Privatisise the BBC?

Keep on dreamin Southern England.

Fritz

I passionately believe that the current method of funding the Beeb must continue. I agree that in recent years it lost its way a bit, but from what I have understood from recent announcements on its strategy it is getting back on track.
Long live the BBC. Would you rather watch ITV or Murdoch vision?
Simon

quote:

---

Would you rather watch ITV or Murdoch vision?

---

Quite frankly, it does not bother me...I find channels 4, 5, and UK History more than sufficient (along with radios 3 & 4) and my record and CD collection. I also have the choice of DVD

Simon, although not unsympathetic to your views, I am tempted to say, fine, for those who value what BBC1 and 2 have to offer, let them buy it. Why should I be forced to?

Laurie S

I passionately object to paying a BBC tax - because that it what it is - whether I watch the BBC or not. The legal position is that there is a monopoly & I have to pay the BBC if I want to watch, say Eurosport or Sky1 - which I cannot believe is legal under current laws. The "public service" line is nonsense because we had BBC News 24 & BBC3 way before freeview was available to all, and the only way these were obtainable was through cable or satelite, which required a subscription to someone else so the average punter paying for it already couldn't get it!! I am absolutely positive that the current method of funding for the Beeb is illegal, if challenged.

Fair Commnent, so what's your alternative to the best invetigative jounalism on earth ?


Fritz Von Timsebastianisdaft²

Ahh, yes, ..Andrew Gilligan

My standard smug answer whenever this question popped up used to be "If the BBC is privatised we'll end up with TV like America, and we don't want that do we." Sadly I think we're almost there already i.e. the schedules (including the BBC) are full of junk aimed at the lowest common denominator. Just look at Saturday night TV - God's way of telling you to get a social life.

If the BBC doesn't get its finger out and improve its output I frankly wouldn't have the same objections now as a few years ago.

I also think that some of the cable channels (particularly Discovery) put the BBC to shame. Ok some of their documentaries may not have an expensive talking head doing the presenting but the content is often much more intersting and informative than a lot of what's coming out of the BBC.

quote:

---

Just look at Saturday night TV - God's way of telling you to get a social life.

---

...or a decent (ie Naim HiFi)


Or even.....(wait for it)...(shock horror) start TALKING to your family again


Luckily for me, I reached the age of 22 before I had to share a house with a TV set and the thought of not having one at all barely raises a ruffle. Now, being without radio or music...that is a totally different matter. If I had to choose btween my radio(tuner) and TV I would hesitate for all of a microsecond before reaching a decision

Laurie S

The BBC has its place, but it is a very difficult balancing act...

If they chase the ratings then they are accused of 'dumbing down'.

If they produce drama or documentaries that only have minority appeal then they are elitist.

The one area where Auntie has excelled over the years has been in comedy. Would ITV or Murdoch or whoever have produced the following...

• Monty Python
  
• Not The Nine O Clock News
  
• Fawlty Towers
  
• Have I Got News For You
  
• The Fast Show
  
• Mrs Merton
  
• Alan Partridge
  
• The Office
  
• League of Gentlemen
  
• The Royle Family
  
• many others I've forgotten about...
  

Having typed this it has occured to me that they nearly all started life on BBC2 (Did Python? I'm too young to remember the original runs...).

To my mind the only British sourced non BBC comedy that comes close to this lot is Father Ted (I suppose that strictly speaking this is an Irish comedy.)

Perhaps I've just justified BBC2's continued existence.

Laurie said "along with radios 3 & 4"

If it went subscription the you'd have to pay at least £10 a month just for that. Which, in many ways, is the argument for the BBC: the collective bargaining nature of the fee maks for excellent value. It's a bit like paying for the M6 even though I only use it twice a year.

"I SUSPECT that a good chunk of it goes towards the cost of screening sporting events"

As a public body the BBC's accounts are available online and are scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee. So with a little work you might well find out the facts.

