Tories might freeze TV Licence. I think it's time to cut it altogether.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by niuniu, Jul 17, 2010.

  1. niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #1
    I don't watch the BBC anymore - I do use their website, however I would happily forego that and use Skynews.com instead. For visual news we always watch Sky, for entertainment - well mostly American shows on E4 or downloaded content.

    I did some reading last night and it seems there's actually a lot of support and people who think the same way - that we shouldn't be forced to pay the BBC, especially as they have very high salaries. 85 of the management paid higher than the PM.

    http://www.economicvoice.com/tv-licence-fee-to-fall/50011779#axzz0twCOnrw2

    Anyone else not want to pay the BBC anymore? Or do you all still watch that channel?
     
  2. JoeG4 macrumors 68030

    JoeG4

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Bay Area, Ca.
    #2
    Have you ever watched CNN or Fox News?

    Are you SURE that's what you want over there? lol. Oi vey!
     
  3. OllyW Moderator

    OllyW

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2005
    Location:
    The Black Country, England
    #3
    I've not got a problem with paying the licence fee. Probably 80% of my TV viewing is BBC content and if I watch anything on the commercial channels I'll record it so I can skip the adverts. :)
     
  4. CortexRock macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Location:
    Canterbury, England
    #4
    This is the thin end of the wedge - the BBC are the only publicly funded independent news gathering organisation in the UK. Government might not like them, because they can't control them, so this is how they start the process of getting rid of them.
     
  5. Ttownbeast macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    #5
    I'm curious, and I have heard about this BBC tax of yours before. Is your BBC anything like our PBS here?

    I mean if you pay taxes to keep the station running it is not a private company then is it?
     
  6. kernkraft macrumors 68020

    kernkraft

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    #6
    Nobody claimed that it was. The BBC is publicly funded and in theory should serve a wider public interest. There are no adverts in the UK on BBC channels (both radio and tv) and their finances are strictly regulated.

    I generally agree with the idea of the BBC. What I don't understand is that why I have to pay licence fee EVEN if I don't want to watch their offerings. They might argue that they cannot police the exact TV channel usage of people, but even if you propose a solution, whereby you disable bandwidth on your TV, they don't release you from the duty to pay their fee.

    I've made a few complaints in the past and I hate to pay their fee to keep doing the same thing. I think the radio and tv parts should be separated and BBC grew far too large for its own good. The same trivia and the same news coverage is filling up several programs - there is no real quality in that.
     
  7. Ttownbeast macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    #7
    So people are taxed specifically and separately for this service whether they like it or not rather than just government maintained though the general tax fund?

    Yah I'd say that is a lil bit different than how PBS(tv) and NPR(radio) do it here--ours is part funded by viewer and listener donations and partially funded by the feds here through our taxes but the money is not directly charged to the individual tax payer as some sort of "PBS" fee but everyone pays for it through what their tax dollars are used for.
     
  8. yojitani macrumors 68000

    yojitani

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Location:
    An octopus's garden
    #8
    Perhaps the BBC needs to undergo some internal restructuring, the license fee is really getting costly, however you don't want what they have in the US. They constantly have these fundraising drives, which in my opinion are extremely humiliating (for the broadcasters). It's begging essentially.

    At any rate, I'm not there now so I can't answer your question. My family watches quite a few programmes on the BBC. In fact, they dropped Sky. I like the BBC so much, I wish that I could pay a fee from here to have access to the iPlayer.

    I'm surprised anyone watches Sky news. :D It's basically Fox for the UK.
     
  9. niuniu thread starter macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #9
    It Really isn't. And it's regulated by OFCOM. The BBC has put out some awful propaganda with foreign affairs too. I wouldn't take any news reporting as 100% fact.
     
  10. yojitani macrumors 68000

    yojitani

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Location:
    An octopus's garden
    #10
    I'd say it is. It's owned by Murdoch, it is full of a bunch of blowhards for newscasters, etc. just like Fox. The fact that it's regulated by OFCOM is just mere localization. The BBC can be naive at times (as can much of the left of centre press over there like the Guardian and the Indie), but I wouldn't say they - or even Fox for the most part - don't report facts. The problem is that they're selective with the facts. That, unfortunately, is journalism.
     
  11. arkitect macrumors 601

    arkitect

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Location:
    Bath, United Kingdom
    #11
    No, I don't think the fee needs to be cut altogether — personally I pay the fee so I don't have to watch ads…

    But, that being said, Auntie turns out a s**t load of dross… (pretty much 75% of it) most of it belongs on the commercial channels. Little Britain reruns? Anne Robinson? Jeremy Clarkson? For f**k's sake! How many more? :confused::rolleyes:

    Similarly, some of the salaries they pay their "star presenters" are a disgrace. (No wonder they won't come clean and publish individual figures.)

