top of the Lake? One of the best shows I've seen in a while.
I adore the BBC. It certainly has its faults, and the two examples you give of recent scandals are awful.
However, the BBC does make wonderful programmes and its radio programmes are especially great.
Bad things happen on any corporation of such a big size, it's just in most private companies they would never see the light of day.
The BBC has a statutory duty to provide programming that educates as well an entertaining programmes, and I think it does this very well - I love Science Club for example. As previously posted, don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
No, but the resultant court cases are.
Going to lose some respect for the statement
"Coronation Street isn't publicly funded"
It fucking shows - its shash!! Utter bollocks.
Oh meant to say - YABU.
If viewers are disgusted with Coronation Street, their ratings will plummet and the show will be cancelled.
YABU. The BBC is great. Loeri, if you actually knew what you were talking about regarding American television (you know, that means watching it, rather than seeing a couple of cherry-picked programmes on British channels), you would realise why.
I cringe whenever I go home to watch television. It's not wall-to-wall Homeland, trust me.
If those are the only shows you ever watch, then maybe it wouldn't make much difference to you. You are living in a bit of a bubble though if you think that those shows are in any way representative of US tv which is astonishingly bad, and peppered with long ad slots every 8 minutes - it's unwatchable.
The quality of the news there is appalling too because it has to be consumer driven rather than news driven and is accordingly mostly "kitten stuck tree" local stories with surprisingly little national news of any gravity, never mind intl. Many Americans have to watch the BBC (or Al Jazeera) to find out what is actually happening.
As for other countries, have you ever watched tv in, say, France, Italy or Spain? Really?
The BBC also has the budget and the interest in supporting the arts to fund and persevere with shows that would never get the funding elsewhere. Interestingly, Mad Men is surprisingly unpopular here in the UK, if you look at the stats.
Mostly I just think your OP is woefully uninformed, really.
Loeri - but why would you be disgusted with Coronation St? They haven't been accused of anything as far as I am aware.
I do see what you mean. My generation tends not to watch TV for the sake of it. Evenings are more likely to be spent watching downloaded versions of the type of shows the OP suggested though, as opposed to flicking through drivel for hours. I suppose that's the reason catch up services and Netflix/lovefilm exist, as opposes to scheduled TV. I do like BBC news though.
"One bad Daily Mail story (aside from the 70's and 80's abuse horror) does not represent the entire organisation. "
Are you seriously saying that the potentially illegal, unaudited payment of millions of pounds of money, paid solely by license-fee payers, to already rich people, is just a Daily Mail story? I don't think the BBC should be shut down. But I think the cosy club-ocracy within the BBC, in which it is impossible to discipline people and there is no accountability by senior staff, has to end.
Your HR director was incompetent, and either approved or ignored illegal payments to senior staff. She is now leaving, under her own steam, with a similarly fat payoff. George Thompson was incompetent, and was rewarded for that incompetence with an immense payoff for a couple of weeks' work. Other senior staff have received massive, non-contractual payments which, in the real world, would constitute fraud. Sure, staff on the ground aren't responsible. But the organisation is corrupt at the senior level, and is continuing to provide cost sinecures to second-rate managers. If they think they can be paid more in the commercial sector, fine, let them leave. It is obscene to extract a regressive tax, backed by 150000 prosecutions per year (most of them of people who are extremely poor) and piss the money away on bungs for the boys.
We now have the hideous sight of Mark Thompson, a man whose contribution to broadcasting and culture could be written on the back of a stamp, engaging in a fist fight with his previous employer over who was more corrupt than whom. Never mind the programmes: why does the BBC employ such loathsome people?
"that means watching it, rather than seeing a couple of cherry-picked programmes"
What is the difference? Doesn't everyone "cherry pick" the programmes they want to watch?
If BBC shows drastically lose ratings, they too are cancelled.
OP if you feel so strongly don't watch or listen to anything the BBC puts out for a month, then come back and tell us how it was.
It's not just about dramas either...what about the factual programmes they do so well? What about the children's programmes/channels that save my sanity? What about my beloved Great British Bake Off? If you tend to watch only tv in the genre you describe I see how you could live without it.
You are being so unreasonable that I don't have time to explain before work. Will return later. But how narrow minded to assume that drama is the only worthwhile programming .
Btw DM or Wright ?
I doubt I have watched anything on TV the BBC have put out in the last month, certainly not of by own voalition anyway, may have seen something at someone elses house. I have listened to the radio though.
Nope. No ad breaks, BBC4, Radio 4, Cbeebies, the BBC news website, the Cbeebies website and local news radio in times of bad weather or other mild crisis are all immensely better than any of the alternatives.
You might be happy filling your screen with American dramas but don't judge tv by your standard. I've never watched any of those shows, or Lost or anything like that.
I can't remember the last time I watched itv, it's inane drivel.
The BBC does programming like no one else can. Take Africa for example. Where else would you get a programme of that calibre? Yes, discovery does animal documentaries but with stock footage and naff voice overs.
There was a series on History a whole back, squeezed on between the crocodile killing and gold mining a show about the original big businesses of America, Carnegie, Fordetc, was to be shown. I was very interested in the content, thought Italians be fascinating.
It would have been if the BBC done it. It was full of bad actors recreating overt dramatized scenes, adverts and cheesy music.
Take the BBC show about the Jews that's on, immaculately done.
So if your going to judge quality tv on inane dramas you will struggle.
it is a misogamist abusive greedy organisation
america may may make soem good programe.. but untill you have watched their tv.. i wouldnt complaine.
"america may may make soem good programe.. but untill you have watched their tv.. i wouldnt complaine."
What does this mean? They make a good programme but "watch their TV"? What would I watch, if not the good programmes? Who watches something they don't want to watch?
Yeah why not, along with the catholic church, police force and anything else ever that's been involved in any sort of scandal. Get rid!
The BBC is still the envy of the world, and is relatively cheap. I pay the French license fee for channels with adverts and v low quality output. BBC news and the children's channels in particular are excellent. You don't know how lucky you are in the UK.
and stop reading the Daily Mail, there are reasons why they and the Murdoch rags are anti-Beeb you know, and it is nothing to do with the outrage they like to whip up against it
The BBC makes excellent radio and television programmes, I would hate to see it go.
I would imagine they are referring to the insane amount of commercial breaks.
Only this week there's been an example of the BBC's outstanding journalism with a murder conviction for Rachel Manning's killer. You only have to listen to local radio everyday to hear small (and big) scale corruptions being uncovered. Where do you think the national papers get most of their stories from? They are often local tv/radio stories from the day/week before.
And when it comes to snow/floods etc the BBC give vital information.
As for the child abuse scandal surely any big organisation statistically is going to have issues like this. The health service does. Should we get rid of that too?
If its lost its gone forever, I think most people don't realise what an amazing organisation it is.
Also there's a certain national paper that gives its journos a bonus for every anti bbc piece it runs which might explain its coverage.
Agree that BBC4 is the best channel on TV. (And I also love BBC3 for showing Family Guy)
Friday I think you're spot on. BBC needs an overhaul so that the people at the top can't just decide how much money to award themselves. Still don't want it abolished though.
It is obscene to extract a regressive tax, backed by 150000 prosecutions per year (most of them of people who are extremely poor) and piss the money away on bungs for the boys.
100% agree. This makes me stabby.
And their comedy and children's programmes are fantastic.
Have you ever watched American TV? And I mean TV aired in the US (or Australia for that matter), not just American shows on Sky or Channel 4? The adverts are painful. There are ad breaks every 7-8 minutes that last 3-4 minutes. Your beloved Mad Men or whatever else you watch is littered with ad-breaks and it takes over an hour to air a 42 minute episode because of how many adverts you have to sit through.
I love the BBC. We don't have TV so I don't pay the license fee but we use iPlayer and I watch a lot of documentaries and cookery shows on there that you'd never find anywhere else. David Attenborough just did a really good nature show following the lives of four tiger cubs. You wouldn't get anything like that on C4, C5, ITV or even Sky.
American TV, watched in America, is appalling. They cut to endless ads about every 5mins and the bloody "info-mercials" are ridiculous. It's a VERY different experience to downloading it whole with all that stuff cut out. Completely commercialised and it drives you insane to have to sit through.
I love the BBC. Of course the organisation has its issues and they need to be addressed but they make some cracking stuff and their radio is excellent.
There is too much good. Watch US reporting then watch the beeb, no comparison.
Friday I quite agree with you about the corruption in the higher echelons, it seems rife in any public funded company/council to be quite honest and needs stamping out by a Government with some balls, unfortunately we no longer seem to have one or the prospect of one in the immediate future.
It rather detracts from the programming though, which in my opinion is rather first class. I could quite happily just watch the BBC, whereas if I could only watch the rest of the 400+ channels, my telly would be off for even longer than it is now and I'd be much better read. Listen to Roger Waters Amused to Death, that pretty much sums up most TV broadcasting to me
I'd bung BBC1 and 3 in with that lot too but don't tell anyone
Nobody watches adverts these days unless they want to.
This idea of "actually watching American TV" is nonsense. It's out of the 70s. People don't just sit in front of the TV watching whatever is on anymore.
certainly not of by own voalition anyway
It's volition cherub. I don't usually act as the spelling police but this is by far the most interesting part of your posts.!
have a look at todays programs on bbc1
rip of britian
homes under the hammer
dont get dom
plan it build it
escape to the country
wanted down under
put your money where your mouth is
celeb master chef
mrs browns boys
sorry but most of this is cheap as chips reality shows a couple of quiz shows one or two cheap drama shows
If this is world shattering stuff that is the envy of the world then heavens help the world as this lot looks like utter garbage
Friday 16, can you elaborate on this:
" She is now leaving, under her own steam, with a similarly fat payoff. "
What payoff is Lucy Adams receiving? Thanks.
ivy I am guessing the first 5 shows on your list are repeats!!
They should have some sort of opt in/opt out, you pay the license you get the channels,don't pay and no bbc, they kind of blackmail us into paying for it just by having a tv.
I admit to being a saddo doctors fan but if I could opt out of the bbc I probably would.
I love the BBC. If it wasn't for the BBC we wouldn't get things like Last Night of the Proms, coverage of the Rememberance Festival at the Albert Hall, coverage of uneconomic things like the Boat Race, programmes linked in with the Open University, and don't forget the documentaries. The BBC can take risks that other channels can't. Walking with Dinosaurs would not have been made in other circumstances and the breakthroughs in that have spilled out all over the industry.
Children's programmes are not usually worth filming unless you have a massive tie in with toys, but things like Blue Peter and Newsround are a real credit to TV in this country.
Without the BBC and the licence fee we would have far fewer programmes which were not safe, not standard and which were frankly uneconomic but add to British culture.
I am always popping on the BBC News website because there is a massive coverage of all sorts of areas, I raid their online recipes and I have faith in their weather (as much as any weather).
I also like Doctor Who.
OP - I wouldn't watch the programmes that you have listed as they don't appeal to me. I don't think they shouldn't be made, but I quite like programmes that aren't American made (though PBS rocks sometimes)
Just what I was thinking Bluegrass
What payoff is Lucy Adams receiving? Thanks.
But why let the facts get in the way of a good old knee jerk eh Friday ?
Loeri, if it weren't for all the Americans who DO watch those ads, the shows you mentioned would never get made.
YABU, and ridiculous to want to get rid of a massive organisation because of a minority of criminals.
The BBC is great. I don't watch much telly, but I always appreciate the BBC world service when I'm on holiday, I use the apps for news and weather daily, my children have got a lot out of CBBC and Cbeebies when they were younger, and they use the bite size website all the time for school.
I love bbc 4 so many informed documentaries, I love eastenders,
many itv stuff is do dummed down and aimed at the "masses"
Cant stand most American drama either so formulaic. And dull. And I wont have sky on principle 60 pounds a month and for what to what the beeb like I do now for free.
You know YABU dont you.
I think the BBC is great value for money TBH. How much are you paying per month OP to watch Homeland, Game of Thrones etc? A damn site more than £10 a month (or whatever a licence costs now).
When my Virgin contract can be updated (4 months) I'll be switching to a Freeview & Netflix combo which'll cover 99% of my families needs. It's fairly rare for us to watch much "live" TV nowadays anyway.
If I want to watch Game of Thrones I'll just download it & watch it anyway - no hassles....
"I love the BBC. If it wasn't for the BBC we wouldn't get things like Last Night of the Proms, coverage of the Rememberance Festival at the Albert Hall, coverage of uneconomic things like the Boat Race, programmes linked in with the Open University, and don't forget the documentaries. "
Why wouldn't we get those things? If there are enough people who want to watch them and are prepared to pay to watch them, they would be shown. As it is, comparatively few people watch them but they are funded by everyone with a TV, forcibly through the "unique way the BBC is funded" ie the licence fee. It's snobbery, is what it is.
So 5 repeats of terrible reality tv shows that you have suffered once you muct now suffer again...
I can't see these world beating programs that everyone is raving about in a whole days worth of prime bbc viewing
^"Nobody watches adverts these days unless they want to.
This idea of "actually watching American TV" is nonsense. It's out of the 70s. People don't just sit in front of the TV watching whatever is on anymore."^
Erm... DVR's are a lot less common in the states, and sometimes (foreign concept, I realise, so bear with me) there's actually a show that is airing while you're watching live tv. (gasp!)
I don't pre-record every show I want to watch because I don't have the time to go back and watch it. If you have the time to do so, congratulations! But yes, quite a few peor actually still just watch "what's on".
"What payoff is Lucy Adams receiving? Thanks."
She has resigned, following a completely incompetent display in front of the select committee but is being paid to the end of the financial year (April, I believe). So she is receiving six months' salary as a payoff, following her resignation. Most people who resign do so, and leave. In a grown-up company, she would have been sacked for not being able to control her department.
Given her salary, that is a six figure sum. The claim that she is "working her notice" is preposterous: she is entirely discredited, and will not be making any decisions to justify her salary.
But it's nice to see the BBC "we're all innocent" narrative in action. For example, the claim that the Saville Affair is historic. No, it isn't. Newsnight had the facts of the case, but (at a party, thus making Blair's sofa government look positively minuted) it was decided by senior BBC staff not to broadcast it, because it would involve rescheduling a hagiography already made for Christmas. As ever, it's not the crime, it's the cover-up. Thompson had to resign for that, not because thirty years ago a pervert held the BBC to ransom. He had to resign because he was party to a coverup in 2012.
"I think the BBC is great value for money TBH. How much are you paying per month OP to watch Homeland, Game of Thrones etc? A damn site more than £10 a month (or whatever a licence costs now).
But paying the £10 a month isn't a choice. Paying for SKY, BT, HBO, SHowtime, AMC etc is a choice. If those channels didn't produce shows that people didn't want to watch and pay to watch, they'd go out of business very soon.
Oh yes the sport on bbd - where is the 50% of female sports shown? It isn't 95% of the sport shown on the bbc is male
that is worth the fee alone
"If I spent a month in the US or Australia I'd watch the same programmes I do now, Game of Thrones, Homeland, Mad Men etc."
So, what it boils down to is that the BBC doesn't show programmes that appeal to you.
BBC4 is brilliant - The Killing, The Bridge, Spiral
Comedy - QI, Have I Got News For You, Mock the Week
Cookery shows. I know you get loads on other channels but watching a chef like Raymond Blanc is inspirational.
I defy you to find another large corporation that doesn't have its share of scandal/large pay rises etc. (Banking anyone?)
Oh and no cbeebies, kids tv no adverts genius.
"I don't pre-record every show I want to watch because I don't have the time to go back and watch it. If you have the time to do so, congratulations! But yes, quite a few peor actually still just watch "what's on"."
You don't have to pre-record. Just watch on a 15-20 minute delay. Voila! A 1 hour TV show takes only 45 minutes to watch.
The BBC shows adverts anyway. What do you think those things before the programme comes on are?
"ridiculous to want to get rid of a massive organisation because of a minority of criminals."
I don't want to get rid of it because of a minority of criminals. But I want to see the criminals prosecuted. The BBC HR department paid out millions of license-fee money to its mates, and now finds, amazingly, that no-one knows who did it. Where were the BBC's auditors? Where were the BBC's governors? Even when the DG resigned, he was paid more than many people earn in a lifetime to go: why was he not simply dismissed? He would have been welcome to take the matter to an ET later. Now the HR director is being allowed to resign and take a payoff (oh, sorry, "pay in lieu of notice") rather than being dismissed for cause. Cosy mate's club. How can the BBC piss millions of pounds away and not even know who signed the cheques, and not (apparently) even be terribly bothered to find out?
