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

"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."
That only goes so far. Some programmes are objectively better than others. Otherwise what is the argument for the BBC?

God no!! Living overseas in several different countries, ive seen how v dire and commercial most national broadcasters ate. The beeb is esteemed for a reason.. I still turn to it first, even at 7,000 miles!

Why doesn't the BBC invest a ton of money into making programmes as good as America's best? Why are so many US series full of British actors?

Cozy, whilst I agree with most of your points, you can't compare Dr Who with dramas like boardwalk empire or game of thrones - Dr Who is a kids programme, you're not supposed to like it!

Now if you'd compared it with the tosh that is Eastenders....

Upthread I mentioned Downton Abbey which has 'shown up' the Beeb because it's had money thrown at it; Universal is its main investor. The beeb does do that sometimes as well but doesn't seem to make it a rule.

DH works for HBO so I try to be objective. They spend 15 million on ONE episode of e.g. Boardwalk and they aren't a Broadcasting Authority so of course have a different remit.

I feel sorry for the BBC because it's damned if it does spend and damned if it doesn't. I DO think it should exist, maybe in a slightly different form though.

I LOVE the BBC (compared to the ABC in Oz it's amazing, as others have pointed out national broadcasters are usually crap). I'd happily pay twice the current licence fee just for David Attenborough's documentaries + Radio 5. I don't think that because I pay for it I should dictate all of its programming decisions, you have to take the bad with the good and I imagine commissioning successful telly is quite hard.

I wonder if the YANBU replies would be the same if the OP had posted after the Olympics?

I pay a fortune for Sky as we have to have the Sports channels. I hate it, but its DH's job. The BBC is great value for money.

If the BBC didn't make the programmes they do, Sky would have very little to fill their channels with.

The BBC make amazing television, how quickly the Olympics have been forgotten.

Good point, forffoxsake.
Watching the Olympics on iPlayer was far better than trying to watch the Paralympics on the Ch4 equivalent.

Watching BBCs "Little Dorrit" (2008) on DVD. Absolutely superb.

I think Sir David Attenborough is slightly overrated, but his programmes for BBC include some of the best ever.

BBC's standards have dropped in recent years - but in my opinion (and all of us, including Cozy9, are only in the end giving personal opinions. There is an objective basis for quality and excellence, but only those with perfect impeccable taste could consistently judge on this. I would be very surprised if any poster on these forums measure up on this.) the general standard is till much higher than that of the commercial channels.

Cozy9 "Who does the Guardian tell people to blame their ills on? Bankers, Tories, the US, etc."

I have no more time for blind left-wing bias than for the right-wing equivalent.

However, compare the proportion of the media - both press and internet - dominated by the right-wing channels such as the Murdoch empire and the Daily Mail - with that in the hands of left-wing, or even centrist, organizations, and there is no equivalence. And incidentally the fact reported by flatpackhamster that only 20% of people buy a newspaper doesn't mean, as he/she seems to assert, that only that amount get their news that way! I very rarely buy a paper, but I frequently read them in various cafes, the Library, friends' and family's houses and so on. It certainly doesn't mean that 80% get their news only from TV - and even if it did, that they got all their TV from the BBC!

There is another factor. The groups left-wing bias tend to demonise are the rich and powerful. And blaming the "Tories" is purely a matter of political debate, and is no better or worse than attacking the politics of Labour, LibDems, UKIP, Green etc.

On the other hand, the groups right-wingers tend to demonise are the weak, the powerless, and groups against whom there is already a lot of antagonism and hatred e.g. "immigrants", (which for most people will call to mind "non-whites").

Cozy9, I actually agree with you on your comments about the various BBC TV and radio channels - but then I'm a bit of a cultural elitist, and would rather the BBC not be involved with the pulp pop and celebrity scene. However I suspect that they need their involvement in this for viewing/listening figures.

Yes FrankH On the whole I agree about about Little Dorrit BUT (and I know that other producers are also guilty of this) why choose an actress for the main role who wasn't little and wasn't the best they could have found? They've done it in The Hour as well poor Romola Garai is out of her comfort zone very beautiful but not able to act well enough IMHO!!!

