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

Flatbread - if you are comparing Ch4's output with the BBC you are on a loser. Ch4 are required t oproduce dross in order to attract the advert revenue. The ONE big thing Ch4 has is Jon Snow. Beyond that it doesn;t hold a candle.

I love everything about the BBC, even the things I hate. Without it we would be A N Other Northern European country with rubbish weather and a dodgy reputation for food. With it we have a level of public engagement and debate and a national commitment to producing something good without an eye to the bottom line.

And I want programming like Blue Peter. No silly under-dressed bints trying to be pop porn stars and children allowed to be children. And if you want news you can even slightly rely on you can only look to the BBC - there are repeated concerns about bias but I'd rather have BBC news values than Sky and the Kay Birley style of reporting all day long. And it is almost embarrassingly honest at times - could you see anyone on Sky news carrying out such a forceful and damaging interview with Rupert Murdoch that Murdoch had to resign? No. That's what John Humphreys did with George Entwistle.

Essentially, yes, drjohnson - we are looking at BBC v Murdochesque stuff. The BBC isn't flawless, and yes of course the governance is up for debate, but SEA's notion of 'getting rid' is absurd.

And I have nooo idea why HQ would wish to have this tagged as a 'thread of the day'. Well, actually I do. It's to ensure the nay-sayers are challenged.

Probably.

Wrath, atleast Channel4 has a valid reason to produce some dross, along with good news and other programmes. What is BBC's excuse for the dross that is BBC3? If they need to pander to the lowest taste, then how are they different from any other broadcaster?

I think BBC needs to be seriously pared down and the funding model changed.

"A valid reason to produce some dross..?" There is no valid reason, outside of dross = advert space for cars and beer. BBC3 isn't of the same order.

But either you believe in public broadcast values or you don't. Most global opinion of value in broadcasting support the BBC. Thank god.

Er, Channel4 is a public broadcaster. But it finds it own funding. PBS in the US is a public broadcaster, IMO, the news coverage is superior to BBC. And it mostly finds its own funding.

I believe in public broadcasting. But I don't think the BBC in its bloated form with captive taxpayer support is value for money.

If BBC is so good, then why not move to a subscription model and all those that love it can pay for it.

FrankH
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.

Interestingly only 20% of the UK population ever buy a newspaper. The remaining 80% obtain their news from the television. The biggest viewing audience is reached by the BBC, not by the commercial media.

So even if we were to accept the premise that we need taxpayer subsidy to 'counter' the views of the majority of the population (an elitist, 'proles must know their place' attitude if ever there was one, we would have to assume from the viewing figures that we actually needed to subsidise the right-wing commercial media to give it a chance of challenging the reach of the left-wing one.

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.

This happens in all media. Look at the class war hatred fostered by the likes of the Guardian.

" Look at the class war hatred fostered by the likes of the Guardian. " end of any sense of rational argument.

Flatbread, I think it's interesting that you watch or read such a wide variety of news sources and feel the BBC is no better.

That's interesting because having worked in the newsrooms of multiple media, I can tell you there is a massive difference in what you are told, and with what agenda.

Also the BBC pays its journalists to research and write news. Which is why it is so important that it gets it right, and it is hauled over the coals when it doesn't.

Services like the Huffington Post are blog sites - not news sites - that don't pay writers for their content. That is why you might get a great opinion piece from a celebrity campaigner, but you won't get an investigation into care home abuse that really matters to society.

So I do think there is a difference in the standard of journalism. Some commercial media outlets are very good - the FT, for example - but lots are run on a shoestring, without properly paying staff or putting intense pressure on staff to get stories at any cost at all. The BBC is not like that and actually that's a good thing for everyone.

Another broadcaster that I won't mention pays people to tweet their views of the news as if they just "happen" to be watching and love the content. That to me is marketing but since it isn't clear from the tweets, you or I may think it is someone's real beliefs, not paid for.

Obviously you are entitled to your own view. And I often think commercial news outlets do a great job. They can't be put into one pot. But given the vast output of the BBC, it tries to hold up high editorial standards (it doesn't always succeed and gets things wrong like every organisation employing humans but it tries).

