Help shape the BBC
Posted by: Clive B on 17 October 2015
If you care about the future direction of the BBC, including of course FM radio, please take the opportunity to complete the questionnaire which may be found at:
Thank you.
Thanks for the link Clive.I shall do that survey later.
Sadly the BBC - the most important cultural institution in the UK, as well as our only truly global export brand (and a brand admired around the world, to boot) - is under attack, not just from the Tories and their media baron friends, but also the SNP, UKIP and certain sections of the Labour party, as well as philistines in this country who really should know better. Not to mention the gross incompetence of much of its overpaid management.
as well as philistines in this country who really should know better.
Here we go. Blaming the Arabs again.
The BBC produce some great programmes but News 24 and some of the radio news programs are a joke.
The Victoria Derbyshire program is an abomination, it’s the Jeremy Kyle show done the BBC way.
as well as philistines in this country who really should know better.
Here we go. Blaming the Arabs again.
The BBC produce some great programmes but News 24 and some of the radio news programs are a joke.
The Victoria Derbyshire program is an abomination, it’s the Jeremy Kyle show done the BBC way.
You missed the lower case "p". 
Never watched the Derbyshire prog, not really a fan of hers. Fiona Bruce - now you're talking. Those eyebrows... well, they just promise so much, don't they?
You missed the lower case "p".
You missed, the poetic licence for comic effect. Obviously.
You spend valuable viewing time looking at Fiona Bruce's eyebrows????? To be honest, can't say I've noticed them before.
Looking forward to a death of the BBC = it has no function in 2015, glad I don't pay the tax anymore
Still make some of the world's best programmes and still an organisation with heritage and an international reputation
I wonder if the general population really cares that much about the future of the BBC as all that.
I filled in the questionnaire that was linked.
There was a time when the BBC really was something special, and its downfall - if it happens - will not be the sole responsibility of those politicians who dislike it nearly so much as the responsibility of the management of the BBC itself. The quality of the BBC is not definably better than that of its commercial competition, and so it can no longer justify its unique style of funding - in effect a form of State taxation of the very worst and most regressive sort. If it withers on the vine, and eventually becomes completely insignificant or closes completely, this will its own fault quite as much as those who want to see it finish.
ATB from George
George
i think the non demonstrably better comment might be applicable to the TV output but radio? Do you really consider that Radios 3 and 4 as a minimum are not demonstrably better. If so I would have to disagree and I might argue about TV as well!
i think that DayJay makes a very valid point about the global reach of the BBC, to some people in the world it is the only reliable news source. Moreover most Americans I have had the pleasure to know would die for it.
i think the phrase 'be careful what you wish for' is wholly apposite here.
No doubt that Radio Four maintains something of the standard that built the BBC’s reputation, and Radio Three itself has never been anything but controversial in its whole history. Several attempts have been made to close the channel or make it part-time since 1945. Radio Three caters for such a tiny audience - me among them - that its cost is a nonsense compared to the benefit it brings. I certainly don’t think that people who like classical music would be entirely deprived of great music if Radio Three disappeared. After a while Radio Three would hardly be missed. Before Radio Three [initially the Third Programme] was established, classical music found its natural place in occasional broadcasts on the Home Service [now called Radio Four].
But if the BBC reduced its output to one station alone - being Radio Four - in my opinion nothing but benefit would result. As for all the other services, the commercial opposition can easily fill the gap left in my view.
There was a time when I would have said that the BBC was a crucial element in British Culture - a sort of conscience of it - but I feel that it has abdicated that responsibility in its dumbing down and pandering to those who consider daily ratings the primary drivers for decisions on programming.
The strange thing was that the BBC was at its best when it was not concerned about competing with the commercial sector as much as leading by example. Once the BBC stops leading by example, then it ceases to have a unique worth that justifies its unique State run flat rate Tax. And the level of the License Fee is within the power of the government, so in no way can the BBC ever have been said to be entirely free of the position of being a State sponsored broadcaster, like the Reichsender, or Radio Moscow. We may think that the BBC runs an independent editorial line, but this is certainly under considerable practical constraint in reality.
