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

Replying direct to the OP.

Untiul 12 years ago, I was as capable as the next person of grumbling about the BBC and the NHS.

Then we lived in the US for a year. And a year of the reality of insurance-funded health services and commercial radio + tv channels (plus NPR, which is what I think we would get if we stopped funding the BBC properly - a kind of 'sub-BBC local radio station'-type quality of output) cured me from moaning about them, ever.

On 9/11, I was in Washington DC. My husband saw the plane fly into the Pnetagon. What did everyone tune into for balanced coverage and a proper journalistic analysis and overview (rather than an endless series of video clips from the ground with no overall persepctive, no background and precious little commentary)? BBC Worldwide.

Clarabellabunting - yes but once again, I emphasise you have the CHOICE of what you want to buy or not, which supermarket you want to buy in etc etc with the full knowledge that it pays for commercials on Sky/ITV. I do not have a choice when it comes to the BBC. I either have to pay or I get put in jail. Why should someone who wants to only watch Sky have to subsidise the BBC? If I pay a subscription to Sky, why can't the BBC offer a subscription only service for those that want to subscribe to it's channels? Why doesn't the BBC have to compete in the same arena as all the other commercial channels and prove it's worth by how many viewers it attracts (and will pay for it's programmes)? The BBC can produce dross and it doesn't have to worry as it will still get the tax money under threat of violence from Crapita. It should have to prove itself in the real world, like all other companies that don't get a lifeline from the taxpayer do.

Ophelia, have you tried buying non advertised stuff? Wouldn't you need to watch all the adverts to work out which things not to buy?

I presume you don't ever shop on Sainsbury's, Tesco, Asda, Morrisons, M&S, Debenhams, John Lewis, Co-op, Boots.....or buy eggs, milk or meat? I can recall adverts on TV for all of them.

I agree with those posters who have said the BBC could do with some reform (less over-inflated salaries for certain big "name" presenters, shake up some of the dross that's on during the day, affirm committment to quality dramas, documentaries and so on) but please don't get rid of it.

I would pay the licence fee for access to Radio 4, BBC4 and quality programmes such as Sherlock and The Thick of It alone. However as I don't actually have a TV and only watch TV shows on iPlayer after they've been broadcast, I don't technically need to have one. Which is a bit of a loophole that needs closing imo.

You don't just pay a subscription to sky...you pay for the advertising too.

I ditched my sky subscription for all but the basic when I worked out how much I was paying for how little.

Commercialism seems to have pushed prices up and quality down

The old argument about not watching anything on BBC is getting boring. I only have one child, can I ask for a reduction in my council tax because I only have one to educate? We recycle most of our household waste, so can I ask for a reduction there as well because the refuse collectors don't have as much to collect?

If the BBC could be blocked to non licence payers it would push the price up for everyone else. Fewer people would pay for a licence and we would get fewer innovative programmes being made.

If you don't want to pay for a licence ditch the TV and watch iPlayer.

"Commercial stuff tends to go to where the most people are and where the money is greatest. Why bother educating if you could just make money?
"
I am all for a VERY slimmed down BBC, merely doing what people all claim they love about it, genuine public service broadcasting consisting of educational programmes, nature programmes etc.

The BBC claim to have to compete for "talent". The reality is they grossly overpay both for on screen stars and useless management, making it far more expensive for private companies to hire decent people.

Why does the BBC need to do entertainment or sport at all? How about a £25/person license fee for the website, educational and minority programming? As to the rest, let those who want it pay for it and allow those who want to watch basic cheap TV spend an extra £100+ on food per annum, an amount which would make a significant difference to the genuinely poor.

I really just don't get the love for the BBC from those who hated Thatcher for the poll tax. It is a poll tax, just by another name.

horrible left wing bias. abolish it. take back our fees.