Tony Hall, no stranger to pissing away public money, apparently just says "oh, lickle is, we just didn't know what happened and we're too fluffy and nice to find out", signs a few more cheques for his mates and leaves it all alone.
"BBC4 is brilliant - The Killing, The Bridge, Spiral"
Which of those programmes is made by the BBC? Which of them would not be shown by another channel if the BBC did not exist? And why are they hidden away on BBC4?
Life on Earth broke the mould when it came to quality wildlife programming - it wouldn't have been made anywhere else and there was no way they could take the risk.
There is a breadth in the BBC so the same organisation that brings you Wimbledon and Sherlock also brings you Strictly and Casualty, the Royle Family and Bottom. Throw in Horizon and Autumnwatch and I think you've hit most of the demographic.
thing is you can choose a bank or not choose a bank - but if people want to watch live tv they have to pay for the BBC your choice is no tv live or pay
Obviously op is being brainwashed washed by American tv,
op pppsssst why dont you move there if you like it so much.
I don't have a TV so don't know about the programming.
BBC Radio 4 however, is on about 5 hours a day here.
The documentaries, dramas and current affairs programs R4 produces are of an incredibly high standard and my life is much the richer for them.
I was recently house sitting. Watched the BBC 10 0'clock news a couple of times. I couldn't believe how bad it was. It was like a 6th form production. The idea of investigative reporting was looong gone. I was often ashamed to be watching it.
Such a shame when I know what they can do, and should be doing.
Once again, you're assuming that everyone has a DVR. I have one, my BIL has one, but my mum doesn't, and my MIL doesn't. Your argument that the BBC I'd obsolete because you can watch everything either online, or pre-recorded, is out-of-touch, and very, very weak.
Friday... you keep saying Thompson. I think you mean Entwhistle?
Hidden away on BBC4? Everyone with a TV has BBC4 nowdays since TV hs gone digital
"BBC4 is brilliant - The Killing, The Bridge, Spiral"
Programmes made in, and funded by, France and Scandinavia. If that's the best the BBC can offer, why not just send DVD boxsets of them to the few hundred thousand (at most) who watch BBC4 and save a few billion?
My point exactly reggie.
Id rather the money in my bank than paying for 600 channels I dont watch.
"Friday... you keep saying Thompson. I think you mean Entwhistle?"
Yes, sorry. One incompetent telling lies about corruption tends to look like another after a while. Oh, Monday's select committee is going to be fun.
The quality BBC drives up the standards of our other channels. If it disappeared the standard overall would diminish.
For proof of this just look at TV in most other countries!
Sorry I should have said "The quality of the BBC output"
OP - a lot of programmes that are shown by the BBC but not made by them are not thought worth picking up by other channels. The BBC is able to put less popular programmes on BBC4 because it has that freedom. It doesn't always have to make a profit on one particular programme and can take risks on things like the Scandanavian dramas which other commercial channels can't.
The Killing isn't mainstream. So it isn't shown on the BBC1 vehicle for mainstream. But there are a lot of BBC channels and there are room for non mainstream programmes on those
The question is, why isn't the BBC making programmes as good as Spiral, Bridge, Killing, Sopranos, Wire, the Shield and all the ones in my OP. Why are other countries (not just America) making the best TV now? Game of Thrones is nearly all British actors, and mostly filmed in Britain. Why isn't the BBC making it, instead of HBO?
It would actually work out cheaper to give out free box sets
5 billion the bbc spend
3 billion comes from licence fees
BBC4 doesn't just show foreign shows. It's shown some great British documentaries - David Attenborough had a nature show on there the apst few weeks. You don't get that kind of quality on other channels.
Why aren't these David Bellamy nature shows on BBC 1 or BBC 2 then? You know more people would watch them on those channels. So why hide them away on BBC4?
YABU. If you think about the amount of tv we get for a crazily small amount of license fee, they do a great job. I'd pay my licence fee twice over just for the amazing Olympics coverage last year! And for the older generation who can't afford expensive satellite providers like Sky, then the BBC provides the vast proportion of their viewing, as well as all the mainstream radio channels. It's an amazing service.
Attenborough you mean Bellamy hasnt worked for years.
I don't know, but I think it is likely that the use of the word 'resign' is somewhat fluid here (not by you Friday) in which case it is likely that the payment to end of contract is in lieu of notice which is what grown up companies do! So hardly a pay off.
In the bigger picture I agree that she is unlikely to be scrabbling around for every penny, but it is nevertheless diingenuous to say that she is receiving a huge pay off.
And why the frig I am defending the workings of the BBC I do not know...maybe because the best of their stuff is pretty world class, I guess.
They could lose Dr Who though
If the BBC got rid of all the cheap as chips reality stuff and put all the decent shows on on channel - they could go back to having just one channel and save millions in the process and then actually be able to make some of their own shows
But instead they show utter dross and spread it out over 4 channels so people can't find the decent tv shows they do put on.
as for the news - it is churned out poor quality.
Yet use the radio and they do a half decent job
People are just as capable of watching BBC4 as they are BBC1 or BBC2. They're not hidden away anywhere, that's just a ridiculous argument.
"People are just as capable of watching BBC4 as they are BBC1 or BBC2. They're not hidden away anywhere, that's just a ridiculous argument."
And yet move the same show from BBC4 to BBC2 or BBC1 and many times more people watch it.
OP - why should the BBC get rid of things like Strictly and Casualty off their main flagship channels? More people want to watch Strictly than Attenborough. So the BBC allows options for people to watch both. The beauty of the BBC is that while they are doing programmes like Sherlock and the White Queen they are also making room for Pointless and EastEnders. They have the breadth to broadcast over a lot of channels so those like me who love documentaries can watch them without inflicting them on other people.
btw - great bunfight for a Friday morning, off to do the school run but will be back with interest.
"I'd pay my licence fee twice over just for the amazing Olympics coverage last year!"
Would you pay your license fee twice over to give Dana Bennett £687,333, including ten months' notice period, when she didn't even work for the BBC? Are you on a contract that gives you nearly a years' notice? BBC staff are, it would appear. Lucky them. Good thing that all they need to do when they run out of money for handouts is plead poverty and get the license fee raised, isn't it?
Love the BBC and this song by Mitch benn about it www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3q2iZuU5WM
OP - moving a programme from BBC4 to BBC1 would not mean more people would watch it. The same number of people who would watch it on BBC4 would now be watching BBC1 ie less. And presumably people would be stuffing the figures for BBC4 watching Holby City.
"OP - why should the BBC get rid of things like Strictly and Casualty off their main flagship channels? More people want to watch Strictly than Attenborough."
Why don't they just make good programmes that people want to watch? Programmes that can be sold all over the world? Casualty is laughable when compared to other top dramas, even hospital dramas like ER.
The point is that the BBC has an obligation to provide genuinely varied programming. Something for everyone whatever their interests and needs. There are masses of programmes that just wouldn't be made by anyone, anywhere in the world, other than by the Beeb because advertisers wouldn't be interested. That includes a lot of the nature programmes, radio shows, classical music, minor sporting event coverage on TV and radio.
I can't believe people don't realise what a privilege this is.
"OP - moving a programme from BBC4 to BBC1 would not mean more people would watch it. The same number of people who would watch it on BBC4 would now be watching BBC1 ie less. And presumably people would be stuffing the figures for BBC4 watching Holby City."
YABMassivelyU. But then I would because I know what other countries channels are like.
Spiral - the BBC partially funds this
Bridge - based in Sweden/Denmark. Surely the BBC would have been slated if they tried to make a show like tht about another country?!
The Killing - once again, its about crime in another country. Not the Beeb's place to make a show about it.
The Sopranos - sorry, I didnt realise you were so familiar with mafia gangsters who live in the burbs and own garbage companies in this country. Oh, you're not?! Strange then, that you didn't make a show about New Jersey.
The Wire - Somehow, I don't think a series where the kids are running around with guns would be quite so believable set in England.
The BBC doesn't make shows like this because they aren't about the UK, or anything relatable to the UK!
The BBC made "I Claudius" in the 70s, widely regarded as one of their finest hours. Set in ancient Rome. Not about the UK, or anything relatable to the UK? Should they have made it?
I'm with Loeri and Friday 16 on this.
No-one has even mentioned the waste of a couple of hundred million on that IT project.
Someone upthread said "Bad things happen on any corporation of such a big size, it's just in most private companies they would never see the light of day."
Actually, it's quite the opposite. There is NO WAY ON EARTH that any of the other big media players could have got away with p*ssing hundreds of millions away on a failed project without proper accountability. Others before me have covered the woefully lacking HR function.
And we're all watching as they treat the paedo scandal as something far removed from the institution today. I'm no Murdoch lover but look what happened to him and his organisation when crime and wrongdoing was uncovered - where's the universal revulsion of the BBC? Where's the forcing of closing down a part of it due to the historical actions of others?
I want accountability for the pseudo-tax that I pay and that is forcibly extracted from others.
"I don't know, but I think it is likely that the use of the word 'resign' is somewhat fluid here (not by you Friday) in which case it is likely that the payment to end of contract is in lieu of notice which is what grown up companies do!"
They had grounds to sack her for cause: she presided over an organisation which paid out millions of pounds without authorisation, what grown-ups call "theft" and "corruption". Even if they had terminated her contract without going to the lengths of actually dismissing her immediately, they could have announced "her contract has been terminated as the BBC no longer has confidence in her", paid her off and escorted her off the premises (as she would have done to others).
Instead, she gets a laudatory send off, the pretence that she's a great loss to the organisation, her contract paid in full and (pace those questioning the use of the word "payoff") let's wait until she's actually gone to see if she gets something extra for the journey: if she doesn't, she'll be the first BBC executive in living memory not to.
In BBC-land, you can resign from your job, take another, and still find yourself in receipt of £375 000 of completely non-contractual wonga, just for being a nice chap. That's, what, a couple of thousand annual license fees? Sure, Keating is said to have given the money back, but that's hardly the point, even if it's true.
I have not read all comments but I like the bbc. If are only interested in the dramas then you are very limited. bbc4 and bbc2 have made some of the best historical and scientific programmes. Recently the programme about how we came to use the standard units of measure was excellent viewing.
Rome isn't relatable to the UK?!?! Oh, excuse me while I walk down this road...
Is Ancient Rome and more relatable to the UK than present day Baltimore, New Jersey or Copenhagen?
Didn't the BBC make Van der Valk back in the 70s? That was set in Amsterdam.
The BBC isn't allowed to shut down until both Strictly and The Wrong Mans have aired. /gavel
But seriously. I don't care if other people think it's dross, there are obviously people who like various things the BBC is putting out. If nobody watched it, they'd stop making it!
I do agree that with the whole bonuses thing they're taking the piss a bit. But sadly, that's how things are everywhere (all the way up to bloody government level) so I don't really know what can be done about it.
"There is NO WAY ON EARTH that any of the other big media players could have got away with p*ssing hundreds of millions away on a failed project without proper accountability."
Oh, yes, let's do DMI. A project which had to be completely written off, even though all the people in charge had been being given massive bonuses for the excellent job they were doing only a few months before and the BBC management had lied to parliament and said that it was already in use, when in fact it simply didn't work. What a fantastic demonstration of the efficient, lean, BBC that was.
Have you been to Baltimore or New Jersey?!
Based on the similarities between the two empires, yes, I'd say Ancient Rome is actually quite relatable.
What's the excuse for Game of Thrones? Is that "not relatable" either?
My point is, the BBC is making great shows about the UK (and commonwealth), so why would they start making shows about something that doesn't apply here? Let someone else make the show about their country... Part of the reason these shows have done so well is because they're authentic.
Okay Friday you have argued your point extremely well and convincingly (Seriously!)
However there is something in your language use that makes me think you may REALLY know whereof you speak...(that will never do this is AIBU after all!)
No, Game of Thrones is just crap.
It shouldn't be shut down but it should take a bloody long look at itself and determine what it is for.
Its management are out of touch and do commission and show an awful lot of dross. The list of today's programming demonstrates this.
The pay-offs are appalling as is the lack of accountability.
There are countless adverts on the BBC to remind us all about the 'unique way the BBC is funded'.
Its commercial wing, BBC Worldwide makes enormous profits selling programmes overseas and programmes are therefore being made to accommodate ad breaks in these other countries. The recent David Attenborough Africa programme was about 50 minutes long with 10 minutes of DVD special extra crap at the end in the Uk that wasn't shown abroad because ad breaks were inserted. In other programmes the first half hour is summarised again half way through because elsewhere an advert would have been inserted. I can remember things - I don't need them repeated.
The licence fee is an anachronism in the current media age. If the BBC want to keep it they need to shape up.
"Didn't the BBC make Van der Valk back in the 70s? That was set in Amsterdam."
It's also re-making whatever that tedious Swedish police procedural is, with Ken Brannagh. Wallander?
Rather like flat-pack MFI-type furniture appears all chic and cool when you can buy meatballs in the little food shop, it's remarkable how the Guardian are taken in by a subtitled Midsomer Murders. I guess that any old tat looks better if it's foreign. That reaches its depths with Inspector Montewhatever, which make Bergerac look like Mean Streets.
"No, Game of Thrones is just crap."
Funny how it's the most popular TV show in the world, and critically aclaimed to the highest degree.
Game of Thrones and The Borgias are the only decent things to come from the US. Even then they have mainly British casts. I like the BBC, The White Queen was most enjoyable, albeit in a light, frothy way, and I have watched Casualty since it began in 1986.
No, you can keep your American rubbish and I'll stick with the BBC!
ReggieBean (the first time my sausage fingers wrote your name it was ReggaeBear).
Actually there are loads of people in America asking why their TV companies don't make things as good as Sherlock, Luther, Dr Who and Merlin.
"No, you can keep your American rubbish and I'll stick with the BBC!"
Well that's fine, but the problem is that we have to stick with our "American rubbish" AND pay for the BBC as well.
"Now the HR director is being allowed to resign and take a payoff (oh, sorry, "pay in lieu of notice") rather than being dismissed for cause. "
Pay in lieu of notice is when you leave immediately but still receive pay for your contractual notice period (so you get to sit at home and still get paid). Lucy Adams has resigned and is being required to work her notice period, so she works and gets paid. That is hardly my idea of a payoff .
You may think she should have been fired, but that would almost certainly result in a claim for unfair dismissal. Even if the BBC ultimately won that claim, it would waste licence fee payers money in having to fight it, a task that would distract lots of other people at the BBC from doing their jobs and would also no doubt affect morale.
This is the same thinking behind lots of "pay offs". If someone is required to leave and there is a risk that they might have a legitimate claim for unfair dismissal it is often thought that paying them some extra money is sensible as it saves the risk of paying them much more further down the line if their claim succeeds (and it stops you getting bogged down in endless employment claims).
This happens more at the top end as high paid execs have the resources to get good employment lawyers to fight their case, and they can be quite litigious characters.
I'm sure this was the thinking behind most if not all of these pay offs. Whether it was ultimately the right call we might never know, as it is much easier to embrace the Daily Mail narrative that every payoff was illegal and purely fuelled by wanting to toss licence fee money around like confetti.
Why is having both so awful? I don't understand your argument that just because other companies make some good programmes the BBC should be shut down, it's nonsenses. Are you in the pay of the Murdoch empire?
No one has mentioned Sherlock that I've seen)
Or koala has
Funny thing was I was about to mention the other three too
Ha KoalaFace! Reggaebear could be a name change if ever needed!!
Loeri Since you seem to be dead-set on discussing the merits of your favourite shows, let me spell it out for you. The BBC makes shows that people all over the world love. Just because it doesn't make all the shows in the world, it doesn't mean they're a waste of money.
Not to mention the news. If you only knew how lucky we have it here to have a people-funded news channel, rather than one owned by the government.
I'll say it again: YABVU.
Well Monkeys and Koalas are very intelligent!
"the problem is that we have to stick with our "American rubbish" AND pay for the BBC"
You don't. If you restrict your viewing to DVD boxsets, Netflix and iPlayer/4OD/etc, then you don't need a TV license. You don't need a TV license for the radio (obviously). There might be a discussion to be had about receiving radio stations on a TV without having a license, if that matters to you (I have a radio radio in every room, so it doesn't).