If no alternative funding arrangement can be found, then the BBC will be doomed in any case. I suspect some kind of subscription basis of funding may be found, but I would think that people will tolerate a few adverts for free to view television broadcasting not funded from a Tax, and be content to pay a subscription to commercial senders for advert-free television sending, be it streaming or live.
I just don’t think the BBC has the depth of public support that it once did, and the seeds of its own demise have been sown already and the consequences are inevitable in the long term. The management of the BBC over the last forty years will certainly be seen to share a large proportion of the responsibility for this demise when it comes.
ATB from George
Well all I can say is that I'm glad I'm in the tiny minority. May Radio 3 continue for many more years to come. It's provided me and many others with years of pleasure. I listen to music across the spectrum too. It's also there when steamers run out of bandwidth as they often do in the sticks. There's room for us all and life would be so boring if we all followed the herd.
Watch much TV George? Clearly not, or you'd never consider commercial channels to bear comparison wirh the BBC, even leaving aside the interminable adverts that render much of the former's output unwatchable.
Heaven help us if we should lose the BBC. It's still the envy of the rest of the world and I think you'll find when it comes to the crunch most folk will be very supportive of it.
Careful now. George is withering on the vine.
No doubt that Radio Four maintains something of the standard that built the BBC’s reputation, and Radio Three itself has never been anything but controversial in its whole history. Several attempts have been made to close the channel or make it part-time since 1945. Radio Three caters for such a tiny audience - me among them - that its cost is a nonsense compared to the benefit it brings. I certainly don’t think that people who like classical music would be entirely deprived of great music if Radio Three disappeared. After a while Radio Three would hardly be missed. Before Radio Three [initially the Third Programme] was established, classical music found its natural place in occasional broadcasts on the Home Service [now called Radio Four].
But if the BBC reduced its output to one station alone - being Radio Four - in my opinion nothing but benefit would result. As for all the other services, the commercial opposition can easily fill the gap left in my view.
There was a time when I would have said that the BBC was a crucial element in British Culture - a sort of conscience of it - but I feel that it has abdicated that responsibility in its dumbing down and pandering to those who consider daily ratings the primary drivers for decisions on programming.
The strange thing was that the BBC was at its best when it was not concerned about competing with the commercial sector as much as leading by example. Once the BBC stops leading by example, then it ceases to have a unique worth that justifies its unique State run flat rate Tax. And the level of the License Fee is within the power of the government, so in no way can the BBC ever have been said to be entirely free of the position of being a State sponsored broadcaster, like the Reichsender, or Radio Moscow. We may think that the BBC runs an independent editorial line, but this is certainly under considerable practical constraint in reality.
If no alternative funding arrangement can be found, then the BBC will be doomed in any case. I suspect some kind of subscription basis of funding may be found, but I would think that people will tolerate a few adverts for free to view television broadcasting not funded from a Tax, and be content to pay a subscription to commercial senders for advert-free television sending, be it streaming or live.
I just don’t think the BBC has the depth of public support that it once did, and the seeds of its own demise have been sown already and the consequences are inevitable in the long term. The management of the BBC over the last forty years will certainly be seen to share a large proportion of the responsibility for this demise when it comes.
ATB from George
Well, I disagree with everything you have said on this issue, except perhaps the BeeB "competing" with commercial TV talent type shows.
I doubt you watch much TV; and you have no appreciation of the depth of feeling some people have for Radio 3 - if you google For3 you will learn something.
Other than that, your opinion is just that. I hope the majority think differently.
"I hope the majority think differently."
Dear Lionel,
The Radio Three audience [including me] no doubt care deeply about the BBC surviving. But the numbers concerned are tiny in proportional terms.
