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 have ever lived in the US, then you'd know that PBS is NOT well-funded and it and NPR are in constant threat of collapse. And in no way do either of them compare favorably to BBC TV or BBC radio.

Private is not always better than public.

I support the BBC, though I agree some of the programmes it makes I think are dross. However, there are people who love them, so I guess the BBC has to make these to appeal to people who have different tastes.

I agree that the celebrity and management payments should be reviewed. Of course the BBC wants to get the best talent and management, but there is such a big supply and so many people desperate to be presenters, that the BBC could reduce their fees. Supply and demand and all that.

Unlike other broadcasters and media companies, the BBC is restricted in what it can broadcast and how it broadcasts it. And I agree with those saying that the BBC is better than foreign broadcasters - it's definitely better than 99% of the stuff created in America.

the BBC is better than foreign broadcasters - it's definitely better than 99% of the stuff created in America.

Yup. Definitely true. Take it from this ex-pat American...

I like the BBC, and appreciate it on a regular basis.

It's something that this country can be proud of, and it should be left alone.

I love the BBC and I believe there are certain things that the BBC simply does better than anyone else. Yes, there are many programmes they produce which arguably shouldn't be funded by the public, but this is counter-balanced by some programmes that only the BBC seem capable of producing.

There are problems with BBC management that need to be resolved, but I suspect that similar issues exist throughout the entire media industry.

For me, kids TV with no adverts justifies the licence fee and could you imagine Wimbledon with ad breaks every 10 minutes. Just remember how much people moaned about the ad breaks during C4's Paralympic coverage.

A lot of the stuff on the BBC is utter dross, ever watching "Coming of Age" on BBC3? My jaw dropped when I watched that.

I don't watch many of the programmes but I am glad it's there and don't mind the fee.

And consider how all the other things that have been privatised have gone

It's funny how tastes differ isn't it - pretty much everything I watch is made in America! Maybe that's where I should be living.

I don't understand what is wrong for wanting the BBC to be paid for on subscription rather than paid by all?

Watching German TV for a few days would make most people appreciate the BBC a lot. It's grim.

Privatising telephone services went fine and television is more like that than like gas, electric, water etc.

Have you tried watching Derren Brown on Channel 4? It's impossible to watch because of the adverts every other minute. They turn half an hour of TV into an hour with the constant ad breaks.

I love BBC - CBeebies is fab, as is 6Music, Chris Evans on Radio2, most of Radio4. On BBC 4 this week I've seen 4 born every second, Only Connect, and some fab thing about statistics last night, I also love GBBO, HIGNFY, Nevermind the Buzzcocks, and Russell Howards Good News and Later with Jools and Questiontime. I occasionally watch Channel 4, which is also part funded by the tax payer.. But rarely watch anything else - IMO the licence fee is fantastic value - I wouldn't find as much to watch on Sky with a full subscription, and that would cost me nearly 4x as much a year.
I also regularly use their websites - Bitesize at school, the news site and weather site and the Cbeebies site. Iplayer is a great service too. Fantastic value imo - wouldn't begrudge paying double.

Also are we so quick to forget the Olympics coverage?? The whinging and whining about the adverts during the Paralympic coverage on C4!!

Peshawari I have lived in the US for eons, and PBS and NPR are brilliant. They are not under constant threat, they have to work hard for their money. As any company ought to. (except apparently the fat cats at BBC).

I have voluntarily contributed to PBS and would never do the same for BBC. Anyway, irrespective of what you or I think, most people in the US rate PBS and NPR very highly. From the PBS website:

Over the course of a year, 89% of all U.S. television households - and 220 million people - watch PBS. The demographic breakdown of PBS' full-day audience reflects the overall U.S. population with respect to race/ethnicity, education and income. (Nielsen NPower, 9/19/2011-9/23/2012)

82% of all kids age two to eight watchec PBS during the 2011-2012 season. (Nielsen NPower, 9/19/2011-9/23/2012)

PBS had five of the top 10 programs among mothers of young children in September 2012, and the top six programs for kids age two to five. (Nielsen NPower, 9/2012)

PBS' primetime audience is significantly larger than many commercial channels, including Bravo (PBS' audience is 92% larger), TLC (86%), Discovery Channel (69%), HGTV (63%), HBO (61%) and A&E (29%).

In addition, PBS' primetime rating for news and public affairs programming is 88% higher than that of CNN. (Nielsen NPower, 9/19/2011-9/23/2012)

CBeebies alone is worth the licence fee

I would really miss all the BBC documentaries, they are generally excellent.

I agree with those that say the cover -ups of child abuse have been shocking. I don't really know how to fit that in with my own perception of the BBC as a reliable news source and a provider of some really good productions.

So, good reasons for BBC to be organised more along the lines of PBS/NPR, no?

Some funding from tax payers, but most through the dint of their own fund-raising efforts from the public.

Result will be a leaner organisation that doesn't have useless celebs and gazillion managers responsible for fuck-all, getting paid high salaries at our expense

The BBC is too big and unwieldy, and too full of metropolitan lefties. It doesn't represent normal British people and normal British life.

Wonderstuff, I agree about the Olympics coverage. And Cbeebies, and the websites, and iplayer, and BBC world, the news coverage in general, the stunning documentaries, and just about everything else except Children in Need and Comic Relief.

The BBC is wonderful.

Is there 'normal' British people and 'normal' British life though? I don't think that exists. The country is to diverse for there to be 'normal' British people.

According to the BBC Annual Report 96% of the UK population watch the BBC each week, with an average viewing period of 19 hours. (And that was before the Olympics)

I think those figures support how highly most people think of the BBC.

To those who say BBC represents value for taxpayers, what do you compare it to?

PBS and NPR together get £260 million from American tax payers while British taxpayers shell out £3.6 BILLION for BBC.

The BBC would say that wouldn't they?

Hardly any BBC programmes are set outside London (or Cardiff). Most people don't live in London!

As a "metropolitan leftie" (, well, I'm left of centre and live in Glasgow), I'd personally prefer that the BBC didn't do things like "Cash in the Attic", "Pointless", "Bargain Hunt", any football, "The Apprentice" (can't stand Alan Sugar) and so on although I am a Strictly addict

But I recognise that other people do like them. The BBC needs to try to cater for everyone.