To think that, despite it being very sad, the BBC should go private

[SadConclusion]

Generally, privatisation is a dirty word to me, and I am a heavy consumer of the BBC. On paper, I should want it to stay. I think Corbyn's brilliant, I read the Guardian; you get the picture...

However, I've started to think the BBC is an extremely dangerous thing to have. It is anything but impartial. The influence of the government (and secret service allies) in its stance is enormous (and largely unspoken), as acknowledged by its former director general. No news outlet is impartial, but the dangerous thing about the BBC is that we sort of think it is. We trust it. It's nice and cosy - surely this old, fuzzy institution we've had all our lives, full of good old posh Brits, wouldn't lie to us? Yet it does, constantly. The David Kelly debacle was the tip of the iceberg.

It deludes us. We need to get rid of its status as a default, and of the image of kind impartiality it uses. For this reason, I think it should go private to match the status of other news outlets, which we are much more ready to acknowledge as liars and benders of the truth. The BBC leaves us as a population incredibly vulnerable to spin and manipulation.

AIBU?

Yes yes, but it's nice to have a few channels without adverts.

There is no point in having a private BBC. It would simply be ITV. So makes no sense at all. Either have the licence fee and the BBC, or abolish it. There is no half way house here.

Completely disagree. You have to watch / read all media with your eyes open. I honestly think that the BBC along with the NHS are some if the best things about Britain and I'm pleased to pay my licence every year.

It's impossible to have your eyes open when one source predominates like this. Unless you balance BBC viewing out equally with Russia Today, Al Jazeera, etc.

Personally I suspect the BBC have got the balance right. I hear the left wing complaining the BBC are right wing; and the right wing complaining the BBC are left wing.

But the left-right wing political axis is a tiny part of all the potential biases. A red-herring for many.

I don't really understand your point. You seem to be saying that the population takes everything the BBC says on trust, but doesn't in relation to commercial stations. But you only have to look at the BBC hate produced by the Mail and Express to know that that isn't true, and frankly I think it's optimistic to hope that the entire population realises that Sky is putting forward Murdoch's biases.

Not saying we take it all on trust. But we trust it a lot more than most sources, and are also exposed to it more.

I hear the left wing complaining the BBC are right wing; and the right wing complaining the BBC are left wing.

Me too.

Look at Sky News and see how objective they are.

That's my whole point: no one source is objective. But we are biased in whatever direction the BBC decides. They have a huge level of control over our attitudes, whether we are aware of it or not.

then it would not be the BBC the British Broadcasting Corporation

it would be a company owned by many shareholders and would have to answer to them

When there was a sudden increase in people using Netflix, Now TV, Amazon etc the cost was questioned more as these are a choice but I think that has passed and most recognise what a fantastic service the BBC is

TV and radio here including ITV and Channel 4 is of such a high standard because the BBC set the standard very high

I agree with you completely, the bias of the BBC isn't apparent unless you start watching all the other channels, then it is very obvious (we watch Russia Today/other Russian progs as well as different Western news and newspapers). Given you can't have an unbiased source, I'd rather not pay for one.

I'm sorry, I just think the license fee should go now. If everyone likes Radio 3 so much, they can pay for it.

YY, HPsauciness. We're diverted into confusing relative neutrality along our little left-right continuum with genuine objectivity. It's only when you look outside our whole media system that you see the debates and uncertainties are much, much broader.

I find Russia Today both biased and poor quality. Surprised to see so many fans!

If everyone loves the BBC so much and genuinely believes the quality of the programmes outstrips their rivals, why not pay for that better service then?

I would dispute they are better, their Election Night coverage was both incompetent (people wandering all over the shot, updates very slow) as well as exceptionally biased in their response to the Conservative victory (I did not vote for them, but their visible disappointment was deeply unprofessional). ITV was better, I don't hve SKY.

Why are they better?

I don't use or nor does my family use any BBC services any more, we are out of the CBBC game, we almost never watch the BBC news (possibly Newsnight) and don't like the main channels. I watch ITV channels, mainly on their Iplayer service.

I don't think I should have to subsidise this any more. I know people who work for the BBC and the level of benefits and maternity pay are fantastic but completely out of step with what everyone else has had to put up with in the recession. I don't want their huge salaries to be paid so they can make patronising reports on the benefit crisis.

I don't love Russia Today- my husband reads the Russian newspapers mainly.

But once you start looking about, you realise the BBC's stance of 'neutrality' is just not tenable.

Their coverage of things like Glasonbury is obscene in its price. I just don't want to have to pay them to have a TV!

This is nothing to do with being a fan of Russia Today, or Sky, or any other individual outlet. Precisely the opposite. It's about trying to reduce our relative reliance on a single, trusted source.

Russia Today. What a joke.

I'd rather pay my tenner a month (or whatever it is) than pay with my time watching shitty adverts.

I don't take any news at face value anymore, but the BBC is about more than the news to me.

I think I probably would voluntarily pay for the BBC. I use it a lot.

But I think it should lose its default status. And if that means it dies out, so be it although I will really miss Doctor Who

Russia Today. What a joke.

Did you change your name for this sad conclusion or have you had many?

OP: you talk about the 'former' DG, and the spin around the death of David Kelly.

Those were the Blair years. They've gone, and hopefully will never come back.

I think the licence fee arrangement needs dumping (criminalising individuals because they don't pay a compulsory registration feeis just plain wrong), but I don't justify this by looking at its editorial decisions when there happened to be a morally bankrupt administration.

It's one of the things I hope for from Corbyn, btw, an end to cronyism in Labour.

Yes, I NC, squoosh. I do it most times I post. One of the things I like about MN is that it can be ego-less/identity-less.

I think this goes much deeper than Blair, Viking.