Bunbaker, the BBCs own figures suggest that 96% of the UK do watch BBC, so the increase would be minimal if they allowed the 4% to opt out. In fact, if they reduced just slightly the obscene wages they pay out, there would be no need for an increase at all - and there we go, everyone is happy

ANYBODY who thinks the BBC is mediocre needs to watch LOCAL TV wherever they go on holiday
France is dire (and I speak French)
Spain is dire (spaghetti westerns dubbed into Spanish from the original italian via american ...)
Malta - dire
Slovenia - dire in a comical way
Italy - dire

and DO NOT get me started on US TV.
Wall to wall shite, no real news
the best stuff is on PBS - which is taxpayer funded like the BBC

So which news programme is completely without bias? (though I'm not convinced the BBC really is left-wing - would anyone really claim that eg, Nick Robinson or Robert Peston, two of the most high profile BBC journalists are left-wing bias?)

And which other news programme comes anywhere near the quality of eg, PM or the World Tonight?

Graven

NO News coverage is without bias.
Unbiased reporting is only possible days, months, years after an event when all of the facts are in.
Think of the reporting of a car crash - who was at fault? All speculation will be biased.

There is far too much TV News - especially "rolling news" which is just tittle tattle and speculation.
And the papers all have political axes to grind - people buy the one that most agrees with their prejudices.

Exactly talkin, it was a rhetorical question. Though I think the depth of analysis on TV news is particularly poor (journalists going up an escalator to demonstrate that retail prices are going up etc).

Gravenwithdiamonds

So which news programme is completely without bias?

None of them. The difference is that we are co-erced in to paying for the BBC. The BBC also claims to be impartial when it isn't.

(though I'm not convinced the BBC really is left-wing - would anyone really claim that eg, Nick Robinson or Robert Peston, two of the most high profile BBC journalists are left-wing bias?)

If you don't think the BBC is left-wing, then you're clearly pretty far to the left yourself. It's not the journalists who have the bias, it's the editorial line. The BBC has been censured for it again and again over the last few years. Bias on multiculturalism, bias on the EU, bias on Islam, bias on government spending. There's even a ranty blog about it. I don't agree with all of what they see as bias, but they cite plenty of good examples of the BBC allowing its left-wingery to dominate its thinking.

Would you rather rabid right wing TV news - then go and watch Fox

but do not expect to understand ANYTHING about anywhere outside the mainland USA if you do.

The BBC leans to the left, as do the vast majority of intellectuals
because the more one learns, the less one is able to support knee jerk rabid right wing views

For independent news you need to go to a few sources. I read the US, British and Russian media and then put everything together to find out what is really happening. This is especially true of what is going on in the middle east. The Brits tell you about Israeli attacks. The Americans tell you about the attacks made against Israel. The Russians tell you about the crimes both countries are making against Christians and generally slams both the US and British intervention in the 'peace process'. I have found the BBC to be extremely biased on numerous occassions, especially when it comes to covering politics.

The quality of programming on the BBC has declined. BBC2 used to be brilliant. I learnt so much from watching documentaries, opera, ballet etc. None of these programs are shown anymore. Also, I hate the 'text your vote'. If they insist that a license fee is paid they shouldn't be generating any revenue from their viewers. There are other ways to garner opinion using social media that doesn't generate revenue.

I do think that the BBC needs to get back to basics. In my lifetime it has quintupled its number of TV and radio channels without any obvious coherent strategy for doing so. It seems to do stuff because it can. I favour a mixed model - a reduced licence fee covering "basic services" and some channels with advertising and/or subscription.
Now we just have to define "basic services".

Like the 6 music debacle

hopefully the new guy will do the job
he was the uber hatchet man when he took after ROH - after their incredibly misguided and self destructive TV series
he's just done all the cultural events linked to the Olympics - which worked really well over all
and he was the man who was ready to take the fall if the Diana interview had gone wrong

and he hates Birtspeak
fingers crossed

I love the BBC and most of all it stands for.

Just compare Radio 3 with Classic FM and you will see what the alternative for quality broadcasting.

People are fecking Philistines...

TalkinPeace2

Would you rather rabid right wing TV news - then go and watch Fox

but do not expect to understand ANYTHING about anywhere outside the mainland USA if you do.

The BBC leans to the left, as do the vast majority of intellectuals because the more one learns, the less one is able to support knee jerk rabid right wing views

The 'vast majority' of intellectuals don't lean to the left. There's a self-selecting left-wing academia and state-funded media, because there's an obvious link between being dependent on the state for your living, and thinking that the state is a good thing.

