Marple Community Forum & Noticeboard

Local Community => Local Issues => Hazel Grove Elections May 2015 => Topic started by: tigerman on January 06, 2015, 02:21:25 PM

Title: BBC Discussion
Post by: tigerman on January 06, 2015, 02:21:25 PM
Yawn, change the record. We all know why debt wet up, we were spendin more than we earnt, we had to drop living standards because the lifestyle we had was not affordable, govt spending was based on huge income from banks which turned out to be unsustainable. Food banks will be used if you supply them, there is no need for them if people prioritise their spending as food is very cheap.
Bug to
By all means come up with an argument but not the tired bbc/guardian/mirror rhetoric

The Guardian and Mirror are entitled to a view, and are the only national papers not to support a right-wing agenda, (although the Guardian actually supported the Libs at the last general election). But to suggest that the BBC has a left-wing agenda is wrong-headed. It in fact reports political debate as straight-forwardly as possible and is seen throughout the world as a trusted source of information. Its pursuit of a balanced line sometimes makes programmes a little dull, but to accuse it of "rhetoric" is bizarre. The BBC is far from perfect, but let's get some form of proportion here.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Bowden Guy on January 06, 2015, 02:30:29 PM
If the BBC is so good, then as soon as its main source of revenue is abolished (a compulsory tax, the non- payment of which can lead to imprisonment) it will have a great future as a subscription-only service. All those people who like cookery, motoring and dancing shows can then happily pay their money direct to the Corporation.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Duke Fame on January 06, 2015, 02:48:35 PM
If the BBC is so good, then as soon as its main source of revenue is abolished (a compulsory tax, the non- payment of which can lead to imprisonment) it will have a great future as a subscription-only service. All those people who like cookery, motoring and dancing shows can then happily pay their money direct to the Corporation.

Introducing a fair market,advertising and subscription will give the BBC a lease of life when it can be privatised. This should have happened years ago.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Bowden Guy on January 06, 2015, 03:07:02 PM
According to the BBC Trust, the median age of BBC1 viewers is 59 (up from 56). Younger people now seem to have deserted terrestrial TV and they no longer have the same relationship with TV as my generation did. On-demand services, TV on mobiles and tablets, box sets etc etc. The BBC is an anachronism and has had its day. I will give it 10 years at the most.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Howard on January 06, 2015, 03:40:47 PM
@Bowden Guy I'm not entirely sure you're right. Deloitte do a biannual review of the BBC and they regularly find that for every £1 spent by the BBC they get £2 back.

http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/bbc-worth-over-8bn-to-uk-economy/5050632.article (http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/bbc-worth-over-8bn-to-uk-economy/5050632.article)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9806298/BBC-we-make-2-for-the-economy-for-every-1-of-licence-fee.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9806298/BBC-we-make-2-for-the-economy-for-every-1-of-licence-fee.html)

The BBC is a convenient target for every government who like to accuse it of bias or money-wasting. It's an incredible institution and having experienced TV and radio in many countries, I'd pay double the licence fee to access the BBC's services.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Duke Fame on January 06, 2015, 04:26:54 PM
@Bowden Guy I'm not entirely sure you're right. Deloitte do a biannual review of the BBC and they regularly find that for every £1 spent by the BBC they get £2 back.

http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/bbc-worth-over-8bn-to-uk-economy/5050632.article (http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/bbc-worth-over-8bn-to-uk-economy/5050632.article)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9806298/BBC-we-make-2-for-the-economy-for-every-1-of-licence-fee.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9806298/BBC-we-make-2-for-the-economy-for-every-1-of-licence-fee.html)

The BBC is a convenient target for every government who like to accuse it of bias or money-wasting. It's an incredible institution and having experienced TV and radio in many countries, I'd pay double the licence fee to access the BBC's services.


With these sort of reviews, it very much depends who's paying the bill as to the conclusion it comes to.

I agree with BG that the BBC does need to change and in reality, holding onto the unique way the BBC is funded is a bit daft. The state don't really need to control the airwaves unless we have a war on or we live in North Korea. The BBC could be a world beater in terms of information services but it has to compete properly accross the globe or it will be left behind.

Don't get rid of the BBC, just privatise it. It should raise billions.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Duke Fame on January 06, 2015, 04:55:46 PM
The main issue with the BBC is that it leaves itself open to accusations of bias, if it wasn't the state broadcaster, nobody would care that it has a Labour bias in it's reporting. The other issue is that the lowest paid chap with a £5 old telly has to pay £170 for the privilege yet the well off chap with digital, internet and smart telly in every room pays the same - they said the poll tax was unfair but this is worse as the poorest take in the least content.

The fairest way is to have adverts and subscription, those who really don't want adverts can pay to have them 'ad-free'. Nobody is worse off, we pay by taking in the adverts / subscribing.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Dave on January 06, 2015, 06:06:14 PM
This left-wing bias thing is very old hat, although it is still being pushed by some right wing newspapers.  Maybe it was true in the past, but not now.  If anything it's now the other way round.  See, for example http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/opinion/extract-how-the-bbc-leans-to-the-right-9129608.html  Which is no more than you'd expect when the BBC has a chief political correspondent who was once Chairman of the Young Conservatives! 

What does happen, of course, is that ministers are asked probing questions by the John Humphrys and Jeremy Paxmans of this world, and they don't like it up 'em, as Lance Corporal Jones used to say.  We happen to have a Tory-led government at the moment, so every time George Osborne or another minister is held to account on the Today programme, there are cries of 'left-wing bias' from the Daily Mail.  And yet I seem to recall that one of the most vociferous complainers about BBC bias was Tony Blair! 