I'm considering stopping having a license, because I so rarely watch "live" TV because iPlayer has the advantage of not containing loads of trails.
Of the live stuff, the BBC mainstream news is unwatchably trivial (mostly "there has been a global nuclear holocaust: we asked some shoppers in Peckham for their opinion") and whatever News24 is called this week is little better. Parliament is mostly available directly from parliamentTV. The only other thing we've sometimes watched live is sporting events, most of which have now gone to Sky (which we obviously don't have). I didn't drop it last year because of the Olympics, and I haven't quite got around to cancelling the DD this year. But I think the current imbroglio with their staff payoffs might be enough to tip me over. If only they could find one person to actually say "we messed up. we're sorry."
reggie -but what are the merits? What shows do the BBC make that people all over the world love?
I mentioned Sherlock <feels invisible>
If someone tried to force me to watch Game of Thrones I would use extreme violence to escape. I don't mind anyone else watching it.
I am not against a massive shake up and enquiry about what is going on in BBC Management. I am against the abolition of an institution that will cater for the minority interests which are not economic for commercial channels to cover. That's the point of the BBC.
mostly "there has been a global nuclear holocaust: we asked some shoppers in Peckham for their opinion"
But sadly often true
ivykaty44 Sherlock and Doctor Who are rated in lots of places. So is Fawlty Towers.
"Lucy Adams has resigned and is being required to work her notice period, so she works and gets paid."
What, roughly, is a discredited HR director who has been found to be unable to control her department's expenditure and has been heavily criticised (and, essentially, called a liar) by a parliamentary committee going to do all day? Make the coffee? Expensive coffee, at her hourly rate.
"arrative that every payoff was illegal and purely fuelled by wanting to toss licence fee money around like confetti."
So obviously, if it was agreed to be necessary for the reasons you outline, the BBC will be able to produce the people who made that decision and the minutes of the meetings at which it was agreed, yes? After all, if it was a risk-management issue, there'll have been a process for taking those decisions, and the process will have been followed? Perhaps Lucy could spend the next few months tracking those documents down that she was so unfortunately unable to produce for the select committee?
As I say, I'm looking forward to Monday. We'll see competent, efficient Lucy producing all the documents that show good governance was in place, and we'll see honest, straightforward Mark showing just how well the BBC was run while he was DG. And then they'll go off and count
our their money.
Yeah you did Lisa I noticed because everyone else was ignoring our good sense!
IvyKaty a few of us have mentioned shows like Sherlock, Luther, Dr Who and Merlin that Americans love an put on their TV channels. Social networking sites like Tumblr are teeming with American 'fandoms' who are obsessed with BBC made programmes and bemoan their own programming.
Top of the Lake
Only Fools and Horses
Keeping Up Appearances
Yabvu for all the reasons others have stated. Strictly alone is worth the license fee! Sherlock is fantastic, dr who, great British bake off, these are off the top of my head
stolen from previous posters.
Some Americans might love the BBC but I'd like to see how keen they'd be if they were forced by threat of jail to pay a TV license fee. Just wouldn't fly over there.
I'd rather hear a shopper in Peckham's honest opinion than have government or religious propaganda shoved down my throat.
Also programmes by people like Michael Palin and Louis Theroux as
ReggaeBear ReggieBean said are BBC and loved all over.
Reggiebean several of those programmes are years old. The BBC cannot keep justifying itself by referring back to programmes it made decades ago. It needs to make the best TV in the world NOW.
you give a list of shows which countries have they been sold to?
I did mean programs from this last century, at least 5 of those you listed were not made in this century. Lets keep it up to date at least in the last 10 years
Only Fools and Horses
Keeping Up Appearances
They aren't exactly current.
Conveniently ignoring the current shows that I listed...
friday16 why are you okay watching the iplayer?? It's the same programming, funded by the same "corrupt" organisation... So you don't want to have to pay for the privilege of having the BBC, but you're quite happy using their services for free??
Anything with David Attenborough
Science and history documentaries on BBC4
Nobody else could or would make programmes of that calibre.
Luther is hardly top drama. Comparing it to the Wire (which the star made his name in) is laughable. Why didn't the BBC make the Wire? They had Dominic West and Idris Elba.
I think the BBC has problems - both historical and current - and I think it quiet disturbing the number of prosecution for non payment of TV licences
However Mitch Benn does sum up how I feel about it.
I've seen American news which is so poor it does not compare to BBC reporting. American TV was unbelievably full of adverts as well.
I also think these debates ignore the website and all the resources there and often the radio channels.
However the way we watch TV is changing - but then the BBC gave us the iPlayer and a very decent website - despite criticism of that from many MPs.
So while I love it and defend it it doesnt mean I think it cant be better managed or need to adapt and change and how its funded is worthy of debate.
the BBC is funded by the tax payer- it isn't free for anyone, even if you don't have a tv or a tv licence you still end up paying through taxes
"shows like Sherlock, Luther, Dr Who and Merlin that Americans love and put on their TV channels."
Actually, they don't. Those are mostly broadcast on BBC America (Luther, Doctor Who, Merlin), and the one that isn't (Sherlock) is in the graveyard that is PBS Masterpiece Theatre, probably interrupted every ten minutes by a man playing an electric organ and asking for money for the annual funding drive.
The number of BBC programmes that are sold to US broadcast (or even cable) TV is vanishingly small. It might even be zero: are there any current examples of a BBC programme being broadcast on anything other than BBCA or PBS?
"it isn't free for anyone, even if you don't have a tv or a tv licence you still end up paying through taxes"
It is effectively free for the over-75s, many of whom pay no income tax and very little VAT.
over 75 do pay tax so it is not free for them either
I would pay the licence fee for Radios 3 & 4 alone.
Please note the spelling of licence. In British English, the noun is spelled 'licence' while the verb is 'to license'. (Cf: advice/advise, practice/practise). HTH.
Loeri sorry, did you not refer to two shows from the 70's to back up your argument earlier?
It should be done away with. Those who want to pay for the kind of programmes that "only the BBC can make" should launch a subscription service for a channel that shows those programmes. Rather than mugging everyone else to pay for their minority interests. How can it be right that single mothers on council estates are jailed for not paying the license fee so that poshos can watch Opera and Classical music?
Doesn't matter if it's "high drama" or not. If people like it and watch it your opinion of it is irrelevent surely?
Why would BBC not put it on BBC America and get the ratings themselves? The point is the Americans watch it and from the amount of attention they get online I'd be shocked if they weren't successful.
so which countries have purchased BBC made shows in the last ten years, and which shows where they that these other countries loved so much they paid money for them?
"Loeri sorry, did you not refer to two shows from the 70's to back up your argument earlier? confused"
I did? Which ones?
"friday16 why are you okay watching the iplayer?? It's the same programming, funded by the same "corrupt" organisation... So you don't want to have to pay for the privilege of having the BBC, but you're quite happy using their services for free??"
Yup. If the devil himself wants to give things away, I'll take 'em, even if I wouldn't give him a penny of my money. Refusing to pay has an effect, on a large scale. Refusing to consume, rather less so.
I've paid my license fee, on the nail, for thirty years. And the thanks I get is Roly Keating being given 300k, off the books, because he's a nice chap, and no-one can quite find who authorised it. They clearly don't need my money if they've got enough to spray around like that.
"Those who want to pay for the kind of programmes that "only the BBC can make" should launch a subscription service for a channel that shows those programmes."
This. It worked for HBO, after all.
Right... So it's a terrible organisation that is corrupt and evil and has shit programming... So I'll "protest" by visiting their websites and watching said shitty shows?? There is far too much logic in that for me to digest this early.
They're already talking about requiring a licence to use iplayer, which I think is a brilliant idea.
If you don't want to watch it, don't pay your licence fee, and don't use their services, including the news, weather, and radio. But for you to suggest it be shut down is beyond mad.
I'm no Murdoch lover but look what happened to him and his organisation when crime and wrongdoing was uncovered - where's the universal revulsion of the BBC? Where's the forcing of closing down a part of it due to the historical actions of others ?
What happened to him and his organisation was what most commentators at the time dismissed as a cynical management damage-limitation stunt, predicting that the Sun would launch a new Sunday edition instead (which is exactly what happened). At the time that the scandal broke News International had already announced plans to introduce more integration between its titles. Rebekah Brooks initially kept her job, then resigned but was widely believed to be (and didn't deny when asked) still drawing her salary from NI.
Homeland will cost far more than BBC drama's to make just with the cost of paying their actors they can afford to do this Showtime/HBO etc because the charges they make in advertising. Not only is the news and radio second to none but documentaries and David Attenborough's fantastic series are too
watching TV in the states is annoying adverts every few minutes takes away the enjoyment ans as for TV in France, Italy and Australia well it just does not compare at all
Nobody is forced to pay for any of Murdoch's products. The BBC are arrogant, they know that people are forced to pay for them no matter how corrupt they are and how crap their programmes are.
ivykaty -- off the top of my head I know that Sherlock and Doctor Who are syndicated globally, and BBC children's programmes are also sold quite widely, as are the BBC Natural History Unit's documentaries. I'm sure there are many others.
'best programmes come from the US'...
ha ha ha...breathless with laughter!!
"ha ha ha...breathless with laughter!!"
Why? Where do you think the best programmes come from?
"Rebekah Brooks initially kept her job, then resigned but was widely believed to be (and didn't deny when asked) still drawing her salary from NI."
She is, however, facing a jury next month on charges of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office and a bunch of other stuff. Several of those have potential life sentences, and it's generally felt that if she's convicted she'll be lucky to escape prison. She will, obviously, never work in journalism again. Her husband is facing similar charges. The trial has been delayed for a month for legal reasons that cannot be reported (we can only guess) but now looks pretty certain to start by late October.
Now, the BBC staff who supervised handing over licence-fee money without authorisation. What's happened to them? Oh yes. Nothing. What about the BBC staff who engaged in a cover up of child abuse and conspired to prevent the cover up being revealed? Oh yes. Nothing.
I am sure if any criminal activity is uncovered the CPS will decide if they will persecute - or are you suggesting the BBC control the police?
OP I think we ALL get that you don't like the BBC - you seem unable to accept that other people do!
Don't pay the Licence Fee and stick to box sets and online viewing - job done
I think £12 a month is great value for what I get in return
The thing that bothers me about the BBC is that they don't seem to be held accountable for how they spend money. I'd like to see police investigating and pressing charges for any allication of public money to individuals that wasn't earnt.
I don't even know we should be complaining to about this though?!
I am sticking by my guns though and saying I don't want it to be done away with. Just over hauled.
BBC Worldwide annual report here -- doesn't contain an actual list, but apparently Doctor Who , Parades End , The Paradise and Ripper Street each sold to over 120 territories.
Allocation. Allication isn't a thing...
The Strictly format is licensed in dozens of countries, including America. Same with Top Gear.
I believe they also have a version of GBBO in US as well.
A lot of cBeebies content (Teletibbies for instance) is sold around the world too.
Yeah. More than two years after Brooks was arrested she's finally going before a jury. Meanwhile her arrest itself came (I don't often C&P from Wikipedia, but I like the style of whoever contributed this passage) "about 1 year after the Metropolitan Police Service reopened its dormant investigation into phone hacking, about 3 years after the then Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service told the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee that 'no additional evidence has come to light,' 5 years after News International executives began claiming that phone hacking was the work of a single 'rogue reporter', 10 years after The Guardian began reporting that the Met had evidence of widespread illegal acquisition of confidential information, and 13 years after the Met began accumulating "boxloads" of that evidence, including information sources for News of the World journalists, but kept it unexamined in trash bags at Scotland Yard."
It's not exactly the swiftest retributive justice in the world, is it?
"I am sure if any criminal activity is uncovered the CPS will decide if they will persecute - or are you suggesting the BBC control the police?"
NI handed over documents and co-operated with the police, to an extent. The BBC claims to have no documents, because the money just got paid by pixies and it was all rather regrettable. There's not a lot for the police to investigate. The direct victim of this is the BBC itself, and if it won't co-operate (oh, sorry, has conveniently lost all the paperwork) then it's difficult for the police to do anything. Patten's patrician position appears to be that he doesn't want a load of muddy-shoed plod tramping through his shag-pile office carpet, and it should be left to the right chaps to resolve.
If you had a burglary at your house, and then did a massive springclean just before the scene-of-crime people came and then replied "no comment" to every question you were asked, do you think the police would continue to try to find who nicked your laptop? In that sense, the BBC do control the police: if they refuse to produce any evidence (oh, sorry, if after extensive searches they find there's no evidence, that's what I meant) there's not a lot that can be investigated.
If the BBC handed over a paper-trail for Keating's payoff, to take one of the more egregious examples, the police and CPS could consider whether a crime was committed. The BBC claim there is no paper trail. Isn't that convenient?
"It's not exactly the swiftest retributive justice in the world, is it?"
It isn't. But it's better than nothing, isn't it? Do you think that in thirteen years time, BBC executives will be on trial for giving money to their mates? No, me neither.
I doubt that a journalist will be relaxed about phone hacking if asked to do it today. A BBC employee asked to pay money off the books to one of their mates? Pass the pen.
If that's all accurate Friday I'm horrified. I'm going to go read up on it a bit more.
Do you think that in thirteen years time, BBC executives will be on trial for giving money to their mates
I don't know. It's possible. I would like to think that the police were at least looking into the possibility. Money disappearing into the hands of pixies must fall foul of auditing regulations in and of itself, surely, even if they've conveniently forgotten what the pixies did with it.
The us might make good drama but they can't make a documentary for shit.
I'd pay the license fee just for bbc4, horizon, the sky at night, and gardeners world. (And Luther, life on mars, call the midwife, dr who etc!)
We're not all the kind of people who want to watch fiction all the time. Some of us want to learn something. From what I have seen American documentaries are awful and they seem to think that people are so thick that they need a 2 minute recap after every add break.
I'd rather boil my own brain than be subjected to that kind of television.
Several very bad apples doesn't mean we should ditch the entire barrel (which has a vast number of very good apples, to continue the analogy).
There's a lot of expensive stuff on the BBC that I can't stand (Eastenders leaps to mind) but I appreciate there are those that do. Just as there are some poor folk who don't appreciate 6Music or Radio 4.
And it's not just programming - the whole iPlayer and red button thing was started by the BBC and look at the Olympics coverage (although Channel 4 did OK on the Paralympics). A lot of technological developments come from the Beeb before they are commercially viable.
I do think the Beeb should be prevented from bidding vast amounts for sporting events - commercial broadcasters can recoup their investment when the Beeb obviously can't. Sport involving national teams should be free-to-air though (and I'm not much of a sports fan).
OP - omg you are going to force me to watch Game of Thrones until I dig out my own eyes with rusty spoons!
Not everyone likes what you like. That is not illegal. The mandate of the BBC is to make available programmes then benefit us all even if they are uneconomic and not everyone takes up the opportunity to enjoy them.
Classical music - I am not a posho. When I was a kid in emergency council housing I still had access to things like classical music on Radio 3. Because BBC allow those who aren't 'poshos' to enjoy music and theatre that they wouldn't otherwise have access to. That's the point I can't afford the tickets to allow me to see Last Night of the Proms, or the Festival of Remembrance, or the Edinburgh Tattoo. I can have access to the highlights through my licence fee.
Overhaul - great. Oversight - open to political manipulation. Abolition - tragedy.
(Strong stuff for Friday morning)
If there was a like button LisaMed, I'd be pressing it now!
Who decides what programmes will "benefit us all"?
It all sounds like paternalism to me. The BBC is a relic of the past, when nice upper class people thought they needed to decide what was best for the lower orders. The problem is it's now been taken over by greedy bastards who are just out to line their own pockets, and just trot out a list of all the "good things" the BBC has done to anyone that objects.
or the truth?
In which case, the BBC has been paying money out without proper process or audit. Who signs their accounts, again? Perhaps their auditors might like to explain just how much sampling they did of large exceptional payments, and what evidence they were shown?
The BBC can't have it both ways. Either they don't know who paid the money, in which case they need to ask some very tough questions of their accountants, finance department and (by extension) internal and external audit. Or they do know who paid the money, in which case those people should be named. They can't simultaneously claim that their governance was OK, and that they don't know who ate all the pies.
Im pretty sure homeland didn't benefit us all..
