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

YABU

The dross that ITV produces and the advert breaks that have to be endured make it dire (and no I don't have some fancy tv where I can forward it on).

I'm torn on this one - I loathe the constant ad breaks that ruin quality drama like Downton Abbey on ITV, and BBC programmes that don't suffer in that way are far preferable

However, I really don't like the anti older women bias at the BBC - there is no excuse for it as a public broadcaster, let alone in terms of respect for people generally. I also detest the obvious left wing bias that creeps into almost all it's news and analysis programming - news should be impartial, and the BBC is a long way down the road from that. In recent years, they have allowed this bias to lead to skewed and even inaccurate reporting, and that is unforgivable

You can hardly blame the current government for taking their opportunity to bring the beeb down a peg or two

Huh, why am I paying for you to watch 'Spooks' and other trivia? It is hardly an essential public service like the NHS.

Why is it such a fuss to expect those that love the BBC, think it is good value etc to pay more for a subscription in the same way that those that love Sky do? Why do people who don't like the BBC have to subsidise it through violent intimidation (Crapita)? Surely those that love the BBC would be prepared to pay a bit more if it meant getting the 'qualiity' programmes they think the BBC make rather than forcing others who can't or don't want to pay, to subsidise them?

Agree with Flatbread. If the BBC is in such demand and so hugely loved, then surely they will have no problem getting people to pay a subscription for their programmes?

I don't understand why the two extremes are either an elephant BBC or Fox news/or something with constant ads.

Why can't BBC be funded mostly through public donations? Yes, that will mean that they will have to tighten their belt on salaries and instead spend money on good programmes to fight for their survival.

They will no longer be able to take our money for granted. Isn't that a good thing?

Sorry, xposted.

Huh, why am I paying for you to watch 'Spooks' and other trivia? It is hardly an essential public service like the NHS

It's not a tax.
And anyway, you pay for a sky subscription which goes towards the pockets of the likes of Murdoch. Why is that ok?

You dont have to have a tv....

Don't watch much tv of any flavour. I can't thnik of any regular program that I'd hate to miss. Although the current Sunday night spook-fest looks good. But I listen to loads of radio and use I-Player a great deal. Also the BBC website is good.

But I was brought up at a time when TV was on 2 channels and only ran for a few hours a say so I don't feel the addiction to it that other people seem to.

Agree with the comments about Murdoch and his evil empire making more of this than anyone else....

That's exactly the reason why they are so bloated Flatbread. Because to the BBC "heads they win, tails you lose". Even if they have a major scandal, they know they will still get away with paying their employees millions and don't really have to answer to anyone but themselves. It's an entrenched attitude whihc has become prevalent over the past 10 years and is echoed by the disdain that MP's show towards the public (their employers). They really are like Big Brother from Orwell's 1984 and we will "learn to love Big Brother" (or else)!

" Yes, that will mean that they will have to tighten their belt on salaries and instead spend money on good programmes to fight for their survival."

But the problem is that they won't be able to spend money on 'good' programs, they will be forced to spend money on commercial programs (more than they already do!). Commercial isn't always good.

Iggly, the point is CHOICE. She can choose to pay for a Sky subscription but she cannot choose to not pay the tv tax. Why is Murdoch so much worse than the corrupt, biased, anachronistic BBC?

YABVU

Radio 4, 3 & 6 are worth the price of the licence fee alone plus I would apy it to not have adverts on children's tv.

Live abroad for any amount of time and you will crave the BBC. In Spain the adverts can add nearly two hours to the length of a film.

Just to second what Sinister says, I'd worry that the gaps left by disestablishing the BBC would be filled not by home-grown programmes, but by yet more American imports. Now, I'm as much a fan of HBO as the next person, and I like many of the American programmes that other posters have mentioned, but we already have access to most of the decent stuff - Boardwalk Empire/Game of Thrones/Girls etc. I don't want my channels filled with the kinds of second-rate programming that isn't currently considered worthy of importing.

My boyfriend (who's not usually much of the TV person) was enthralled by a BBC2 documentary last night in which Michael Portillo travelled across Germany by train with an old Bradshaw's guide. Pretty niche stuff, and not really my own taste, but do we really think that this kind of quirky, thoughtful content would be made by a channel with an commercial agenda? The BBC gets a lot of stick for trying to be all things to all people, but I think part of what's great about it is precisely that - it tries to cater to a broad and varied spectrum of people. Yes, it can be somewhat hit and miss, but I think this is better than the alternative - only catering to the mainstream.

And it seems that most of my American friends are as enthusiastic about the BBC as we are, so it's not only us institutionalised Brits who are in thrall to it!

There are lots of cultural and educational programmes produced by the BBC. Although there has been "dumbing down" recently, they are still generally of a much higher average quality than those produced by the rest of the media.