Every time I go abroad I am reminded of how good the BBC is.  God forbid that we should ruin one of the world's most respected media organisations.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Bowden Guy on January 06, 2015, 06:18:18 PM
There have been two issues in the past ten years that have proved to be incredibly divisive in this country, namely our membership of the EU and Immigration/Migration. In both cases, the BBC has quite clearly taken an editorial line that fundamentally reflects the liberal/left viewpoints of the people within it. Re the EU, anyone who openly advocated withdrawal was branded as a crackpot. And, as for immigration, anyone who even talked about the pace, levels and societal effects, of significant (and previously unexperienced) migration to this country, was labelled a 'racist". Even the BBC has admitted this bias.

To point to the fact that Nick Robinson used to be a Young Conservative is ridiculous. Dave, I will take your Nick Robinson and trump it with Ian Katz, recently appointed as Editir of Newsnight after many years as a senior editor at The Guardian (for what it's worth).
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Dave on January 06, 2015, 06:33:11 PM
Re the EU, anyone who openly advocated withdrawal was branded as a crackpot..
When?  By whom? 

And, as for immigration, anyone who even talked about the pace, levels and societal effects, of significant (and previously unexperienced) migration to this country, was labelled a 'racist".
When?  By whom? 

Too many airy generalisations, BG!   ;)
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Duke Fame on January 06, 2015, 07:02:59 PM
The BBC bias has become far more subtle, listen to R5, you will get an announcement say on the economy and the BBC will immediately get Ed Balls or Chris Leslie in the booth to put their two pennys in.

It shouldn't matter, the BBC should just be AN other media business who can do what they like but the fact is they tax most of us in order to keep it going. 
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Bowden Guy on January 06, 2015, 07:17:15 PM
Here is a good starting point, Dave.......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10158679/BBC-has-deep-liberal-bias-executive-admits.html

Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Dave on January 06, 2015, 09:27:33 PM
As I said, it's old hat. BBC bod admits 18 months ago that the Beeb used to be biased. Big deal!

Meanwhile, is BG going to come up with any evidence for the allegations he made in his previous post? No, I thought not.

Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Duke Fame on January 06, 2015, 10:39:57 PM
He just did or did I imagine his post?
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Dave on January 07, 2015, 12:01:28 AM
BG claimed that the BBC described those who wanted the UK to leave the EU as 'crackpots' and those who wanted to limit immigration as 'racists'. There is nothing in that old Daily Telegraph article to support either of those claims.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Bowden Guy on January 07, 2015, 09:22:37 AM
Over the past few years there have been a number of reports/investigations from the pBBC which readily admit that, yes, they have been guilty of bias "in the past" but, of course, everything is OK now.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Bowden Guy on January 07, 2015, 09:27:36 AM
Here is Mark Thompson, ex Director- General, referring to a BBC report from 2007 which described Euroscepticism and Immigration as "off-limits in terms of a liberal- minded comfort zone".....

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/bbc-chief-mark-thompson-admits-leftwing-bias-6509105.html

Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Bowden Guy on January 07, 2015, 09:31:57 AM
And here is John Humphreys (reported in the Guardian) saying that the BBC 'shied away" from the immigration debate because it had "bought into the European ideal" But everything is OK now, of course. Bit of a pattern here. Mea culpa for past wrongs but it's all been addressed, look away now......


http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/mar/11/john-humphrys-bbc-immigration-debate-today-programme
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Dave on January 07, 2015, 09:51:23 AM
Yes, I think we can all agree on that.  No-one disputes that in the past the BBC has sometimes shown what some have called a 'liberal bias'.   So in that Guardian article we read that 'Nick Robinson, the BBC's political editor, said in January that the broadcaster had made a "terrible mistake" by shying away from a proper debate on immigration in the late 1990s and early 2000s.', and 'Last year Helen Boaden, the BBC's former head of news, conceded that the broadcaster had a "deep liberal bias" on the subject when she took up the post in 2004.'

The trouble is, there is a noisy and entrenched anti-BBC attitude among some parts of the press, so that whatever the Beeb does they will be criticised.  If this were a rational discussion, the BBC would get credit for admitting its past mistakes and putting them right.  But it isn't rational - far from it. 

Meanwhile, we're still waiting for Bowden Guy to produce any evidence for these extraordinary allegations:

Re the EU, anyone who openly advocated withdrawal was branded as a crackpot. And, as for immigration, anyone who even talked about the pace, levels and societal effects, of significant (and previously unexperienced) migration to this country, was labelled a 'racist".

Come on, BG - put up or shut up!   :D

Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Howard on January 07, 2015, 10:15:29 AM
My view is that if the government of the day (whichever flavour) is complaining about bias in the BBC then the BBC is doing the job right. It ALWAYS happens that potshots are taken at the BBC whenever an election is coming up.

The BBC is scrutinised like no other media organisation on earth, and rightly do, as they are funded by the public. Can you imagine the howls from Murdoch if Sky News was held to the same standards that we hold the BBC to? Same for the appalling Daily Mail. Both of them are massive critics of the BBC because the BBC takes a (fairly) neutral view of the world unlike those two institutions who pander to the bias of their audience.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Bowden Guy on January 07, 2015, 10:37:26 AM
How strange, therefore, that it was The Times, owned by Rupert Murdoch, that singlehandedly exposed the widespread, and longstanding, criminality that was happening in Rotherham. Other news outlets, including the BBC, seemed unable, or unwilling, to investigate it. Facts sometime get in the way of narratives, as I'm sure we all find.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Duke Fame on January 07, 2015, 10:51:01 AM
How strange, therefore, that it was The Times, owned by Rupert Murdoch, that singlehandedly exposed the widespread, and longstanding, criminality that was happening in Rotherham. Other news outlets, including the BBC, seemed unable, or unwilling, to investigate it. Facts sometime get in the way of narratives, as I'm sure we all find.

ditto Saville, Rolf, Cricket match fixing, expenses scandal.......
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Duke Fame on January 07, 2015, 10:52:59 AM
My view is that if the government of the day (whichever flavour) is complaining about bias in the BBC then the BBC is doing the job right. It ALWAYS happens that potshots are taken at the BBC whenever an election is coming up.

