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?

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.

That's the Owen Jones that wanted his colleague fired for wrongthink? Such a twit.

I would put a deep commitment to truth above both, I think - being impartial is no good if you are apathetic (or underfunded) and simply accept seems to be true on the surface, or the press release. And independence is useless if you are a liar.

The BBC website is a disgrace. When it first started it was amazing, but now... Every day there is a bar of “ishoos” with moaning minnies (or michaels) whingeing about strange situations. It looks like the teenage book section with the only criteria for inclusion being some peculiar ailment t or predicament which applies to 0.0000001% of people.

The Covid coverage has been disgraceful - searching for scares instead of accurate information.

I want gravitas from the national broadcaster, not this desperate pursuit of “youth” - who grow up anyway.

The licence fee is the wrong model I think, because it dates from an analogue age and when only a minority had a tv.

However, some form of the BBC I think we should cherish, not just as tv without adverts.

101jobs I can’t bear BBC left-wing socialism

I can't bear BBC right wing populism.

I've always thought the licence fee was very unfair. Years before Netflix came along, I used to say they should make the BBC a subscription service so that those who want it should pay and not force others to pay for content they're not watching. Nowadays when that's the basic model for all streaming services, I don't see any reason why they can't move to that - the licence fee is an anachronism.

I no longer watch BBC news as I find the presenters unbearable, and I'm aware that there's a lot of content that they produce which I just ignore. I've never listened to the radio or podcasts and never will, and only watch sport when Wimbledon or the Olympics are on. I'd still pay for a subscription-based model though, because I probably watch about the same number of shows on BBC as I do on Netflix or Channel 4. I don't see why they couldn't make it like Sky where you pay for certain channels to access certain types of content.

@BonfireStarter

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.

Bonfire have you had a lot of letters and then people coming round wanting proof you haven’t got a tv? There are sometimes letters in the paper from people who haven’t got television but nonetheless are bombarded with threatening letters and visits demanding payment for the licence. It seems the BBC simply cannot countenance that not everyone wants a television.

I think the last thing I was truly invested in on the BBC was Poldark and that ended ages ago. I do like it when Lucy Worsley or Mary Besrd pops up, and Repair Shop is OK but that's it. We used to watch it a lot more...my daughter loved Cbeebies and we watched loads of drama and history stuff. However in the last year the TV presenters got more irritating and the content too vapid and PC...so we don't tend to switch it on these days. I also never watch ITV and Channel 4 sporadically.

I found Bitesize to be too vague in specifics and during lockdown we turned to the History channel, Encyclopedia Britannica and Dan Snow documentaries. We also used National Geographic, National Gallery and Portrait Gallery websites alongside museum sites like the V&A, and the British Museum. Bitesize didn't cut it.

We watch a lot of Netflix and Disney plus now. I watch Prime for New Amsterdam (a guilty pleasure) and Outlander (ditto). We also have a Sky package with broadband included and we mostly watch Sky Atlantic on it, not much else.

If the channels that advertise could split from the BBC and self-govern with the advertising cash, then the BBC became a subscription service, I think the quality of programming from the BBC might rise. Also, the BBC should stop paying the "talent" so much. They take the money then put out rubbish because they know they'll get their money anyway. It breeds laziness.

It’s going to die a natural death, what is the average age of a BBC viewer? I like the odd drama but I’m in my 40s, my parents are in their 70s and like countryfile and that type of thing but my children (primary age to teenage) never watch it.

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

They're probably the offspring of BBC employees.

Bitesize is aimed at a very low level. It's just about OK as an introduction to the topics on a superficial level. DS was struggling with history when he started secondary school, so he used it a few times when there was a topic that matched what they were doing in class, but he thought it was too simplistic and was actually very time consuming for the small bits of info he learned from it. He started googling for you tube videos instead which he found were often in more depth and quicker to watch so he could watch 2 or 3 in the time he'd take to wade through a Bitesize topic.

@Swingbin

It’s going to die a natural death, what is the average age of a BBC viewer? I like the odd drama but I’m in my 40s, my parents are in their 70s and like countryfile and that type of thing but my children (primary age to teenage) never watch it.

