Verbal Posted 1 March, 2011 Share Posted 1 March, 2011 How selective is yours? "I've found someone who admits the BBC "WAS" biased towards the left, The Director General Mark Thompson" Can I get a refund on my licence fee for the period it broke it's charter? Again, one man's view. Greg Dyke or any other chairman would provide quotes to the contrary. As I explained to your fellow foamer, this is all beside the point. What matters - all that matters - is evidence of programme bias. You're now added to the list for homework. Go and find some evidence please of programme YOU find biased and why. Explain why the BBC has as much venal bias as Hannity or Beck on Fox News. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 1 March, 2011 Share Posted 1 March, 2011 Again, one man's view. Greg Dyke or any other chairman would provide quotes to the contrary. As I explained to your fellow foamer, this is all beside the point. What matters - all that matters - is evidence of programme bias. You're now added to the list for homework. Go and find some evidence please of programme YOU find biased and why. Explain why the BBC has as much venal bias as Hannity or Beck on Fox News. Greg Dyke is not a Tory. He is a Labour Luvvie through and through just got a bit upset about the Iraq war and switched to Lib dems in 2005 election. He donated and even stood for the Labour party. I am bored of this debate but my last comment is simply that the BBC is institutionally left wing. You are rather naive if you do not believe this to be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 1 March, 2011 Share Posted 1 March, 2011 Again, one man's view. Greg Dyke or any other chairman would provide quotes to the contrary. As I explained to your fellow foamer, this is all beside the point. What matters - all that matters - is evidence of programme bias. You're now added to the list for homework. Go and find some evidence please of programme YOU find biased and why. Explain why the BBC has as much venal bias as Hannity or Beck on Fox News. I find plenty of programmes biased, but my personal opinion is not the point. The point is my lack of choice in paying a TV Poll Tax even if I never watch a BBC programme and the fact that this tax is not linked to anyones ability to pay.You like the BBC, that's fine, you pay for it. I dont expect you to pay for my Sky Sports package.I find it quite bizzare that in 2011 I can be thrown in jail even if I never watch the BBC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 1 March, 2011 Share Posted 1 March, 2011 Greg Dyke is not a Tory. He is a Labour Luvvie through and through just got a bit upset about the Iraq war and switched to Lib dems in 2005 election. He donated and even stood for the Labour party. I am bored of this debate but my last comment is simply that the BBC is institutionally left wing. You are rather naive if you do not believe this to be the case. Greg Dyke advises Ed Vaizey, the Tory Communications and Culture Minister. Dyke has been at the forefront of formulating tory policy on the media both before the last election and after it. So still no programme listed and analysed for bias, Sergei. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 1 March, 2011 Share Posted 1 March, 2011 I find plenty of programmes biased, but my personal opinion is not the point. The point is my lack of choice in paying a TV Poll Tax even if I never watch a BBC programme and the fact that this tax is not linked to anyones ability to pay.You like the BBC, that's fine, you pay for it. I dont expect you to pay for my Sky Sports package.I find it quite bizzare that in 2011 I can be thrown in jail even if I never watch the BBC. But that's the entire point of this thread! Which programmes, how and when? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 1 March, 2011 Share Posted 1 March, 2011 Greg Dyke advises Ed Vaizey, the Tory Communications and Culture Minister. Dyke has been at the forefront of formulating tory policy on the media both before the last election and after it. So still no programme listed and analysed for bias, Sergei. One man's bias is another man's impartiality. A report is an entirely different thing, especially when it's commissioned by the BBC itself, and a year in the making. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1942948.ece I'm still yet to read a post that mounts a decent defence against the TV Poll Tax and why I should have to pay for a BBC that I find biased and a waste of my money. When the police were found institutionally racist the lefties had a field day. When the BBC is found to be institutionally biased not a peep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 1 March, 2011 Share Posted 1 March, 2011 The BBC is blatantly left wing. After all it's flagship morning radio programme called the current Culture Secretary a "****", not once, but twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 1 March, 2011 Share Posted 1 March, 2011 Greg Dyke advises Ed Vaizey, the Tory Communications and Culture Minister. Dyke has been at the forefront of formulating tory policy on the media both before the last election and after it. So still no programme listed and analysed for bias, Sergei. I thought you were a real Mastermind contender Verbal but I think you would struggle to get the questions right on Bullseye. Greg Dyke has stood for and is a long term donor to the Labour party - and because he advises the Tory's you think he has somehow been converted. Do you understand the concept of institutionalised leftism. Sadly not it seems. My last comment on this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 1 March, 2011 Share Posted 1 March, 2011 Oh, and the other thing about Greg Dyke is that, as Chairman of the BFI, he is the direct beneficiary of the coalition government's decision to abolish the UK Film Council. All its powers and grant-giving decisions are to be handed over to Dyke's BFI in 2012. So on your analysis, Hunt and Vaizey are dangerous 'institutionalised' (!) lefties too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 1 March, 2011 Share Posted 1 March, 2011 Verbal is such a prat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 1 March, 2011 Share Posted 1 March, 2011 Verbal is such a prat Is that a new one? Which channel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 1 March, 2011 Share Posted 1 March, 2011 I concur with delldays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 1 March, 2011 Share Posted 1 March, 2011 How selective is yours? "I've found someone who admits the BBC "WAS" biased towards the left, The Director General Mark Thompson" Can I get a refund on my licence fee for the period it broke it's charter? Mr Thompson told the New Statesman: “In the BBC I joined 30 years ago, there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left. It doesnt matter what their personal politics were as long as the broadcasts reflected an even-handed approach. And out of interest, do you feel you should be able to opt out of the NHS, use private healthcare instead, and not pay any taxes related to NHS funding? Or send your children to a private school and opt out of paying anything towards state education? Or hire a personal security firm and opt out of paying for the police? Of course the licence fee is a tax, but its output is intended to be useful/interesting/valuable to the entire population. Loads of stuff the BBC put out wouldnt exist if it was left to the commercial sector for the simple reason that it wouldnt be commercially viable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 1 March, 2011 Share Posted 1 March, 2011 And out of interest, do you feel you should be able to opt out of the NHS, use private healthcare instead, and not pay any taxes related to NHS funding? Or send your children to a private school and opt out of paying anything towards state education? Or hire a personal security firm and opt out of paying for the police? Of course the licence fee is a tax, but its output is intended to be useful/interesting/valuable to the entire population. Loads of stuff the BBC put out wouldnt exist if it was left to the commercial sector for the simple reason that it wouldnt be commercially viable. If it's a tax then surely it should be linked to your ability to pay. Quite clearly there are certain things that a Govt has to collect taxes for and certain things that the Govt have to provide. A police force, health service and education being 3 of them. I dont think they should be providing us with TV stations in 2011, if programmes aren't commercially viable then they shouldn't be made. Why should my hard earned money go on paying for programmes that not enough people will watch to make it viable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 1 March, 2011 Share Posted 1 March, 2011 If it's a tax then surely it should be linked to your ability to pay. Quite clearly there are certain things that a Govt has to collect taxes for and certain things that the Govt have to provide. A police force, health service and education being 3 of them. I dont think they should be providing us with TV stations in 2011, if programmes aren't commercially viable then they shouldn't be made. Why should my hard earned money go on paying for programmes that not enough people will watch to make it viable? That doesnt follow at all. The American government have until recently gone the way of private healthcare and education. This isnt America tho, and we cater for minority groups, (the bbc asian network for example.) And a lot of the bbc's output is educational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecuk268 Posted 1 March, 2011 Share Posted 1 March, 2011 If it's a tax then surely it should be linked to your ability to pay. Quite clearly there are certain things that a Govt has to collect taxes for and certain things that the Govt have to provide. A police force, health service and education being 3 of them. I dont think they should be providing