Actually The Hour gets me down I WANTED to like it but can't at all.

I don't watch a lot on BBC (except for Strictly and the odd comedy panel show) but just could not get by without BBC news (R4, website, BBC1 Breakfast). There may have been trust issues lately, but with all that, I still trust them 10 times as much as the majority of the papers and most of the commercial channels (excepting C4).

I think we need it as a country, so YABU OP.

"However, compare the proportion of the media - both press and internet - dominated by the right-wing channels such as the Murdoch empire and the Daily Mail - with that in the hands of left-wing, or even centrist, organizations, and there is no equivalence. "
Do you not think that is down to individual choice? There are left wing newspapers. People just don't choose to buy them.

ppeatfruit Actually I thought most of the cast of Little Dorrit were superb, including Claire Foy in the leading role. There is one scene in which her emotions are purely shown in her face as her screen father is in effect blaming her for not accepting John Chivery's marriage proposal. One of the best cameos of acting that I've seen.

The best actor of all IMHO was perhaps Tom Courtenay, who perfectly portrayed the deeply unpleasant but complex character of William Dorrit.

I haven't watched The Hour, so can't comment on that.

FrankH

I have no more time for blind left-wing bias than for the right-wing equivalent.

I disagree. You have lots of time for blind left-wing bias as your posts have shown again and again. In your view, left-wing bias is fine because it's your kind of bias. So let's stop pretending that you're some kind of impartial arbiter here.

However, compare the proportion of the media - both press and internet - dominated by the right-wing channels such as the Murdoch empire and the Daily Mail - with that in the hands of left-wing, or even centrist, organizations, and there is no equivalence.

Yes, let's compare that. According to this BBC News story, the BBC online has more than twice the reach of its nearest competitor, which is the Daily Mail.

So there is a left-wing (you would pretend it is centrist) organisation online, and it is - once again - the Guardian-led BBC News website. And it is dominant in the marketplace.

And incidentally the fact reported by flatpackhamster that only 20% of people buy a newspaper doesn't mean, as he/she seems to assert, that only that amount get their news that way!

I very rarely buy a paper, but I frequently read them in various cafes, the Library, friends' and family's houses and so on. It certainly doesn't mean that 80% get their news only from TV - and even if it did, that they got all their TV from the BBC!

media.ofcom.org.uk/2010/06/30/halt-in-decline-of-flagship-tv-news-programmes/ As you can see here, the BBC retains a commanding position when it comes to viewing figures.

There is another factor. The groups left-wing bias tend to demonise are the rich and powerful. And blaming the "Tories" is purely a matter of political debate, and is no better or worse than attacking the politics of Labour, LibDems, UKIP, Green etc.

On the other hand, the groups right-wingers tend to demonise are the weak, the powerless, and groups against whom there is already a lot of antagonism and hatred e.g. "immigrants", (which for most people will call to mind "non-whites").

What smug, elitist left-wing tripe. The Guardian has a go at anyone that doesn't fit its metropolitan upper-middle-class view, including dreadful working class people with their inappropriate views on immigration and gay marriage and wicked middle-class people who object to seeing their taxes rise to pay for ecomentalist projects. Your view of the left-wing press as some sort of defender of the oppressed is diametrically at odds with the reality.

Cozy9, I actually agree with you on your comments about the various BBC TV and radio channels - but then I'm a bit of a cultural elitist, and would rather the BBC not be involved with the pulp pop and celebrity scene. However I suspect that they need their involvement in this for viewing/listening figures.

Those ghastly proles, eh? Polluting their airwaves with their Strictly Come X Factor, or whatever it is.

Cozy9
Of course it's down to individual choice! I would never suggest that the government, or anyone else, tell people what or what not to buy!

But the right-wing press has an automatic advantage, because most of those who own the media, and can pour money into them - press, TV, internet - to make them more attractive, will be rich and powerful people, who tend mostly to be people with generally right-wing views. There is also the question of advertising revenue, which will also be generally more attracted to right-wing media.