Rasher said "I have to pay the BBC if I want to watch, say Eurosport or Sky1"

Actually Eurosport is part owned by the BBC -- so it's funding is also dependent to some extent on you r licence fee.

Rasher said "I am absolutely positive that the current method of funding for the Beeb is illegal, if challenged"

On what basis?

Given that the BBC is established by Royal Charter and specifcailly legitiamised by statute (Broadcasting Act 1990) I think you'll find your legal challenge wouldn't get very far.

TomK said "Just look at Saturday night TV - God's way of telling you to get a social life"

Actually the other way around. The BBC's Saturday schedule is so awful becuase only a certain demographic stays in to watch it. If a more variedgroup had less of a social life and stayed in and watched TV more Saturday evening would be better.

"I also think that some of the cable channels (particularly Discovery) put the BBC to shame"

You mean the Discovery Channel that regularly colloborates with the BBC to share the cost of expensive flagship documentaries?

Matthew

quote:

---

If they produce drama or documentaries that only have minority appeal then they are elitist.

---

....and elitism is the ultimate sin in New Labour`s Britain.(from one who voted twice for Tony Blair, and would do so again....but NEVER for Gordon Brown at the helm) Just look at the way the anti-elitists have effectively almost destroyed the value of higher education in this coutry (duck...I`m beginning to sound Parryesque)

quote:

---

Monty Python

Not The Nine O Clock News

Fawlty Towers

Have I Got News For You

The Fast Show

Mrs Merton

Alan Partridge

The Office

League of Gentlemen

The Royle Family

many others I've forgotten about...

---

I agree that when the BBC gets it right, it is unbeatable, so am I prepared to suffer the unfairness of the licence tax `cos the occaisonal "gems" make it all worthwhile...hmmm...cannot decide


laurie S

Matthew

quote:

---

Laurie said "along with radios 3 & 4"

If it went subscription the you'd have to pay at least £10 a month just for that

---

I cannot argue with this. As I said above, I`ve grown up with "auntie Beeb" and the thought of privatisation is almost too much of a wrench even for me.

I accept the economic arguments you make.....it is probably still the cheapest way of getting those small part of the output that I want to use... it just rankles that (what I percieve as) complete rubbish is being paid for by the licence fee , which I am paying for, and have no choice to opt out of

Even though it might cost me more, it would at least satisfy my sense of fairness that I wasn`t forced to pay for something I didn`t want

Matthew

quote:

---

The BBC's Saturday schedule is so awful becuase only a certain demographic stays in to watch it. If a more variedgroup had less of a social life and stayed in and watched TV more Saturday evening would be better.

---

If I didnt know you better Matthew, I might suggest that this comment is highly patronising (you are probably just re-iterating what you have read/heard...I am not implying these are your opinions)



AFAICT, much ofthe "social life" on offer consists mainly of smoke filled eating/drinking establishments. My own socialising and many others who I would not regard as belonging to a "certain demographic group" is spent mainly within private dwellings, and a short burst of TV viewing (if it were worthwhile)could easily form part a "social event"

Perhaps then, Match Of The Day is aimed at a "Certain Demographic Group" who come home after closing time with a skinful of lager

Laurie S

[This message was edited by Laurie Saunders on Thu 01 July 2004 at 16:22.]

[This message was edited by Laurie Saunders on Thu 01 July 2004 at 16:24.]

Did anyone catch The Smoking Room? It's got Robert Webb from Peep Show, so I am hyped, but I missed it on Tuesday.

I believe some years ago Granada were refusing to allow Colon-nation Street to go out with any digital package but their own, and were therefore holding the huge numbers of slack-jawed public to ransom. The result (I don't remember exactly - so bear with me) was a ruling that programme makers could not also be broadcasters, thereby retaining a free market for buying and selling programmes and giving a fair chance to digital service providers. So how come the BBC remains a programme maker AND a broadcast network? Oh yes of course... Royal Charter, Matthew?! It is a monopoly and should be challenged - same as when I don't feel like paying my council tax when the bin-men go on strike (twice this year here already).
To be honest I would feel better about it if they just came clean and called it "TV tax". Stupid of me I know, but there you go.

