to say the BBC might be imperfect but

[user427654]

A lot of people here don't appreciate the value in what they have, and it would be beyond foolish to let this institution be decimated.

When I say here, I don't mean on MN, but in general in the UK

YANBU but i think the impartiality model is broken.

It feels like when you get enough like minded people together that impartial and groupthink become closely associated.

You can say that the news can present only factual information but the very act of selection of what to report on and what to exclude is fundamentally political and influenced by that groupthink.

I would be much happier if there was less opinion and more explanation, and more genuine questioning of politicians and less trying to trip them up for a gotcha moment .

I kinda prefer the LBC or Spectator model these days where your personal opinions are known and you can use them to elicit answers or make arguments, but where there are people with different personal opinions.

It feels like the BBC still doesn't understand that splicing trumps sentences like that was truly bad. Just now they've said they wanted to show how people received his message rather than admitting they messed up.

I am noting that many of these issues come from independent production companies but I find it awful that the BBC are abdication responsibility in the validation process.

They will make mistakes
We all do
But they need to accept they have an inherent bias (we all do) and be honest about that.

Can you describe the value please

Well.i like the radio and news. Tv is generally bad though. Repeats soaps and gameshows.

I am so tired of the "You'll miss it when it's gone!" argument.

a) We don't have the choice as to whether to fund the BBC or not. If we, as individuals, don't pay for the BBC - we get prosecuted.

b) Other countries seem to cope. France? Germany? Canada? They all seem to cope without a state broadcaster that they are compelled to fund individually.

c) If you are setting yourself up as an impartial, authoritative source - you'd better act as one. Which means you cannot allow your organisation to be so biased that you can't even see it.

Prosecuting citizens and threatening them with spam mail and men trying to get in to people's property is indefensible.

People can throw money at the corporation if they want, but to call it a 'licence' is laughable.

I don't consume any of their stuff and don't value them at all.

Honestly I think the trans stuff and the utter avoidance of dealing with any of that honestly really showed how far gone they are. I do feel very sad about it, when I was kid I think there was a lot of care and you didn’t always know which way a journalist would vote for example. Now its really bloody obvious with most of them and I think thats a problem.

It would be a huge loss if the idiots keep trying to break it. Apart from the TV, the radio and news website are second to none. Then throw in the charity drives they do - children in need, comic relief, sports relief etc. It's hugely important. You can always tell when something is good quality and popular because the media, the stupid and those with massive chips on their shoulders will try to bring it down.

Comic Relief and Sport Relief are nothing to do with the BBC.

We can raise money for charity without a state broadcaster that we are compelled to fund individually.

A whole host of senior ‘leaders’ and mangers at the BBC have found to have lied and lied and lied. Its complaints unit is run by a bunch of ideological zealots and it’s a bloody shambles.

How do you unpick a rotten governance culture and rebuild it? How do you make the BBC accountable?

We’re talking about massive issues being misreported and misrepresented by our state broadcaster.

. Women’s rights and children’s safeguarding
. Trump and US politics
. The Middle East
. The detailed science of climate change
. The BBC’s own handling of complaints

It’s not good enough.

Like any organisation or institution that adopts crazy identity politics, it will eventually implode as people simply give up on it. The BBC won’t survive this latest scandal in its current form, very sad,

I'm including radio too.

I certainly don't agree with everything they broadcast, but that doesn't matter to me. They lean in both directions and sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't, but in general, it all balances out. I thought, for example, that, in their attempts to be even-handed and neutral, their coverage leading up to Brexit was pretty terrible overall.

But the breadth and depth of their programming is astonishing and not based on the need to make a profit or generate rage clicks. The culture, the comedy, women's hour, thought for a day, are all part of the fabric great British culture everyone seems so worried about diluting. And outside of the UK, it's a brand that's known and respected worldwide. Cultural capital.

They've caused a huge amount of damage by acting as a mouthpiece for terrorism, refusing to publicise corrections but adding them as postscripts after publishing inflammatory misinformation. Their Arabic service employs literal terrorists and intentionally changes their English subtitles to sway opinion. They have spent hundreds and thousands of pounds burying a report on their institutional antisemitism, and ignored an open letter signed by hundreds of Jewish employees.