The BBC is scrutinised like no other media organisation on earth, and rightly do, as they are funded by the public. Can you imagine the howls from Murdoch if Sky News was held to the same standards that we hold the BBC to? Same for the appalling Daily Mail. Both of them are massive critics of the BBC because the BBC takes a (fairly) neutral view of the world unlike those two institutions who pander to the bias of their audience.

But why shouldn't it be sold off and we can let the public choose if it wants it's product rather than using such an unfair poll tax?
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Howard on January 07, 2015, 12:19:08 PM
But why shouldn't it be sold off and we can let the public choose if it wants it's product rather than using such an unfair poll tax?

Because then the corporation will be under the control/influence of its shareholders and would become a mouthpiece and just another media organisation rather than the utterly unique and independent entity it is today. The BBC is one of the few things that makes me proud to be British.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Bowden Guy on January 07, 2015, 01:17:48 PM
Howard, here are a few other suggestions.....
1. Britain is a country with free speech (compared to the vast majority of other countries)
2. We still have a fundamentally free press/media (second comment as above)
3. We have made great strides towards real gender equality (as above)
4. We have made great progress towards a state of affairs where individuals are free to pursue their own sexuality (as above)
5. Despite many strains, Britain is one of the most tolerant countries in the world.
6. Because we live in a country that has the right to private property, we experience a material standard of living that is the envy of the world.

Very few people in the world have the enormous benefit of lving in a liberal democracy. We truly have won the lottery of life.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Howard on January 07, 2015, 01:40:46 PM
@tigerman Granted. Let me qualify that...I was thinking more of institutions and organisations. Along with the BBC I might add the NHS, the National Trust, the Open University and the RNLI.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Bowden Guy on January 07, 2015, 01:46:01 PM
Hopefully, not too late to add Point 7, namely the freedom we have established over many years, to practise one's religion or indeed, like me, to (personally) reject all religions?
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Duke Fame on January 07, 2015, 01:54:08 PM
Because then the corporation will be under the control/influence of its shareholders and would become a mouthpiece and just another media organisation rather than the utterly unique and independent entity it is today. The BBC is one of the few things that makes me proud to be British.

So everyone has to pay for your own indulgence? Personally, I could not care less who owns a telly / radio company, I'll watch what I like and pay accordingly - this is usually a British freedom.

If we must have a state broadcaster then finance it fairly. The greeks (bless them) put a levy on electricity which at lease seems a little fairer, income tax would also be fairer or simply a tax on new tellys.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Dave on January 07, 2015, 03:16:17 PM
Most countries have state broadcasting networks of one sort or another, many of them (the best ones) modelled on the BBC.  We would be crazy to scrap the Beeb, for the good reasons given by Howard.  It's a National Treasure.

But I can see Duke's point about the licence fee, and I understand his reference to the poll tax: it's a very blunt instrument,with its flat rate charge for everyone.   The over-75s are exempted, which puzzles me, as many of them could well afford to pay.  Perhaps we should devise simple ways of exempting or reducing the cost for those who can't afford the full licence fee, maybe by linking it to the tax and benefit system.

Switching to a subscription service like Sky Sports is definitely a bad idea - it would decimate the BBCs income.  A better plan, IMO, would be to finance the Beeb at least partly through advertising.   
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Howard on January 07, 2015, 03:59:33 PM
@Dave Advertising on the BBC won't produce the revenue that people expect. Going back to one of the original points (made by @Bowden Guy I think), traditional broadcast TV needs to change radically to compete in the fast-changing world of media consumption. On the rare occasions when I watch something on a commercial channel I NEVER see the advertisements. I put on the PVR and then come back 15 minutes later so I can jump through the commercial break.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Duke Fame on January 07, 2015, 06:03:39 PM
Most countries have state broadcasting networks of one sort or another, many of them (the best ones) modelled on the BBC.  We would be crazy to scrap the Beeb, for the good reasons given by Howard.  It's a National Treasure.

But I can see Duke's point about the licence fee, and I understand his reference to the poll tax: it's a very blunt instrument,with its flat rate charge for everyone.   The over-75s are exempted, which puzzles me, as many of them could well afford to pay.  Perhaps we should devise simple ways of exempting or reducing the cost for those who can't afford the full licence fee, maybe by linking it to the tax and benefit system.

Switching to a subscription service like Sky Sports is definitely a bad idea - it would decimate the BBCs income.  A better plan, IMO, would be to finance the Beeb at least partly through advertising.

I'm not saying the BBC is rubbish, some of the content is very good indeed (as is ITV, Ch4, 5 Sky & Television X).

It's competing on a world stage with one hand behind it's back and now is the time to set it free as very soon it'll be worthless. As we start to watch telly in different ways, financing TV needs to be different. I bought a TV licence for the first time in 6 years as I got a sky subscription and TV but for yonks i didn't need it and TBPH, if it were just me, I'd have a large screen and watch through catchup (avoiding the licence fee).