us with TV stations in 2011, if programmes aren't commercially viable then they shouldn't be made. Why should my hard earned money go on paying for programmes that not enough people will watch to make it viable? You'd obviously be happy with a diet of soaps and reality TV. If that's your intellectual level, thats fine. Bit some of us like to watch programs that challenge the brain a bit. I watched a fascinating programme on quantum physics a couple of weeks ago (BBC4). Didn't understand all of it but it certainly made me think. Arts and and science programmes are never going to have mass appeal and therefore will not attract advertising. Television shouldn't aim for the lowest common denominator, it should have a role in education and information and only a publicly funded service can do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 1 March, 2011 Share Posted 1 March, 2011 You'd obviously be happy with a diet of soaps and reality TV. If that's your intellectual level, thats fine. Bit some of us like to watch programs that challenge the brain a bit. I watched a fascinating programme on quantum physics a couple of weeks ago (BBC4). Didn't understand all of it but it certainly made me think. Arts and and science programmes are never going to have mass appeal and therefore will not attract advertising. Television shouldn't aim for the lowest common denominator, it should have a role in education and information and only a publicly funded service can do this. agreed, just to add that while everyone seems to be talking about the TV output, we're forgetting that the licence fee also funds BBC radio and internet output, both of which are imho superb. There is no comparison with the commercial radio stations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 1 March, 2011 Share Posted 1 March, 2011 You'd obviously be happy with a diet of soaps and reality TV. If that's your intellectual level, thats fine. Bit some of us like to watch programs that challenge the brain a bit. I watched a fascinating programme on quantum physics a couple of weeks ago (BBC4). Didn't understand all of it but it certainly made me think. Arts and and science programmes are never going to have mass appeal and therefore will not attract advertising. Television shouldn't aim for the lowest common denominator, it should have a role in education and information and only a publicly funded service can do this. Complete rubbish. Look at the great drama coming out of American TV and contrast that to some of the rubbish on BBC3.The BBC already aims for the lowest common denominator in it's chase for ratings. Tonight BBC 3 has "Snog, Marry Aviod?" followed by "Hotter than my Daughter",later it's "Coming of age" where DK and Robyn visit a lesbian bar in an attempt to get Robyn into the gay dating scene. No dumbing down there then.Why should my hard earned money be spent on that rubbish or for a handful of people to watch a programme on quantum physics? And why should I face imprisonment for not paying? If the BBC is so great, then charge for it, and let the public decide if it's worth the money. One thing is for sure, they would soon have to face the real world or start losing millions of pounds worth of revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 1 March, 2011 Share Posted 1 March, 2011 Complete rubbish. Look at the great drama coming out of American TV and contrast that to some of the rubbish on BBC3.The BBC already aims for the lowest common denominator in it's chase for ratings. Tonight BBC 3 has "Snog, Marry Aviod?" followed by "Hotter than my Daughter",later it's "Coming of age" where DK and Robyn visit a lesbian bar in an attempt to get Robyn into the gay dating scene. No dumbing down there then.Why should my hard earned money be spent on that rubbish or for a handful of people to watch a programme on quantum physics? And why should I face imprisonment for not paying? If the BBC is so great, then charge for it, and let the public decide if it's worth the money. One thing is for sure, they would soon have to face the real world or start losing millions of pounds worth of revenue. Have you considered standing as an independent candidate in the next election on a ticket of abolishing the BBC licence fee? You clearly feel strongly about it. My guess is that the public overall have decided what they think about it, and I've yet to notice any fuel-tax type protests about the licence fee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 1 March, 2011 Share Posted 1 March, 2011 Have you considered standing as an independent candidate in the next election on a ticket of abolishing the BBC licence fee? You clearly feel strongly about it. My guess is that the public overall have decided what they think about it, and I've yet to notice any fuel-tax type protests about the licence fee. It'll go within the next 30 years, because I believe that it's unsustainable in the modern world of communications. It will become harder and harder to police what people are watching and what they are watching it via. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecuk268 Posted 1 March, 2011 Share Posted 1 March, 2011 Complete rubbish. Look at the great drama coming out of American TV and contrast that to some of the rubbish on BBC3.The BBC already aims for the lowest common denominator in it's chase for ratings. Tonight BBC 3 has "Snog, Marry Aviod?" followed by "Hotter than my Daughter",later it's "Coming of age" where DK and Robyn visit a lesbian bar in an attempt to get Robyn into the gay dating scene. No dumbing down there then.Why should my hard earned money be spent on that rubbish or for a handful of people to watch a programme on quantum physics? And why should I face imprisonment for not paying? If the BBC is so great, then charge for it, and let the public decide if it's worth the money. One thing is for sure, they would soon have to face the real world or start losing millions of pounds worth of revenue. We don't all exist at your level. I left school a long time ago but I haven't stopped learning, so I can appreciate programmes that you obviously can't. The media should be about more than mindless "entertainment". BBC TV and radio are national treasures. They try to cater for all tastes, not just those that attract the most advertisers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 1 March, 2011 Share Posted 1 March, 2011 We don't all exist at your level. I left school a long time ago but I haven't stopped learning, so I can appreciate programmes that you obviously can't. The media should be about more than mindless "entertainment". BBC TV and radio are national treasures. They try to cater for all tastes, not just those that attract the most advertisers. Why on earth do you judge my "level" on the basis that I wish the TV licence abolished? Charles Moore a leading journalist educated at Eton and Cambridge with a BA in history, is a firm believer in it's abolishment, so much so that he was taken to court over it's payment. What level does he "exist at"? Does he not appricate the arts and culture, has he stopped learning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecuk268 Posted 1 March, 2011 Share Posted 1 March, 2011 Why on earth do you judge my "level" on the basis that I wish the TV licence abolished? Charles Moore a leading journalist educated at Eton and Cambridge with a BA in history, is a firm believer in it's abolishment, so much so that he was taken to court over it's payment. What level does he "exist at"? Does he not appricate the arts and culture, has he stopped learning? I'm basing my judgement on your admiration of commercial broadcasting and your dismissal of more esoteric programming. I don't know if you've ever watched any TV in the USA, but if you have you'll see why the Americans admire the BBC so much. As for radio, without Radio 4, where can I get in-depth news coverage, or without Radio Solent, listen to Saints away games? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 1 March, 2011 Share Posted 1 March, 2011 Complete rubbish. Look at the great drama coming out of American TV and contrast that to some of the rubbish on BBC3.The BBC already aims for the lowest common denominator in it's chase for ratings. Tonight BBC 3 has "Snog, Marry Aviod?" followed by "Hotter than my Daughter",later it's "Coming of age" where DK and Robyn visit a lesbian bar in an attempt to get Robyn into the gay dating scene. No dumbing down there then.Why should my hard earned money be spent on that rubbish or for a handful of people to watch a programme on quantum physics? And why should I face imprisonment for not paying? If the BBC is so great, then charge for it, and let the public decide if it's worth the money. One thing is for sure, they would soon have to face the real world or start losing millions of pounds worth of revenue. The bbc has to appeal to a wide demographic. This will include rubbish BBC programmes which will appeal to a number of people but not me or you. The diversity of programming is what makes it great. If you are saying that overall the BBC is dumbing down then that's a different debate but don't use one particular channel to support that argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 1 March, 2011 Share Posted 1 March, 2011 I'm basing my judgement on your admiration of commercial broadcasting and your dismissal of more esoteric programming. I don't know if you've ever watched any TV in the USA, but if you have you'll see why the Americans admire the BBC so much. As for radio, without Radio 4, where can I get in-depth news coverage, or without Radio Solent, listen to Saints away games? I lived and worked in America for 4 years so I'm well aware of their TV. NYPD Blue, Curb Your Enthusiasm,Frasier, Bilko and The Simpsons are in the top 10 of TV programmes ever made in my opinion. There's plenty of dross, but there's plenty of dross on the BBC. I've no particular "admiration" for commercial broadcasting, but admire