I'd be very sad to see the loss of the BBC and you only have to look at it's haters (Daily Mail, Telegraph, the Murdoch media empire) to see that the those that are trying to get rid are doing so for their own agenda and it'snot one that has an aim of fair and balanced information. The BBC has many imperfections and fails on the wrong side of certain debates, when it should be more neutral but rather a reformed BBC than Fox news any day of the week.

Bbc arabic had to issue 2 corrections a week for 2 years. Thats a shitshow.

It can still exist but they can ask people who want to watch it to pay for it.

Woman's Hour? Which Jenni Murray got hounded out of for daring to not believe the blessed BBC scripture that trans-identified men are women?

That's first on the cancellation list.

Sorry, but the funding model is absolutely broken.

No way should someone who wants to watch live football on sky have to fund the BBC services they see as poor value and never want to use.

At the absolute minimum the infrastructure fee and the programming fee needs to be separated out.

Then the BBC can live by the desirability of its output like every other TV station.

I’d happily pay a smaller subscription for a pared-back public radio service from a less bloated BBC.

For me it isn’t just impartiality- it’s the huge salaries handed out and the decades of turning a blind eye to stars who have abused their privilege and power whilst in the service of the BBC.

People don’t consume serious news like they did only thirty years ago. That’s a massive failing in society. The problem is also now that the people making the news broadcasts also don’t appear to believe in serious news. They are chasing ratings in a world that is primarily focused on entertainment.

Talking about bloated - a while back, the BBC decided that it would move heavily into local news, via its website. There was absolutely no reason to do this, it's a large enough organisation already. Anyway, there was a massive outcry because they were going to choke off all the commercial local news websites and services. They were forced to back down. The BBC is like a huge, smug blob, that thinks it knows best about everything.

Then you and the people who share your view can pay for it. Everyone else, who doesn't want a left wing lecture every time they tune in, shouldn't be forced to fund it.

Well, i love a lot of their programmes. But i don't believe they have been impartial for a long time. Otherwise there wouldn't have been so many people like Farage and his ilk on news and politics programmes when they didn't even have an elected MP. But ignored the actual sitting Green MPs.

Or putting up a scientist talking about climage change, and then some climate change denier (Nigel Lawson?) as "balance".

Pathetic.

And then there was this picture.

So. no. I have zero sympathy with them - and let alone resignations there should be a lot more sackings.

The BBC is a fantastic broadcaster. It’s becoming less favoured among young people as they choose poor news outlets, ev TikTok. Of course the bbc is worth preserving. Probably with a slimmed down decision making process (too many cooks) but it broadcasts the best wildlife programmes, the best objective news and current affairs and many programmes it commissions are first class.

What it has been lax on is asking the right questions of the tv companies it commissions from. Clearly the piece on Trump was wrong but it’s because they didn’t evaluate the original speech and didn’t pick up the edit. Neither did Trump when it was broadcast 6 months ago. So many think it’s a right wing coup to bring the bbc down. I tend to agree.

Commissioning programmes from others brings different issues. Panorama and the Gaza documentary weren’t made by the bbc. So of course it should survive but be far more careful about critiquing programmes.

I would pay double for it. Anyone who doesn’t value its output in radio, dc tv, world news and all its channels does have an issue with quality tv and is probably seeking sport or entertainment only in lighter formats. We don’t watch much not on the bbc!

The bigger issue I have is prominence given to Reform and the radio certainly doesn’t have the opposition parties on as much. You would barely know the Liberals had an annual conference! It’s driven too much by chat and polls, and not enough by the make up of parliament. They allow contributors to say all sorts of incorrect things without saying what the truth is - eg on university fees where the truth is avoided because rhetoric sounds better. BBC verify needs more airtime!

I only liked some programmes they produced but not enough to keep the licence. Felt the same way about all other channels. Cancelled my licence during covid and don't plan to start paying again.

If the demand for their decent content is there they can do a subscription model.

This.

I also thing value for money is an increasing issue - we get less and less for money we have to pay and increasing numbers aren't paying at all.

I'd back reform but have little faith that's going to be possible with the attitudes on display.