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

The BBC does lots of non-profitable broadcasting which is of vital importance to communities - things like minority language broadcasting (Gaelic and Welsh), regional broadcasting, the shipping forecast, etc. Also, massive amounts of really useful information of their huge website - all kinds of things from health advice to cooking. A commercial broadcaster would never do this stuff, and a subscription service wouldn't be able to afford to.

Of course not.

The BBC has a fantastic history of public service. It has had its hiccups in the past and is going through a very bad one at the moment and no doubt will have more in the future.

But look at the bigger picture - it is still the best broadcaster in the world.

and it's not just broadcasting, it's websites are amazing too.

Although I do agree with the person who said they should get rid of Jeremy Clarkson.

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

How fucking patronising

Seriously, someone (me) explains perfectly politely why they do not wish to pay a TV licence and the answer from the "Oh so perfect BBC watcher" is to be rude and insulting.

The BBC is not the be-all-and-end-all of television. Just because I choose not to watch the stuff the BBC pushes out does not make me "unable to sit through a proper length programme". It also doesn't make me read the Daily Mail or the Sun.

LittenTree, with your patronising air, your rudeness and your inability to join in a discussion without adding disparaging remarks, I am not surprised you are happy to support the BBC. It was that sort of "look down on the plebs" attitude that allowed and supported the Saville era. How proud you must feel.

Flatbread, might have got the wrong end of the stick here, but at the risk of sounding slightly hysterical are you seriously suggesting that my 97-year-old grandmother should have to trawl through Youtube/purchase a DVD player/acquaint herself with Twitter in order to access news and enjoy a bit of Strictly-style Saturday night entertainment?

It's all very well for those of us who are au fait with new technology and can access these multiple media sources, but there are still plenty of people who can't. And personally I'd still rather watch/listen to the BBC news, which might at times be slightly biased, than sift through thousands of Twitter feeds that most certainly are.

Tenth, if your 96 yr old grand mum wants to see BBC, let her pay for it. I will happily pay for her medical care, prescriptions and free bus passes, but I draw the line at paying for her entertainment.

Don't 96 year olds get a free TV licence anyway?

LtEveDallas - LittenTree is certainly annoyingly patronising. However I'm not sure that your reply doesn't also suffer from slightly the same defect.

Not everyone who supports the BBC has a "look down on the plebs" attitude. And while you aren't a Daily Mail or Sun devotee, the fact remains that these are the two most widely circulated media channels in this country.

I would support, at least for the moment, the continuation of the BBC, both for the still high quality of many of its cultural and scientific programmes, and for the fact that otherwise Rupert Murdoch, Trevor Kavanagh, Lord Rothermere, Paul Dacre etc. would have an even greater share of available news and communication channels to promote their particular views on the world.

I will happily pay for her medical care, prescriptions and free bus passes, but I draw the line at paying for her entertainment

Jeez what an attitude. you dont pay for that. You contribute via taxes but if you and only you stopped paying, she'd still get those things.

LtEveDallas - LittenTree is certainly annoyingly patronising. However I'm not sure that your reply doesn't also suffer from slightly the same defect

My reply was directed to LittenTree, who I believe does have a "look down on the plebs" attitude. No-one else has been so singularly rude, so I haven't accused anyone else.

Why is there such snobbery attached to the BBC? Why do others feel the need to talk about the "dross" that other channels produce, when the BBC produces much of the same.

I am not saying scrap the BBC (unlike the OP, SEA, who has never returned), but I am saying that forcing everyone to pay for it is wrong. Let the 96% of the UK that watch it pay for it, and let the 4% who don't opt out.

What is wrong with that?

Oh and Cozy9 is correct - Over 75's get a free TV Licence.

Cozy they do currently, although I think Flatbread seems to be suggesting they shouldn't. In any case, my original point wasn't about whether or not the BBC should be free, but rather that a large proportion of older/vulnerable/less media-savvy people would be left in a kind of media limbo if the BBC in its current form were to be disestablished. And I don't agree that TV is merely 'entertainment' for many older, lonely or immobile people; for many it's a vital source of information and a lifeline to the outside world.

Flatbread seems to not think much of the UK and its institutions... to many of us who grew up in other places, the UK is fantastic in so many ways, and these institutions (NHS, BBC for example) are worth their weight in gold.

