Privatising the BBC

[hypochondriac]

Soggy are you suggesting that you aren't allowed to object to the concept of the license fee if you are currently viewing or using the BBC? I could love everything on the BBC and watch it avidly and still not want a license fee.

[sadoldgit]

I have used it and I contribute towards it. I think there should be a choice for everyone, which is the point.

 

If the BBC is as great as you suggest, the talk of its demise under a subscription based set up would be rather premature. It would thrive, surely?

 

I use Netflix but should I no longer wish, I just cancel my subscription.

 

Why should we have a choice with the BBC when we don’t have a choice with other areas of public spending on things we don’t use, like Trident for example?

[Batman]

Why should we have a choice with the BBC when we don’t have a choice with other areas of public spending on things we don’t use, like Trident for example?

 

Maybe the BBC should be brought back into direct government control if that is your argument.

 

10 years being shaped by the Tory party, I’m sure you will love that!

[sadoldgit]

Of course not. It is entirely possible to have a public funded organisation with an independent regulatory body.

 

Do you think people who don’t want to use the NHS should get a tax rebate?

[Weston Super Saint]

Of course not. It is entirely possible to have a public funded organisation with an independent regulatory body.

 

Do you think people who don’t want to use the NHS should get a tax rebate?

 

Are you incapable of discerning the difference between a 'health' service and an 'entertainment' service or are they equal in your eyes?

[sadoldgit]

Are you incapable of discerning the difference between a 'health' service and an 'entertainment' service or are they equal in your eyes?

 

Are you incapable of working out paying for something for the general good no matter what service that is for?

 

FFS we are talking about £2.97 per week! It is worth that for David Attenborough alone.

 

Just to put things into perspective it would cost you £4.50 a week for The Sun.

[aintforever]

I have used it and I contribute towards it. I think there should be a choice for everyone, which is the point.

 

If the BBC is as great as you suggest, the talk of its demise under a subscription based set up would be rather premature. It would thrive, surely?

 

I use Netflix but should I no longer wish, I just cancel my subscription.

 

The best bit about the license fee is we get great TV, radio and website, plus as a bonus we get to enjoy listening to tight Tory ****s like you moan about it.

[Batman]

The best bit about the license fee is we get great TV, radio and website, plus as a bonus we get to enjoy listening to tight Tory ****s like you moan about it.

 

It’s not people like me killing the BBC. I pay the fee, but would like a choice (and will probably get it in the next 10 years)

 

The young’uns are not paying it (more than any other age group). They are the future after all!

[sadoldgit]

I thought the right wing types were all for the Great British institutions. Apparently not.

[Weston Super Saint]

Are you incapable of working out paying for something for the general good no matter what service that is for?

 

FFS we are talking about £2.97 per week! It is worth that for David Attenborough alone.

 

Just to put things into perspective it would cost you £4.50 a week for The Sun.

 

Are you incapable of understanding I have never said I am unwilling to pay the licence fee - in fact, I have done, dilligently for many, many years! - it is just your (and aintforever's) assumptions that I object to it!

 

I am, however, capable of understanding other people's point of view and can appreciate why some do not want to pay the fee, especially given the plethora of subscription TV packages currently available.

 

I'm not really a fan od Attenborough's style, but appreciate that the programs are very well made and informative.

 

I haven't bought a copy of the Sun for about 20 years - it was 10p when I last bought it and the internet wasn't as widely availabe - or as fast! - as it is now.

[buctootim]

The basic problem for the BBC is the amount it is asked to do. It runs a plethora of radio stations, tv channels and webpages for local national and global audiences. Its simultaneously expected to be an arm of the Foreign Office with global programming in 50 languages, serious but not worthy, distinct yet produce commercially popular programmes whilst capping its salary levels, produce education materials, be present on social media etc etc.

 

In many ways its a parallel with the NHS. As more becomes possible we ask it to do more, then complain about the cost and how its become too big.

[hypochondriac]

The basic problem for the BBC is the amount it is asked to do. It runs a plethora of radio stations, tv channels and webpages for local national and global audiences. Its simultaneously expected to be an arm of the Foreign Office with global programming in 50 languages, serious but not worthy, distinct yet produce commercially popular programmes whilst capping its salary levels, produce education materials, be present on social media etc etc.

 

In many ways its a parallel with the NHS. As more becomes possible we ask it to do more, then complain about the cost and how its become too big.

You're right and it seems we agree. There needs to be a sensible discussion about what the BBC actually should be doing.

[buctootim]

You're right and it seems we agree. There needs to be a sensible discussion about what the BBC actually should be doing.

 

True. But as with everything the answers you'll get will depend on who you ask. That's how you get into the situation in the first place - catering to everybody

[sadoldgit]

The BBC has the impossible task of being all things to all people. We have to accept that money will be spent on things that we personally think is a waste, but others won't. They are in a no win situation but as a public service, they have to provide just that.

At 42p a day though I don’t think we can complain too much about the cost for what they provide.

[hypochondriac]

True. But as with everything the answers you'll get will depend on who you ask. That's how you get into the situation in the first place - catering to everybody

I think you have to be realistic about costs, do a plan for what the largest number of people would deem to be absolutely necessary and then concentrate on that and maybe diversify slightly into areas that are for the greater good even if they aren't as popular if you've got resources left over. Bit like the NHS really...

[buctootim]

I think you have to be realistic about costs, do a plan for what the largest number of people would deem to be absolutely necessary and then concentrate on that and maybe diversify slightly into areas that are for the greater good even if they aren't as popular if you've got resources left over. Bit like the NHS really...

