BBC “what has the BBC done for me”

[Robin60]

Am I the only one who silences the TV when the BBC starts with their advert featuring Ramesh Ranganathan? It’s the BBC advertising (but they don’t show ads or do they now) how amazing they think they are through the comedy antics (?) of RR. It just boils my 9!$$

It's on as an ad on YouTube, which I was using to watch Ukrainian rock bands. The actual ad in entirely content I don't view.

The biggest problem with it is that it isn't going to convert a single person from their current opinion.

Big fans of the Beeb? Don't need it.
Grudging licence payers who use it a moderate amount? Don't need it.
Entrenched opposition? Won't have their minds changed.

The agenda is very off putting, like NHS ads celebrating themselves whilst you've been sat in a waiting room for four hours trying to get a referral for tumors that should have been done months ago (ask me how I know!).

To be honest, I think the BBC needs to rein itself in a bit. We don't need forty fucking thousand radio channels and another eleventy billion children's programs. We don't need LIVE REPORTING about things like Prince Harry visiting Australia. We don't need magazine-style articles about niche social problems in far flung parts of the world, we need accurate local reporting.

Example - I live in Birmingham. In the 2011 riots, violence very quickly spread to Birmingham. But the BBC barely reported the levels of disruption we were experiencing, and only really picked up on things in Manchester on their other doorstep - we had to rely on local social media to understand what was happening and where, when getting home meant dodging armed kids, and being woken by police helicopters through the night. It was so poorly reported what was happening in my city centre that people who lived in the suburbs didn't know what was happening, including my boss, who wouldn't let me go home early for safety.

They do many things very well, but they're trying to do too many things. They need to focus on getting some core services right, not trying to provide another billion things that nobody needs.

I don’t think it needs to be a package, people like choice. I do agree money could be made globally from subscription.

I don’t see that you have to love the BBC or its Russian gulag for you, in your other post, sounds a bit North Korea. I think we’re in a time of streaming and choice and people are happier to do that if they want.

Have no issues with the Beeb. I don't love (or even like) every programme - would be weird if I did! But they do broadcast some good stuff. TV and radio, as well as online.

I wish they still had the funds to produce the big historical dramas they used to be so good at (although the other Bennet Sister was very good). I still rewatch THAT Pride and Prejudice series on a semi regular basis as well as other older stuff on Channel 4. While the nature programs can still be very good, I am bored rigid by losing half the show to "how we made it" - seems to be a cheap filler.

Their Woke attitude for a few years was unhelpful - it certainly seemed to kill Dr Who which, while not everyones cup of tea, was a fun show very different to anything else But it seems to be calming down a bit - I hope!

Long live the Beeb!

Interesting, thank you!

The fee is so frustrating when you have so little input into the programs being made or how the money is spent.

Agree. So annoying.

Under UK law, the TV Licence is not a subscription fee solely for BBC content—it is effectively a regulatory licence required to watch or record any live television broadcast in the UK, regardless of the channel or provider.

Why? Well it pays for the service you're receiving:

• Broadcast Infrastructure: Subsidises the physical transmitter networks and satellite backbones that carry signals across the UK—which commercial broadcasters like ITV, Channel 4, and Sky rely on to transmit linear signals.

It's an operating cost which allows commercial broadcasters to exist - without this infrastructure you wouldn't be able to access Sky at all.

So yes - you pay for the services you use - through subscription to the Service provider (e.g. Sky) to cover their costs and profit margins and to the government to cover the cost of infrastructure required to maintain that commercial service. Which is entirely reasonable.

The advert is a mixture of smug self-congratulation and desperation.

RR has certainly done very well out of the BBC and indeed got paid to do this advert.

I have a tv licence but tv watch less and less BBC - football, Wimbledon, TOTP repeats, University Challenge and if there’s a national event, eg Queen’s funeral.

The BBC - as said by ex head of news - has been infiltrated by a really woke agenda. And biased reporting - once you start seeing it, it’s obvious. I know personally that drama etc commissions have to go through a “filter” which ends up making them a bland box-ticking production.