"Oversight - open to political manipulation. "
So if the BBC isn't accountable to democratically elected governments, and isn't accountable to license fee payers, to whom is it accountable? And if the BBC regards itself as above being overseen (oversighted, in modern cant) by the legislature, perhaps it should reconsider its reliance on the criminal justice system to enforce its payment scheme? Are there any other parts of the UK establishment which are not accountable to parliament and yet are able to enforce their writ through criminal offences?
I do not have TV, I watch everything online (very little iplayer before that gets moaned at, which I would live without if I had to pay for it) I know increasing amounts of people who do the same.
I wonder how many people would have to do this before the BBC couldnt function as it does now?
If it even got close to that they'd change the rules so that you had to pay for the BBC regardless.
the best tv programmes come from the US! Are you 12?
BBC 4 m'lady for this I would pay my licence fee ten times over
It should be done away with. Those who want to pay for the kind of programmes that "only the BBC can make" should launch a subscription service for a channel that shows those programmes.
How is a subscription channel possibly going to provide the wealth of variety available on the BBC? I don't watch everything, everybody has different tastes and will lean towards varying genres, but where are you going to find that range of choice anywhere else?
Rather than mugging everyone else to pay for their minority interests. How can it be right that single mothers on council estates are jailed for not paying the license fee so that poshos can watch Opera and Classical music?
This statement is so breathtakingly sweeping and ill-informed that it's hard to comment sensibly on it. Look at the BBC1 Saturday night schedule - hardly 'minority interest', is it? Yes, some programming is more specialist, less populist - hence the fact that you'll find it on smaller digital channels, with massively smaller budgets to match.
I'm not a 'posho', but I do like a bit of opera now and again. I also like the Glastonbury coverage. Back in the day, The Old Grey Whistle Test. I love a bit of Strictly. Doctor Who. Sherlock. Any David Attenborough. My kids grew up with CBeebies. I would be lost without Radio 4. Whoever said that Radio 4 on its own was worth the licence fee, I am totally with you .
I also love Game of Thrones, Mad Men, Homeland, Breaking Bad ... most new, innovative, well-written drama. The reason most of these come from the States is that they have much bigger budgets as a result of being funded by advertising or subscription. They also have a system where a hugely expensive pilot is made, and the idea jettisoned if that show is not then taken to series. Whereas the BBC has the freedom to try out new shows and give them time to breathe, without pressure from sponsors/advertisers/shareholders. Would Dennis Potter have stood a chance on a subscription channel? Or is he too 'minority' for you, OP?
Yes, it has its problems and needs to do some internal housekeeping. But we are bloody lucky to have it, in all its fucked up, bureaucratic, red-taped glory. £10 a month is nothing when you consider what you get for it.
YANBU the BBC should be privatised and the tv licence abolished, why do we need the State to own a media outlet.
Im pretty sure homeland didn't benefit us all..
Damien Lewis. He's pretty beneficial
It's tricky. On balance though, I'd probably come down in favour of keeping it. The news braodcasting isn't always as impartial as it should be, and much of the content falls short of the standard you might reasonably expect.
That said though, everytime I'm just about ready to cancel the TV license, they produce something that justifies it (the fee) on its own.
The quality of the radio output (I'm excluding Radio 1 here) is also pretty decent.
In conclusion, chop it down to size, and reduce the fee. Also, I'd say to the subscription services: either have adverts, or charge a subscription. Not both!
"the best tv programmes come from the US! Are you 12? "
No. But the people who think Doctor Who, Merlin and Sherlock are "great TV programmes" might be. The best TV for ADULTS comes from the US. I don't think anyone can seriously disagree with that.
What else do you watch loeri?. Apart from American drama I mean.
"I don't think anyone can seriously disagree with that"
I disagree. Seriously.
I have to say, the quality of the output from the US is (when taken in its entririty) pretty poor. The best of "their" stuff, is very very good. All tghe more impressive when you consider what a low base they started from.
Sherlock - indisputably for adults. Brilliantly written and directed, what's not great about it?
Doctor Who and Merlin - crossover family entertainment, not purporting to be 'highbrow' drama, but innovative programming that gets massive ratings because of its extraordinarily wide appeal.
Methe thank you
Friday16 - Oversight could lead to political manipulation so should be treated with extreme caution. The BBC can publish stuff the government doesn't like. Have I got News for You would not be safe. Strong auditing would be better. I've no gripe about a big shake up.
Loeri - if there are not enough figures then the stuff will still get dropped. However the BBC can take risks like Bollywood Carmen which aren't worth it for commercial enterprises. Lots of people enjoy the Last Night of the Proms, but it isn't worth it commercially. However taking your argument at face value, why shouldn't someone watch Carmen even if they are housebound/not able to afford tickets/do not live in an area where Opera is available? People have a choice to try stuff, and enough people are choosing to break away from a mould and not try and conform to one 'culture'. Classic fm is growing. I would hate to watch any of the programmes that you have listed. I am sure I am not in isolation. I don't mind you watching them, why not let others have the same privilege.
Other UK channels have to compete with BBC, so you get the excellent documentaries on Channels 4 and 5, which are not produced in a vacuum. They are produced in a country where the broadcasting bar is set very high.
btw ITV, Channel 4 et al also get a cut of the licence fee, depending on viewing figures.
I'm not against a strong audit and clear guidelines. However it was the ability to tell clear guidelines to fuck off that gave the freedom to film 'Life on Earth'. They didn't have a clear layout at the start, they went to see what they could find. 'Life on Earth' made a massive impact and has been shown in many, many countries.
I do enjoy some USA programmes, and I utterly reject some BBC stuff, but to throw away the powerhouse that provides a lot of innovation and quality programming for such a wide cross section of the UK seems crazy.
"I have to say, the quality of the output from the US is (when taken in its entririty) pretty poor. The best of "their" stuff, is very very good."
You only have to watch the best of their stuff.
Shows like Dr Who and Merling are fine for family viewing but they don't hold up with top adult orientated drama like GoT and Homeland.
"Look at the BBC1 Saturday night schedule - hardly 'minority interest', is it? "
Before I start, I'm actually not in favour of the abolition of the BBC, although in my darker moments I think a subscription service which offered Radio 3, Radio 4 and BBC4 (called, perhaps "BBC Waitrose") would be something I'd rather pay £150 for than the current service.
But BBC1's primetime output is the worst possible argument for the existence of the BBC. It's indistinguishable from ITV, which manages to function happily (-ish) on advertising revenue.
The argument for the BBC is the programmes that can't be funded by mass-market advertising. The moral conundrum, see also the Arts Council, is whether it's acceptable to impose a mass tax in exchange for niche content. The BBC's response to that is to make some non-niche programmes, and trumpet that you can watch mass-market pap on BBC as well as on ITV. I think they'd be better off finding everyone a niche, so everyone can feel that they're getting something a little special for their license fee, but that's probably why I'm not a channel controller.
For people who watch mostly BBC1, they'd see very little change if the BBC became a commercial or subscription offer. The problem for people who, like me when I'm being wistful, want essentially a British HBO, is that a small percentage of the US population is larger than the same percentage of the UK population, and the costs of quality TV don't scale with audience size. If you imagine a UK-HBO, they would have less than a quarter of the money, all other things being equal, and could therefore either make a quarter of the programmes (ie, not enough to make people want to pay) or spend a quarter on each hour (ditto). BBC4 has so few viewers that as a subscription channel, it would be able to show little more than the test card and old episodes of Top of the Pops; it would, in fact, look like that post-apocalyptic game show on Mitchell and Webb, without the HD sheen. It's the difference between a country of 65m and a country of 250m.
The subscription model works well in very large populations (ie, HBO in the USA) or for things that are very popular (ie, football ). Sky works as a subscription channel as there are enough people willing to pay for Premiership football, and everything else rides on the back of that cash cow. It won't, sadly, work for niche programming in the UK.
I love the BBC and think it tries very hard to be transparent and learn from it's mistakes.
Loeri I've tried to engage with you in this thread being fair and taking on board what you and others like Friday and Ivy have said, some of which (particularly by the latter two) has been interesting and thought provoking, despite me having the opinion that overall the BBC is worth keeping.
But I'm finding your arguments increasingly sneery and you seem uninterested in an actual debate about the issue so I'll hide the thread and leave you to it.
Some of the good points made though have really got me thinking so thanks to Friday and Ivyfor getting me to consider how the BBC is run.
The payment that caused the most outrage was the highest payment of £949,000 given to former deputy director Mark Byford
That is more money than will ever see over a working lifetime triaging patients, calling ambulances etc
And it is my money going into his pocket.
I think the BBC TV has really lost its way. I hardly ever watch it, apart from the bake off and Sherlock was fab. It is trivial and patronising. It treats it's viewers with contempt most of the time.
In terms of news - well channel seems to do much better than BBC news by treating its audience as if it has s brain cell.
I still cannot get over a £949, 000 payoff. In what world is that justified??????????
"I love the BBC and think it tries very hard to be transparent and learn from it's mistakes."
"But BBC1's primetime output is the worst possible argument for the existence of the BBC. It's indistinguishable from ITV, which manages to function happily (-ish) on advertising revenue. "
Doesn't the vast majority of the licence fee get spent on BBC1 primetime output?
As for a "British HBO" the population of Britain isn't a factor these days. Media is worldwide. Put it on the internet and let anyone in the world subscribe.
I meant Channel 4 news www.channel4.com/news/bbc-severance-pay-how-many-tv-licence-top-ten-payouts
"Have I got News for You would not be safe."
It's safe enough as it is. You don't seriously believe it's some sort of dangerous satire show that holds government to account? Please. Conservative MPs are forming a queue out of the door to appear on it, and it's about as politically dangerous as an episode of The Chuckle Brothers. Merton and Hislop giving what Spike Milligan would call carefully scripted ad libs, followed by a bit of To Me, To You, To Me, To You.
Hislop's as establishment as you can get, and HIGNFY functions as a court jester, to give the impression of political edge when in fact it's as conservative as you can imagine.
"Other UK channels have to compete with BBC, so you get the excellent documentaries on Channels 4 and 5, which are not produced in a vacuum."
It's nothing to do with competition. Both Channel 4 and Channel 5 have a Public Service Broadcasting Requirement, which legally obliges them to broadcast a certain quantum of news and current affairs (into which most of the documentaries fit). Given they have to broadcast them, they don't want to show stuff so toxic that no advertisers will go near it and the following hour is compromised as well, so they do a reasonable job. "Excellent" is pushing it, and the way that (for example) Time Team was killed shows how cynical the whole process is.
" ITV, Channel 4 et al also get a cut of the licence fee"
No they don't. Channel 4 gets a cut of ITV's advertising revenue on top of its own, and there's a deal by which the terrestrials are paid a small amount to be carried on the satellites (although that might be changing). But the license fee goes solely to the BBC. You can see the breakdown here:
And BBC on a Saturday night is a thing to wonder for it's shitness.
At least they've stopped rerunning frigging Dads Army onBBC 2 although that'll be dragged out the cupboard again for the Xmas schedule.
"That is more money than will ever see over a working lifetime triaging patients, calling ambulances etc
And it is my money going into his pocket. "
In Byford's case, the payout was supposedly compensation for not getting the job of DG. Apparently, not being promoted amounted to constructive dismissal, so he was compromised out of the organisation. Again, the near-million was signed off by pixies, as the BBC is now remarkably vague about how it came about. I think it should be taken directly from the pockets of the BBC employees who signed it off (if they want to have a very large whip round for someone's leaving present, they should bloody well pay it themselves) but, yet again, the BBC has mysteriously lost all the paperwork.
Loeri You can't (legally) just throw stuff on the internet and let everyone from all over the world subscribe. If you're airing something in the US, from the UK, you need to pay them licensing rights, whether it is shown on the internet or not. It's the reason that many US television "on-demand" sites like Hulu aren't available here. It's the same with music subscription services. Netflix was out for years in the States before it was introduced over here, in the same way that Spotify was available here years before they had it in the States.
You seem to think it's all so simple, and you clearly think you could do a better job running it, when, in actuality, your only arguments have been that you shouldn't have to pay because someone else likes highbrow entertainment when you only want your Game of Thrones, and that the BBC is bad at managing their money (old news).
No one has said that the BBC is perfect, and shouldn't change a thing, but you seem to think it's the downfall of society but have yet to propose a reasonable solution or alternative.
'But BBC1's primetime output is the worst possible argument for the existence of the BBC.'
Friday, I wasn't using the BBC's primetime programming as a justification for its existence: my point was that it isn't all 'minority interest' stuff, for 'poshos', as the OP would have it. FWIW, I agree that it's not all that different from ITV's output - but it's Saturday night entertainment, and has been like that since I can remember (Generation Game ).
"Loeri You can't (legally) just throw stuff on the internet and let everyone from all over the world subscribe. If you're airing something in the US, from the UK, you need to pay them licensing rights"
Yes you can. Assuming the BBC is making everything there would be no problem with it at all.
YANBU! I totally agree with you. It makes me so mad that this punitive tax exists. People who want to watch BBC channels should be forced to subscribe and the BBC can see if it can compete in the market place like all the other channels have to. I think the BBC is crap and since all the sex/financial scandals have come out I feel even more angry that my money is being misspent so badly.
It's like being forced to pay for for The Guardian even if they don't read it. It is time this anachronistic monolith was put to sleep.
"You can't (legally) just throw stuff on the internet and let everyone from all over the world subscribe."
You can if it's your own content, which it would be in the scenario of a UK-HBO producing house. And it's perfectly possible to do rights-issues opt-outs. For example, BBC Radio is available worldwide, but if you are outside the UK the Formula One coverage on Radio 5 is blocked, because the BBC don't have the rights for to stream even the commentary outside the UK.
Yes, you can get around this with a VPN, but that's not the point: broadcasters only have to make reasonable efforts. You can equally pick up German TV with a big enough aerial, but that doesn't mean that Germans rights holders are breaking their contracts.
friday16 Her idea was to start a BBC/HBO channel, and broadcast it worldwide. My point was, you would need to pay out the nose to have those broadcasting rights to air it in other countries, whether online or not, which is why very few sites legally exist in more than one country, so it's not actually a viable option at all.
After the child abuse scandals, and now this where BBC execs have been given payments far beyond anything they were required to be given, isn't it time that the BBC was just shut down?
It can't really be said that it makes the best TV in the world anymore
It certainly can
the best TV programmes come from the US
Wrong. Some of the best programmes come from the US some come from other places including the BBC
and have done for well over a decade now
I just don't see the purpose of the BBC in 2013
I don't think the rest of the country should be punished because you are ignorant dull and uninformed
It is arrogant, bloated beyond belief and seems only to exist to provide cushy jobs for the Guardian set.
Guardian Media Group is one of the interested parties continually stoking the flames of discontent about the BBC coming from the credulous and ignorant. It does this because it stands to gain (it has major radio interests) if the BBC loses funding. The Guardian Set are not 'well in' with the BBC as a consequence. Right wing dullards use 'the guardian set' as shorthand for 'people not like us'. The rest of us use the use of phrases such as 'the guardian set' as a handy indicator of right wing dullardry.
You've obviously got a major chip on your shoulder & have just come on here to broadcast that rather than discuss. You have the honour of being the first thread I'm going to hide.
TBH, don't care what you think. I like the BBC, I'm going to keep paying for it & guess what - so are you
You'd be surprised how much that cheers me up!!
No. But the people who think Doctor Who, Merlin and Sherlock are "great TV programmes" might be. The best TV for ADULTS comes from the US. I don't think anyone can seriously disagree with that.
I disagree with that.
A few exceptionally high quality TV series and we see the best of their dramas and comedies does not compare with the entire range and high quality of the BBC output for adults and I'm frankly astonished anyone could argue the best adult TV comes from the US.
While I agree that the BBC could do better - I do worry that all the attacks on it are coming not coming from a lets see how we can improve place but more a lets get rid off and make sure the plebs pay more money to commerical companies for a lot less and make those share get holders richer under guise of doing everyone with a TV favour.
HA comingalongnicely!!! Love it!
Loeri - just wanted to add that you don't actually have to pay the tv licence. You can watch most things on your pc as long as you are not watching them live. A lot of people are doing this and the BBC do not like it at all (they have refused to give out exact numbers in a Freedom of Information Request, presumably because it would attract negative publicity). It is also ridiculous that not paying the tax is considered a criminal offence. Just think of all the wasted taxpayers money prosecuting little old ladies and poor asylum seekers who have the audacity to own a telly.
Interesting comment upthread about the BBC's political neutrality and freedom.