In time, it will be an uncollectable tax and far better to look at other options. I know many say it will be worse if privatised but private companies do not throw away the image that the BBC has gained. When VW bought Rolls Royce, they did not start to build cheap hatchbacks, the USP is the quality and a private enterprise would maximise that.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: sgk on January 07, 2015, 06:13:27 PM
......A better plan, IMO, would be to finance the Beeb at least partly through advertising.


Isn't that what BBC Worldwide effectively does, by selling the Beebs's fantastic programmes around the word for about a billion quid a year ?  Where they're often shown on foreign commercial channels, plagued with adverts, but never inflicted on ourselves (hoorah!)
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: sgk on January 07, 2015, 06:16:07 PM
I'm not saying the BBC is rubbish, some of the content is very good indeed (as is ITV, Ch4, 5 Sky & Television X).
....


Turned on Channel 5 last night, during the prime evening period, only to find an hour of "Worlds Deadliest Storms", followed by an hour of "World's Worst Storms", followed by an hour of "Worst Weather Ever?".  Next programme looked ok, "Britain's Best Loved Double Acts" for that seemed to be recycled BBC content (Two Ronnies, Morecambe And Wise etc). 


Bilge.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Bowden Guy on January 07, 2015, 08:35:20 PM
Quick, sgk, put the telly on. Eastenders is on BBC1!
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Bowden Guy on January 07, 2015, 08:37:02 PM
And don't forget the darts on BBC2 later!
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Duke Fame on January 07, 2015, 11:46:11 PM

Isn't that what BBC Worldwide effectively does, by selling the Beebs's fantastic programmes around the word for about a billion quid a year ?  Where they're often shown on foreign commercial channels, plagued with adverts, but never inflicted on ourselves (hoorah!)

Like a private business? Just privatise it and let it compete properly.

Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: ringi on January 08, 2015, 05:06:29 PM
The bias with the BBC is not on how they report something; it is on what they choose to report.

The tent to report what the left wing types that wish to work for them find interesting…
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Dave on January 08, 2015, 05:21:08 PM
What do you think they should report then, ringi?
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: tigerman on January 08, 2015, 08:21:32 PM
The BBC licence fee works out at about 40p per day and sets the standard for television in this country. The BBCs independence of commercial interest makes it an important counter to the right-wing agenda set by the Murdoch empire et al. Murdoch has challenged BBC programming in the EU courts. 
And don't forget BBC radio. Radio 4 alone is probably worth the 40p.
Oh, and the web services.

 
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Bowden Guy on January 08, 2015, 09:42:00 PM
Tigerman, from your posts you seem to be a "man of the Left" and you clearly see the BBC as a counter to the 'right wing agenda" of Rupert Murdoch et al. I cannot think of a clearer description of the liberal/left-wing bias of the Corporation. Thank you.

Btw I agree about Radio 4 and I would gladly (and voluntarily) pay a small sum each year to subscribe to it, even with the normal BBC bias.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Duke Fame on January 08, 2015, 10:01:33 PM
The BBC licence fee works out at about 40p per day and sets the standard for television in this country. The BBCs independence of commercial interest makes it an important counter to the right-wing agenda set by the Murdoch empire et al. Murdoch has challenged BBC programming in the EU courts. 
And don't forget BBC radio. Radio 4 alone is probably worth the 40p.
Oh, and the web services.


That is fine for you, if the 30pc of the country that want a left-wing media, why not just get the Guardian, Indy and Mirror rather than be subsidised by the rest of the country. in fact all those defending the licence fee seem to have quote a personal attachment to the BBC which is fine by why make those who may not care so much, pay for your indulgences! Personally, I would happily have a bit of shake n vac or R'whites lemonade instead of the lads in wheelchairs or ads for up and coming programs. It's very easy to avoid any conflict with paid advertising and content - they do it on bbc worldwide for a start.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Melancholyflower on January 08, 2015, 10:15:26 PM
Most of this discussion appears to presume that people watch or listen to the BBC purely for current affairs.  A liittle narrow-minded.

I'd be interested to know everyone's assumptions of where bias occurs in The Archers, or Doctor Who, or in Sport on 5, or programming that people actually enjoy to watch or listen and be entertained...

The fact that the discussion on the BBC's bias has produced a great deal of debate by its nature proves that it's fairly impartial, surely?

The debate is hardly new anyway. Labour accused them of bias after the 1970 election in broadcasting a programme called 'Yesterday's Men' after they were voted out of power.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Duke Fame on January 09, 2015, 08:09:40 AM
Most of this discussion appears to presume that people watch or listen to the BBC purely for current affairs.  A liittle narrow-minded.

I'd be interested to know everyone's assumptions of where bias occurs in The Archers, or Doctor Who, or in Sport on 5, or programming that people actually enjoy to watch or listen and be entertained...

The fact that the discussion on the BBC's bias has produced a great deal of debate by its nature proves that it's fairly impartial, surely?

The debate is hardly new anyway. Labour accused them of bias after the 1970 election in broadcasting a programme called 'Yesterday's Men' after they were voted out of power.

For me, their bias shouldn't come into it. The fact that we have a very unfair tax system to pay for it makes us feel that having paid, we want a say.

As for sport, the bbc sport is very bias in favour of Newton heath.

If I were not forced to pay, I'd not care.

Reality is that technology will beat the licence system, if I were to give up the TVs bit of my sky subscription, I'd not need a licence as I watch most TVs on an on demand service. That saves me 170 quid and I can't be the only one to have worked that out.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: tigerman on January 09, 2015, 03:59:16 PM
Most of this discussion appears to presume that people watch or listen to the BBC purely for current affairs.  A liittle narrow-minded.

