To think the BBC really should be shut down?

[Loeri]

After the child abuse scandals, and now this where BBC execs have been given payments far beyond anything they were required to be given, isn't it time that the BBC was just shut down? It can't really be said that it makes the best TV in the world anymore, the best TV programmes come from the US and have done for well over a decade now. I just don't see the purpose of the BBC in 2013. It is arrogant, bloated beyond belief and seems only to exist to provide cushy jobs for the Guardian set.

I'm originally from the US, home of all those incredible shows the OP likes. I can only watch them if I've bought a box set, as trying to watch US tv live is beyond awful.

I think the BBC excels in all sorts of areas, but the ones that really stick out are news (on all platforms), cultural/historical/science programmes, and children's programming. The ability of BBC programming to examine power - government, corporate - just often does not exist in the US media. There's a reason they made a movie out of The Insider and All the President's Men - because such questioning and investigation into power is so damn rare in the US media.

That the BBC exists keeps the news production of all media outlets tied to a 'centre' that does not exist in the US. You can go left or right from this in the news you like to watch, but the breadth of their coverage means everyone else has to raise their game. No such luck in the States. Forget Fox News, which is obviously ridiculous, but have you seen CNN?? Ever tried reading what's left of the US newspaper industry? It's utter shite. And I say that as a longtime subscriber to the NY Times.

The only thing to compare the BBC to in the US is PBS, which runs as the sort of subscription service the OP suggests the BBC should become. It is miniscule in its output, and cannot compete with the BBC on any level - though it does do good young children's shows on a much reduced level. Indeed, PBS often screens BBC programming as it cannot afford to fill the schedule with original programming.

So, in short, YABU.

People hate the BBC because they just cannot stand the idea that the state might actually be able to do something's well.

They seem to think that private business are shit hot at everything, forgetting that that simple is not true.

The BBC is generally good at what it does. Get over it people.

Loeri Try watching iplayer abroad. Or, try watching eg the ABC streaming site here. Legally.

Like I said. Remarkably ill informed.

Rights are one of the most contentious things there are. The WWW has magnified this umpty thrumpty times over, not made it simpler.

Also millions of people watch and listen to the BBC.
Are they all idiots?

Loeri you don't know what rights payments are, do you.

It's not Russians or my job to inform you. Try to educate yourself instead of relying on someone else to do it for you.

Your ignorance (and lack of desire to change it) is highly amusing, and sad.

Any credibility I would have given your previous arguments (which was very little, granted) has certainly disappeared now.

Run along now, I think Game of Thrones might be on telly.

"Please do yourself a favour and look into licensing agreements and international streaming rights before spouting off nonsense. "

For God's Sake.

The BBC make a programme.

The BBC put it up on a website, and ask for money to download that programme (handwave over security, copy-protection and payment methods).

You're claiming that in order to that for US customers, the BBC would have to pay someone in the US? Who? For what? The BBC can do what it wants with its own content, including putting it up on YouTube (as it sometimes does), giving it away (as it sometimes does) or dumping it unshown with the negatives buried under the bridge piers of the West Way (or was that The Wicker Man?).

Streaming rights apply to content providers. If the BBC purchases a programme it only purchases rights to broadcast that in the UK, possibly provide it on catchup (which is why some programmes aren't on iPlayer, or bizarrely, like F1, aren't on iPlayer HD) and certainly not stream it outside the UK.

The BBC can do what it wants with its own content. It will have a complex mesh of fees and agreements governing other people's content. But the claim that the BBC couldn't set up a streaming service to collect subscriptions and then stream, worldwide, the program(me)s made with that funding stream is just utter bollocks.

Russians, do you think that might be because the BBC and ABC CHOOSE to block streaming overseas so they can sell the rights to their programmes to overseas broadcasters? Do you think that might possibly be the case? Not anything to do with having to pay "INTERNATIONAL STREAMING RIGHTS" to governments?

yep I can NEVER watch The Walking Dead podcasts or previews here in the UK as 'the content you are trying to view is blocked in your country'

ivykaty44 Fri 06-Sep-13 12:22:07

"It doesn't seem that they are selling very many programs - why is that if the BBC make the best tv in the world?"

1. That is your opinion. Others may think that sales of over a billion are pretty good.
2. You are aware, I hope, that the BBC deliberately curtails the activities of BBC Worldwide to reflect the fact that the latter is a commercial arm of a public service broadcaster? This means that they do not make as much money as they could potentially make. It is analogous (but not perfectly analogous, so no need to point out the differences) to public universities or NHS hospitals with commercial overseas branches.

I don't understand why everyone is banging on about "the best", anyway. Surely the important bar is "sufficiently good to justify both the existence and the current level of the licence fee"?

"Loeri you don't know what rights payments are, do you."

Tell is. If the BBC is streaming the BBC's content, to whom are rights payments made, and for what? The issue of repeat fees for actors is something that this hypothetical new service would need to sort out, but could do so very easily (as it would be streaming to countable people, the fee would be per-viewer, not per-territory, perhaps).