I watched BBC Breakfast yesterday morning and there was an interview with IDS. Charlie Stayt asked difficult questions, forced IDS to try to defend his actions and refused to let IDS stick to his prepared script. I then watched Eamonn Holmes interview IDS on Sky News a few minutes later and it was embarassing, basically 5 minutes of ass kissing. Sky is Murdoch-controlled, isn't it?
The BBC's attitude is shown again on their other, excellent political programmes such as Newsnight, Question Time, Daily Politics and Andrew Marr. No matter what party the interviewee belongs to, they are never given an easy interview. If there were no BBC, would political and news coverage be reduced to the dreadful quality of Sky News?
Mind you, I'd pay my licence fee just to be able to watch Only Connect, Pointless, QI and University Challenge!
If people want to argue against the existence of the BBC, fine and dandy.
But for the love of God could you please apply a little bit of structure and logic to your arguments, so that we don't segue from a discussion of the quality of output to a discussion of governance in the same sodding post? And stop writing so ahistorically, as though people aren't perfectly well aware of the in-principle arguments against publicly-funded services?
It is Doing My Nut in. It's liked being locked in a small box with a pimply sixth former from a minor public school who gets a stiffie at the thought of a return to the halcyon days of the Victorians, when beards were bushy, taxes low, and people knew their place.
The child abuse is nothing to do with the BBC - it's to do with the child abusers, who also worked for the commercial stations.
"friday16 Her idea was to start a BBC/HBO channel, and broadcast it worldwide. My point was, you would need to pay out the nose to have those broadcasting rights to air it in other countries, whether online or not, which is why very few sites legally exist in more than one country, so it's not actually a viable option at all."
Who would you have to pay broadcasting rights to, if the programmes were all made by the BBC?
Who would you have to pay broadcasting rights to, if the programmes were all made by the BBC?
Erm... The countries where you wanted to air your programmes?
Do you really not understand how it works? Or were you picturing some sort of world media domination by the BBC?
Loeri, do you love adverts then? I hate them. Even having to fast forward them is a drag.
Agree with Duelling about child abuse. Could have happened at any TV station.
I am astonished that anyone would argue that the US doesn't produce the best adult television programming by absolute miles when it has done so for years. Mostly through the development and emulation of the HBO model we have seen the most creative, influential, groundbreaking television ever - The Wire, The Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Deadwood - the list goes on and on. Serious, intelligent, mesmerising viewing.
This isn't to say some good programmes don't come from the UK in general and the BBC in particular. Luther, The Hours and Top of The Lake come to mind - though it is more accurate to say the BBC funded ToTL through the Australian based channel UKTV, (owned by BBC Worldwide) after the ABC pulled out. It certainly didn't develop it.
Moreyear - that's drama.
What about the population that doesn't only watch drama?
Reggiebean: "Erm... The countries where you wanted to air your programmes?"
I don't know what you are talking about! So the BBC would have to pay (for example) the government of the United States so their citizens could subscribe to an online TV service? You really think that?
Am proud of the BBC and its quality, variety and innovation. All large organisations have their problems but compared to what we could be left w/ <<<shudder>>> I think we are very lucky.
All my overseas friends rate it very highly. Try watching French TV for a few weeks- beyond the pale.
Pachacuti thank you for answering the question.
It doesn't seem that they are selling very many programs - why is that if the BBC make the best tv in the world?
I would be quite happy for iplayer to be locked and pay per view or whatever to make it payable. Then it will be interesting to see whether people were actually willing to pay for programs
The child abuse is to do with the BBC, there was fear and people were scared to report it due to the reaction of the bosses at the BBC a blind eye was used, so it was a culture that was assisted by the company
I am not a Great British keep everything British type of person and enjoy the diverse channels we have in this country, but The BBC is probably the oldest British Institution and has its place both in history and present.
How on earth anybody can relate it to the child abuse scandals is beyond me.
Should Corrie be taken off air, ITV shut down?
Moreyear Right now the critical consensus is that the best drama is coming out of Scandinavia. :shrug: It's not, as it happens, the sort of drama that is particularly to my taste. But there you have it.
The American critics seem to believe that Sherlock and Downton Abbey are two of the best TV dramas around at the moment. I have no comment on those either One can only assume since they nicked it to rebadge it as Homeland, that Americans also rate Hatufim.
US news and current affairs broadcasting is, largely, a joke. As is their arts coverage.
As it happens many of my 'all time favourite' drama shows are from the US. But it is clearly ludicrous and ill informed to make the blanket statement that 'the best TV programmes come from the US and have done for over a decade'.
Loeri Yes, I really think that... because it's true...
Please do yourself a favour and look into licensing agreements and international streaming rights before spouting off nonsense. Maybe the BBC has something on their site about it?
Reggiebean, you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. REALLY. "International streaming rights"? On the WORLD WIDE WEB?
abuse was reported ...to the POLICE ...who dismissed it - should the police be closed down too?
it was wrong but it was 40 years ago - you simply can not whole the entire current BBC responsible really can you?
I watch a lot of the BBC's out put - I like it - I m happy to pay for it - so I say leave it alone
Ha! Right, okay Loeri. I'm the one who doesn't have a clue!
[pats you on the head]
YABU however you have made me laugh with some of your comments.
Are you a Daily Mail journalist doing 'research' on what the public think of the BBC so you can write another inept & tedious article??
Great entertainment for a Friday OP, some of your concise & lucid views will keep me chuckling all day.
"the best TV programmes come from the US and have done for well over a decade now"
Thank you for giving me a good laugh today.
That's one of the silliest things I have heard in a while.
Loeri Reggiebean is right and you are wrong. You really are remarkably ill informed.
Why would the BBC have to pay these "INTERNATIONAL STREAMING RIGHTS" to stream content they produced and own themselves on the WORLD WIDE WEB? I've never heard anything so ludicrous in my life. You're wrong. It's no different showing it in the US or anywhere else in the world than it is to showing it in the UK. That's why it's the WORLD WIDE WEB. FFS. Get a clue.
OP, we're talking about proper telly. Not YouTube.
'Cushy jobs'?? Maybe for the management, but the programme makers are incredibly hardworking and dedicated to making top quality television programmes for you.
Olympics? Yeh, that was shit wasn't it? Children's programmes? Crap the lot of them. Lets have more cartoons, repeats and adverts. In fact lets just hand all out media over to Murdoch.
I'm sure it's over-managed and top heavy, and management could be streamlined. But no, the BBC should absolutely not go.
Explain to me how I am wrong Russians. What examples can you show me of TV companies having to pay the governments of countries in order to show their own content online? You are talking utter rot. Seriously. You are totally wrong on this.
I too am proud of the BBC. Until recently, I lived in an international residence which subscribed to channels from all over the world on behalf of its residents. We were the only British people there, yet nobody bothered with any of the other channels and chose the BBC over any international channel for coverage of events (Eurovision & the Olympics spring to mind) for the quality. Having moved elsewhere abroad I can no longer access the BBC
except furtively and I miss it a lot. I use iplayer, 4od, itvplayer and hula, and iplayer by far the most.
It's been argued on this thread why should the majority have to pay for the BBC when only a minority want to watch it, but I think the strength of pro-BBC responses here prove that not to be the case.
You can't compare dr who with game of thrones, as they are for entirely different audiences. And have you seen the American take on a popular BBC format - the apprentice?!
I'm originally from the US, home of all those incredible shows the OP likes. I can only watch them if I've bought a box set, as trying to watch US tv live is beyond awful.
I think the BBC excels in all sorts of areas, but the ones that really stick out are news (on all platforms), cultural/historical/science programmes, and children's programming. The ability of BBC programming to examine power - government, corporate - just often does not exist in the US media. There's a reason they made a movie out of The Insider and All the President's Men - because such questioning and investigation into power is so damn rare in the US media.
That the BBC exists keeps the news production of all media outlets tied to a 'centre' that does not exist in the US. You can go left or right from this in the news you like to watch, but the breadth of their coverage means everyone else has to raise their game. No such luck in the States. Forget Fox News, which is obviously ridiculous, but have you seen CNN?? Ever tried reading what's left of the US newspaper industry? It's utter shite. And I say that as a longtime subscriber to the NY Times.
The only thing to compare the BBC to in the US is PBS, which runs as the sort of subscription service the OP suggests the BBC should become. It is miniscule in its output, and cannot compete with the BBC on any level - though it does do good young children's shows on a much reduced level. Indeed, PBS often screens BBC programming as it cannot afford to fill the schedule with original programming.
So, in short, YABU.
People hate the BBC because they just cannot stand the idea that the state might actually be able to do something's well.
They seem to think that private business are shit hot at everything, forgetting that that simple is not true.
The BBC is generally good at what it does. Get over it people.
Loeri Try watching iplayer abroad. Or, try watching eg the ABC streaming site here. Legally.
Like I said. Remarkably ill informed.
Rights are one of the most contentious things there are. The WWW has magnified this umpty thrumpty times over, not made it simpler.
Also millions of people watch and listen to the BBC.
Are they all idiots?
Loeri you don't know what rights payments are, do you.
It's not Russians or my job to inform you. Try to educate yourself instead of relying on someone else to do it for you.
Your ignorance (and lack of desire to change it) is highly amusing, and sad.
Any credibility I would have given your previous arguments (which was very little, granted) has certainly disappeared now.
Run along now, I think Game of Thrones might be on telly.
"Please do yourself a favour and look into licensing agreements and international streaming rights before spouting off nonsense. "
For God's Sake.
The BBC make a programme.
The BBC put it up on a website, and ask for money to download that programme (handwave over security, copy-protection and payment methods).
You're claiming that in order to that for US customers, the BBC would have to pay someone in the US? Who? For what? The BBC can do what it wants with its own content, including putting it up on YouTube (as it sometimes does), giving it away (as it sometimes does) or dumping it unshown with the negatives buried under the bridge piers of the West Way (or was that The Wicker Man?).
Streaming rights apply to content providers. If the BBC purchases a programme it only purchases rights to broadcast that in the UK, possibly provide it on catchup (which is why some programmes aren't on iPlayer, or bizarrely, like F1, aren't on iPlayer HD) and certainly not stream it outside the UK.
The BBC can do what it wants with its own content. It will have a complex mesh of fees and agreements governing other people's content. But the claim that the BBC couldn't set up a streaming service to collect subscriptions and then stream, worldwide, the program(me)s made with that funding stream is just utter bollocks.
Russians, do you think that might be because the BBC and ABC CHOOSE to block streaming overseas so they can sell the rights to their programmes to overseas broadcasters? Do you think that might possibly be the case? Not anything to do with having to pay "INTERNATIONAL STREAMING RIGHTS" to governments?
yep I can NEVER watch The Walking Dead podcasts or previews here in the UK as 'the content you are trying to view is blocked in your country'
ivykaty44 Fri 06-Sep-13 12:22:07
"It doesn't seem that they are selling very many programs - why is that if the BBC make the best tv in the world?"
1. That is your opinion. Others may think that sales of over a billion are pretty good.
2. You are aware, I hope, that the BBC deliberately curtails the activities of BBC Worldwide to reflect the fact that the latter is a commercial arm of a public service broadcaster? This means that they do not make as much money as they could potentially make. It is analogous (but not perfectly analogous, so no need to point out the differences) to public universities or NHS hospitals with commercial overseas branches.
I don't understand why everyone is banging on about "the best", anyway. Surely the important bar is "sufficiently good to justify both the existence and the current level of the licence fee"?
"Loeri you don't know what rights payments are, do you."
Tell is. If the BBC is streaming the BBC's content, to whom are rights payments made, and for what? The issue of repeat fees for actors is something that this hypothetical new service would need to sort out, but could do so very easily (as it would be streaming to countable people, the fee would be per-viewer, not per-territory, perhaps).
Umlauf Well, you can compare Dr Who with GoT since there is a massive crossover in the audiences. And both shows are great, Dr Who is of course original and GoT is a book adaptation. But both are fabulous, popular, critically lauded as well. And both cross over from genre audiences to mainstream. Can't fault either HBO or the BBC. Dr Who was one of the things (by no means the only thing) that made genre cool in the US though, and GoT has ridden that bandwagon, so...
As for The Apprentice - it's an American format and was first broadcast in the US about a year before it was on the telly here. It was invented by a british man, but he was working for US telly (as so many brits do).
"yep I can NEVER watch The Walking Dead podcasts or previews here in the UK as 'the content you are trying to view is blocked in your country'"
But that is because of whoever makes Walking Dead in the US selling the rights to a UK broadcaster to show it. Not because of some imagined "international broadcasting rights".
And.... hide. I might die from laughter if I don't.
I'm with you Reggiebean
Loeri I think we all understand you don't like the BBC - is it at all possible that you might accept that a) some people DO like the BBC and b) some people may know more than you on some subjects?
I think they should stop east enders, its utter moronic depressing vile filth. I cant even stand the ads coming on the tv for it.
oh and wow - nice response there - I think if you have to resort to that kind of behaviour you have lost your entire argument
Can Reggiebean or anyone else provide any kind of evidence that backs up the existence of these mythical "international broadcasting rights" that have to be paid to broadcast your own material, online, on the world wide web?
They don't exist. It's false, and anyone who thinks otherwise is utterly deluded. It's no different to if mumsnet had to pay the government of every country of the world so that their people could post on here. Do you think that happens? No?
People who are "just so sure" they are right when they are utterly wrong really annoy me. I might be wrong about some things but if I'm utterly sure of something, you can bet damn sure that I am in the right. This argument about "international broadcast rights" is utterly laughable. You produce something, you put it on the web, it's YOURS. Who are you paying rights to?
Just as an example, the BBC blocks it's premier league coverage on it's website for overseas. But that's because it's not their content, it's the premier leagues and they want to sell their content to other broadcasters overseas. There would be nothing to stop the premier league from setting up their own website with coverage of all matches and letting everyone subscribe to that. There would be no issue of "international broadcast rights" because it is THEIR property.
I just wonder why the BBC didn't spend £949,000 on buying Breaking Bad or Mad Men or The Wire rather than giving it to some bloke to make him feel better about not getting a promotion.
It's all so flippin safe - if they get an unexpected mainstream 'hit' (The Apprentice, Strictly, Bake Off) they flog the format until it's gasping for breath, until everyone is utterly sick of it
Also I suppose none of you have ever watched BBC Scotland 'news'? That's a disgrace BBC, right there.
I was a huge fan of Radio 4. Always had it on the kitchen. Could never imagine life without it. But over time, waking up to the appalling journalism of the Today programme meant that our start to the day was filled with spin and untruths. Not a good way to wake up. And it was relentless. Feature after feature of journalism and interviewing that was poor and often ignorant. And actually the presenters are so unlikeable that we took stock of why we listened at all. So we turned it off. Mornings are immeasurably better without it. And actually the radio doesn't ever get turned on now.
The BBC has also been complicit in under-reporting many serious issues - the privatisation of the NHS wasn't covered hardly at all. In fact, I'm not sure it even reported the passing of the Bill in parliament - the final nail in the coffin. Coverage of Snowden and NSA stuff has also been woeful on its website, though admittedly I wouldn't know what was on air.
Quite an achievement to make an avid BBC fan switch off altogether.
I'm no kind of media expert, but Loeri, I think you're under a misapprehension about BBC ownership of programming. For every BBC programme, there will typically be at least one and probably several other organisations involved, all with some say over the broadcasting rights. These include production companies, such as Ragdoll (Teletubbies, etc). Production companies were set up as part of a move away from monolithic provider status forced on the BBC by right wing governments of the past (working with Birt), who thought more commercial discipline was needed to get better value for money. There are obviously also agents for individual actors and presenters. I'm sure there are many many other organisations involved as well, eg for the music that's used.
HomeHelpMeGawd. You're right, but I was talking about a proposed service, where the BBC would own all the rights to the programmes it was showing. Either by making themselves or by paying the third party producers for them. This idea of "international broadcast rights" to show programmes that the BBC owns is what I was arguing against. The reason programmes are currently blocked overseas is because the BBC sells the rights to show them to overseas broadcasters, so you have to watch them through their channels/websites, not the BBC. ie it's an agreement with the BBC, and the foreign channels pay them for the rights, not the BBC paying foreign governments for the rights to show their programmes online in foreign countries! That would be ridiculous.
I apologise for using bad languate earlier in the thread but reggiebean's attitude really pissed me off.
So the BBC doesn't have unrestricted autonomy to reuse its "own" programmes however it chooses, as it doesn't truly own every part of them.