Am surprised at so many people's attitude of "you're on your own" here. Privatising the BBC would not make television better. It would privatise for the sake of privatising which is what we do in the US. We get terrible journalism, television and abysmal health care as a result (for the masses). If you are rich of course you will always have the best of everything in a privatised system - you can afford to pay $200/mo for premium cable, thousands for premium health care, etc.

Frank, I agree there is a role for public broadcasting, but that doesn't justify the current bloated BBC with £3.6 billion from the public purse.

I would suggest that the government fund a BBC-slim organisation a small amount, probably 10% of its current budget for core programmes of news and public interest documentaries. And the money should be ring fenced for this.

For the rest of the programmes, BBC should solicit subscriptions/ donations/sponsors.

it's very middle class blue peter biased in my view

There are about 150 channels on my tv, almost all of which seem to be peddling low-brow lazy sensationalist tosh, which seems to require the viewer to goggle at ill-educated lower-class people being pushed out of their comfort zones, edited to emote cliched push-button over-sentimental responses from the viewer.

Of course, if I said that out loud, I'd doubtlessly be pilloried for being an intellectual snob.

I love the BBC; they have many different services, plenty aimed at different demographic groups, and in my experience are open to listening and responding to constructive criticism of their content and scheduling.

Why not share your opinion with them, OP? You might be surprised.

LtEveDallas - I certainly agree that the BBC does produce a lot of "dross". However the average level of drossness is rather less.

I don't basically disagree with your suggestion. However I feel there must be a system to prevent the media being almost entirely the mouthpiece of rich and powerful media magnates, which would inevitably be the case if the BBC were to lose its fundamental characteristic of a non-advertising financed media organisation.

I love the NHS, although think there is loads of room for improvement

I am all for granny being exempt from a TV license. I just want the same freedom for the rest of us.

There are about 150 channels on my tv, almost all of which seem to be peddling low-brow lazy sensationalist tosh, which seems to require the viewer to goggle at ill-educated lower-class people being pushed out of their comfort zones, edited to emote cliched push-button over-sentimental responses from the viewer

Again with the snobbery? Why?

Should I post a list of all the "low-brow lazy sensationalist tosh" that the BBC produces or shows on it's channels? Do you really think that they don't?

LtEve, absolutely agree, some of the BBC output is dire. But, unlike several other channels, not ALL of it is unremitting tosh, there are some amazing programmes produced.

Why with the snobbery? I thought the line about 'middle class blue peter' rather set the the, admittedly inverted, tone of snobbery for the discussion.

My remark was just a tiny bit tongue in cheek.

I am a news media snob. And I think BBC news coverage ranges from average to poor quality.

Does any one remember Readers Digest? BBC reminds me of that -slightly interesting with a terribly outdated style

Although Radio4 is good

YABVVVU. It's still a shining glory culturally, and they may have shown themselves up as antiquated in some sectors, but I dread to think what national programming and news reportage would be like without them. Try living in US and see how you like wall-to-wall commercial tv. To say 'I wouldn't mind if there were adverts' is, to understate it a little, a tad naive.

Would we have higher sky/virgin bills if they got rid of the tv licence? If so then keep it as it is. If however everything stayed as it is, just the licence went and BBC got adverts then i'm all for it.

I like the fact I can watch strictly without advert interruptions but I don't like the fact I have to pay 150?! Quid a year or whatever it is just to have that privilege. I'd rather just record everything and forward through the ads.

It's a matter of opinion if you think the BBC is good quality or not. Just because one person thinks it is good value, doesn't mean everyone else should have to pay to subsidise their likes. I think Sky make some good programmes but that doesn't mean because I like Sky, that I think everyone owning a tv should be forced to pay towards Sky. People should be given the CHOICE. The BBC tax is anachronistic and undemocratic in this day and age. We're not living in the bloody Soviet Union ffs! And there is definitely the technology to go subscription only but they won't do that because the BBC will know they won't have as much money to waste paying useless idiots vast sums of taxpayer money!

YABU having spent time abroad I really appreciate it - and I don't even watch that much TV.

It's one of the things I'm most proud of in this country, with the NHS.