 

I've used this example before, but it illustrates why things like Citizen's Juries don't work, because the answer depends so much on the question phrasing and the information give. When I worked for a Health Authority we looked at prioritising healthcare resources. We asked two different groups similar questions, but the second group got more information. One example:

 

Group 1. Do you think the NHS should prioritise healthcare for premature babies born before 24 weeks?

Group 2 Do you think the NHS should prioritise healthcare for premature babies born before 24 weeks even if they are likely to be born with life limiting disabilities and need lifetime care costing an average of £1.5m

 

Group 1 gave neonates the highest priority. Group two put them near the bottom.

[hypochondriac]

I've used this example before, but it illustrates why things like Citizen's Juries don't work, because the answer depends so much on the question phrasing and the information give. When I worked for a Health Authority we looked at prioritising healthcare resources. We asked two different groups similar questions, but the second group got more information. One example:

 

Group 1. Do you think the NHS should prioritise healthcare for premature babies born before 24 weeks?

Group 2 Do you think the NHS should prioritise healthcare for premature babies born before 24 weeks even if they are likely to be born with life limiting disabilities and need lifetime care costing an average of £1.5m

 

Group 1 gave neonates the highest priority. Group two put them near the bottom.

And that's a valid point but it should not be beyond a task force of some kind to use a combination of surveys, data, experts etc to ascertain what a slimmed down BBC should concentrate on. Clearly not going to please everyone but I can see some pretty obvious things that use up a fair amount of resources and which it would be hard to argue for. You're right that relying solely on citizens assemblies would be a bad idea. That's kind of like extinction rebellion and their batty demands.

[shurlock]

The basic problem for the BBC is the amount it is asked to do. It runs a plethora of radio stations, tv channels and webpages for local national and global audiences. Its simultaneously expected to be an arm of the Foreign Office with global programming in 50 languages, serious but not worthy, distinct yet produce commercially popular programmes whilst capping its salary levels, produce education materials, be present on social media etc etc.

 

In many ways its a parallel with the NHS. As more becomes possible we ask it to do more, then complain about the cost and how its become too big.

 

Exactly. And if the BBC focussed on high-quality, distinctive programming -that have other public benefits and might be underprovided by the commercial market; the usual suspects would be in uproar that it wasn’t watched enough or was too elitist - hence the BBC has always had to combine distinctive programming with more populist output that aims for a wider reach - your Strictlys etc, not least because the BBC hopes it’s brand will be a gateway to that distinctive programming.

 

Needless to say this isn’t satisfactory to the usual suspects either who complain the BBC is aping it’s more commercial competitors - the unspoken assumption being that the BBC should produce programmes that are simultaneously distinctive and extremely popular. Such programmes exist but they are incredibly elusive - that the BBC fails to hit on more of these shows is certainly not for a want of trying Anyone who pretends otherwise and blithely calls for more of this output frankly doesn’t have a clue how creative and cultural markets work. As a result the organisation will always have to juggle competing interests and make trade-offs that will end up offending someone.

Edited 24 February, 2020 by shurlock

[hypochondriac]

Exactly. And if the BBC focussed on high-quality, distinctive programming -that have other public benefits and might be underprovided by the commercial market; the usual suspects would be in uproar that it wasn’t watched enough - hence the BBC has always had to combine distinctive programming with more populist output that aims for a wider reach - your Strictlys etc, not least because the BBC hopes it’s brand will be a gateway to that distinctive programming.

 

Needless to say this isn’t satisfactory to the usual suspects either who complain the BBC is aping it’s more commercial competitors - the unspoken assumption being that the BBC should produce programmes that are simultaneously distinctive and extremely popular. Such programmes exist but they are incredibly elusive - that the BBC fails to hit on more of these shows is certainly not for a want of trying Anyone who pretends otherwise and blithely calls for more of this output frankly doesn’t have a clue how creative and cultural markets work. As a result the organisation will always have to juggle competing interests and make trade-offs that will end up offending someone.

Who are the "usual suspects?" I couldn't give a monkeys how much it's watched.

[buctootim]

And that's a valid point but it should not be beyond a task force of some kind to use a combination of surveys, data, experts etc to ascertain what a slimmed down BBC should concentrate on. Clearly not going to please everyone but I can see some pretty obvious things that use up a fair amount of resources and which it would be hard to argue for. You're right that relying solely on citizens assemblies would be a bad idea. That's kind of like extinction rebellion and their batty demands.

 

I don't disagree in principle, it's just that the execution is fiendishly difficult and the value of the results uncertain.

Edited 24 February, 2020 by buctootim
ple not pal

[hypochondriac]

I don't disagree in principle, it's just that the execution is fiendishly difficult and the value of the results uncertain.

Maybe but it's either a version of that or a subscription model. Trying to be all things to all people hasn't been working and it needs reform wherever you stand on the BBC.

[shurlock]

Who are the "usual suspects?" I couldn't give a monkeys how much it's watched.

 

Well you’ve never sat in on any high-level strategy meetings at the BBC, drawing on polling, consultations and regulatory reviews. The BBC cannot be indifferent to audience numbers.

Edited 24 February, 2020 by shurlock

[shurlock]

I thought the first episode of the new series of “this country” was decent (‘white dennis rodman’). Enjoyed the tribute to Slugs.

[Saintandy666]

I'm all up for some discussion of changing funding models, but why on earth would anyone want to 'privatise' the BBC and abandon the public service broadcasting mandate? The kind of coverage and range of programmes it does will not be met by other broadcasters and certainly not at the same price. The BBC is a good moderator when it comes to standards. We should be very suspicious of where this government wants to take us.

[Batman]

I thought the first episode of the new series of “this country” was decent (‘white dennis rodman’). Enjoyed the tribute to Slugs.

 

A bit slow but still held the charm.