Hmm, sounds like quite a fiddly and complicated problem to crack. If only there were a dedicated arm of the BBC devoted to resolving such issues and getting sales of BBC programming overseas which can subsidise the BBC budget. Like BBC Worldwide, which has been running for years and years and years.
WherewasHonahLee same here, Radio 4 was always on in my kitchen but no more. Why not make the BBC pay to view, listen?
It could own every part of it's own programmes. It would have to be sorted out with the third party companies that produce programmes for the BBC.
There's also some issues with royalties and music rights for older programmes that were made before syndication and VHS/DVD was an issue. Obviously that isn't an issue with programmes made today because they are made with those mediums in mind to start with.
If you want to see how crap telly would be if we had no BBC, just look at PBS in the US. Boring worthy programmes repeated ad infinitum with the middle classes doing telethons to keep it all afloat. Give me Dr Who/Dibley/EastEnders/BBC News over other stuff any day.
BTW remember when 9/11 happened and BBC News was the place people turned for impartial coverage internationally?
YABU for thinking the best TV programmes come from the US now and for thinking that only Guardian readers watch the BBC.
What papers do Sky viewers read?
'It could own every part of it's own programmes. It would have to be sorted out with the third party companies that produce programmes for the BBC.'
How do you propose 'sorting this out', OP? Independent production companies aren't just producers for hire - they want ownership and distribution rights to the programmes they make.
I'm a bit suspicious of posters who criticise the BBC and then defend Murdoch. Murdoch orginisations broke the law for years and then lied and obstructed justice for years to stop it coming to light. As somebody else said he shut down the NoW only to reopen it as the Sun on Sunday. Something it was rumoured he wanted to do anyway.
Incidently if you think the BBC should be shut down because of Jimmy Savile then maybe the Tory party should also be shut down.? news.sky.com/story/1116790/thatcher-pushed-for-jimmy-savile-knighthood
You are still following on with this notion of BBC "owning all the rights to the programmes". That, so far as I understand, just doesn't happen. The BBC will always need to agree rights with the owners of the music, the talents' agents, the production companies etc. All those organisations would want to renegotiate their rights agreements and get a cut of the income if the BBC launched, for example, a PPV overseas iPlayer service.
Boffinmum - I watched 9/11 on CNN.
I find the quality of BBC drama is so disappointing. There are some gems but so much of it is hackneyed. Look at Danish dramas and the sheer number of women featuring in them, not just as victims or sidekicks (a la BBC) but as the protagonist - and being a woman isn't the most interesting part of the character, and she is played against a make sidekick who is juggling family responsibilities (watch The Killing)
I remember watching the first series of Luther and I was horrified by the content and by the way violence against women was treated as casual entertainment. Ditto - well all the opther crime dramas produced by the BBC.
I love Radio 4 and Six music though, they are reason I pay my licence fee.
Is anyone else reading this intrigued as to who is right re the international broadcasting rights?! I'm tempted to try to google it, but if it were that simple, surely the person who is right would have linked already.....
This isn't specific to the BBC, by the way. The same is true for all content providers.
As I said, the resale of BBC programming does currently happen, via BBC Worldwide, and it requires the BBC to pay production companies, agents, music owners, etc a cut of the income. Same would be true for the proposed new service you suggest.
You seem to think you've thought of something sparkly and new, but I'm afraid you really haven't (and I know this despite really not knowing much about media). You could maybe get some of what you wanted if you were willing to tell the BBC to take production back in-house, but that's hardly in the spirit of the rest of what you suggest. And it still wouldn't solve music and other rights issues.
I am right regarding the international broadcast rights. As was the poster who agreed with me. The international broadcast rights are owned by the owner of the rights to the programme. Not governments.
Of course the BBC would have to renegotiate with the third party producers, music rights owners etc etc. But they would have to do that for every new media form that comes along, Radio, TV, VHS, DVD, Internet, etc etc. I know a lot of shows from the 60s and 70s were only supposed to be shown 3 times because of deals with Equity but since then new agreements have been made.
I think some programmes that are shown on the BBC but made for them by someone else have DVDs etc released independently of the BBC and some are released directly through the BBC.
It really doesn't matter if the BBC makes a programme themselves or pays for someone else to make it for them, as long as the rights are sorted out, the BBC owns the programme. At present, they don't own all their programmes. But they could. It's just a matter of negotiation with the third party companies. Not a matter of paying governments.
Beyond, you could start here:
Beyond that, we need a meejah exec to come along and explain how it is.
Friday thanks for your information. I work in the private sector and no way would shareholders agree to Lucy Adams resignation and hence being paid her notice pay. She would be dismissed for gross incompetence with no pay in lieu of notice.
I cannot understand why the BBC stakeholders put up with this. Is Offcom a stakeholder>
Surely we are all stakeholders in the BBC?
The international broadcast rights are owned by the owner of the rights to the programme.
Well, yes . But this is often the production company, not the BBC.
Not governments - who said the government owned the rights to a programme?
It really doesn't matter if the BBC makes a programme themselves or pays for someone else to make it for them, as long as the rights are sorted out, the BBC owns the programme. At present, they don't own all their programmes. But they could. It's just a matter of negotiation with the third party companies. Not a matter of paying governments.
The level of ignorance here is quite staggering. Of course it matters if they make it themselves or not. The BBC does not necessarily own the rights to that programme. It's got nothing to do with governments (again). Except that the government was (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) instrumental in the decision that a percentage of the BBC's programmes should be made by independent producers, not in-house. To reduce the monopoly on programme-making and ownership. So it's not 'just a matter of negotiation.'
I am right regarding the international broadcast rights. As was the poster who agreed with me. Just [snort] at this. Of course you are, love.
"as long as the rights are sorted out, the BBC owns the programme"
I think you need to look into this a bit more as it's not true. The BBC often has the rights to broadcast something for a set period of time but they don't retain the rights as a matter of course and rights issues are a lot more difficult when the programme contains still pictures and film that is not BBC copyright. Independent companies who make programmes for the BBC (And other broadcasters) will often retain the rights, though the BBC might do all the work of storing, cataloguing and researching them.
Also, when someone makes a programme, if they want it to be shown worldwide then there is a lot of work that goes into clearing the rights to all the elements so that the programme can be shown across borders. Sometimes all the music on a programme needs to be changed, sometimes the rights to images changes hands. Sometimes a programme is only allowed to show a certain image a few times and if they show it more than they have agreed to then they are breaching the terms they have signed. A lot of money is spent dealing with mistakes like this.
You know this Loeri is a troll from the Mail/Sun features desk don't you?
It always amazes me these very critical and indignant people on forums who can't spell and make basic errors in their arguments, ie can't identify the right BBC exective to be annoyed about.
I don't care if you don't like the BBC, no-one's interested in your sad little opinion and the majority of people on this thread don't agree with you.
Utterly pathetic. Don't feed the trolls.
And I have reported your offensive post to reggiebean, OP.
Lasvegas, quite a lot of us work in the private sector. It is in no way a given that a senior director who stuffed up badly would be fired. While it might send some helpful messages internally about accountability, there are plenty of reasons not to do so as well (tribunals, reputation management, etc etc).
But I'll tell you what. I'll bet no-one bothers giving Deborah Baker at BSkyB a hard time over big payoffs to get rid of execs. I'll bet the focus is on the people strategy of the organisation instead. Millions vs billions and all that.
I love love love the BBC. Yes they have fucked up, but I still love them.
I'm not originally from UK - the BBC is unique and wonderful and Brits should be very proud.
Rights issues are INCREDIBLY complicated, but essentially Loeri is right. Broadcasters like the BBC don't engage in negotiations with overseas governments about rights to show their programmes there; they engage with overseas media outlets to sell these outlets the rights to broadcast the BBC's output overseas.
Say the BBC produce something, say Human Planet, which was made in conjunction with Discovery and BBC Worldwide. The BBC own the rights to show it in the UK, and Discovery in the US. The rights to show it elsewhere are then negotiated with other broadcasters; so for example, ABC bought it in Australia, NRK in Norway.
The BBC runs a "BBC Showcase" programme market every year, where overseas broadcasters come to bid for the rights to show BBC programmes.
Owners of media rights are largely free to sell broadcast licenses to whoever they want. The Premier League sold overseas broadcasting rights for the Middle East, for example, to Al Jazeera. Nothing to do with the governments in the Middle East.
Most standard BBC contracts these days include terms that allow the BBC the right to rebroadcast/online broadcast/overseas rights but there are many that don't, especially if they were made by external production companies. Which is why a proposal for an online site with pay per view BBC programmes viewable worldwide would be impossible to implement, as whilst the BBC own the rights to many programmes, there are many popular ones they don't own the complete overseas rights to, either because they never had them anyway or have sold them. Or they might own the overseas rights but not the online rights. They make far more from selling them to overseas broadcasters than they would even in the medium term by keeping the rights and doing online pay per view, so it won't happen.
In some cases, you'll find the BBC iPlayer doesn't have something that was shown yesterday or whenever because the BBC don't own the online rights to it. This is the case with, for example, saturday night's Match of the Day highlights wasn't last year, as the FA Premier league own the rights to the online broadcast of matches and didn't grant the right to the BBC (though this will change for 2013/14 season).
And this only scratches the surface of the complexity......
(ex BBC Online employee of many years, media analyst)
It always amazes me these very critical and indignant people on forums who can't spell and make basic errors in their arguments, ie can't identify the right BBC *exective to be annoyed about.*
oooh get myfriendflicka How dare folk with poor spelling have an opinion? Do you work for the beeb Flicka? With an attitude like that, you really should give it a whirl!
I wasn't aware the The Mail and The Sun features desks were now a single entity
"as long as the rights are sorted out, the BBC owns the programme"
problem is, as the posters above say, the rights simply cannot "be sorted out". The BBC will NEVER be able to negotiate complete rights to everything it has a hand in, because there are often so many people and different types of rights involved.
Even if the BBC produced EVERYTHING in-house, it still wouldn't raise as much money as selling the rights anyway!
I reported the OP's post to Reggiebean too.
OP, you sound totally unhinged. And I can't think why you posted this in AIBU, as you are refusing to accept that you might be and are refusing to engage in any kind of meaningful debate.
I apologised for swearing. Reggiebean was being offensive too.
I have been debating all through the thread.
"problem is, as the posters above say, the rights simply cannot "be sorted out". The BBC will NEVER be able to negotiate complete rights to everything it has a hand in, because there are often so many people and different types of rights involved. "
Why not? Of course it can! Even programmes made directly by the BBC will have many different people and rights to music involved. But they own the rights to those programmes and can sell them worldwide. What's the difference?
"Rights issues are INCREDIBLY complicated, but essentially Loeri is right."
Thank you. At least some people on this thread are informed. Not that being uninformed is wrong, but thinking you are informed when in fact you are quite wrong is another thing entirely.
Yes, some programmes will be fine. Others will be fine for some overseas sales and not others, so won't be able to be put onto any website that is worldwide broadcast. Even for those that are, the money made by selling them PPV won't come anywhere near the money made selling them territory by territory to overseas broadcasters.
Loeri, what the poster said was:
'Rights issues are INCREDIBLY complicated, but essentially Loeri is right. Broadcasters like the BBC don't engage in negotiations with overseas governments about rights to show their programmes there; they engage with overseas media outlets to sell these outlets the rights to broadcast the BBC's output overseas.'
You are right that the BBC doesn't negotiate with overseas governments. (Which I wasn't disputing.) On so many other counts, you are wrong.
Not that being uninformed is wrong, but thinking you are informed when in fact you are quite wrong is another thing entirely.
Physician, heal thyself
Fuck me op have you nothing better to fo than offend people.
You are a small minded and refuse to see YABU massively. Lots love the beeb its not going away get used to it!!!!!!
And [snort] again at the assertion that, because someone agrees with you, that makes them 'informed'.
I wish reggiebean would come back. Hope she's lurking and having a laugh <waves>
This made me laugh out loud:
People who are "just so sure" they are right when they are utterly wrong really annoy me. I might be wrong about some things but if I'm utterly sure of something, you can bet damn sure that I am in the right
"Others will be fine for some overseas sales and not others, so won't be able to be put onto any website that is worldwide broadcast. Even for those that are, the money made by selling them PPV won't come anywhere near the money made selling them territory by territory to overseas broadcasters."
If the BBC makes the programmes or contracts out other producers to make the programme for them, then they can broadcast them worldwide. Why wouldn't they be able to? Unless they themselves agree some kind of rights that say otherwise, but given the fact that they'd be setting up this website, why would they do that?
They'd make less at first, no doubt, but eventually they'd make more by cutting out the middle men of overseas broadcasters. The overseas broadcasters make more out of the programmes they buy from the BBC than they pay the BBC for showing them, or there'd be no point buying them in the first place.
I started reading this thread but got so bored with be OP's US tv hero worship that I gave up. You stick with your crappy American tripe.
Grr. I knew this would happen. Sodding confirmation bias.
"Loeri Fri 06-Sep-13 14:34:02
"Rights issues are INCREDIBLY complicated, but essentially Loeri is right."
Thank you. At least some people on this thread are informed. Not that being uninformed is wrong, but thinking you are informed when in fact you are quite wrong is another thing entirely."
No Loeri. You were right about the point about governments. But you are wrong about the notion of the BBC being able to rebroadcast freely and it not being a big deal. Patricia's posts have been quite clear on this. (As have mine, but I lack her detailed knowledge)
You are also completely and utterly wrong about this: "They [the BBC] own the rights to those programmes [the ones they have made directly] and can sell them worldwide." I don't see why you are finding it so difficult to understand that the BBC needs to get rights holders' agreements before it sells a programme overseas. It can't just do so without such agreements, irrespective of whether it made or bought the programme. It may be that the original agreement with the rights holders will have covered both use in the UK and overseas, but this is hardly a given, as (surprise!) rights holders will want more money if the BBC wants to use their property more widely or to make money via its commercial arm.
Why are you being so obtuse about this?
[ducks out of hiding and waves at CJCregg]
Yep, still here, it's just that my mum always taught me that you can't argue with stupid.
I actually think it would be amazing to see things through the OP's eyes... With BBC fat cats holding secret meetings with foreign governments over showing some wholly-owned and produced BBC show (god, can you image what that would be like?!) on Youtube... Amazing.
Really, Loeri? Really?
You think that the BBC hasn't ever seriously reviewed the opportunities and costs of an OTT service?
And you can say, with assurance, that you know how the numbers will play out? Mind putting up the model then? I'd like to see your NPV calculations, plus of course reviewing your estimates of changes in market share for pay-TV vs OTT, as well as the detailed assumptions that lie behind your confident assertions.
For people who are actually interested in some facts, here's what the BBC is saying about the market context (specifically for OTT services, there's plenty more on other topics).
"Cord-cutting, cord-shaving and cord-nevers
The television industry continues its preoccupation with the potential impact on the traditional pay TV eco-system of over-the-top (OTT) providers like Netflix and Amazon-owned LOVEFiLM. Reflecting the level of discussion and debate, a new vocabulary is being built-up to describe consumer behaviour in response to OTT: cord-cutting, cord-shaving and cord-nevers. Broadband distribution of content is changing the way television content is accessed and viewed and will change audience expectations over time. But evidence of the likely impact on pay TV is inconclusive and up for debate.
Total pay TV households in the USA remained virtually flat during 2012. Between Q4 2011 and Q4 2012 cable and satellite operators lost 1.4m paying households, with virtually the same number picked up by Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) platforms (IHS Screen Digest). These subscription numbers include the cyclical effects of a weak economy as well as the structural effect of OTT competition. At the moment, cord-cutting - when customers move from expensive cable service to a low cost channel subscription through OTT - may be as much the result of squeezed household incomes as it is a switch in favour of broadband-distributed, video-on-demand services. There is perhaps greater concern over cord-shaving, where consumers stop taking premium packages as part of their pay TV subscriptions in favour of cheaper OTT options.
For now, we believe pay TV and OTT can co-exist for at least the next ten years. Nielsen's Cross-Platform Report in Q4 2012 puts live television viewing at 156 hours per month for an average American, up on the year before and little changed from five years previously. By comparison, time spent per month watching video on the internet or on mobile phone was around 13 hours, with a similar 13 hours spent watching time-shifted television. Relative viewing behaviour is similar in the UK.
However, there will be pressures. In the short term, negotiations between pay TV platform operators and networks appear to be becoming even more difficult.
