to think the BBC has had it's day and it really is over now?

[hamstersarse]

Obviously this debate has been rumbling for years, but it seems to me that the tide has turned very quickly in recent months.

They genuinely do not seem to represent anyone well, and the license fee model is just so broken and irrelevant to how we now consume our art, news and content.

It remains a great idea (possibly fundamental to a civilised society) to have a non-biased media outlet, but the BBC just do not seem up to the job.

Does anyone still feel they are a reliable source of news? Does anyone agree with the license fee model? Can we not get their type of content elsewhere, by choice?

@Badbadbunny

The other thing I'm disgusted with the BBC about is the way they've completely ignored the 3 million self employed who've fallen through the cracks in Rishi's Covid support packages. If it were any other group of people, the BBC would be all over it. Just look at their 2 weeks of wall to wall wingeing about the A level results - that only affected a few hundred thousand people, the majority of whom would have got the grades they needed anyway. Yet complete silence, for month after month, about the self employed who are losing their livelihoods, their businesses, their homes, their savings, because of the holes in the support package which is like Swiss cheese. Rishi needs taking to task but the BBC just aren't interested as it clearly doesn't fit their agenda. At first, Rishi said "no one would be left behind", now he has changed his tune to "we can't help everyone" - if it had been any other subject, BBC would have been all over him.

But then, BBC aren't very good with business/finance/tax matters. After all during one of his annual Budgets when Gordon Brown announced an increase in the upper NIC threshold, BBC were heralding it as good news for higher earners! Sky, ITV, etc were saying correctly it was actually bad news for higher earners. So, the BBC, supposedly the bastion of reliable reporting, got something so simple so badly wrong!

I totally agree with this - they managed to have a ridiculous “news” story on their website about a poor woman who was distressed at the cost of a UK holiday - but they can’t be arsed to talk about people who are losing their whole livelihood.

Full disclosure, I work for BBC News so maybe that's my impartiality on the whole subject out of the window. I know a lot of good people, journalists and techies, who are very much motivated by the BBC's ethos - impartiality, inform, educate, entertain and all that. But we are also massively exasperated by the BBC's management, they can be unbelievably hopeless. Just take that latest row over the n-word. NO WAY should using it on air even have been considered. It doesn't matter that the victim's parents wanted it used - editorial responsibility is ours, and can't be outsourced to someone else. I think the vast majority of BBC journalists were really annoyed that we dropped ourselves in it once again. And the earlier decision on Naga Munchetty saying she disliked what Trump was saying. We got it right in the end, but only after making massive idiots of ourselves to begin with. So, I'd say, be careful what you wish for. The BBC is supposed to be independent of government but look how much governments interfere. In 2016 they forced us to administer OAPs' licence fees - previously a function of the DWP - and Parliament didn't even get a look-in on that decision. Why do they interfere so much? Because governments always want to control us. When Labour were in, it was Alastair Campbell ringing up individual journalists straight after news bulletins and screaming at them down the phone that he was going to get them sacked for broadcasting such bullshit. The Tories favour beating us up behind the Westminster bike-sheds and stealing our (your) dinner money. Is all that because we're rubbish, and no-one cares what we say? Or the opposite?

On impartiality, we're hamstrung. Owen Jones said recently that the most important attribute of journalism is not impartiality, it's independence, and I think he's right. The BBC's hallowed on-the-one-hand-but-on-the-other even-handedness just doesn't work in these days of constant barefaced lying by politicians. Trump is an obvious racist, but the BBC can't say so. Johnson tells massive porkies and operates blatant double standards, but the BBC can't say so.

A tip: be like @Muminho and stick with BBC Radio, especially Radio 4. No other outfit will ever fund a radio station like it. Nip over to LBC at 10 for James O'Brien, who IS allowed to say what's obviously true, and stick with it at 1 for Shelagh Fogerty, ex-BBC but now doing her best work in the commercial sector. Back to Radio 4 for the World Tonight, calm and collected current affairs without the feverishness of so much news output these days.

The BBC only seem to represent Oxbridge educated socially liberal people and the middle classes.

There's nothing wrong with that demographic but there's more to the country than that. The BBC are not representative. Yeah, they're good at filling diversity boxes but diversity of opinion is another matter.

Their coverage of the coronavirus has been horrifically unbalanced and fear-mongering to the point of propaganda.
There was a time, not long ago, when I would have fought to keep them.
Now I hope they crash and burn.

I looked into cancelling my tv licence recently and it said online that you need a License to watch ANY live tv not just the bbc channels. If true I think that's disgusting!

Yanbu. I cancelled my license years ago, it is too expensive at over £150 per year, I don't miss it!