some of ITV's drama output, Frost & Foyles war being particular favourites. Sky sports have done a fantastic job covering sport and Sky Arts have some interesting programmes. I just do not believe that it is part of a govt duties, whether red or blue to have a nationalised TV station, and I certain dont think that bankers should pay the same as cleaners and that people can be thrown in prison for refusing to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 1 March, 2011 Share Posted 1 March, 2011 , or without Radio Solent, listen to Saints away games? Without Solent sucking the life out of any competition there could have been local commercial stations that pick up and do what Solent do, only better. You compare American TV, but compare the radio. Where I was living there was a wide diveristy of stations from classical,latin, classic rock to religious, talk stations and every form of music you could throw a stick at.Not only were the local NFL side featured including indepth shows around team selections and draft picks, but the local collage games as well.It would nevere happen in the UK because BBC local Radio and it's subsidy from the taxman stops it being viable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecuk268 Posted 1 March, 2011 Share Posted 1 March, 2011 Without Solent sucking the life out of any competition there could have been local commercial stations that pick up and do what Solent do, only better. You compare American TV, but compare the radio. Where I was living there was a wide diveristy of stations from classical,latin, classic rock to religious, talk stations and every form of music you could throw a stick at.Not only were the local NFL side featured including indepth shows around team selections and draft picks, but the local collage games as well.It would nevere happen in the UK because BBC local Radio and it's subsidy from the taxman stops it being viable. Radio Solent has to bid for the rights to Saints games. The commercial stations can bid if they wish. If your argument about taxpayer subsides was true, BBC would still have the rights to live football and cricket. I'm not saying that all commercially produced programmes are rubbish (I've watched all 86 episodes of The Sopranos) but there needs to be a place where more specialist and minority programmes can be shown. Most European countries have some form of TV licence (we are among the cheapest) so I think that you are in a minority where public broadcasting is concerned. You have yet to say where I can get in-depth radio news coverage apart from Radio 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 1 March, 2011 Share Posted 1 March, 2011 Radio Solent has to bid for the rights to Saints games. The commercial stations can bid if they wish. If your argument about taxpayer subsides was true, BBC would still have the rights to live football and cricket. You have yet to say where I can get in-depth radio news coverage apart from Radio 4. If we had a vibrant commercial radio sector and there was a level playing field, who knows what stations there would be. Just look at the number in Dade & Broward County in FLA. There were certainly serious news stations, alongside hundreds of other stations that catered for all sorts of tastes and minority groups. There is nothing at all that Radio Solent does that is not covered by commercial stations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 1 March, 2011 Share Posted 1 March, 2011 If we had a vibrant commercial radio sector and there was a level playing field, who knows what stations there would be. Just look at the number in Dade & Broward County in FLA. There were certainly serious news stations, alongside hundreds of other stations that catered for all sorts of tastes and minority groups. There is nothing at all that Radio Solent does that is not covered by commercial stations. Fair comment, credit where its due. What about Radio 3, 4, 5-Live, 6-music, 7-comedy and drama, the World Service and the Asian Network? Three of those didnt exist before digital, and I dont recall anything similar being commercially available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 1 March, 2011 Share Posted 1 March, 2011 Fair comment, credit where its due. What about Radio 3, 4, 5-Live, 6-music, 7-comedy and drama, the World Service and the Asian Network? Three of those didnt exist before digital, and I dont recall anything similar being commercially available. Years of tax payers money thrown at BBC Radio has skewed the market. How does South Florida cater for Hispanics, sports fans, news buffs, old rockers, hill Billies, hip hop, youngsters, god botherers and the assorted nationalities and different music tastes of the local population, when they have no BBC? They have a vibrant diverse radio market and it's not tax funded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 1 March, 2011 Share Posted 1 March, 2011 So, despite the non too bright Mail readers telling all comers that the Beeb is full of leftie bias none have been able to show one example of a bias programme? Thankfully the crackpots who want it abolished are a very small majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 2 March, 2011 Share Posted 2 March, 2011 It's was proved to be "institutionally biased" by a report commissioned by the BBC itself, surely that's good enough as proof for a really bright non Mail reader. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1942948.ece Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 2 March, 2011 Share Posted 2 March, 2011 It's was proved to be "institutionally biased" by a report commissioned by the BBC itself, surely that's good enough as proof for a really bright non Mail reader. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1942948.ece Although its coverage of conventional politics is judged to be fair and impartial, But they are all rampant lefties so this must also be a lie. But still, I'm sure you can supply plenty of evidence against the beeb for all their leftie programmes? No? Just the Make Poverty History campaign? Well I never, I thought the way you lot were harping on there would be dozens of examples but it appears that there isn't. How odd. Thankfully the Mail reading, not too bright oddballs, are in a very small minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 2 March, 2011 Share Posted 2 March, 2011 I do not read the Daily Mail (although readership numbers would indicate more than a few "odd balls" do), so that's a rather lazy assumption. In this thread you've had quotes from The Director General admitting that the BBC was biased to the left, a report by themselves saying they were "institutionally biased" and yet you still persist in the line that they were not. How do you know more than the Director General or a year long BBC commissioned report, really baffles me. I personally find the make up of the guests on Question Time biased, and certainly two of the programmes were completely and utterly biased. The one aired after 9/11 which prompted an apoligy to the US Ambassador from Greg Dyke, was so anti American it was sickening. And the one featuring Nick Griffin was a publicity stunt unbecoming of a public servcie broadcaster. I find the whole news agenda biased regarding climate change, and I have found some of the reporting of Council cuts competely biased.I feel people like Foot and Benn, men who have proven to be wrong time and time again over the years, are given too much praise and people like Thatcher and Ronald Reagan never given the respect they deserve.I find their middle east reporting to be a basic Palestine/good, Isreal/bad and everything flows from that position. But, at the end of the day my opinion doesn't count. There are people with far more knowledge than me (and believe it or not, you) of the BBC who say they were biased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenevaSaint Posted 2 March, 2011 Share Posted 2 March, 2011 (edited) I wouldn't say the BBC was left leaning, but it is liberal Duckhunter. And TBF, a liberal organisation such as the BBC is required to even out the right wing propaganda distributed by the Mail and Murdoch's empire. Edited 2 March, 2011 by GenevaSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 2 March, 2011 Share Posted 2 March, 2011 I wouldn't say the BBC was left leaning, but it is liberal Duckhunter. And TBF, a liberal organisation such as the BBC is required to even out the right wing propaganda distributed by the Mail and Murdoch's empire. I dont want liberal propaganda distributed using my hard earned money. Nobody has to buy The Mail or use Sky, everybody has to pay for the BBC's liberal leanings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohwhenthesaints Posted 2 March, 2011 Share Posted 2 March, 2011 I dont want liberal propaganda distributed using my hard earned money. Nobody has to buy The Mail or use Sky, everybody has to pay for the BBC's liberal leanings. Which programmes contain this liberal propaganda? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecuk268 Posted 2 March, 2011 Share Posted 2 March, 2011 Years of tax payers money thrown at BBC Radio has skewed the market. How does South Florida cater for Hispanics, sports fans, news buffs, old rockers, hill Billies, hip hop, youngsters, god botherers and the assorted nationalities and different music tastes of the local population, when they have no BBC? They have a vibrant diverse radio market and it's not tax funded. So, how's commercial broadcasting funded? If I don't watch ITV can I get my baked beans cheaper because I don't want to pay the bit that Heinz spend on TV advertising? The only way round this would be to make every channel subscription which, I presume with digital broadcasting, would be possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 2 March, 2011 Share Posted 2 March, 2011 So, how's commercial broadcasting funded? If I don't watch ITV can I get my baked beans cheaper because I don't want