It does seem pretty untenable that people can be fined and jailed for not wanting to watch the BBC output. I would be sad to see the best parts of the BBC go, but I do think the systems pretty unfair.

How about paying for a reduced PBS BBC from general taxation? We could have 'The BBC TV PBS channel' (who could also own and distribute their back catalogue for extra income), with an entertain/educate/experiment charter, BBC news and Radios 2, 3, 4 and 5. maybe even BBCi.

BBC1 and Radio 1 could could be privatised and allowed to accept subscription and advertising.

Regards

Stephen

I know what I object to. It’s like any closed shop elitist organisation that finds a way to put itself above the law or above any fair competition. It’s like the Freemasons or the Catholic Church. One rule for them, and another for everyone else. That is what gets up my nose.

quote:

---

Rasher said "I am absolutely positive that the current method of funding for the Beeb is illegal, if challenged"

On what basis?

---

Article 10.1 of the ECHR states,

quote:

---

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

---

The TV licence system clearly contravenes this. You cannot even watch al Jazeera without a licence.

Paul

BBC and transmission - I believe that the transmission system was sold of to the Likes of Castle and other transmitter companies and that the BBC pays for it's programs to be transmitted be it on Satellite or terrestrial. Do not know what the arrangement is for cable.

I vote to keep the Beeb as it is - too many things have been junked (because they are old fashioned, elitist or whatever) and have not been replaced with anything that provides an equivalent service (that is egalitarian, fair etc).

If you want to see the opposite of dumbing down watch BBC4. (or is it elitist because it is on Satan's satellite or digital terrestrial)

Derek

<< >>

"Someone's got it in for me, the're planting stories in the press" (B.Dylan 1975)

Who owns the press? and coincidentally a major broadcasting company?

Loosing the BBC would be like loosing a parent.

Jez

quote:

---

Loosing the BBC would be like loosing a parent

---

and Derek

quote:

---

I vote to keep the Beeb as it is - too many things have been junked (because they are old fashioned, elitist or whatever) and have not been replaced with anything that provides an equivalent service (that is egalitarian, fair etc).

---

I`m for freedom......if you feel like this, then by all means keep it...just don`t ask me to pay for it

(playing Devil`s Advocate here)

Of course I take on board the "socialism" aspect of this. As a society we all have to contribute to a common "pot" even though our own ("selfish?) interests are compromised to a certain extent...and as Matthew points out, this method of provision often (usually) benefits all concerned. This is the basis of the tax system. For me , though, I still have problems with what I percieve as the lack of accountability in return for what is really a tax . In addition,in my location, I could not recieve BBC TV in Nicam Stereo until about 2000....though I have been able to get Channel 3 and 4 in stereo since 1989......yet no reduction in licence fee for a compromised service.

In addition, a close friend works for a small, private production company in London, and is often sub-contracted for outside broadcast work for BBC TV

I cannot comment on the recent state of affars, but the words "gravy train" come readily to mind. The sorts of restrictive practices that almost wiped out the newspaper industry, are, I believe, in large part, still alive and well in the BBC. I find it hard to reconcile the image of some poor elderly person, scrimping to buy licence stamps with the champagne lifestyle of some of the production teams


Laurie S

[This message was edited by Laurie Saunders on Thu 01 July 2004 at 17:24.]

[This message was edited by Laurie Saunders on Thu 01 July 2004 at 17:24.]

The broadcast media is about the only public service that is working in this country - a good mix of private and public sources.

So no wonder the "burn and pillage" merchants of the third way (facists) want to change it Although govt regulation tries to dumb down the technology that is employed.

Derek

<< >>

Can anyone shed light on this ?

