the BBC isn't it time we just got shot of it?

[southeastastra]

it's very middle class blue peter biased in my view

not to mention the cover ups of late

i know that the majority wouldn't agree but a subscription service for radio 4 etc would ensure that's continuity

And I don't think there's anything wrong with 'middle class' Blue Peter programming anyway.

I want to see the results of a study that compares the fast editing of progs for youg kids with the rise in poor attention and listening skills at Primary School.

Plenty of fast edited programmes on CBBC. I do like Horrible Histories, Tracey Beaker, Junior Masterchef and Marrying Mum and Dad though.

I was never into Blue Peter much but I liked plenty of other programmes.

I think it's about time we got shot of Sky and all tabloid newspapers. Dragging this country into the gutter for 20+ years. Made a wreck of football too. Dumbing down, misinforming, scaring and oppressing the masses into apathy.

LtEveDallas Completely agree that there is dross on the BBC - quite a lot of it, in fact. Lots of people seem to like dross, and sadly I don't think the BBC could exist without it. I agree that your suggestion of allowing the non-BBC watching minority to opt out of the licence fee is worthy of debate.

Unlike some other posters on this thread, I'm very much against dismantling the BBC in its entirety. This is because the aforementioned dross is punctuated with intelligent, thoughtful programming with high production values, the likes of which I am only too pleased to stump up the licence fee to view. I personally choose not to watch things like Eastenders and Holby City, or much of the 'yoof' stuff on BBC3, but I don't begrudge other people the right to watch these programmes because I know that my £150 also gets me gems like the wonderful 'Getting On' on BBC4, decent dramas, nature documentaries and wonderful coverage of big events like the Olympics. I have yet to see much evidence that this quality and variety is (or would be) matched by commercial channels, or could be equalled by a drastically slimmed-down BBC.

I've lived in Spain and Germany, and I'd hate to see our TV going the same way as theirs.

YABVVVVVU.

I love the bbc - long may it continue.

YABU The BBC is not perfect, but I think it is brilliant especially the news.

I haven't read this all thoroughly, but I do hear people say it's biased, but I think such a lot of media is reactionary and right leaning.

So in contrast the BBC can seem a bit the other way.

I agree some of the scandals of late haven't helped the BBC's reputation, but the BBC is one of the only channels I watch! Love their documentaries and no commercials!

YABVU and short sighted. If you only want to watch hours of banal reality type crap and talent shows, then maybe. Otherwise NO!

I don't think anyone's mentioned that the BBC developed the IPlayer technology and shared this with other broadcasters so that is why we have 4OD, etc.

Also in 2009/10 the BBC made a contribution of at least £8.1 billion to the UK economy, so that's £2 economic value for every £1 in licence fee. (Source BBC Annual Report) and before anyone says "well they would say that", can I remind the naysayers that all BBC reports are independently audited. The BBC (unlike other media) are not allowed to make stuff up.

Recent e.g. of the BBC bias in news reporting - the miner's strikes in South Africa and when the police fired on them.

The New York Times, Reuters, and the South African news services were reporting that there were the strikes, the miners had been fired on by the police BUT, that before opening fire a policeman had been killed and 3,000 strikers had been charging at the police armed with various weapons (including machetes). So, it wasn't unknown about the policeman's death and that the strikers were armed, heavily armed. No mention, whatsoever, in the BBC reports of this. Nothing. They were just saying that the police had fired and then started on a whole big opinion piece on how terrible th government is they're just thugs etc. etc. And don't get me started on their mispronounciation of Morgan Tsvangirai's surname. That's just sloppy, ignorant and patronising.

Because so many people treat the BBC as a "golden source" of news, though don't realise how biased it is.

And, for the miners' strike, when people commented on the article going "where's the stuff about the machetes?" etc., they deleted the comments.

I watch BBC1, BBC News Channel, BBC2, Channel 4 and X Factor. LoveFilm for the fab US shows like Walking Dead and The Wire.

Bloody love the BBC.

Personally I think YABU, OP. I'm sorry, I haven't read the whole thread so I am just replying direct to you.