I have just been watching the DVD of the BBC's "Little Dorrit" of 2008. I have most of David Attenborough's DVDs. I've seen nothing comparable - even from the ITV companies.

If it weren't for the BBC the mass media in this country would consist largely of those financed by such as Rupert Murdoch and Viscount Rothermere. These are almost always those who take a very right wing political view. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but it needs to be balanced by at least a more "centrist" viewpoint. Such as the Daily Mail, Daily Express, the Sun, absolutely loathe the BBC - they would rather their particular views on life, the universe, and everything were unchallenged in the minds of the Great British Public.

YANBU - I honestly don't get why the BBC is treated as the sacred cow it is. It's biased, it's rubbish, the news on their website reads like it's written for a four year old and now we find out that they covered up wide spread child abuse. Who knows what else they have lurking in there.

BUT - you don't have to have to watch them. Hell, you don't have to have a license - just watch DVDs, opt out and be very careful not to have any reception and don't watch live broadcasts (e.g. on your computer). Nobody has died, as far as I'm aware, from not having access to Eastenders and Radio 4.

My life has improved infinitely since I stopped getting news from them - makes me less stabby.

It should be my choice to spend my money on whatever entertainment I like, and exercise my consumer power by withdrawing my viewing/funding when I am unhappy.

Of course the license fee is a tax. Why is buying a TV linked with funding BBC? I want a TV. I am happy to pay for SKY, but I am not happy to pay for BBC. Why can't I have the choice?

How is BBC a vital public service, anyway? It might have been a useful thing when there was a threat that one or two companies might control all media.

But with the internet, all that has changed. We can get varied perspectives and news from loads of grass-roots internet sources and blogs and Twitter. We can get entertainment from Youtube and independent producers and DVDs. What is the compelling public interest argument for a taxpayer funded BBC in today's multiple media age?

You only need to spend enough time in counties without a quality national broadcaster to realise how good the BBC actually is.

Personally I'm happy to pay my license fee not to be bombarded with advertsing. I loathe adverts with a passion. I feel patronised and exploited sitting through them, I feel neurones die in my brain as it's exposed to shouty, puerile drivel hysterically exhorting me to consume, consume, consume.

However, I know there are plenty out there who appear to like adverts, and, luckily for them, there are plenty of radio and TV stations out there that will satisfy that.

TBF I do wonder if the BBC couldn't become a subscriber service so those unable to sit through a proper length programme about a real subject don't have to pay for it? The big issue there being, if their only exposure to grown-up media is gone (and they're only likely to read the DM or The Sun), there's a worrying chance that what they're told to believe will become increasingly polarised without any moderating influence via the TV channels they watch.

Re the "left wing bias" of the BBC.

Actually, many left-wingers think the BBC is biased in a right-wing way!

The problem is that so much of our media in the UK - and even more in some other countries - is in the hands of right-wing biased media moguls that, even if there is any excessive bias in the BBC, its removal would leave the field open for the Daily Mail and the Sun to saturate the public with their particular gospels of hatred and xenophobia.

Because flatbread, point me to something better than the BBC. Oh I do agree BTW that the fee is outdated, it's a bizarre way of doing things in today's world I agree.

However I don't see it as an excuse to bash the BBC more generally which is what you're doing

But Flatbread, an important issue is that 'information' gained from, say an encyclopaedia (remember them?) has, by its nature to have been verified somewhere along the line. What you find on Wikipedia isn't necessarily.

Similarly the BBC does have some standards it has to meet, and you only need to look across the Pond to see what happens when a legal requirement for checks & balances are taken away- Fox News.

When you're in the UK it's very easy to slag off the BBC, the licence fee, quality of programmes etc. However, once you're abroad you'll see that quality elsewhere is (IMHO) pretty bad and much more expensive. Here in Canada I have to rely on BBC for any decent news coverage and the only good programmes have come from BBC originally. While there isn't a licence fee the fee for cable is akin to 6 times the price of the annual BBC fee and programmes are riddled with adverts every 8 minutes. BBC online is my saviour here actually.

So YABVVVVVVU

And if it is quirky documentaries that people want, why not just have a grant for funding documentaries? Since BBC4 only pays £40000 or so per documentary, according to film-makers, a few millions should get us loads of documentaries.

Probably the cost of salaries to the BBC board and top management would cover the cost of 20 or so documentaries a year.

And show these on YouTube or for free on other channels. Done and dusted with no license fee or bloated BBC management.

Flatbread you make a good point that the growth of the internet has changed the picture. However for a great many people - especially of the older generation such as myself - the "terrestrial" media, including the Press, are still the prime means of information and entertainment.

The fact that the Daily Mail and the Sun are so antagonistic to the BBC speaks volumes to me.