I'd be interested to know everyone's assumptions of where bias occurs in The Archers, or Doctor Who, or in Sport on 5, or programming that people actually enjoy to watch or listen and be entertained...

The fact that the discussion on the BBC's bias has produced a great deal of debate by its nature proves that it's fairly impartial, surely?

The debate is hardly new anyway. Labour accused them of bias after the 1970 election in broadcasting a programme called 'Yesterday's Men' after they were voted out of power.

Agreed. The Left often see the BBC as unfair and establishment, whereas the Right see it  as a Communist-conspiracy. As you say, the bias is in the eye of the beholder. Its drama output is world-class and requires rival broadcasters to up their game.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Bowden Guy on January 09, 2015, 06:00:20 PM
In the 1980s the Glasgow Media Group (Marxists to a man/woman) published a series of books attacking the BBC (and the rest of the media) as a right-wing pro- Establishment organisation, with titles such as Bad News, More Bad News and Really Bad News. They are no longer writing such books, I believe, preferring to focus on how the UK media allegedly demonises "refugees".

Perhaps we could have a referendum on the future funding of the BBC and put the issue to bed "for a generation"?
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Duke Fame on January 16, 2015, 10:41:16 AM
Just to save a little money, you do not need a licence fee if you don;t watch or record TV as it's broadcast. I.e., if you watch everything on a remote service such as on demand, you do not need a licence. It's very easy to do this by using a PC connected to the TV saving £170 of your hard earned each year.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: sgk on January 16, 2015, 10:56:15 AM
Just to save a little money, you do not need a licence fee if you don;t watch or record TV as it's broadcast. I.e., if you watch everything on a remote service such as on demand, you do not need a licence. It's very easy to do this by using a PC connected to the TV saving £170 of your hard earned each year.

Indeed, or get a "smart" TV which has iPlayer built in.

I understand the colour TV license is £145.50 though, not £170.  Bargain!
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/tv-licence-types-and-costs-top2 (http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/tv-licence-types-and-costs-top2)
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: wheels on January 16, 2015, 11:43:38 AM
Its such a tiny annual amount I really don't understand why folks get so exercised about it added to which its an outstanding service.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Duke Fame on January 16, 2015, 12:29:59 PM
Indeed, or get a "smart" TV which has iPlayer built in.

I understand the colour TV license is £145.50 though, not £170.  Bargain!
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/tv-licence-types-and-costs-top2 (http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/tv-licence-types-and-costs-top2)

I beg your pardon, I hadn't realised it had gone up, in that case it's £192 of your hard earned. As it's a tax, I gross it up with PAYE and NI added back.

I think a 'smart' TV does need a licence, I can't afford  such an indulgence but it's great that we can avoid the TV tax.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Duke Fame on January 16, 2015, 12:31:55 PM
Its such a tiny annual amount I really don't understand why folks get so exercised about it added to which its an outstanding service.

Because it's a tiny amount for someone who's household income is mainly scrounged off the taxpayer. It's nice to have the choice as to what telly we'd like to see and choose what to pay for.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: wheels on January 16, 2015, 12:43:21 PM
Because it's a tiny amount for someone who's household income is mainly scrounged off the taxpayer. It's nice to have the choice as to what telly we'd like to see and choose what to pay for.

Oh ouch....... I'll send you a bank statment listing my income lol.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Bowden Guy on January 16, 2015, 03:12:30 PM
Over 150,000 people are criminalised each year because they do not buy a TV licence. Most of these people are, I suspect, from relatively poor backgrounds. Last year, around March  time, it was widely trailed, by the Coalition, that they were looking to convert non-payment if this poll tax to a civil matter. Another area where nothing has happened.

If the BBC is such a great organisation, loved by all, it will have no problem at all in raising funds via subscription or advertising. Time for a change. Perhaps our Parliamentary candidates would like to offer their view on this?
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Dave on January 16, 2015, 06:25:10 PM
If the BBC is such a great organisation, loved by all, it will have no problem at all in raising funds via subscription or advertising.

On the contrary, if the BBC were to become a subscription service its income would be decimated, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.  And as Howard has pointed out:
Advertising on the BBC won't produce the revenue that people expect.... On the rare occasions when I watch something on a commercial channel I NEVER see the advertisements. I put on the PVR and then come back 15 minutes later so I can jump through the commercial break.

I assume Bowden Guy would be happy to allow the BBC to be destroyed, or become changed beyond recognition.  Fair enough - he's entitled to his view.  But let's not pretend that it could survive such a change. It would be the end of public service broadcasting in the UK, and of one of the world's most distinguished and respected media organisations.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Bowden Guy on January 16, 2015, 09:23:14 PM
Dave, perhaps you remember the vilification that Ray Honeyford suffered at the hands of the BBC, the Guardian and other parts of the media? He was a Bradford headteacher who warned, in the 1980s,  about the dangers of 'multiculturalism" and the likelihood that different ethnic groups would end up following complete separate existences. He was presented by almost all media organisations as a 'racist".

He was hounded out of his job yet, just 25 years later, a certain Trevor Phillips was  admitting that multiculturalism in Britain had utterly failed.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Dave on January 17, 2015, 09:37:42 AM
And your point is??
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Duke Fame on January 17, 2015, 02:23:56 PM
On the contrary, if the BBC were to become a subscription service its income would be decimated, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.  And as Howard has pointed out:
I assume Bowden Guy would be happy to allow the BBC to be destroyed, or become changed beyond recognition.  Fair enough - he's entitled to his view.  But let's not pretend that it could survive such a change. It would be the end of public service broadcasting in the UK, and of one of the world's most distinguished and respected media organisations.