"Folk around the world" don't matter, they don't have to pay the licence fee. We do. The BBC should serve the people of Britain, not "people around the world".

The BBC shows too much crap, and too many of their staff are overpaid and there is a culture of entitlement. They should scale and produce quality, not quantity if they want to survive. BBC 3 should be axed, the content of BBC4 moved to BBC2, and the best of BBC1s and 2 put on a new BBC1. Radio 1 should be axed as it is utter dross, as is much of Radio 2, Radio 3 can stay, as can Radio 4 but axe the lefty "comedy". Radio 5 can stay.

I have not watched the bbc since the cover up over JS, i wish i could opt out of recieving the BBC.

flatpackhamster
Firstly, I don't accept your view that the BBC is a rabidly left-wing biased organisation. As noted, many "left wingers" regard it as more right-wing biased. I don't agree with them either - so we must agree to disagree.

And I am fully aware that all sides of the media are biased. But I don't regard either the Guardian or, say, the "Morning Star", as in any way as dangerous as the Daily Mail or the Sun - to name but two - because they are clearly not in any way as powerful or influential.

And my disquiet at the influence of the DM and the Sun - not just through their massive circulations but through their internet activity (the Daily Mail website is especially influential) - isn't because of an "elitist" disregard for the "proles", but because of their continuous appeal to the worst side of human nature, working on the tendency in all of us - not just "proles" - to blame all our ills on others, outsiders, those not like us etc.etc.etc.

Who does the Guardian tell people to blame their ills on? Bankers, Tories, the US, etc.

So if the BBC became subscription only, the sheer number of outlets wouldn't be manageable. You only pay the licence fee if you have a TV, however we still get 100s of radio stations and the entire BBC website including iPlayer for free. And as other people have pointed out, there's a danger that without the competition, general quality of news reporting and programme making across the board would go down. The BBC is accountable to us, not commercial companies which can only be a good thing.

How is the BBC "accountable to us"?

The BBC keeps overall quality up, if it goes then we'll be flooded with crappy US shows and TV production here will die

I think that's a myth. The BBC makes very few great programmes nowadays. They certainly aren't the best in the world anymore. Why don't they invest in some top quality dramas to rival those from the US? Instead of crap like Doctor Who and Eastenders?

Point these stories out to me Cozy.

And if you don't think that the banking sector should take some responsibility for its actions, then you truly are living in cloud cukoo land.

The DM website is terrible. It constantly digs out awful stories which appeal to the lowest common denominator. It's trash.

YABVU. The BBC has great programmes. We don't know what we have until we have lived abroad and seen the quality of broadcasting provided in other countries. This is mainly driven by the advertising and the license fee is very small compared to the quality of programming that comes out of the BBC.
When broadcasting is funded by advertisers, you lose the creativity that goes into great programming.

Long live the BBC.

Cozy, whether you like the BBC's programming is entirely subjective. You and I may think Doctor Who is crap (and I do) but it was the most downloaded show on US iTunes in 2011.

So actually people in the US thought that was pretty good content, which they paid to download more than their own content. So your opinion that American shows are better is subjective really, because we all have our own preferences.

I don't think it is subjective. If you think Doctor Who is better TV than Boardwalk Empire, Mad Men, Game of Thrones etc than you're an idiot, end of. Americans probably download Dr Who because they don't want to subscribe to BBC USA.

You see Cozy9's insulting comment and employment of "end of" personifies the sort of vulgarity she represents and wishes to promote.

Vulgarity? How did you come to that conclusion?

Well, we like some of the same programmes Cozy but I don't think that's the point. People aren't idiots for having different taste. That is why the BBC has a tough brief to fill.

But anyway I think the TV programming is only one part of what the BBC does. It also part funds things like Freeview, it offers the iPlayer, it offers plenty of niche radio stations that wouldn't survive on commercial radio because the audiences aren't valuable enough to advertisers.

I pay the BBC my licence fee in the understanding that it does some things I will like and use and others I won't. Because I think what it does overall is really valuable.