In the medium term, new players are joining the fray, potentially bringing new and more disruptive business models. For example, Intel confirmed its intention to launch an OTT television service and has been signing content deals.
In the long term, the risk for the pay TV system lies in a generational shift in the potential for cord-nevers among those currently under 25 years old. According to Nielsen, 35-49 year olds in America watch 157 hours of live TV a month and 12 hours of video on the internet or a mobile phone. The figures for 18-24 year olds are 111 and 22. If there is a generation growing up keen and comfortable to search for what they want to watch, and expecting it to be available immediately, they may not follow their parents in preferring the lean-back experience of live television and may never choose to subscribe to pay television."
Dr Who, PramFace, Have I Got News for You, Russell Howard's Good News, Mock the Week, Pride and Prejudice, the Apprentice.
I love the BBC.
"Unless they themselves agree some kind of rights that say otherwise, but given the fact that they'd be setting up this website, why would they do that?"
Because they don't have a choice. Many production companies simply aren't going to sign over worldwide and online rights to the BBC for a price the BBC can afford. Some will, so the BBC could put those programmes up, others won't. The BBC won't stop doing co-productions as it can't afford to finance all of its programming itself.
It's worth noting here that the BBC does already have some worldwide VOD, and plans to keep expanding the offerings; BBC America On Demand for example, and partnerships with Netflix and Hulu. For some programmes in some territories, online PPV works. For others in others, it doesn't. It's not a catch-all solution.
'The overseas broadcasters make more out of the programmes they buy from the BBC than they pay the BBC for showing them, or there'd be no point buying them in the first place."
Yes, by selling advertising around them, and using them as an incentive for viewers to sign up to their TV packages. Not the same as asking viewers to pay for programmes individually on a PPV basis.
HA!! I can't believe this
Had no idea she'd been banned from the whole board... Brilliant!
Just read thread and realised I interrupted a bun fight. Sorry! [ducks away]
The BBC 'rapes your children.'
I really have nothing else to add. <waves at reggiebean again>
There has been some fascinating stuff on this thread. I used to work in tv distribution and it's clearly a hell of a lot more complicated these days than it used to be ...
Puce is rarely a flattering colour.
I did think it was getting a bit silly, but dearie, dearie me.
I was going to mention the costs in commissioning and the difficulty in getting some of the breakthrough stuff, like Planet Dinosaur, which BBC is really well placed to be at the cutting edge.
I was going to mention that output and local news was far beyond most corporations.
I didn't think it would have had any effect anyway.
Dearie, dearie me.
<slinks off to ignore Game of Thrones and watch Last Night of the Proms tomorrow>
good lord reggiebean do you have the power to ban people now - if so ... well done
It has been pretty impressive for a thread that has only lasted eight hours.
Sorry but at 'getting a poster banned'
You know MNHQ take that decision don't you? Much as we'd like that power, we don't have it
"The best TV for ADULTS comes from the US"
I don't agree. OP you have already decided you don't like any BBC programmes or agree with anything positive anyone else says about the BBC. Because none of the BBC shows appeal to you the BBC should be closed down. Given that the BBC offers music, drama, light entertainment, cookery shows, wildlife programmes, documentaries, current affairs, news, sport, comedy, plus reality TV and soaps you sound extremely difficult to please.
"If you don't want to watch it, don't pay your licence fee, and don't use their services, including the news, weather, and radio. But for you to suggest it be shut down is beyond mad."
I agree. I really enjoy a lot of the programmes the BBC has to offer and feel that I get extremely good value for money. Don't spoil it for the rest of us. I don't watch sport, soaps or reality TV shows but I don't think that they shouldn't be made just because I don't like them. Your view is rather narrow minded. The BBC is there for all or most of us, not just for you.
No, no, no, no, no!!!!! Have lived in many other countries and seen the
shite alternatives, it may not be perfect but it's still (relatively) fab!
I'd keep the BBC for Sherlock alone!
Also Masterchef and Great British Bakeoff!
Gordy Considering I didn't even report her, the fact that I managed to ban her is quite impressive, isn't it!?
[struts off to see what else I can do with my magical mind power]
wow that is one awesome super power
Oh I hope MN don't delete that!
What an arsehole.
YABU. As an American, I can tell you that BBC is heaven for me. It's not as biased as most of our news, it produces great continual dramas-we have some good stuff, but not much. And CBBC and CBeebies are just amazing for children, compared to the US. Keep it- the UK should be proud of the modern day BBC!
Can you be banned and yet reappear? Is the OP Voldermort?
It's been a funny old bunfight. The OP seemed to get very upset that we weren't baying for the blood of the institution.
Was OP a
Daily Mail troll a goady fucker then?
Source: Watching TV without a valid licence is a criminal offence.
Not civil, criminal.
Not even goady as such, just irrational and biZzare
IMO the BBC's channels should be subscription only.
The TV license is oppressive, if you doubt that, try not paying it
No what has happened is that the OP has dared to have a different opinion to you lot and had the audacity to not fall in line! How dare she!
Typical MN reaction is to round on her and accuse her of being a troll. Typical and tbh is the norm when anyone dares to have a different opinion.
"The TV license is oppressive"
I agree it should be subscription only for live TV and iPlayer. I would happily pay it, given that most of what appeals to me on the TV is on the BBC.
I didn't realise anyone had called her a troll apart from me.
Her opinion wasn't particularly coherent IMO
A pay per view Iplayer service exists overseas and bbc worldwide exists to sell bbc programme rights overseas. It is complicated but it isn't impossible otherwise Top Gear wouldn't be sold worldwide. Made by a joint venture owned by Jeremy clarkson, his producer and the bbc.
As a point of principle I watch local and national TV channels wherever I travel to.
Sitting in a motel room in New Jersey channel flicking is enough to drive one to near suicide.
Its wall to wall shite.
The ads flow seamlessly into the programmes
the few hours of decent TV all clash
and the RADIO
have you ever wondered why Americans listen to 'talking books' as they drive?
'cos the radio is so bad even bricklayers would not tolerate it.
In a hotel bar in Connecticut DH and I were chatting.
A woman shot into the room saying 'oh, is the BBC on for reliable news?'
YABU. I don't want the BBC to be shut down, because despite deficiencies in some departments (like News in particular) I think it's still doing a pretty good job of providing a wide range of programming. In the last few months I've regularly watched/listened to a huge variety of stuff, most of which I enjoyed and think is good value for money.
However, I do think the Beeb has developed a long standing self-congratulatory internal culture. This was a factor in the child abuse cases - nobody thought to question the behaviour of 'stars'. It's also allowed a sexist culture to flourish which has resulted in seeing fewer women presenters and leads on TV, particularly older women, actual sexist and misogynist programming (The Fall, Doctor Who, Sherlock), and wilful neglect of female creative talent in writing and directing (of which Doctor Who is the prime example).
However. I've lived in the US and TV was so bad there that I just didn't have a TV. Network news reporting is laughable - the most reliable news source on TV is a satirical news show which appears on a comedy channel. There's no children's programming outside of cartoons. The amazing dramas which everyone is going on about are only on for a fraction of total airtime and are often on niche channels like HBO and Masterpiece which the majority of Americans don't watch, and made possible by co-productions with the BBC. The rest of the time TV is absolute dreck. I do not want to see this happen here.
The problem with dismantling something like the BBC is that once you take it apart you can't undo it. And I can guarantee that without a public broadcaster, however paternalistic it may be, you will lose a lot of quality programming because the size of British audiences won't make it commercial to produce quite a lot of programmes which many people enjoy now.
Blimey. Odd outcome to this thread...
I think we get incredible value from the BBC. I agree that there have been huge mistakes made at senior executive level which have wasted vast sums of money - but it's not alone in this. Look at banking, failed government IT projects, the HS2 costings cockup- taxpayers have paid out millions to bail out the errors of private companies, government initiatives, and consultants. Doesn't make the BBC's mistakes right, but at least something is being done about it. And I would be interested to see figures proving that the BBC is a net cost to the UK , if we also factor in revenue from sales of BBC programming plus indirect revenue from UK industries heavily supported by the BBC , such as music.
It would appear that there were catastrophic failings in the management of men who were child abusers- clearly this is inexcusable. Many other agencies also failed the victims- this includes the police, the commercial broadcast companies who also employed these men, the management of several hospitals, and the PM and government of the time who portrayed Savile as a hero. All of them need to be made to answer for their lack of action.
We have a state broadcaster which is independent of the government's political agenda. This is a rare thing. Do people really believe that it's better to have all news reporting from agencies owned by a corrupt president, or news channels so biased they call election results for the man they want?
There is so much more to broadcasting than bickering over which is the best drama about people getting murdered. BBC radio is all I can bear to listen to- can't be doing with shouty phone-in men and crap 80s MOR interspersed with ads for double glazing every 4 minutes. It covers popular music, classical music, alternative music, comedy, drama, documentaries, news, current affairs, science, the arts- a hugely varied output which other broadcasters don't even bother trying to match. Same again for TV- there may be US broadcasters currently producing quality science programming, but I certainly can't see any evidence for it on ITV. And then there's the huge online content, including the educational sites- if you have children, there's every chance that your children have accessed the BBC's educational programming and online content, because so much of it is high-quality and relevant.
Sneering at the BBC because you don't like opera is missing the point - the fact that the BBC produces this huge variety of programming means that there is something for everyone.
Meant to add: but I DO want the BBC to have a good long hard look at itself and its own culture, and stop wasting money and creating a toxic working culture.
I love the bbc. It's about the only channel on in our house (apart from sky sports). I could live without it........but unhappily. Not interested in the programmes the OP is talking about, wouldn't watch them anyway.
I know that's tame considering the previous 13 pages.....
I thought the problem with pay per view for the BBC is that you can't get the volume of funding. HBO has the whole of the US to subscribe from. Sky charges a fortune, and had advertising. But then if so many people arent paying their TV licences and people are watching on laptops etc without paying, surely it would be a better system? The only problem would be the radio output, i suppose which cant be subscription only. I do think that the BBC is too wideranging, and doesn't really need as many radio/TV channels, but the minute they try to downsize, there is an outcry. I don't really understand why they have to compete on reality TV like the Voice or on Local radio when it is done adequately by commercial channels. They could just concentrate on quality dramas, documentaries and childrens programming, which just doesnt get made by commercial channels to nearly a high enough standard. I would definitely pay, as I really only watch/ listen to the BBC.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
I am not sure sexual harrassment and abuse around the 1970s/1980s was in any way confined to the BBC or even the television industry. It seemed to be fairly rampant throughout the entire media, and music industry as well. The reason we know more about what went on at the BBC is because people are able to do Freedom of Information requests, whereas for private companies they are not.
FlicktheSwitch, I feel the same way about my taxes etc subsidising the House of Commons bar, whole body scanning in airports, and childcare for people who are not working, but we can't always pick and choose what we want our money to support and some of it has to go into the collective pot.
Sorry, I spelt your name wrong Boffinmum but I still agree with your points.
"I am not sure sexual harrassment and abuse around the 1970s/1980s was in any way confined to the BBC or even the television industry. "
It wasn't. But, and this is the point that's missed on the "oh, it was all a long time ago", only the BBC had meetings over canapes at awards dinner (shouldn't these sort of decisions be taken in the office, with people minuting it?), the upshot of which was the shelving of an investigative journalist's completed and already legally-cleared story, probably on the grounds that broadcasting it would compromise an already-made hagiography. ITV eventually ran the story, because the BBC was too cowardly to expose a dead paedophile.
The Rippon Report is an account of a complete car-crash of governance, with George Entwhistle and Helen Boaden seemingly conducting their entire business over canapes and drinks parties, and (as with the payments to senior staff) no-one keeping minutes, everyone denying reading their email, etc, etc. Paragraphs 59 to 78 of Part Two are a disgrace, and everyone involved should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. And stuff later in the report like "Mr Mitchell said (as was a common feature of his evidence) that he could remember virtually nothing of this meeting.81 I found the frequency with which Mr Mitchells memory failed him surprising." and "Ms Boaden agreed that the decision to take the Savile story off the MRPL did not make any sense.92 She said she could not account for the decision, which she said [didnt] add up.93 Lord Patten described the decision as extraordinary.94" is hardly reassuring, is it?
People get so cross about such weird stuff. Who cares, really, about being obliged to pay a hundred and something quid to watch telly?
If you don't like it, buy a big monitor, a fat download pipe from your favourite cable company, a tablet or PC, and away you go... you could even get away with watching BBC programmes on iPlayer, although it wouldn't really be in the right spirit of things.
i do think it's pretty weird that people can be sent to prision for not paying the tv licence and think some sort of opt out should be available. don't really know why everyone has to pay when there are so many other tv and radio stations. seems antiquated to me.
i do watch bbc four occasionally and listen to bbc london radio but apart from that the same old dross on the bbc (eastenders, strictly come dancing etc) really doesn't appeal to me and would like to opt out like i can with other channels.
see boffin i quite enjoy pbs, they have quite alot of educational programmes (albeit US based ie, the mafia, the blues, the brooklyn bridge etc) but that appeal far more to me than songs of praise or countryfile and that bleeding midwives programme
I love the BBC! I'd pay them more no problem. David Attenbrough is worth the license fee alone.
see there are possibly enough people willing to pay to subsidise those who don't. i don't really see the problem with them being made to compete with other stations who have to rely on advertising. at least they have the option of being subsidised by the viewer who wants it.
would be nice to pick and choose what you pay for rather than all or nothing.
catham, why do you think it's weird? You have to pay for all sorts of services that you don't necessarily need via taxes etc. What's the big deal? It's just a social contract. Others are available in other countries...
I love the BBC, I'm very happy to pay my licence fee for R6, R4, CBeebies, Only Connect, HIGNFY, the Olympics coverage was fantastic (US friends were very critical of US coverage of this).
US telly in the US is mainly adverts, really annoying. When C4 covered the Paralympics they got lots of criticism for adverts. C4 is also excellent and also tax funded, albeit in part.
Lots of BBC shows have been exported to the US, Top Gear, Strictly and GBBO all have US versions.
Oh dear. It is really going to be a riot with the select committee on Monday. Mark Thompson's submission to the PAC has been published and it's as full of fun as a fun-filled thing. Mark Thompson appears to have learnt a lot while in New York, particularly how to have people whacked by the mob. His submission appears to be an iron fist in an iron glove. If you enjoy watching ferrets fighting in a sack, tune into to BBC Parliament (I presume) on Monday: double your pleasure, double their viewing figures.
i think it's weird to be sent to prision for not paying the licence - the big deal is that it's separated out from other taxes as a standalone charge.
For me the licence fee is up there with road tax - if you take your car off the drive one day a year you pay the same as someone who drives tens of thousands of miles a year, for example. Seems to be the same with telly (although people who only listen to the radio get it for free, for some reason).
friday16 I was impressed you had read and analysed the Entwistle/Boaden/Adams documentation.
"although people who only listen to the radio get it for free, for some reason"
There was a separate Wireless License until February 1971. You needed a separate one for your cars. You could purchase either a Wireless Licence or a combined TV and Wireless License. As the number of people with TVs rose, the number of people buying the Wireless-only one dropped precipitantly, and it was abandoned as a separate thing on the grounds that so few were being issued. It cost a pound for most of the post-war period, rising to £1 5s (£1.25) in 1965.
Unhelpful aside....Just to say, it's not Road tax, but Vehicle Excise Duty. Would post a link but it is from the BBC website.... <goes back to Friday wine>
Boffin, I decided my original posting with paragraph number references and shit was probably a bit too geeky.
<paragraph 4.31 is the money shot>
Poppy, that is indeed true and I knew that but had forgotten the term.
friday16, you are a repository of knowledge about broadcasting history! I am very impressed!
(I was so tempted to say 'suppository of knowledge' there as a nod to our Australian cousins).
I love BBC radio and for that alone it earns a fee - there is nothing like it
Point against.Trouble is, it got to be biased somewhere along the way.
I dont like news that is obviously biased.
Point for. I have a nasty suspision that tv in general would dumb down even more without the BBC.
friday that is an interesting (skim)read. But compared to similar documents I have read from plenty of private companies there is nothing particularly shocking.
The Beeb is a sitting duck. It's not perfect but there is a lot worse. It is well known that they always get mauled by any Parliamentary Select Committee, so can expect one next week.
But other than usual company politics, is there anything really of significance there?