If the BBC fails, who cares, it's just another media company but it will fail if they rely on the current funding arrangement. With a bit of thought, we can get the BBC for free.

To suggest if the BBC were to become a subscription service its income would be decimated is rather silly. For a start, it's likely to get more income as subsribers will not avoid the tax as they do now. advertising would add to the income.  Furthermore, as a worldwide broadcaster over the net / sat / cable, don't you think, managed like a real business, it would not increase revenue.

Right now, the BBC is almost gifted around the world, as a private company it would bring in revenue, able to expand and return money in tax and the revenue privatisation.

Perhaps Dave is so selfish, he'd rather have his entertainment subsidised for him by the poorest in society and forgo the additional money into the treasury (afet all, he wants other people to pay that too).

Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Dave on January 17, 2015, 03:19:07 PM
But I'm not a fare dodger.  ;)
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: sgk on January 17, 2015, 05:26:23 PM
Here goes, although feels like I'm just feeding the trolls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29).

If the BBC fails, who cares, it's just another media company but it will fail if they rely on the current funding arrangement. With a bit of thought, we can get the BBC for free.
What should the BBC aspire to becoming then, by taking a subscription only service ?  I've seen lots of Murdoch output, like this week's Fox News, and I wasn't right impressed.
ITV : Fox News commentator apologises after claiming Birmingham is a 'totally Muslim city where non-Muslims don't go' (http://www.itv.com/news/2015-01-11/fox-news-commentator-apologises-after-claiming-birmingham-is-a-totally-muslim-city-where-non-muslims-dont-go/)

To suggest if the BBC were to become a subscription service its income would be decimated is rather silly. For a start, it's likely to get more income as subsribers will not avoid the tax as they do now. advertising would add to the income.
Nope.  They would lose their unique status and become just another media company.

Furthermore, as a worldwide broadcaster over the net / sat / cable, don't you think, managed like a real business, it would not increase revenue. Right now, the BBC is almost gifted around the world, as a private company it would bring in revenue, able to expand and return money in tax and the revenue privatisation.
Nope.  They already sell their content around the world, achieving over a billion pounds in revenue each year.  That keeps the license fee nice and cheap for us folks in blighty.
BBC Worldwide Annual Review 2013/2014 (http://www.bbcworldwide.com/annual-review/annual-review-2014.aspx)

Perhaps Dave is so selfish, he'd rather have his entertainment subsidised for him by the poorest in society and forgo the additional money into the treasury (afet all, he wants other people to pay that too).
Nope.  But perhaps others are so selfish they would prefer to see the rich and powerful dictating what content appears on the screens, To the detriment and exclusion of the poorest in society.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Bowden Guy on January 17, 2015, 07:16:36 PM
So, according to your logic, sgk, anyone who does not believe in a compulsory poll tax to fund a national broadcasting organisation is a mouthpiece for the "rich and powerful". Funnily enough, I  don't have many of those in my immediate social circle......perhaps you might just acknowledge that people have the right to have a contrasting viewpoint.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: wheels on January 17, 2015, 10:46:16 PM
So, according to your logic, sgk, anyone who does not believe in a compulsory poll tax to fund a national broadcasting organisation is a mouthpiece for the "rich and powerful". Funnily enough, I  don't have many of those in my immediate social circle......perhaps you might just acknowledge that people have the right to have a contrasting viewpoint.

But it's not a poll tax or anything like it. You have a perfect right not to pay the fee. Just don't use the service.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Duke Fame on January 18, 2015, 11:19:52 AM
Here goes, although feels like I'm just feeding the trolls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29).
What should the BBC aspire to becoming then, by taking a subscription only service ?  I've seen lots of Murdoch output, like this week's Fox News, and I wasn't right impressed.
ITV : Fox News commentator apologises after claiming Birmingham is a 'totally Muslim city where non-Muslims don't go' (http://www.itv.com/news/2015-01-11/fox-news-commentator-apologises-after-claiming-birmingham-is-a-totally-muslim-city-where-non-muslims-dont-go/)

His claim in that piece which really sounded wrong was when Steven Emerson said Birmingham was a beautiful city, he clearly hadn't been there.

Fox has it's place in the market rather like the Daily Mirror, Record or Sun has in the UK newspaper market or even for that matter the BBC's news on BBC Three. It's ridiculous to suggest the BBC will become a Fox if it were owned by shareholders, why would it when Fox exists? People buying BBC shares will do so knowing the strength of the BBC brand and I'd imagine, appoint a management structure that develops & exploits that brand on a world market. When Rolls Royce car division was privatised, it did not start to sell cheap consumable hatchbacks, it developed it's brand, When VW bought it, it didn't make a mass market Rolls Royce hatchback even though it's expertise was in this market? Now BMW owns it and Rolls Royce is a huge seller throughout the world and genuinely a benchmark for excellence.

The point is that the BBC will continue to produce it's current mixed bag of media throughout the world, the difference is that it will bring more money in rather than be a poll tax for the population. 

 
Nope.  They would lose their unique status and become just another media company.
That's all it is, it has a decent brand for now.

Nope.  They already sell their content around the world, achieving over a billion pounds in revenue each year.  That keeps the license fee nice and cheap for us folks in blighty.
BBC Worldwide Annual Review 2013/2014 (http://www.bbcworldwide.com/annual-review/annual-review-2014.aspx)

BBC worldwide is only scraping the surface, it brings in some revenue but it could be so much more. the advertising BBCworldwide has is pathetic right now, as a private entity, it could be huge and contribute so much more to the treasury.