As for you last sentence. I sort of agree in the sense that I hope the BBC can return to form and survive. If there is no return to form, then even I cannot get worked up about the BBC finishing. I hope most people really do care enough to see the BBC return to a pre-eminent position in broadcasting and cultural affairs.
Time will tell whether your hope, and mine, is born out.
But I doubt it in all fairness.
As a nation we seem not to care very much about anything anymore.
Except paying for things we can have for free!
ATB from George
I agree with most of the sentiment above and especially Tony's point about how much it would be missed but I also agree with George on the point that the BBC is at its best when it is not trying to compete with the commercial competition, especially in the 'entertainment' genre and gameshows etc. For documentaries, nature programmes and certain drama, especially some the recent Northern based shows, I still think they are class leading providers. Over recent years I have loved Life on Mars and its follow up, Sherlock, Happy Valley and Waking the Dead and I'm enjoying River, all original and ground breaking shows that were well worth the money. I visited the BBC on a work based programme a couple of years ago and they were very clear in their strategy of making more drama in the North and spreading the BBCs appeal, and spend, away from the south and the proof has been in the pudding
Dear Dave,
Perhaps with the potential writing on the wall, the BBC will pull itself together, but it may well be too little too late given the staggering level of apathy in the country as a whole. The general population as a whole simply turn on the box everyday and do not particularly worry about what it is they are watching.
The enemies of the BBC [mainly politicians and media tycoons, an unholy alliance if ever] will happily leap on this apathy to clip the wings of the BBC in future, and strangely the popular press is in the hands of media tycoons, so we are unlikely to see the press come rushing to the aid of the BBC as the politicians see their chance to slip in a bit of BBC reduction - even to a point where the BBC becomes irrelevant. The Radio Three and Radio Four audience combined are by no mean s numerous enough to make any difference at all!
ATB from George
Recently I found Cradle to Grave, particularly for people of a certain age, to be magnificent and I bet you would have real difficulty in getting a commercial station to have made that.
This is, of course, subject to reservations as to Peter Kay's cockney accent!
I have no love for the so called 'Hampstead Hypocrites' who I believe may be connected to the BBC.
But the quality of work the BBC produces on Radio and TV is clear and also the envy of many other countries. I visited USA and attempted to watch TV, there is a message (a commercial) and then the show begins and then to my horror a person announces that there will be a short message (another commercial), so the poor Americans have to endure two commercial breaks before the show properly starts! Now imagine the that one of the many Television channels in USA put on for eg BBC1 or 4 programmes (our own UK programmes) say for one month, imagine the viewers will see no commercials, additionally I would imagine a lot of viewers will succumb to the quality but some may have to get use to the English programmes. I forsee that a lot of Americans would after the one month experiment demand that they have something similar on their own channels. Now how about introducing the NHS experiment...?
The BBC is one of the UK's great assets. But I do feel that the programmers and producers are doing their bit to undermine. I find much of the content to be superficial and glossy. All presentation and not enough substance. Luckily there's enough great content but I do worry. Much of what I watch is sport, but even Wimbledon is getting hard to swallow and for many, the BBC's experience is all they will have. Too much clever production rather than letting the sport and the players speak for themselves. And another example will be Sports Personality of the Year. It used to be great to let everyone talk to Coleman or whoever. Now it's just flashy production and the sports people hardly get a chance to say a word. It's all about the production rather than the live experience. Ditto the Boat race. Ruined . And the World Athletics Championships? I know there's lots of time between races but there's still much behind scenes action to show, the background for these athletes. But much of the time is spent showing Top Gear type video montages of their own production cleverness. I'd rather have an advert in that case.
On the other hand , I turned on R4 in the car the other day and it was two men and a donkey and a microphone following the trail of the last Inca King. Marvellous and not a video editor to mess it up. I'd happily pay a license fee for that.
Perhaps the BBC should pull out of television and do what they did for decade before television even became a practicality - broadcast quality radio! Then we can do away with Radio One, Two, and any number above Four.
