The BBC is finally being punished!

Spidookly, I think you have some points, but the BBC is a national, not state broadcaster. I totally agree it should be held under close scrutiny, but I think we need it there - it safeguards against ownership of key media by a major politician, which is a problem in numerous countries. There have also been occasions, for example during the 7th July bombings, when I was mighty glad to have access to news coverage uninteruppted by adverts.

Although it may be of minority interest, it is also fantastic that we have a broadcaster that produces a lot of high quality cultural and educational programming, and which works with the Open University. Yes, there is Sky Arts, but they don't produce much original content. I don't think we should be shy about subsidising this sort of programme through the licence fee, nor should we assume that people on low incomes have no interest in it.

The BBC is absolutely fine as it is. If it is leaning slightly to the left then there are enough channels (the vast majority of the others) leaning to the right. And it should be allowed to stay well rounded with some "appealing to all" programmes.

I love the total absence of adverts but I assume this is the "unfair" bit as the BBC is funded by the public whereas the other channels are not. As far as I'm concerned the quality of the programmes makes up for it but that's my personal opinion.

God, no. Without the BBC we would sink to the level of Fox News One of the reasons Americans have a reputation of being so terribly ignorant of world affairs and how they are percieved by the world in general is the lack of an unbiased media. I remember being in the USA when Kim Il Sung died. Was this on the news? The death of the dictator of the last "Communist Empire"?? Whas it b**locks, it was a small paragraph on page 10 of the Washington post. Simply stated, most Americans have little or no understanding of the world at large. Their media is owned by powerful magnates with vested interests. Balance in media reporting is not something I experienced whenever I've been in the USA. I shudder to think that Murdoch and his cronies would not be challenged in the general media. It's bad enough that he dictates so much public opinion from the pages of the Daily Fail and the like.

I credit the BBC with allowing my child to grow up watching quality programming without the vile and insidious influence of advertising aimed at very, very impressionable minds.

But who wants to get rid of it? Don't they just want it to focus on quality public broadcasting and to reduce the size of salaries where hundreds are paid more than the Prime Minister who is in charge of running the entire country? Should the BBC really be producing all of these cookery programmes and house decoration programmes and Strictly Come Dancing etc. Couldn't some of that be left to the commercial broadcasters? Isn't there a debate to be had about what the role of the BBC should really be?

Matsikula,

Could not agree with you more about private sector wastage and pensions. I have long held the belief that only end shareholders should be allowed to "vote their shares".

Spidookly,

Easy to produce a well respected brand with the public's money. It is a throw back to the centralist control of Soviet Russia. I enjoy books by Ishiguro and Umberto Eco. Does that mean the government should have a book tax to produce quality literature? Or maybe produce a newspaper with public money, headhunting the best reporters from the private sector?

The BBC is one if the most well-respected media brands in the world.

It is the envy of other countries and supported by the majority of the British public.

One of Britain's few remaining successful industries is media production and the BBC plays a pivotal supporting role.

Getting rid of it would be an act of cultural vandalism and ideological hooliganism.

Longfingernails, you are clearly suffering from paranoid delusions if you think that the BBC reports 'public spending cuts take money out of the economy' as opposed to reporting the views of those (economists, thinktanks, former members of the Bank of England interest rate committee) who have raised concerns about this.

Do you understand the difference between reporting and campaigning?

There is an arguement to be had about the licence fee, proper competition in the broadcast market, whether massive expenditure on the BBC website is a proper use of licence payer money, BBC World, etc etc, but I think you'd need to lie down first.

Larrygrylls - you shouldn't be blase about private sector waste 'at least' being paid for by shareholders. If you have a pension, that's you. Shareholders not holding the banking and fund management industries to account is one of the reasons we are in the state we are in.

Would cutting their star presenters' salaries by 25% really affect their nature documentaries? I think the BBC did a study called "Putting Quality First" and they will be cutting many of their websites etc. Seems like they have identified scope for cuts.

MrsDennis,

If enough people want highbrow programming, they can surely afford to fund it? It is no good producing programmes which only the literati are interested in and expecting every single struggling person to contribute to their enjoyment.

If Horizon, the best of the nature documentaries etc were moved onto a paid for channel, I would pay for it.

Why do we need the BBC any more, with its compulsory licence fee? IT should be phased out completely over the next 10 years and can close parts and be allowed advertisements, like all the other channels.

At the moment, the BBC is a tax on the poor to fund lifestyles more reminiscent of the worst excesses of the private sector (which at least are paid for by shareholders).

Maybe, we need a tiny "BBC Lite" to do genuine public service broadcasting.

I dont understand this post. Glory in starving the organisation that produces the world service, stunning documentaries like the history of the world in 100 objects or the nature documentaries of funding. What programmes do you all watch/listen to? Is Sky enough to satisfy you????/

I don't know what they did minutes after the election result. I don't read it "enthusiastically", so I don't know. But it wouldn't surprise me if they did a complete volte-face. They have some very clever people on the Guardian.

The bitching aside, LFN makes a good point about the level of the pay of some at the BBC.

They are a public sector organisation as we pay for them, and should therefore at least restrain pay. OK, their salaries may not be as much as in private sector broadcasting, but they have the kudos of working for the Beeb.

It's also the packages behind the salary - rents abroad and school fees for the foreign correspondents, and making good the damage caused when they move out.

The point about the cuts taking money out of the economy, well yes, but also if we didn't cut, then the interest bill on the monies UK PLC borrows would balloon and cost more, so the money would still be taken out of the economy to repay the interest on the debt anyway.

Yes the Guardian supported Nick Clegg "enthusiastically".

Guardian supported Lib Dems in the election didn't they?

I think it's absolutely laughable to talk about the BBC as being the broadcasting arm of the Guardian.

I think you sound terribly spiteful.

Are you Mark Thompson posting as a demented bitter Tory?

Cuts of that size would mean job losses and service cuts, not a few wealthy presenters losing a few quid.

You are the ugly face of cuts enthusiasm - you want cuts for the sake of it, you relish damaging important, successful British organisations, and you don't care about the effect on other people or the wider economy.

I bet Tory boy Nick Robinson gets a tasty salary too. no mention of him in your luvvie list?

oops wrong thread and pushed post too soon. I'll get me coat!

yep these smug threads about

You are nasty and spiteful.

Being delighted that ordinary working people (the vast, vast amount of BBC employees) might lose so much of their salary that they will be in severe financial difficulty is truly vile.

Your obvious stupidity should make me pity you a little but it doesn't for some reason.