Nope.  But perhaps others are so selfish they would prefer to see the rich and powerful dictating what content appears on the screens, To the detriment and exclusion of the poorest in society.

How would that be the case if the BBC were privatised? a simple entry in the M&A's and treasury 'magic' share could keep the model in the UK accessible to all.

It's simple enough, in the UK we can have two models, subscription and advertising. Those who subscribe can get the BBC advert-free, they sill get the current bulked out programs (compare the UK apprentice on the BBC and that on satellite, the BBC version bulks it out with repeated shots of Suralansugar driving around the North Circular in his Roller whilst the commercial version strips this out so we can have a break and be invited to drink R whites lemonade in secret.  The subscriber will get extra ads for BBC content and the blokes in wheelchairs doing wheelies. Those who take advertising will simply pay for their viewing by accepting advertising.

There will be no need for the TV police, TVtax enforcement, court time, criminalising the poorest in society.

The model right now is deeply unfair, the poorest get the worst service and pay the same price as those who consume the most.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Melancholyflower on January 19, 2015, 01:32:54 PM
Please explain how the poorest get the worst service, duke fame?
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Duke Fame on January 19, 2015, 04:18:16 PM
Please explain how the poorest get the worst service, duke fame?

I'll take my experience, my brother in law works long hours, shift work but it's not the best pay in the world. As a favour, we gave him an old TV which is a CRT and a DVD player. If i sold it on Ebay it may have got be £5 but in giving him that TV, he;s liable for the £193 of his earnings which is around 30 hours of working. He doesn't get to consume much TV as he works long hours

A more successful pal of mine lives in a rather posh place, the kids have their bedrooms as well as a social room, there are smart TV's in every room, internet access all over the place as well as DAB radios. He bills out at around £200 per hour, his wife is a social butterfly, kids etc. He gets huge value from the TV licence as he gets TV, catch up, streaming, hard disk back up, DAB, internet and normal radio uses BBC internet a lot, the kids use all this along with the wife.   It costs him less than 1 hour of work.

That is why it it a poorer service for the poorest and how the poorest pay more.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Bowden Guy on January 19, 2015, 05:07:59 PM
Duke's argument is backed up by a recent article in the Guardian (no less....)

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/dec/22/poorest-uk-households-pay-half-income-tax-campaigners

The implication is that, if you want greater social equality, we should get rid of flat rate taxes like the TV licence fee that unfairly discriminate against the poorest members of society.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: wheels on January 19, 2015, 05:54:40 PM
I'll take my experience, my brother in law works long hours, shift work but it's not the best pay in the world. As a favour, we gave him an old TV which is a CRT and a DVD player. If i sold it on Ebay it may have got be £5 but in giving him that TV, he;s liable for the £193 of his earnings which is around 30 hours of working. He doesn't get to consume much TV as he works long hours

A more successful pal of mine lives in a rather posh place, the kids have their bedrooms as well as a social room, there are smart TV's in every room, internet access all over the place as well as DAB radios. He bills out at around £200 per hour, his wife is a social butterfly, kids etc. He gets huge value from the TV licence as he gets TV, catch up, streaming, hard disk back up, DAB, internet and normal radio uses BBC internet a lot, the kids use all this along with the wife.   It costs him less than 1 hour of work.

That is why it it a poorer service for the poorest and how the poorest pay more.



Seems then that you and your brother in law conspired to make him liable for the fee. You should not have offered and he should not have accepted then he would not have to pay the licence fee...
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Duke Fame on January 19, 2015, 06:03:15 PM
But it's not a poll tax or anything like it. You have a perfect right not to pay the fee. Just don't use the service.

But that's the point, there is not a choice. we can choose not to use the TV licence services but if we have a cheap telly, we have to pay the tax. I like Television X, Babestation etc and these great TV channels do not get a penny of the TV licence yet, if I watched in the old way via a satellite box, I have to pay for your BBC rubbish like Eastenders, Voice, Homes under the hammer etc.


Seems then that you and your brother in law conspired to make him liable for the fee. You should not have offered and he should not have accepted then he would not have to pay the licence fee...

You may be right, but the point is that it really is not a very fair system and the cost could easily be removed but for a few dewy eyed stick in the muds who are so selfish, they expect everyone else to pay for their own indulgences.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: wheels on January 19, 2015, 06:26:21 PM
You seem to have mix arguments here. So am I to assume you would not be happy with the BBC being funded say from Income Tax, that would still not meet your satisfaction as you just don't like the product.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Duke Fame on January 19, 2015, 06:59:05 PM
You seem to have mix arguments here. So am I to assume you would not be happy with the BBC being funded say from Income Tax, that would still not meet your satisfaction as you just don't like the product.

Income tax would be a far fairer method of financing the BBC but I still don't see the need to do so.

State owned industry should only be where there is market failure or for security interests. When the BBC started, it was quote right  that the state should have a broadcasting vehicle to convince the little people to take up arms and bash johnny foreigner and give him what for. There was also the aspect that no private company could afford to set up the expensive equipment required and in any case, very few punters could afford to buy the receiving equipment and many just built hooky sets to avoid the costs involved so there were not that many listeners (later viewers) in order to make broadcasting pay. So, in comes the state and they paid for the broadcasting whilst the technology got cheaper and more affordable. You could argue that it should have been privatised in the 30's but the war started and the state needed it's propaganda machine.

Fast forward to now, most of us can see through the state propaganda and there is enough rival broadcasting to get all sides of an argument. The huge cost of entry to the market has gone as we can make our own recordings with our phones and there are 600 channels available so broadcasters have plenty competition with new entrants all the time.