Umlauf Well, you can compare Dr Who with GoT since there is a massive crossover in the audiences. And both shows are great, Dr Who is of course original and GoT is a book adaptation. But both are fabulous, popular, critically lauded as well. And both cross over from genre audiences to mainstream. Can't fault either HBO or the BBC. Dr Who was one of the things (by no means the only thing) that made genre cool in the US though, and GoT has ridden that bandwagon, so...

As for The Apprentice - it's an American format and was first broadcast in the US about a year before it was on the telly here. It was invented by a british man, but he was working for US telly (as so many brits do).

"yep I can NEVER watch The Walking Dead podcasts or previews here in the UK as 'the content you are trying to view is blocked in your country'"
But that is because of whoever makes Walking Dead in the US selling the rights to a UK broadcaster to show it. Not because of some imagined "international broadcasting rights".

And.... hide. I might die from laughter if I don't.

I'm with you Reggiebean

Loeri I think we all understand you don't like the BBC - is it at all possible that you might accept that a) some people DO like the BBC and b) some people may know more than you on some subjects?

I think they should stop east enders, its utter moronic depressing vile filth. I cant even stand the ads coming on the tv for it.

oh and wow - nice response there - I think if you have to resort to that kind of behaviour you have lost your entire argument

Can Reggiebean or anyone else provide any kind of evidence that backs up the existence of these mythical "international broadcasting rights" that have to be paid to broadcast your own material, online, on the world wide web?

They don't exist. It's false, and anyone who thinks otherwise is utterly deluded. It's no different to if mumsnet had to pay the government of every country of the world so that their people could post on here. Do you think that happens? No?

People who are "just so sure" they are right when they are utterly wrong really annoy me. I might be wrong about some things but if I'm utterly sure of something, you can bet damn sure that I am in the right. This argument about "international broadcast rights" is utterly laughable. You produce something, you put it on the web, it's YOURS. Who are you paying rights to?

Just as an example, the BBC blocks it's premier league coverage on it's website for overseas. But that's because it's not their content, it's the premier leagues and they want to sell their content to other broadcasters overseas. There would be nothing to stop the premier league from setting up their own website with coverage of all matches and letting everyone subscribe to that. There would be no issue of "international broadcast rights" because it is THEIR property.

I just wonder why the BBC didn't spend £949,000 on buying Breaking Bad or Mad Men or The Wire rather than giving it to some bloke to make him feel better about not getting a promotion.

It's all so flippin safe - if they get an unexpected mainstream 'hit' (The Apprentice, Strictly, Bake Off) they flog the format until it's gasping for breath, until everyone is utterly sick of it

Also I suppose none of you have ever watched BBC Scotland 'news'? That's a disgrace BBC, right there.

I was a huge fan of Radio 4. Always had it on the kitchen. Could never imagine life without it. But over time, waking up to the appalling journalism of the Today programme meant that our start to the day was filled with spin and untruths. Not a good way to wake up. And it was relentless. Feature after feature of journalism and interviewing that was poor and often ignorant. And actually the presenters are so unlikeable that we took stock of why we listened at all. So we turned it off. Mornings are immeasurably better without it. And actually the radio doesn't ever get turned on now.

The BBC has also been complicit in under-reporting many serious issues - the privatisation of the NHS wasn't covered hardly at all. In fact, I'm not sure it even reported the passing of the Bill in parliament - the final nail in the coffin. Coverage of Snowden and NSA stuff has also been woeful on its website, though admittedly I wouldn't know what was on air.

Quite an achievement to make an avid BBC fan switch off altogether.

I'm no kind of media expert, but Loeri, I think you're under a misapprehension about BBC ownership of programming. For every BBC programme, there will typically be at least one and probably several other organisations involved, all with some say over the broadcasting rights. These include production companies, such as Ragdoll (Teletubbies, etc). Production companies were set up as part of a move away from monolithic provider status forced on the BBC by right wing governments of the past (working with Birt), who thought more commercial discipline was needed to get better value for money. There are obviously also agents for individual actors and presenters. I'm sure there are many many other organisations involved as well, eg for the music that's used.

HomeHelpMeGawd. You're right, but I was talking about a proposed service, where the BBC would own all the rights to the programmes it was showing. Either by making themselves or by paying the third party producers for them. This idea of "international broadcast rights" to show programmes that the BBC owns is what I was arguing against. The reason programmes are currently blocked overseas is because the BBC sells the rights to show them to overseas broadcasters, so you have to watch them through their channels/websites, not the BBC. ie it's an agreement with the BBC, and the foreign channels pay them for the rights, not the BBC paying foreign governments for the rights to show their programmes online in foreign countries! That would be ridiculous.

I apologise for using bad languate earlier in the thread but reggiebean's attitude really pissed me off.