to pay the bit that Heinz spend on TV advertising? The only way round this would be to make every channel subscription which, I presume with digital broadcasting, would be possible. I'm not being funny, but I really dont get your point. Heinz will have a budget for advertising which will remain the same whther there is a public funded BBC or not. Do you really believe that they would put their prices up to advertise on the BBC if it became a commercial outfit. What would happen is they would shift some of their adverts to the BBC from other outlets. They wouldn't want to put the prices up because other brands would eat into their market share.If you object to buying anything from a Company that advertised on TV, then dont buy it. You wont get thrown in jail for doing so. You claimed that without the BBC, Radio would suffer. I pointed out that the US has a vibrant and diverse Radio network catering for many more people and minorities than the BBC ever do, and yet it's all done without a National Broadcasting Company.The Companies that advertise keep their products at a competitive rate, because if they didn't nobody would buy them. Anyway I'm off to the golf course, have a good day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecuk268 Posted 2 March, 2011 Share Posted 2 March, 2011 I'm not being funny, but I really dont get your point. Heinz will have a budget for advertising which will remain the same whther there is a public funded BBC or not. Do you really believe that they would put their prices up to advertise on the BBC if it became a commercial outfit. What would happen is they would shift some of their adverts to the BBC from other outlets. They wouldn't want to put the prices up because other brands would eat into their market share.If you object to buying anything from a Company that advertised on TV, then dont buy it. You wont get thrown in jail for doing so. You claimed that without the BBC, Radio would suffer. I pointed out that the US has a vibrant and diverse Radio network catering for many more people and minorities than the BBC ever do, and yet it's all done without a National Broadcasting Company.The Companies that advertise keep their products at a competitive rate, because if they didn't nobody would buy them. Anyway I'm off to the golf course, have a good day. Hope the golf went well. What I'm saying is that we all pay for commercial broadcasting through the products we buy. Theoretically, we could avoid those products which advertise on TV but, if I don't watch ITV, how would I know which products to avoid. And, to take it to a somewhat ridiculous level, if I eat in a restaurant, part of my bill may be made up of the advertising costs of the products used in the restaurant, but I can't avoid that. We pay for all types of broadcasting one way or the other. I accept that parts of the BBC would not survive if they had to rely on advertising. They take chances on the programmes that they produce.Sometimes it comes off. sometimes it doesn't. But that's the price you have to pay for creativity. I think that any government that tried to make the BBC dependant on advertising would face the wrath of middle England. Look what happened when they tried to tinker with Radio 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 2 March, 2011 Share Posted 2 March, 2011 The golf was pretty poor to be honest, but I'm not a very good player so it was about par for me. You have argued your side consistantly and presented a a coherent argument. I just disagree, but like to think that my argument is consistent and we will just have to agree to disagree, otherwise we’ll just go round in circles. Personally I would rather keep the £145.50 and decide where I want to spend that money. It maybe that weighing up all the options I would like to subscribe to the BBC, but I object to being forced to, with the threat of jail, and I don't see why I pay the same amount as Wayne Rooney. We don't pay the same amount for any other public service that the Gov. take money for, so why should the licence fee be any different? I also think the BBC wastes money and at the end of the day it's our money, not theirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 2 March, 2011 Author Share Posted 2 March, 2011 We don't pay the same amount for any other public service that the Gov. take money for, so why should the licence fee be any different? A rod licence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecuk268 Posted 3 March, 2011 Share Posted 3 March, 2011 Listening to a report this morning on the proposed buy out of the rest of Bskyb by Mr Murdoch. He's offered to sell off Sky News which has consistently made a loss for 20 years. If Murdoch can't make money from a news channel, I don't see that anyone can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyNorthernSaints Posted 3 March, 2011 Share Posted 3 March, 2011 David Attenborough alone is worth the licence fee IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now