Sky news is free (can watch on internet) and online news sites are free. Netflix is £5.99 a month and shows any decent programmes made by BBC (albeit later). I dont watch sport and have no interest in funding the huge salaries of people like Gary Lineker.

BBC will fold sooner or later, I know plenty of people who legitimately don't use it.

@DrManhattan

I dont see them as a reliable source of news anymore. They are just another tool used by this government and as for Dan Walker on breakfast FML

The BBC have always been pretty toothless when it comes to challenging the government, they're state media basically and are used by the government as a means of control. But their whole output is so bland these days.

Look at some of the challenging, gritty, topical working-class dramas the BBC have produced in the past. Cathy Come Home, Boys From the Blackstuff, Our Friends in the North, Edge of Darkness etc. They don't produce them anymore.

Even their sitcom output is pathetic.

I hear criticism of news output/politics from both the left and right...which suggests to me they’re doing impartiality pretty well

But the left complain that the BBC are too toothless at holding the government to account, compared to Channel 4 and even Sky News; the right complain the BBC is too woke, metropolitan elite and unrepresentative.

Are either side wrong?

*Blah blah.
You're wrong.

Simple as that. Anyone reading can see your just bringing up tons of nonsense to try and cover up the fact you're wrong.

The law says you need to be covered by a TV Licence to watch or record programmes as they’re being shown on TV, on any channel*

Well what a compelling counter-argument.

"tons of nonsense' that you haven't provided a single substantive rebuttal to.

I've explained in the simplest of terms how TV licensing in its current form came about, and the reasons why it took the form it did. 2004 was at the advent of streaming services, a boom time for subscription TV, a point where people were becoming more and more conversant with tech and the internet. The BBC saw the writing on the wall and lobbied the government to update the law, fearing that their source of funding would disappear once people started switching to packages that did not include their content. The law was duly changed to compel all suppliers to include BBC content, hence why you are now required to pay a licence fee for any live TV even if it is not supplied or created by BBC.

So yes, to concede to your original gripe, you do require a licence to watch ITV, Channel4, and Channel , "live", but as I went to lengths to explain, not because ITV, Channel 4, and Channel 5 content is subject to the licence, but because there is no legal means of delivery of this service in the UK that does not also include BBC channels by default.

This piece of gerrymandering in the law is why many people refuse to pay the licence on a point of principle. The content produced by those other terrestrial broadcasters is not subject to TV licencing, but thanks to governmental contrivance, you still, bizarrely, require a licence to watch it 'live' in order to protect the revenue stream of the BBC.

Their orchestras and choirs are brilliant. I think the BBC Singers are the only full-time salaried chamber choir in the UK.

@Furtwangler

On impartiality, we're hamstrung. Owen Jones said recently that the most important attribute of journalism is not impartiality, it's independence, and I think he's right. The BBC's hallowed on-the-one-hand-but-on-the-other even-handedness just doesn't work in these days of constant barefaced lying by politicians. Trump is an obvious racist, but the BBC can't say so. Johnson tells massive porkies and operates blatant double standards, but the BBC can't say so

This, in a nutshell, is why I finally gave up on BBC reporting.

"Impartiality" does not preclude calling it like it is. Trump is a racist, call him a racist, Johnson tells lies? Challenge his lies, call him out on it.

No, instead we get interviews where the obvious approach is not to antagonise or rile the politician up, not to counter the bullshit with fact, not to challenge sufficiently to dismantle whatever piffle they are spouting now.

We have a Political Editor of BBC News who, like a parrot, repeats whatever the hell an anonymous 'Downing Street Source' tells her, seemingly without applying any critical thought whatsoever to the actual content of her 'big reveal', only for it to later turn out to be a load of utterly deniable shite that leaves nobody in Downing Street with anything to answer for.

Laura K gives the impression that if 'Downing Street Source' told her it was lashing down outside, she wouldn't even bother looking out the window to check. It's laughably intransigent.

I appreciate you coming here to explain from the insider position, and I do sympathise, I really do, but I'm no longer willing to pay for such a half-arsed and limp public service broadcaster.

Well what a compelling counter-argument

I don't need a counter argument. You're wrong. Simple.

You claim you don't a need a license for itv and such. You do.

You claimed the only reason you need a license for sky is because the BBC are on it. No, it's because it's broadcast TV.

All the other nonsensical crap you're padding your posts with is unimportant and only wastes your time, if your time is so invaluable then feel free to continue.

No, instead we get interviews where the obvious approach is not to antagonise or rile the politician up, not to counter the bullshit with fact, not to challenge sufficiently to dismantle whatever piffle they are spouting now.