As I said, I skim read it (it's late Friday evening, so forgive me); it's interesting but not all that bad. If anything the finger can be pointed at the BBC Trust - let's not pretend that that is made up of people who have the core values of the Beeb at heart... Patten, for example?
BBC news pisses off the left and right in equal measure, to the point that they reflect majority public opinion on the whole, so slightly to the left on some issues, but to the right on others. (Remember here the Daily Mail isn't actually representative of public opinion, OP ) They're not at all biased in comparison with, ooh, any other news organisation in the world.
Indeed, I saw much worse happen when I worked in the magazine industry, and during my brief sojourn in an actuarial firm (who did all the enhanced pension calculations).
come on boffin, driving is something everyone has to do, enjoyment of the bbc is subjective
i for one do not find it worth the money they are asking. the entertainment offered is poor and aims most of it's tv to the blue peter audience
it should be paid for by subscriptoin NOT licence
I would also argue that having to make a programme that could be sold worldwide would be a driving artristic force to do so
why did so many programme on the bbc feature that bore alan yentob?
it just reeks of jobs for the boys
LaurieFairyCakeFri 06-Sep-13 07:48:20
No... It still makes the best tv and radio in the world - it's news reporting is the finest
Really? that will be why they did that MASSIVE report this week on the fact that DPAC were protesting outside their HQ about the way disability benefit claimants are portrayed on their network ..........oh wait thats right they DIDNT report on this!!!!!
"Indeed, I saw much worse happen when I worked in the magazine industry"
Sure. But they aren't empowered to levy, with criminal sanctions, a fee from anyone who reads any sort of magazine.
I couldn't care less if ITV spends all its money on beer and bonuses, because they're a private company and they're answerable to their shareholders and, to an extent, their advertisers. If ITV (or more precisely one of its constituent franchises) went bust tomorrow morning, not a lot would happen; although pre-switchover their UHF spectrum was a valuable asset, having a few channels in the DTV multiplexes makes them each about as significant as Rabbit TV.
The BBC is a large recipient of public and tax money (the license fee is about £3.5bn out of £5bn, isn't it?), is deeply embedded in our civil society and is not answerable to anyone in particular. Some might care to call the BBC Trust an effective mechanism of governance, but the BBC Trust is what you find in the dictionary when you look up "regulator capture". If the BBC Trust is supine in the face of misbehaviour, then it's people like the PAC that get to instead provide some oversight. Messy and unfair though it may be.
Its news reporting is, IMO, very far from the finest. I've ranted earlier in the thread already. And the BBC news website is now very tabloid-esque in style. Couldn't possibly be dumbed down any further.
Very little money is truly private. Most of it is associated with our pension funds and other investments, so I think there needs to be a sense of responsibility there.
the pbs epics, has been on par with what (or more) the bbc would produce
i just don't get this adulation the bbc gets, its daytime tv still consits of home under the hammer and that awful heir hunters
OP, is your main gripe with the BBC (apart from corruption) the licence? In the U.S PBS is funded by taxpayers. Every taxpayer regardless of whether or not they even own a television never mind if they watch it. The same goes in Australia with the ABC. I agree with you that as a publicly funded company the BBC should have a clean house and be able to prove it but to say it should be got rid of is BVU. I'm in Australia and we watch a lot of BBC stuff that we download. I love it. And I miss Pointless!
How would a subscription work? Would it cost more than £15 a month? Would over 75s get a free subscription?
I very much doubt they could afford to make many programmes based on subscription.
I don't know anyone who watches all their TV online, although some people on this thread do, they are in the minority. I agree that the media presents us all as watching catch-up tv on our iPhone and watching the iPad in bed etc but not many people live like that.
I'd rather not watch Homes under the hammer etc but my in-laws like it. I don't like Strictly but millions do. I'm able to afford a TV licence, I couldn't afford to pay much more.
The websites, radio, documentaries and dramas are worth more than £150 per year.
"i for one do not find it worth the money they are asking. the entertainment offered is poor"
In your opinion. Loads of people would disagree with you.
Many of seem to miss the point that without the licence fee the BBC would only make populist programmes and not take any risks. We would then end up with another ITV.
"I'm able to afford a TV licence, I couldn't afford to pay much more. "
I think you can make rational arguments for subscription, and for funding it out of general taxation (given that take-up of BBC services is probably higher than many other things that are funded from general taxation). When I'm channelling Adam Smith and being all free market, I veer towards subscription, when I'm clutching my Guardian vouchers and berating people for voting Lib Dem in 2010 and thus keeping Labour out I favour general taxation.
What I can't see the argument for is a flat-rate, essentially compulsory, levy. It's a regressive tax, of the sort that anyone of the left should be very nervous about (because of its effect on the poor) and anyone of the right should be nervous about (for a whole stack of market distortion arguments I can't quite recall before my first cup of coffee). It's precisely the people who can pay, just, who are penalised: I can mutter about the iniquity, but 150 quid a year is neither here nor there and therefore it's a theoretical argument, but for all too many people it's a significant chunk of money for something which, for practical purposes, they can't live without. It's crazy that a TV license costs someone on benefits a week's income or more, while for others it's an hour's income. The TV License is a tax. It should be related to the ability to pay. Like (almost all) other taxes (let's not do Vehicle Excise Duty, eh?)
The free for the over-75s thing is precisely the sort of crap that made the last Labour administration (for which I voted, and would still vote) the intellectually incoherent shambles that it was (it was a typically ill-thought out policy from Brown's chancellorship). Few people are worse off at 76 than they were at 74, and not all people aged over 75 are poor; indeed, they're the prime "defined benefits" generation, and quite a lot of them (not all, perhaps not many, but more than a few) are well off. If the BBC is going to be state funded (on balance, I think it should be) then messing about with discounts and freebies for ill-defined groups who may or may not struggle to pay the levy is a waste of time and money: just give the BBC the money out of general taxation and have done with it.
"Many of seem to miss the point that without the licence fee the BBC would only make populist programmes"
You mean like HBO? Oh, wait...
That's Dave the channel on freeview, not any other Dave.
I have never seen any HBO programmes so I can't make a comparison.
Many of seem to miss the point that without the licence fee the BBC would only make populist programmes and not take any risks. We would then end up with another ITV.
That is what you have BBC is just reality programs with a couple of programs a week that might have been made without the general public being involved (homes under the hammer, bake off, escape to the country, wanted down under, the list goes on), the same as ITV. Why would anyone want 12-14 + reality programs which is what the BBC is showing every day of the week. I can't see the difference between ITV and BBC when you look at the show listings for the day?
But who actually sits down and watches TV all day every day?
I don't want the TV to have wall to wall programmes I want to watch otherwise I would never get anything done.
The only reality TV I watch is the GBBO and Strictly. I have found loads of non reality TV programmes on the BBC that interest me - comedy, crime drama, cookery shows, period drama, documentaries, music programmes. There are more programmes that don't interest me than do, but I'm fine with that.
Bunbaker - there is a growing part of society who are elderly and don't get out, they do watch TV all day and there are several hundreds of thousands of them.
You may not want wall to wall tv programs as you would never get anything done - but for some they can't get anything done and the only real life human they see is the meals on wheel person when they deliver their lunch.
Reality tv is excessive on both ITV and BBC,
Value for money would be fine if it was an equal amount of programs but it is not it is 80% reality shows and 20% a few other programs that is a balanced showing of programs
Imagine life without CBeebies
The reality shows get comparatively high ratings, so they are actually making programmes people want to watch. You may not like them, but enough do.
I think the BBC does a decent job of meeting it's objectives to inform, educate and entertain. Much of the output isn't to my taste, but they offer a wide selection targeted at many different audiences. I think they are making good progress with integrating tv and online content.
I trust that they are getting to grips with their responsibilities in respect of using their resources wisely overall, but in such a giant institution there are always going to be things which go wrong. What's important is not repeating mistakes.
I get excellent value from my tv licence fee, I can't think of many other resources that provide my family with so much day to day culture, richness, information for such a low cost. ( apart from the great outdoors, possibly the library ).
The BBC still has a place.
Boffin You may not like them, but enough do. It makes no difference if I like them or not to have such a high number of them is not what the station is supposed to be about
Many of seem to miss the point that without the licence fee the BBC would only make populist programmes
the BBC are not supposed to be making a large majority of their shows one style of show and they are doing so and therefore we have a channel that is no different from ITV.
You're not a viewing snob then?
Do you really think that the BBC giving a majority of one style of program for viewing figures is value for money when they are not making programs as they might not get a high viewing figure?
The BBC has a left wing bias, everyone knows that.
Yellow that's quite funny ... all my lefty friends think the bbc has too much of a right wing bias!
If the BBC disapeared after a while most of the digital channels would close too as they are mostly stocked with BBC repeats.
BTW I personally find most of the american dramas overproducedo, dull and vacuous compaired with British dramas.
I think that you need to have a furtle in the outer reaches of the BBC to see where some of the benefits are. You don't have to judge all of the BBC on BBC1.
Yesterday I failed to cook the fish souffle using the recipe I got from their food pages as OH was late, but I was able to give him some idea about which way to get out of the traffic jam by using their travel pages. Fortunately I kept DS occupied playing the computer games on the Ceebeebies site. I am a bad mother but ds has learned loads from that site.
Lots of different groups get lots of different things from the BBC. In my posts I've mentioned, (iirc without checking) Walking with Dinosaurs, Sherlock, Doctor Who, The White Queen, EastEnders, Strictly, Pointless, Great British Bake Off, Casualty, Holby City, Coast, Boat Race, Last Night of the Proms, Life on Earth, The Royle Family, QI, Bottom, HIGNFY, Fawlty Towers, and can I add Watchdog, Countryfile, BBC Cymru, BBC Alba, local radio, Bollywood Carmen and Changing Rooms. That's just the tip of the output. BBC make room for all sorts, and they are able to take risks without worrying about shareholders and their commercial interests.
yyyyyyy to stricter financial auditing and HR issues.
(I do actually watch other channels as well)
"Reality tv is excessive on both ITV and BBC,"
I agree, but as has been pointed out they are very popular. So are soaps and sport which I don't watch either. But I don't mind. If there is nothing interesting on TV I have loads of recorded stuff to watch, or I could just MN instead
i would rather pay for the bbc than be bombarded by bipartisan political news channels who fund political campaigns shamelessly pushing disgusting agendas.
has anyone seen the fox anti gay stuff?
the best reason is political, in a word dominated by enormous media machines such as news corp, we need an organisation that is not in the clutches of big business, that big business cannot manipulate the public's feelings to engender a response from a government which will no doubt require action which indirectly makes them more money - a political campaign to which they have donated massively to gain influence.
so they have your eyes, they have your ears and they have your government.
and fuck me if all the dumb shits aren't fucking PAYING this monstrous machine for the privilege.
Bunbaker -^Many of seem to miss the point that without the licence fee the BBC would only make populist programmes^
and that is what the BBC are doing making popular programs and not making programs that would be a risk - if only fools and horses was actually made now it wouldn't have stayed on the TV more than one series - due to the risk as it wasn't popular for the first series.
but as has been pointed out they are very popular
You can't have it both ways, either the BBC needs to balance of the programs or they stay the same as the ITV channel.
Sports is also heavily dominated by male sports, they had the olympics and that showed how much people want to watch womans sport, cycling was shown and it proved that womans road cycling was far far more exciting than the male side and yet still the BBC refuse to show it.
Womans football is top class in the Uk and yet it is never shown on BBC, mens football is shown. Why how can that not be unbiased,
Just because you don't mind if there is nothing on tv that you want to watch doesn't mean it is right to have a total slant on the programs available.
I don't want to watch womans football, but then I don't have that choice to go to the pub and watch womans football I only have the choice to watch male football on BBC why is that right?
Yeah Course they do Yellow Thats why DPAC were protesting outside their HQ this week which they didnt report on and why they made a programme called WE All Pay Your Benefits.
Yep TOtally left wing
Re big commercial media companies such as News Corp - Tortington is spot on :
" They have your eyes , your ears and your government"
I want a broadcaster who is not in the pocket of Murdoch or his ilk.
What are all these reality shows?
There's the strictly ballroom type, then the voice, the boot sale hunter/antiques. What else is there?
"Womans football is top class in the Uk and yet it is never shown on BBC, mens football is shown. Why how can that not be unbiased,"
Manchester United, one of the leading men's football teams (other successful clubs are available), play at Old Trafford. It has a capacity of 75 032. Their average gate is 75 032: they sell every ticket, every match. Over the premiership, the average gate is about 37 000; given there are typically ten matches per week, around 370 000 people per week pay to watch men's premiership football.
Arsenal Ladies, far and away the leading British women's football team, play at Meadow Park, Borehamwood. It has a capacity of 4502. Don't worry about phoning ahead: there'll be tickets. The FA Women's Super League has an average gate of 550. If there were ten matches per week (there aren't, there are only four) attendances would total 5 500. As it is, about 2 200 people per week go to see women's premiership football, less than 1% of the attendances at men's premiership matches.
It's hardly a compelling argument for showing it on the telly, is it?
I didnt say totally left wing. I said a left wing bias.
It has been studied and researched hasnt it.
So they are now having to try and redress things partly, or at least be seen to try and redress things.
I dont like bias either way. Fox news is awful. Right wing beyond belief. Should be allowed.
That should say shouldnt not should
I am what is known as a floating voter. I would straight news,truth, not biased in any way. You wouldnt have thought that was too much to ask in the uk, but it seems to be. Not on.
So friday are the BBC to only to show sports that are popular the same as ITV? I thought the argument was the BBC is paid for and world class because then it will show programs that are not popular and not for the masses, it will take risks.
But woman's football has a far more complicated history and has had up to 50000 spectators... it was destroyed on purpose though en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_association_football
"So friday are the BBC to only to show sports that are popular the same as ITV?"
Given the cost of showing sport (even if the rights are free, it's a major OB) the answer is pretty much "yes". Or at least, more popular than a couple of thousand people a week. There's no proposal to show non-league men's football, for example, which has attendances far higher than the women's top tier.
What a great crying shame
There are some really great sports out there that only a smaller number of people may enjoy to watch but you think we don't deserve to be able to watch them due to cost.
I would rather poke my eyes out than watch football by any sex - but it would be watched and it may have even grown, but with the BBC as misogynistic as it is we will never know
"There are some really great sports out there that only a smaller number of people may enjoy to watch but you think we don't deserve to be able to watch them due to cost."
The BBC shows very little domestic sport. It's not about "deserving", it's about the brutal truth that it's very expensive and once you get away from Premiership football and possibly test cricket no-one, for practical purposes, watches it. They could televise basketball and ice hockey, but it would cost staggering amounts of money and attract minuscule audiences. And I'd be interested to know what you think are the "really great" sports that would be successful on TV are: it needs to be something comprehensible, with a reasonable number of participants who will provide the initial audiences, which is aesthetically attractive. Leaving aside the men's/women's issue, what are the sports that would be good TV that currently aren't shown, and which have more than a few thousand potential spectators?
Friday, as I understood it, the main argument against funding the Beeb through general taxation was that it brought the Beeb within the ambit of government and thus more susceptible to political influence / interference.
Incidentally, income tax is non-regressive, but most other forms of taxation are regressive to some degree. VAT is the most notorious example.
Wasn't woman's football shown in BBC3 a few weeks back?
the brutal truth is the BBC is not what people are claiming, the BBC puts viewing figures before being unbiased.
I don't believe you that it is expensive, it is expensive to keep giving away money from the BBC to ex employees is it more or less expensive than that to show woman's sport on the BBC and not have it as 85% male dominated
Head of Sport is a woman. Says it all really...
They put the accounts before viewing figures. They won't dig deep to get the rights to so many events.
The BBC is far too concerned about what the daily fail and the like think and it's lost it's confidence.
It needs a massive management overhaul. Far too many ineffective managers taking the piss out of the programme makers and keeping themselves in jobs they don't deserve.
"They won't dig deep to get the rights to so many events. "
They would hardly have to "dig deep" to get the rights for women's superleague football (or, aside from tennis and athletics, most other women's sport). I'd have thought that provided the BBC offered chocolate biscuits instead of digestives with the coffee at the meeting the FA would give them for nothing. It's hardly a sellers' market. Do you seriously believe that there are women's sports the BBC could be showing, but the stopper is the price of the rights?
My comment was a general observation, not specifically about women's sport.
I suspect the Head of Sport doesn't champion women in either sport or television production unfortunately.
Join the discussion
Please login first.