That was my heartfelt conclusion on the actual questionnaire.
If we have to subsidise all the rest of the tripe, then let it all go.
ATB from George
Sorry to say George:
1/ you are 100% right, most of it is tripe .... but .....
2/ get used to it, its here to stay & will probably get worse.
That said, I used to spend more time abroad than in UK, sometimes weeks & months on end, Europe, USA, Africa, Mid-east ...... all over the place. Returning home & turning on dear old Auntie Beeb on the car radio & then feet up in front of the TV, BBC & even ITV, it gave me a real heartfelt .......... "I'm home" feeling.
Believe me if you want real tripe, you don't need to go far, it starts at 21 miles south ...... I believe we should appreciate what we have & encourage & praise when its justified. But nothing wrong with positive critique & add pressure to raise the game.
Dear Mike,
I am entirely sure that what ever I think will make exactly no difference, but as I don’t pay the License Fee [because I don’t watch television in my own house but only in friends’ houses] I am more than ever sure that giving up television at home was correct. And that it was in 2002 when my Sony Trinitron [CRT TV] gave up the ghost!
Being interested and passionate about the BBC regaining lost ground and surviving is going to make no difference.
However, I can definitely say that with care over programme selection Norwegian TV is not less good than UK TV. Even in June this year. No ads, and some good programmes, and a good selection of films available for free with no ads.
Albeit on a satellite connection many tens of miles from the nearest big town.
Perhaps I should smuggle in a Norwegian freesat box and simply break the law that supports the BBC with a TV Tax, except that I am would never knowingly break the law.
ATB from George
No doubt that Radio Four maintains something of the standard that built the BBC’s reputation, and Radio Three itself has never been anything but controversial in its whole history. Several attempts have been made to close the channel or make it part-time since 1945. Radio Three caters for such a tiny audience - me among them - that its cost is a nonsense compared to the benefit it brings. I certainly don’t think that people who like classical music would be entirely deprived of great music if Radio Three disappeared. After a while Radio Three would hardly be missed. Before Radio Three [initially the Third Programme] was established, classical music found its natural place in occasional broadcasts on the Home Service [now called Radio Four].
But if the BBC reduced its output to one station alone - being Radio Four - in my opinion nothing but benefit would result. As for all the other services, the commercial opposition can easily fill the gap left in my view.
There was a time when I would have said that the BBC was a crucial element in British Culture - a sort of conscience of it - but I feel that it has abdicated that responsibility in its dumbing down and pandering to those who consider daily ratings the primary drivers for decisions on programming.
The strange thing was that the BBC was at its best when it was not concerned about competing with the commercial sector as much as leading by example. Once the BBC stops leading by example, then it ceases to have a unique worth that justifies its unique State run flat rate Tax. And the level of the License Fee is within the power of the government, so in no way can the BBC ever have been said to be entirely free of the position of being a State sponsored broadcaster, like the Reichsender, or Radio Moscow. We may think that the BBC runs an independent editorial line, but this is certainly under considerable practical constraint in reality.
If no alternative funding arrangement can be found, then the BBC will be doomed in any case. I suspect some kind of subscription basis of funding may be found, but I would think that people will tolerate a few adverts for free to view television broadcasting not funded from a Tax, and be content to pay a subscription to commercial senders for advert-free television sending, be it streaming or live.
I just don’t think the BBC has the depth of public support that it once did, and the seeds of its own demise have been sown already and the consequences are inevitable in the long term. The management of the BBC over the last forty years will certainly be seen to share a large proportion of the responsibility for this demise when it comes.
ATB from George
Don't know how you can say this, it has no standard, its pro EU, immigration and so left its embarrassing
Says the Daily Mail.
It's amusing to note how the right believe the Beeb's too left-wing, and vice versa. It's scary how vociferous the right-wing press is in seeking to denegrate the BBC at every opportunity. Nothing to do with the fact their owners have considerable financial interests in the commercial channels of course...