It doesn't help that we've got a PM and a cabinet who pick and choose who they'll let interview them. Funny how it's always the BBC they'll allow. Dan Walker/Andrew Marr etc and other channels and anyone challenging them are banned.

The one exception is Newsnight but, again, that's shunned by the cabinet and complained about because it's the one BBC show that won't toe the party line and might hold them to some account.

I love the BBC. iPlayer is easily our most-used TV app and we watch a fair bit live too. CBeebies & CBBC fantastic for the kids, always have R1 on in the mornings or in the car. Get my news from the BBC News app and I don't mind the opinion/story pieces although I'd like to see them better signposted.

We don't have Netflix or Sky but have Amazon Prime and Disney+. Occasionally watch movies on those or programmes on C4/5/Dave but not nearly as much as BBC.

I don't think they get everything right but if I could only choose one media provider, it would 100% be the BBC.

@annabel85

*The BBC only seem to represent Oxbridge educated socially liberal people and the middle classes.

There's nothing wrong with that demographic but there's more to the country than that. The BBC are not representative. Yeah, they're good at filling diversity boxes but diversity of opinion is another matter*

Something along those lines that became a long-standing running joke among my friends.

Whenever a BBC program features children, they're invariably a very specific type of child from a specific social background and strata.

Regardless of the program, the BBC always manages to produce a polite, well dressed, well mannered middle-class kid or kids to feature. It's as if scruffy, boisterous, working class, and recalcitrant children simply do not exist. The BBC supposedly caters for us all, but going by the children they find time after time, that 'all' encompasses polite middle-upper class society and bugger all else.

So, do people deliberately avoid some of the other, IMO excellent, BBC output just because they don't like the way the news is presented? Really?

It's easy to avoid news items if you don't like watching/hearing/reading the BBC news. I don't like watching sport, so I don't watch it. Just because the BBC televise sport isn't going to make me stop watching David Attenburgh, Glastonbury, QI, Mock the Week, Line of Duty etc.

if your time is so invaluable then feel free to continue

No thanks, I've explained it in the simplest possible terms and you're still determined to deny reality and embarrass yourself, so I think I'll quit showing you up now.

@Pixel7777

They have been terribly doom-mongering and hand-wringing over covid.

Agree.

And every single briefing they listened to the speech at the beginning and then asked a question that had literally been answered in the chat.

And then at times reported it wrongly.

@XDownwiththissortofthingX

if your time is so invaluable then feel free to continue

No thanks, I've explained it in the simplest possible terms and you're still determined to deny reality and embarrass yourself, so I think I'll quit showing you up now.

Hahahaha......

If Laurence Fox suggests it, that alone is reason enough for doing the polar opposite.

Radios 4 and 6 Music are unrivalled IMO.

@annabel85

The one exception is Newsnight but, again, that's shunned by the cabinet and complained about because it's the one BBC show that won't toe the party line and might hold them to some account

See, to my mind, the BBC should be dictating to the government who they'll be providing as an interviewer, not the other way around.

If the BBC technically is representative of the British populace, then don't let the politicians treat them with contempt by refusing interviews with specific people or ducking certain programs. When they try that, shout and scream about it, make it clear that BoJo is a conniving bastard who dodges scrutiny, and that 'Downing Street Source' bans journalists for having the temerity to scrutinise them.

That's what a genuinely worthwhile broadcaster with dignity and integrity would and should do, so what's the problem with the BBC? Is it all just spineless management, or is it the case that some journos and presenters are more concerned with career prospects than actually doing their job diligently?

They are not unbiased over covid either. It should be more impartial. Factual.

They then wonder why people have got their risk out of proportion. But have very occasional positive articles.

Wonder if they have been told to keep us all in fear to make us comply with the rules. Probably. But have taken it way to the extreme.

The BBC like to pretend that they don't know what a woman is nowadays. Little clue - the employees they tend to pay less to.

Scrap it and the licence fee!

The BBC news had always been my go-to place for impartiality, but over the years I have become completely disillusioned by it. These days their reporting always seems to have an 'agenda' behind it, and they only report on what they want to tell you.

And I'm sick of the sneering of Huw Edwards as well. As for Kirsty Wark, the less said the better.

Their factual programmes are outstanding, and I don't know where I'd be without BBC4, but EastEnders? They can shove it where the sun don't shine.

@chargeorge

outside of the news the BBC does some amazing stuff, the proms every year, some great dramas (way better than ITV and others) think Line of Duty etc etc, there are so many regional TV & Radio stations not to mention orchestras and other things - keep the BBC at all costs, besides who can complain at £10.65 a month, no other subscription TV is anywhere near as good or that cheap

Good is subjective, but most streaming services are cheaper. Including Britbox, where the BBC charges us extra to watch old content instead of including it in the license fee.