This is inevitable in a free society, and even with this flaw is still immeasurably better than the situation in totalitarian dictatorships where the ruling regime has the ultimate control.

However, it is still a good thing, IMHO, if there is some balance, from a centrist viewpoint, to what otherwise becomes an open field for right-wing prejudices and hatreds.

Making consistently really good entertainment, TV or films, is incredibly difficult. I think people over here have a completely unrealistic view of how good "US TV" is. They make some amazing programmes, some great comedies and we see them because our own broadcasters buy the very best and ignore all the shite (including stuff that costs a fortune to make, completely tanks and is never recommissioned - or remembered). Then you get prople thinking this is somehow representative of US output.

Studios have been bankrupted by throwing money at "surefire" winners which no one liked. The BBC no more has the magic answer for making hit TV than any other broadcaster/studio, and on top of that it has a smaller budget and can't take the same risk as it will be lambasted for wasting public money on a blue chip series given the very real risk that it might subsequently bomb.

Every time I travel I'm reminded of just how good the BBC is and I'm amazed at what they can achieve. For god's sake, the Natural History Unit is recognised by many in the business as the best producer of wildlife programmes on the planet - that's our BBC that is!

"Guardian-led BBC website?" Speaking as a non -guardian reading, non-leftwing Times reading BBC consumer of web/news/radio/tv and
I enjoy the Times and its columnists in the main but this is despite the Murdoch connection. Have hated their recent hounding of the Beeb over the Saville saga.

flatpackhamster
It might surprise you to know that I have had quite angry to-dos with both the Guardian and the Independent about biased and inaccurate reporting.

You might be quite surprised to hear my views on immigration (end mass immigration - and deport all those who don't want to fit in with British standards), gay marriage (in favour of civil relationships, but don't think same-sex relationships are the same as heterosexual ones), the family (wish the Tories would support whole-heartedly the Traditional family) and so on. At Church meetings I have, amongst other things, opposed people who claim that it was incumbent on all Christians to oppose the Tories (I've actually voted Tory in some elections). I have in my time been accused of being to the right of Margaret Thatcher.

What I dislike however about so many on the right is their appeal to the worst side of human nature, in particular the dislike of people who look somewhat different.

The fact that my skin colour isn't quite white might make me more sensitive about the sort of hatred I see simmering among many on the "right" - and I'm not entirely sure I don't see it in your intemperate replies to myself.

Oh, and by the way, I don't regard the Guardian as a "defender of the oppressed"! I read the Guardian much less than I read the DM or the Sun - in fact I've read the Guardian about twice this last year. It doesn't appear in the prole cafes where I tend to eat.

It can seem rather smug and hypocritical at times

The Guardian NOT the BBC that is.

salbertina
""Guardian-led BBC website?" Speaking as a non -guardian reading, non-leftwing Times reading BBC consumer of web/news/radio/tv and
I enjoy the Times and its columnists in the main but this is despite the Murdoch connection. Have hated their recent hounding of the Beeb over the Saville saga."
It is commonplace on the Daily Mail and Sun to claim that the BBC is a colony of the Guardian.

Actually I have a soft spot for Rupert Murdoch. I even feel rather sorry for him. I think it's disgraceful that all those politicians - of all parties - cosied up to him when he was almost the most powerful figure in British politics, but now shun him as a pariah, now that he's "fallen from grace".

I'm not a great fan of Boris Johnson, but commend him for not being ashamed of inviting Rupert Murdoch to speak at events. It's in these situations that people find out their real friends and allies.

Flatbread, you are completely missing the point. The commercial broadcaster (Sky) wanted to present poor quality news at the cheapest cost, but charge (overall) the highest price for it.

The reason they had to raise quality was because the BBC have give the UK an extremely high standard to compare commercial broadcasting to.

That the higher standard news came from a licenced BBC model completely negates your rather idiotic view that innovation only comes from a market and profit-oriented model.