In short, there is no need for a state broadcaster anymore, now is the time to privatise it before it's too late.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: marplerambler on January 19, 2015, 07:18:55 PM
Duke states
Income tax would be a far fairer method of financing the BBC but I still don't see the need to do so.

When the BBC started, it was quote right  that the state should have a broadcasting vehicle to convince the little people to take up arms and bash johnny foreigner and give him what for. There was also the aspect that no private company could afford to set up the expensive equipment required and in any case, very few punters could afford to buy the receiving equipment and many just built hooky sets to avoid the costs involved so there were not that many listeners (later viewers) in order to make broadcasting pay.

Wikipedia states:
 Unlike most other English-language countries, the United States does not have a federal government-owned national broadcaster, and the country's international government-operated broadcasters overseen by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (the most widely known being Voice of America) were expressly forbidden from being marketed to American citizens until 2013 and still neither owns nor affiliates with any AM or FM station.

I am surprised that Duke does not adhere to the more fundamental philosophy of the American government's approach to broadcasting. There is a lot of money to be made by the government selling licenses to use them there airwaves.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: marplerambler on January 19, 2015, 07:37:58 PM
I suppose that I should also add that the American model does promote 'Nevermind the quality feel the width'. Most of the output is total rubbish. The license does give us BBC2, BBC4, Radio Three and Radio Four
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Bowden Guy on January 19, 2015, 09:11:01 PM
That's true, Marplerambler. It's also true, however, that the great majority of viewers watch BBC1 and the vast majority of listeners tune into Radios 1 and 2, none of which are particularly distinctive and all of which could be just as easily be delivered by private companies.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Duke Fame on January 19, 2015, 10:35:29 PM
That's true, Marplerambler. It's also true, however, that the great majority of viewers watch BBC1 and the vast majority of listeners tune into Radios 1 and 2, none of which are particularly distinctive and all of which could be just as easily be delivered by private companies.

Furthermore, the private companys tends to deliver popular culture in a better way. Corrie v Eastenders; Sky Sports v MOTD, X-factor v popstars the rivals etc etc.

It's easy to say that US tv is rubbish but US tv is sold in far greater numbers than UK output, the likes of the Simpsons, Sesame Street, Games of Thrones, Big Bang theory, etc etc.

Reality is that the opinion of good content is subjective, the point being that ownership makes no difference to the output.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: marplerambler on January 20, 2015, 10:54:23 AM
Has no-one else ever experienced the real fun of real BBC baiting?  In the 1990s I had five wonderful years of living in a house without a television. At work all day and out walking at weekends I hardly ever watched the TV so when I moved to a different address I simply didn't bother. Five years of realising that I was not missing very much and the true joy was not Cistercian silence it was five years of radio (listening to BBC Radio 3 and Radio 4 of course, Classic FM from 1992) and reading. During this time the Beeb/TV licensing must have spent more than the equivalent of a license fee harassing me non-stop. The weekly threatening letter was opened, resealed put back in the post box unstamped with 'Return to Sender. No television at this address' or 'I wish your TV detector van guys luck: they will be sitting there all night', 'Thank you for your kind letter informing me that you will prosecute - I very much look forward to seeing you in Court'. Seeing the ever increasing threatening tone of the letters as time passed was a revelation but surprise, surprise there was never a knock on the door or a court summons. It was a hell of a lot more fun than Coronation Street!
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Melancholyflower on January 20, 2015, 08:01:06 PM
I'll take my experience, my brother in law works long hours, shift work but it's not the best pay in the world. As a favour, we gave him an old TV which is a CRT and a DVD player. If i sold it on Ebay it may have got be £5 but in giving him that TV, he;s liable for the £193 of his earnings which is around 30 hours of working. He doesn't get to consume much TV as he works long hours

A more successful pal of mine lives in a rather posh place, the kids have their bedrooms as well as a social room, there are smart TV's in every room, internet access all over the place as well as DAB radios. He bills out at around £200 per hour, his wife is a social butterfly, kids etc. He gets huge value from the TV licence as he gets TV, catch up, streaming, hard disk back up, DAB, internet and normal radio uses BBC internet a lot, the kids use all this along with the wife.   It costs him less than 1 hour of work.

That is why it it a poorer service for the poorest and how the poorest pay more.

I beg to differ. To simplify, the rich man gets more and pays more for it, that's how it's always worked surely? I assume he didn't get all his multiple tvs, broadband package, dab radios free of charge?

The key word here is "service". It's not compulsory, so there is absolutely no obligation to use it.  Everyone has a choice. Like you can choose whether or not to have a car, but if you do, you pay the same petrol price as everyone else. I don't see anyone campaigning for fuel income taxes.
Title: Re: BBC Discussion
Post by: Duke Fame on January 20, 2015, 10:27:53 PM
I beg to differ. To simplify, the rich man gets more and pays more for it, that's how it's always worked surely? I assume he didn't get all his multiple tvs, broadband package, dab radios free of charge?

The key word here is "service". It's not compulsory, so there is absolutely no obligation to use it.  Everyone has a choice. Like you can choose whether or not to have a car, but if you do, you pay the same petrol price as everyone else. I don't see anyone campaigning for fuel income taxes.

The issue is that because the service can be received, despite it only representing 5/600ths of what is receivable on the £5 TV kit, my Brother in law has to shell out a huge amount of money.

Your petrol example is right, you are paying as you consume and have a choice, with a TV set you simply do not have a choice.

I am just saying that income tax would be preferable but reality is that I'd prefer to see adverts so the likes of my BIL can pay on consumption be allowing adverts into his viewing.