I think the BBC (News in particular) is a typical example of the London Centric "luvvie" culture that is doing untold damage to the country. The media and politicians are living in an echo chamber and their eyes and ears are firmly closed to anyone living outside their bubble.

No, BBC, moving a few studios into Salford achieves nothing if the presenters are Londoners who are interviewing other Londoners! Asking random people a few questions on the street of a Northern town doesn't mean that it's not a London Centric organisation!

The BBC is so much more than TV, radio and news.

I know it suits certain people of a political persuasion to get rid of it (the Op for one), and it certainly suits one odious newspaper proprietor, but we will regret it if it goes.

YANBU. The BBC should become subscription only so that those who love it can pay for it in full and those that don't want it don't have to subsidise them.

If it's as brilliant and well-loved as so many claim it is, then it doesn't need to force people to pay the licence fee as enough people will be prepared to pay a hefty subscription for it.

@spandexonmars

YANBU. The BBC should become subscription only so that those who love it can pay for it in full and those that don't want it don't have to subsidise them.

If it's as brilliant and well-loved as so many claim it is, then it doesn't need to force people to pay the licence fee as enough people will be prepared to pay a hefty subscription for it.

Do you think the same about the NHS, social care or education funding, or anything, really, that your taxes pay for? “I don’t use it, I don’t want to pay for it. I don’t care that if I don’t pay for it, it will damage the funding of the whole setup and no one can have it.” Or can you see that there is a greater good in society to have things we pay for that we might not personally use?

I'm not a massive fan of BBC TV programmes but I think it does keep up the standards for other channels.

On news, there seems to be an issue with the vast majority of news outlets in this country about what journalism is. So instead of researching what's happening and reporting on it, they ask other people what's happening and report on what they say. That's not journalism, that's propaganda.

And it doesn't become journalism if you just report on what two people with opposite opinions tell you. One could be telling the truth, both could be lying, you're supposed to work out which it is and tell us!

Do you think the same about the NHS, social care or education funding, or anything, really, that your taxes pay for? “I don’t use it, I don’t want to pay for it. I don’t care that if I don’t pay for it, it will damage the funding of the whole setup and no one can have it.” Or can you see that there is a greater good in society to have things we pay for that we might not personally use?

No. I don't think the BBC is in any way comparable to the NHS, social care or education funding and I don't believe the BBC is providing an essential service or is a "greater good" for society.

Once again, if you think the BBC is so great, opt to pay extra when the inevitable subscription-only service comes in. Whether the BBC is good quality is totally subjective, some people love it, others don't but everyone is forced to pay for a tv licence. I'm sure you wouldn't be happy if someone forced you to pay for Netflix because they thought it provided great quality shows and benefitted society as a whole?

Do you think the same about the NHS, social care or education funding, or anything, really, that your taxes pay for?

Comparing essential services with entertainment.
That makes no senses.

Once again, if you think the BBC is so great, opt to pay extra when the inevitable subscription-only service comes in. Whether the BBC is good quality is totally subjective, some people love it, others don't but everyone is forced to pay for a tv licence. I'm sure you wouldn't be happy if someone forced you to pay for Netflix because they thought it provided great quality shows and benefitted society as a whole?

I agree with this.
If the BBC is so wonderful, then surely enough people would be prepared to pay to watch to enable it to survive.

@spandexonmars

Do you think the same about the NHS, social care or education funding, or anything, really, that your taxes pay for? “I don’t use it, I don’t want to pay for it. I don’t care that if I don’t pay for it, it will damage the funding of the whole setup and no one can have it.” Or can you see that there is a greater good in society to have things we pay for that we might not personally use?

Totally agree with this.

@MonkeyToesOfDoom

The BBC provides more than entertainment- There is news, learning and a wide variety of programmes that both inform and educate.
by taking away the funding it will no longer be able to do this and will just have to sink to the lowest cheapest denominator to attract viewers. I will alos be carved up by the media moguls who will destroy its integrity.
The BBC is rightly admired around the world and for many its the first place they look for when they want to know the truth.

