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

flatpack
if not the taxpayer then WHO funds the part of the media that shines a light on the right wing press and TV?

out of interest, can anybody name a media source that is more reliable than the BBC for covering every single story, even if the slant is not exactly to your liking?

(Answering my own question - a subscription model would appear to be one option, but as a previous poster has said, 90 something percent of the country consumes some kind of BBC output now - probably more if iplayer is included - so the practical difference between subscription and license fee seems to me to be negligible. This also disregards the extra expense of perfroming the switch and implementing the technology to 'turn off' BBC radio, tv and internet to non subscribers, in cars etc etc.

It is smug and has a left-wing bias (always has for as long as i can remember) but I wouldn't want to get rid of it. I'd miss Radio 4 and local radio especially.

flatpackhamster

As I said, left-wing bias is not inherently superior to right-wing.

I would prefer any public body to be as unbiased as possible. But if there is any bias, I would prefer it to at least be some sort of counter to the predominant right-wing bias in the commercial media.

The popularity of any media depends mainly on lots of money to fuel programmes which appeal to large numbers of the public. The money for such is going to come largely from the rich and powerful. Many of these are going to want the media outlets to propagandise for their particular political viewpoints - Rupert Murdoch, for instance.

I am actually an admirer of RM, and agree with him on some issues (I am an Eurosceptic). But I deplore the way large parts of his media, and even more such as the Daily Mail, continually present only one side of various issues, and demonise various groups by appealing to the worst side of human nature.

History sadly teaches us that it is much easier to stir up hatred and distrust between peoples, than respect and tolerance. When eventually humankind evolves into a more civilised condition, I suspect that the rantings in much of our present-day commercial media will be regarded with sorrow if not embarrassment.

Talkin I don't bother with the BBC because their bias is so bad. Generally speaking I find the FT presents the facts and then gives their opinion based on those facts. Their opinion is biased but at least they give you the facts. The BBC doesn't bother separating fact from opinion.

Another good news source that is somewhat unbiased is The Economist. Their news summary gives you the facts and then they go into their opinion. They don't always give both sides but they often do. For a publication that is traditionally right wing they are liberal in a lot ways you don't expect. Their science and technology section is also quite good.

want2b
I subscribe to the Economist.
Their coverage of UK education is crap. Have fed that back (through DH who really knows) to the relevant journalists.
Did you read the roasting their letters page gave them for supporting Obama.
they are very clearly biased.

I also subscribe to
New Scientist - for 20 years
Private Eye - 20 years
Accountancy magazines - 20 years
BBC Wildlife - 15 years
The Garden - 20 years
Fortean Times - 20 years

and with all that reading I still say that for live news and current affairs, the BBC is the most reliable source - bar none.
(FYI my electoral registration is NYC, despite my living in the UK - I know of what I speak)

Want2bSupermum Are either the FT or The Economist particularly "right wing"? Business-oriented of course, but that's not necessarily the same thing.

I think your view of the BBC bias is rather exagerrated. I have come across left-wing views which claim that the BBC is actually biased in a right-wing way.

I don't agree with that assessment either - but it largely depends on one's own viewpoint.

My DH always says that a fair deal in business is one where both parties come out of the negotiation feeling slightly upset.
My guess is that the BBC manage to piss off the Right and the Left. Ergo, they generally give fair coverage but nobody is always happy.

I read FT, New York Times, Washington Post, Huffington Post, Independent, Telegraph and Guardian. I also read blogs ons specific subjects, e.g. Financial markets

With regard to news, I watch BBC, SKY news, Channel 4 news, Al Jazeera, Russian RT and some Eurpean news channels as well.

While in the US, PBS was my main go-to for news documentaries, but I still watched a bunch of stuff, including the Daily Show and Bill Maher.

Frankly none of these, including PBS, are funded so heavily by the tax payer (PBS gets 15% funding through taxes, rest of the funds are raised, rest are private)

BBC is not better than any other news sources, and in some cases it is worse, e.g., coverage of US elections. For some things that matter to me, such as Savita H death and Irish abortion laws, were not even covered, to start with. (Presumably the old white men at the helm didn't deem it important enough...?)

I see no reason why BBC should be in the uniquely privileged position of being fully funded by the taxpayer. They are no better than the rest. And there are plenty of left, centre and the spectrum in-between new sources available easily.

Times have changed. BBC content has deteriorated. More choices are available across media. There is no need to cling to the past.

Grovel, thank you for that! You have managed to say very succinctly what I was trying to say on another thread - that all parents always complain that the other ability groups in a school are the ones getting all the attention...whatever ability group their own child is in. So on the grounds that we seem to slightly piss off absolutely everyone, who all think that someone else is getting a slightly better deal than they are, we are probably being pretty fair!

Flatbread
How well did the US media cover the UK election - including the hiatus?
Just that the UK media is obsessed with the US, and the US media thinks Europe is one country

Talkin, I was comparing Sky news coverage of the US elections, which was far superior to BBC (I mentioned that upthread)

But in any case, the point is that BBC is hardly this great provider of coverage of international or indeed, European events. They don't do that great a job within UK either.

BBC was once a pioneer, but those days are long past. Now they are middle of the road average.