But what I'm talking about isn't a right-wing BBC, 'rabid' (your pejorative or otherwise. What I'm talking about is a BBC that respects a point of view that isn't irretrievably left-wing. Another fine example today is listed in the right-wing online newspaper The Commentator. The BBC finds seven 'experts' to give their views on the UK's position in the EU. Every single one of them tells us that the UK should be in the EU.

Obviously ranting trots like you think that it's a good thing to have a taxpayer-funded propaganda wing shovelling your rancid extremist left-wing views down the gullets of the ordinary citizen, but those of us of a more balanced persuasion (and a higher intellectual calibre, of course want our impartial state broadcaster to actually be that.

Talkin So intellectuals are better than everyone else?!? My uncle was left wing and an intellectual but he saw the value in neutral reporting. It was his opinion that if people were informed they would end up more educated and would lean left evenutally. From what I observed, the more one is sheltered from the real world, the more one leans to the left while those more exposed to the real world tend to lean to the right.

To clarify, when I talk about real world I define that as a world where you fear the outcome of losing your job (ie losing your home/feeding your family etc), there is a good chance that you will lose your job through no fault of your own and where the ability to benefit from an education is hindered through lack of support and possibly funding.

Most government/university employees have traditionally not been in the real world. It is only in the past couple of years that they have been exposed to certain aspects of the real world (such as budget cuts). I think the rise of the BNP has been down to more people being exposed to the real world and them rejecting the left wing bias that has been shoved down their throats. Their reaction is knee jerk but it is very very dangerous and it is why I think the BBC should focus on providing neutral coverage of current events.

FWIW - Fox news is regionally syndicated. The coverage here in the NY region is not as biased and contains more foreign news compared to other areas such as North Dakota. For a right wing channel they took a lot of jabs at Romney during his campaign.

Re bias.

As has been pointed out, it is virtually impossible to present news and politics, and indeed anything to do with human behaviour, without bias.

The problem is that, without the BBC, all the major media outlets are biased in the same direction i.e. right-wing. This is virtually inevitable in any free country, as the media will be financed, and ultimately controlled, by the rich and powerful.

Right-wing bias is not necessarily worse - or better - than left-wing bias. But when the bias is so predominantly one-way in the commercial media, it is good to have some sort of counter-balance.

And actually, as far as I can see, any left-wing bias in the BBC is less extreme than the virulent right-wing bias of such as the Daily Mail, Daily Express, and the Sun - and even less extreme than that of the Daily Telegraph, the most widely circulating broadsheet.

[I am not a supporter of any political party - I am an Anglican priest, who was actually accused by one parishioner in the 1980s of being to the right of Margaret Thatcher!]

FrankH

Re bias.

As has been pointed out, it is virtually impossible to present news and politics, and indeed anything to do with human behaviour, without bias.

The problem is that, without the BBC, all the major media outlets are biased in the same direction i.e. right-wing. This is virtually inevitable in any free country, as the media will be financed, and ultimately controlled, by the rich and powerful.

Right-wing bias is not necessarily worse - or better - than left-wing bias. But when the bias is so predominantly one-way in the commercial media, it is good to have some sort of counter-balance.

And actually, as far as I can see, any left-wing bias in the BBC is less extreme than the virulent right-wing bias of such as the Daily Mail, Daily Express, and the Sun - and even less extreme than that of the Daily Telegraph, the most widely circulating broadsheet.

OK, so let's say I'm prepared to accept that there should be balance in the media. What I don't accept is that the taxpayer should pay for it. Why should the taxpayer fund left-wing bias? Why not right-wing bias? What is it about left-wing bias that makes it inherently superior and that taxpayers should pay for it?

If it's that amazing and popular, it'll stand on its own merits without needing subsidy.

Flatpack,

I suppose the question is whether a funding model for the BBC which is NOT public subsidy can be designed in such a way that it is not intrisically biased towards the right...

The 'advertising' funding model currently in use elsewhere would seem to be intrinsically biased to the right, based as it is on large corporations.