Suppose I buy a TV set and a DVD player and have no intention of watching BBC television or any other commercial station............ I love movies and buy DVD's.

.....and I also need to buy a TV license as the TV is capable of receiving the signal.

Catch 22 (Or should it be 1984 ?)

Is this leagl ? Forcing me to buy a license for something I own by default ?

So the anti BBC brigade here likes subscribing to a load of shit, then getting more shitty adverts in-between the shit?
I'm staggered. No wonder you are all into high end hi-fi.
Simon

It never ceases to amaze me how any discussion of the BBC and how it is/should be funded brings the worst out in people.

Who would have imagine that Rasher or L-T-D would come across as so small-minded? If you're that upset by it (having to pay the licence fee) guys, then mount a legal challenge. Or vote for a party or government which promises to privatise the BBC. But I don't think you'll have much luck.

And don't tell me it's a matter of principle. If you cared that much about principles, you would accept that the BBC, for all its faults, has played, and continues to play, a vital part in the life of this country. In fact, it is probably the most important cultural institution in Blighty.

Its unique (not satisfactory, but nobody's yet come up with a better way) funding method means that it can provide information and a community for everyone in the UK, no matter how dispossesed, rich, poor, cultured or philistine. There are thousands- perhaps millions – of people who, thanks to the BBC, can enjoy free-to-air programming of all kinds (some of it crap, some of it staggeringly good); if the BBC didn't exist, many of these people would not benefit. It is thanks to you and me and everyone else paying that those people can enjoy TV, radio and the internet.

Just because you don't happen to like what's on BBC1, there are plenty of other things the BBC does - national and local radio, for example. And all those community projects. And the orchestras. And much-loved events, such as The Proms. And the BBCi website, which is superb (although there is a separate, and valid, debate as to whether the BBC should be getting involved in this kind of thing). I defy you to to prove that you have not enjoyed at least one aspect of tthe BBC's activities this year.

And if you can spend hundreds, or thousands, of pounds on amplification and CD players and turntables (not to mention cars and racing bikes), can you not afford to stump up £121 (or 33p bleedin' pence a day) so that everyone in this country can enjoy some of the best TV and radio in the world? Or are you really so wound up by having to pay 33p a day that you'd rather a free-for-all dominated by Murdoch, a dread assortment of crap foreign-owned broadcasters and those wankers at Carlton/Granada?

If the BBC wasn't there, you'd miss it - even if you didn't have a TV. And I've been to many countries, and all of them know and admire Auntie (often via the universally-respected World Service - which is of course funded by the FCO) and wish they had her.

So get a grip chaps...

Kevin (who would like to point out that he does not work for the BBC)

BTW Rasher. Your sarky comment about Gilligan. Fair enough, but there are tens of thousands of other hacks at the Beeb. Some of them, like Charles Wheeler, are (rightly) revered around the world for their integrity; many others work in extremely difficult, and occasionally downright dangerous, circumstances (cf Iraq). A good number of them regularly put the hacks on the national press to shame. Also, every news organisation has its Gilligans - overeager or overambitious hacks willing to cut corners in pursuit of a story. The Gilligan problem is as old as journalism itself and is a problem by no means confined to the BBC.

quote:

---

If the BBC wasn't there, you'd miss it

---

Now I`m a fence sitter on this isuue,,,and I enjoy arguing both sides!

Are you suggesting that without the licence fee the BBC would not be able to survive as a commercial concern? Would there not be sufficient willing customers there to pay the requisite fees to make sure that the BBC was commercially viable? I find that hard to reconcile with the notion that the BBC is indespensible.

What we are really discussing here is the same argument that is used to justify public money going into a non viable minority interest like the Opera House...most of the contributors to it have never heard of it and even less lilely to use it.

What, without getting pompous, this is really about is the notion of democracy, ie "majority rules, OK," that leads inevitably to the sort of "dumbing down" that the supporters of the BBCs continuataion in its present form abhor

Laurie S