@spandexonmars
No. I don't think the BBC is in any way comparable to the NHS, social care or education funding and I don't believe the BBC is providing an essential service or is a "greater good" for society

Your whole argument is that you don't use its service so why should you pay for it, and to let those who need it pay for it.
Your cant just dismiss the same tone just because you feel the NHS etc should be kept.
Why should ppl pay for the BBC if they dont want it- let it go on subscription and those who want it will pay for it
Why should ppl pay for the NHS if they dont want it- let it go on subscription and those who want it will pay for it (An argument used by many Insurance companies)
Why should ppl pay for the School education if they dont need it- let it go on subscription and those who want it will pay for it ( a fair argument for those who dont have or plan to not have children )

They no longer reflect the news they try to control it. They didn't go to quiet areas during lockdown but deliberately went to areas they suspected would be popular and used special lenses to make people look close together, their idea of diversity is just more non white people, not diversity of opinion or experience. My county's largest immigrant population are East European, predominantly Polish but they don't fit the BBC's idea of diversity so are ignored. They try to catch out politicians so their interview can then be a news item in itself rather than discuss the issues and let the issue be the news item. They are obsessed with identity politics and homogenising everything so it offends no one and appeals to no one as all the programmes look the same.
They could have a diverse output without insisting every programme ticks the same diversity boxes.

[quote Cheeseandwin5]@MonkeyToesOfDoom

The BBC provides more than entertainment- There is news, learning and a wide variety of programmes that both inform and educate.
by taking away the funding it will no longer be able to do this and will just have to sink to the lowest cheapest denominator to attract viewers. I will alos be carved up by the media moguls who will destroy its integrity.
The BBC is rightly admired around the world and for many its the first place they look for when they want to know the truth.[/quote]
You cant compare any of what the BBC does to what the NHS does.
I don't give a shiny one how great Graham Norton is, he's not saving lives like a surgeon.
I don't care how fabulous the education programming is, they're not tending to a rape victim like a nurse does.

It is not a reasonable comparison.

Of you want to compare like for like then compare the BBC to another media corporation. Netflix, prime, sky.
And ultimately, if one of those came out and said that everyone now has to pay them £12 a month whether they watch their programs or not, everyone wouod tell them to piss off.

As for BBC being respected around the world... Lol. No. Google: Al Jazeera Vs BBc.

Your whole argument is that you don't use its service so why should you pay for it, and to let those who need it pay for it.
Your cant just dismiss the same tone just because you feel the NHS etc should be kept.
Why should ppl pay for the BBC if they dont want it- let it go on subscription and those who want it will pay for it
Why should ppl pay for the NHS if they dont want it- let it go on subscription and those who want it will pay for it (An argument used by many Insurance companies)
Why should ppl pay for the School education if they dont need it- let it go on subscription and those who want it will pay for it ( a fair argument for those who dont have or plan to not have children )

Yes, that is my argument and yes I can just dismiss it as that is my opinion. I am allowed to have a different opinion to you. Why is it so difficult to understand that I don't think the BBC is an essential service or in any way comparable to the NHS, education etc. I could tell you that I believe Netflix is an essential service because it makes good quality programmes and is a valued service provider. You would probably disagree. However, I would never insist you pay for it because I like it. You are basically expecting other people to subsidise your choices and opinions. That is not reasonable.

Once again, if you want the BBC and you believe it is an essential service, then pay more (licence fee) tax to fund it.

@2Rebecca

They no longer reflect the news they try to control it. They didn't go to quiet areas during lockdown but deliberately went to areas they suspected would be popular and used special lenses to make people look close together, their idea of diversity is just more non white people, not diversity of opinion or experience. My county's largest immigrant population are East European, predominantly Polish but they don't fit the BBC's idea of diversity so are ignored. They try to catch out politicians so their interview can then be a news item in itself rather than discuss the issues and let the issue be the news item. They are obsessed with identity politics and homogenising everything so it offends no one and appeals to no one as all the programmes look the same. They could have a diverse output without insisting every programme ticks the same diversity boxes.

Fully agree.

There's a stark difference between our regional news and the London dominated national News. The former remains relevant, fair, unbiased, etc and reports news of interest to the communities they represent.

National news, Breakfast, documentaries, the Today programme are just politically correct claptrap that's only of interest to the London Luvvies.