YABVU

Some proponents of TV licence abolition (though maybe not on this thread) seem to take the view that the UK is anomalous in having one, whereas in fact this is not the case. This wikipedia article lists 35 countries that have some form of TV licence. Ours is not even the most expensive: the Scandinavians, Austrians, Germans and Swiss pay (considerably) more.

In Germany (as I know from an unpleasant early-morning encounter with the enforcement agents), it is necessary to have a licence to listen to the radio. None of the stations, TV or radio, are advert-free (or at least, they weren't in the late 90s when I was living there). Advertising on the main "state" TV stations is banned from 8pm, which just meant a solid block of adverts from about 7.45 to 8pm (complete with a handy countdown clock in the corner of the screen so you could mourn their passing).

Sky's subscription is £21.50 a month, which is some 72% more than the license fee. The CEO of BSkyB, Jeremy Darroch, pulls in £935k a year, 107% more than the DG of the BBC. That's before you throw in all the bonuses, share options etc that apparently takes the total up to around £7m.

So the BBC doesn't seem terribly bad value for money compared to the competition.

The question of whether a subscription is a better / fairer model is difficult to argue. Implicit in this question is the assumption that its output would stay the same. This being the case, maybe a subscription wouldn't be so bad. There is a risk that it would degrade in quality, and frankly for just over a tenner a month I'm happy not to run this risk. It's also logically possible that the quality of its output could increase in a post-licence-fee era; but I can't quite see how marketisation would achieve this.

I am somewhat ignorant of what's exclusively available on the Sky channels. What's the cream of the crop?

Well, if marketisation does not lead to innovation and higher quality products, then why bother with free markets at all?

Any monopoly, including BBC, which has a captive market, is ripe for abuse. Cronyism, secrecy, inflated salaries coupled with poor products are the outputs of monopolies.

and the Murdoch press never did that
hence the lack of need for the Levenson enquiry

What on EARTH makes you think that the free market leads to balance - less than zero evidence

The BBC isnt a monopoly. It's not the only tv channel out there, what a ridiculous thing to say.

Flatbread
In what sense does the BBC have a monopoly? Since no one has to watch it, and there are numerous other news sources?

Because free markets can lead to innovation and higher quality doesn't mean that these are always the inevitable consequence. And not even the USA has just a free market and nothing else - there are publicly funded schools for example.

The BBC is far from perfect, and could well do with reform. But leaving the media purely to the free market also could have dire consequences, in that the mass media is open to takeover by a few rich and powerful individuals or groups.

It seems to me that the extreme versions - pure "free market" or pure state control - are both potentially dangerous. Our rather messy mixed economy is much less so.

I think what is most telling is that both Murdochs James and Rupert talk misty-eyed about the way in italy dominance of the media was able to change politics.

Fox and Sky are only interested in influence and money and they change their reporting and output to further those two goals. Headlines when Iraq was on the agenda were 100% supportive of war, and there was no analysis. That was irresponsible - watching their headline TV interviews were like watching infomercials for a new product that got rid of 99% of all known dictators - a cillit bang style big-up of right wing government policy.

the BBC is accountable - and under much scrutiny, and always will be because a political error that shocks the public will cause both moral pressure and legislative pressure on the BBC. With Sky there is not this exposure, accountability or governmental pressure. In fact, they pressure governments.

The reason sky want to diminish the BBC's hold is because they are a competitor both to their market domination, but also to their political ambitions. If you want media companies to become more powerful and dangerous than countries then on you go. Me I like my media high quality, accountable to the public and embarrassed if it does wrong.

Oh and for the record, Sky's news coverage in the UK is far better than it intended. Its original strategy was the 'disc bitch' and channelling CNN. Market research it conducted showed time after time that if it was uncritical thin and valueless, then UK viewers wouldn't watch it. They spend more per news report in the UK than any other country they operate in purely because if they don't keep the quality higher than they would otherwise like, viewers would choose the BBC.

I have no doubt, that if the BBC disappeared, their strategy would be to move news here back to the usual cheapo no analysis Sky/Fox model.

In pretty much every industry we have seen competition leading to innovation, be it automobiles, computers, clothes, toys, music etc.

Somehow with regard to BBC, however, you seem to think, the loss of tax payer funding will lead to a decrease in quality. Why?

BTW, Channel 4, as far as I understand, is a public broadcasting station like BBC, without captive taxpayer funding. They still manage to have decent news, documentaries and dramas.

Flatbread
Holy shit you are ill informed
I do not know quite where to start
but the select committee into tax evasion is an opening point

Crumbs!

The BBC is one of the few last bastions left re civility, breadth of reporting and service, access to minority communities, quality drama, unparalleled radio service.

The enemies of the BBC are right-wing free marketeers who want to un-educate the mass of the people. Replace with European or US television/radio? Are you really serious?
All folk around the world don't value the BBC for no good reason.

David Attenborough

I rest my case

yes Talkin DA wouldn't get breathing space elsewhere.

Market research it conducted showed time after time that if it was uncritical thin and valueless, then UK viewers wouldn't watch it

Heroine, this is the crux. There are loads of news sources out there. Last time I checked, I had access to 15 or so different media companies on my box. And more via Internet.

Sky might have been forced to improve quality to respond to consumer demands. Because they rely on us for their revenue, and know we can walk away. That is the free market at play.

We need a similar discipling mechanism for BBC.