I have worked for the BBC (I don't now) and a good number of the commercial broadcasters/media during my career (I still work for some of them). Being the public service broadcaster is extremely important in my view, regardless of opinions on what shows or services people like or use. Because that is very subjective.

The BBC makes mistakes (Savile etc) like any big organisation. It still employs humans, after all. But in general, it is very open. When it turned out the BBC had fucked up its news reporting, the top guy took the fall. He HAD to. That is the BBC culture. I even know what the new DG earns because it was disclosed on his appointment.

This month, James Murdoch was re-elected to the BSkyB board despite the phone hacking scandal and the frankly enormous contradictions in his accounts of what he knew. He doesn't have to take the fall. It's a commercial broadcaster with a commercial culture.

Is the BBC about "middle class Blue Peter"? I don't think so. It is usually the first to try to create new services, appealing to audiences that are ignored by commercial businesses because they are too niche to be profitable. I'm thinking of things like the Asian Network, 6 Music.....some work, some don't. But without the BBC, there would be no attempts to do this as the profits wouldn't make it viable.

I don't like paying the licence fee particularly with so many other costs in my life but it is very important to me that we have a public sector broadcaster without a commercial agenda. When something goes wrong (like Savile/Newsnight), the BBC is forced to report on itself and open that up to the world. Commercial organisations have no such imperative to damage their own brands.

Anyway, these are my views as someone who has worked for the BBC and the commercial alternatives. I've experienced those cultures and I know what happens inside the BBC and those other employers. So that's my view.

Plants, well then that relies on what your view of an amazing programme is. I don't watch much TV, when I do I like to lose myself in the fantasy of a good murder mystery, fantasy or sci-fi programme. The shows I like are not produced by the BBC, but by the channels you are dismissing as showing only 'tosh'

Yes, Sky et al show some rubbish, but it's not all they show.

Each to their own, with no judgement on what they prefer.

Love iplayer. Think BBC did well there.

Can you elucidate how BBC made a £8B 'contribution' to the economy?

And whatever this 'contribution' is, will it continue with a subscription service or is it dependent on fleecing the taxpayer?

"Bun, which of these programmes are of compelling Public Interest that they need to be funded by taxpayers?"

How do you define what is of Compelling Public Interest? And why does it have to be so to justify the fee? I would rather pay the fee than have to reduce the options available because they have to cater for the lowest common denominator all the time. We have far too much reality TV and soaps already. Plus, I don't want to put up with all the dfverts.

I forgot to add CBeebies and CBBC to my list of reasons for keeping the BBC.

Are you talking about the staged photos where the police planted machetes next to the bodies of dead miners?

Flatbread the annual report doesn't go into details but you can read it yourself online.

Surely I am paying for tv I don't want to watch through the increased cost of the stuff I buy that has been advertised?
You could argue that I simple avoid all stuff that has not been the subject of broadcaster advertising...but would be virtually impossible to do and also cuts across my right to buy a product on its own merit rather than what it will be used to purchase.

Licence fee just does it up front and that is more honest.

Great post btw Ruby!

Simply

It's very hard to be impartial. Every news report is produced from the reporter's point of view, however impartial they try to be. A camera can lie, it does have a point of view, that of the person pointing it. I don't watch 24 hour rolling news as it's just speculation mostly and leads to poor standards. The BBC do end up with a bias one way or another - I think generally they don't question the government in power at the time enough, with the odd exception where they have got into serious trouble for it. Radio 4 news programmes are very good though, as is the ten o clock news and largely, in spite of the criticism, Newsnight.

They are far less biased than Sky, Fox or any newspapers though.

For those who are complaining about not having a choice about paying for the BBC, we all pay for the commercial channels too, through the increased cost of any product we buy that is advertised on those channels.

Every time you buy something advertised on Sky, you are paying for Sky. Because the advertising cost is part of the cost of the product.

At least with the Beeb, we pay once and then don't have to sit through the interminable adverts.

I feel I should correct some of the posts here.
Fox News isn't a real news channel.
It's a satirical comedy channel. It's not meant to be taken seriously and it's not as funny as The Daily Show. Although Bill O'Reilly is hilarious.

Exactly Clara!!

At least with SkyPlus I can record all the programmes I want to watch and then fast forward through the adverts. Saves me some time too.