Ito fantastic that your daughter has joined the bbc on a route which wasn't via a Russell group university and was from from a state school , but five people a year is woefully inadequate to achieve a representation of working class people . They need to start recruiting out of their bubble and stop chasing young viewers . When I was a teenager decades ago I never watched TV I was too busy going out , I came to be a tv viewer when I got older and I should imagine the same is true today

The Government ( all parties) is supportive of the BBC. They need a reliable, trustworthy news source. The BBC does so much world wide and it is regarded internationally as a huge asset. From an educational viewpoint, its content is second to none.
The BBC licence model may need tweaking but no government will allow it to disappear. It is too valuable to society

I think they do recruit from all backgrounds. Actually the traditional BBC Graduate Training Scheme has gone and it’s more focused on different specific areas and you don’t need a degree.

When I was young a lot of people snuck in via the secretarial route but I should think that way in has now gone the way of all secretaries !

If the BBC top knobs get their way yes you will.
As they are trying hard to push a BBC licence fee on all suscription services
AND
They also want you to pay for the licence if you watch Youtube.

The BBC used to be really good. I wish they would extend their ‘ from the archive’ section, so we can see quality content from before the dumbing down. Ramesh is ok, but he is clearly being heavily leaned on to fulfill DEI virtue signalling.

You haven't understood the point I am making.

I am quite happy to pay the infrastructure fee and see that it is necessary and that I should pay it.

What I am not happy is to pay for the rest of it. The programming that I don't want. In the same way I don't pay for Netflix, because I don't want that either.

The licence (according to AI) is 80% programming, and 20% for things like infrastructure and regulators.

So if I want to watch live broadcast on everything except the BBC, I should be liable for the infrastructure fee (about £40) and not the programming fee (about £140).

I saw this last night and hadn't heard of it before. I thought it was self-indulgent tosh.

BBC does seem self indulgent now, actually. It’s lost its dignity and quality and seems to be pandering. Distasteful.

The recent BBC / gov survey seemed to be pushing for middle to higher earners to pay more and even a tax.

If the content is as good as people say they could go to the market as subscription and be fine.

Not seen it on tv but heard it one the radio, unsure if it's the same one as I thought it was Andrew Marr? Either way it was extremely cringeworthy. The examples given were poor.

We'd have to burn every institution to the ground then...we call this 'anarchy'. I'd rather just watch a few BBC ads thanks and vote/lobby for progress.

You know they could have been at a pub?

Who watches linear TV in 2026 ?

I agree with everything in this post.

I'm not sure what the ad is supposed to achieve - it certainly isn't going to change anyone's mind.

I don't want rid of the BBC entirely, but honest conversations about what it should deliver, how it can be scaled back to what's actually important, a renewed focus on objectivity and impartiality - are very badly needed,.

That's a very simplistic view - it would cost more to administer than any benefit to individuals. And if it were privatised it would cost more still to maintain the infrastructure - e.g. Southern Water for example in of how this wouldn't work. There's a choice - don't chose Sky if you're not happy to pay your license, if you want to use Skye that's the system that exists, you contribute to that system - that's what happens in civilized societies, it's not about individualism.

How do you know that it would cost more to administer ?

A lazy argument put forward by people who have no idea of the actual costs.

I'm pretty confident it wouldn't cost £140 per person. Which would be the benefit to me.

There is no comparison between Southern Water and broadcasting infrastructure. The reason water costs are high is partly due to the enormous amount of money required to replace and maintain infrastructure which is in many cases 100s of years old. Broadcast infrastructure is completely different, a lot smaller and lower cost and rapidly changing. In fact at some point terrestrial broadcasting will probably be done away with and it will all be done over fibre.

Who said privatise it ? They can separate out the fee for it but still keep it under public ownership. There is no compulsion for privatisation while maintaining separate infrastructure fees.

I am happy to contribute to the system. I recognise sky uses broadcast infrastructure and I am happy to pay for that. I am not happy to pay for BBC programming because I don't use that. In the same way I don't use netflix, disney+ or any one of the other TV services available in the UK.

You mean I presume that the BBC don't show advertisements. Which they don't. They don't take money off other companies to promote their products

Promoting your own output isn't advertising. Where would you draw the line? Is the Radio 1 DJ saying "So and So is on next with Dance Anthems" advertising? What about the star of the new BBC drama doing the Graham Norton show. How about the continuity announcer saying the news in on at 10. Or the Strictly presenters reminding you what time the results show is on tomorrow.