    The money could be far better spent on what the BBC actually does very well. Don't forget that part of their remit is to educate — yes, boring to some, but there was a time when they did turn out great documentaries, great dramas.

    If you do want to see "celebs" choking on Armadillo balls for laffs there is always ITV.

    I agree it isn't quite Fox for the UK, but it is awfully close… no matter what Offcom rules about Adam Boulton's behaviour.
     
  12. kernkraft macrumors 68020

    kernkraft

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    #12
    That is so true. So many of them don't do their homework and rely on poor sources. I regularly find major mis-reporting about foreign affairs. It seems, that the BBC naturally likes Russel Group graduates with English degree to report on complex overseas matters. I'm sure their short 'reports' sound well on Saturday on Radio 4, but in the end I truly believe that degrees should be used as an indication at least of what one is capable of doing well.

    Maybe then we wouldn't have a Chancellor of the Exchequer with a bachelor degree in Modern History.
     
  13. Ttownbeast macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    #13
    I don't mind PBS begging so much since it doesn't disrupt programming but every 6 months or so on average for their general pledge drives, other than some short special pledge drives for content they have to lease permissions from the BBC (or CBC in Canada) every so often too. It's funny how much the BBC affects American public broadcasting too come to think of it.
     
  14. yojitani macrumors 68000

    yojitani

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Location:
    An octopus's garden
    #14
    I'm not sure who you have in mind here. The researchers I know who work at the bbc have backgrounds in politics (ppe), international relations, those sorts of areas. (And that's not to say that English grads can't report on complex overseas matters, btw.) From what they've told me, their colleagues have similar backgrounds. That's not to say that there isn't mis-reporting. Misreporting is clearly unacceptable, but it happens in all media (newspapers, tv radio) public and privately owned.

    @Ttownbeast: Maybe if you're used to it. I moved here from the UK basically and it seems weird. My local npr affiliates are constantly running pledges. I guess they aren't getting enough to last them. I love the channels; great programmes, news, and music but it seems like begging isn't something they should have to do.
     
  15. djellison macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Location:
    Pasadena CA
    #15
    I don't live in the UK anymore (as of 10 weeks ago). But when I did - the licence fee was one of the few things I was very very happy to pay.

    No other organisation could have produced something with the quality of Planet Earth, Blue Planet, Life and the other exquisit productions of the BBC Natural History unit. The science dept has had ups and downs, but Wonders of the Solar System was as close to television perfection as I can possibly imagine. You think ITV or Channel 4 are going to do that? Hell no - not a chance. Formula 1 without adverts, and a far far better production team that ITV ever bothered with. Gavin and Stacey, Only Fools and Horses, Outnumbered - OUTNUMBERED....it's TV genius, The Office, Personally - any single one of those would be worth the price of admission alone. Add Top Gear to the mix - and not only do I consider the television licence good value - it's a bloody bargin.

    Watch Sky News? You mean the bastard love child of the Daily Mail and the Daily Express in TV form. I'd rather have my teeth pulled out. ITV? ITV exists to extract money from the stupid via X-Factor, Britain's Got Talent, and Morons on Ice.

    "Anyone else not want to pay the BBC anymore? Or do you all still watch that channel?"

    That Channel? Last time I checked the licence fee pays for I think 8 TV channels, about 8 national radio stations, about half a dozen regional TV stations, dozens of local radio stations, all their web stuff, the iPlayer etc etc.

    As I am now, looking at the UK and the BBC, outside looking in, putting up with the tirade of crap called TV in the USA.... You have NO idea how lucky you are to have the BBC.
     
  16. yojitani macrumors 68000

    yojitani

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Location:
    An octopus's garden
    #16
    Exactly! And I agree with the rest of it, aside from Top Gear. Can't stand that show. :D
     
  17. Ttownbeast macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    #17
    They don't make any profit so they tend to rely on donations to cover a lot of the extra operation costs that go beyond what the Feds finance and what volunteers they can get outside of a few salaried administrators who for the most part use some of the funds the Gov gives them to hunt for more money to run the operation through those fund drives and file grant applications to other government agencies, charities, endowments, and private industry to keep programming on the air.

    It seems strange to some, and it's very complicated I know, but you're right I am quite used to it LOL.

    I'll agree about 99 percent with your POV on the TV here I barely watch anything but PBS and the Science/Discovery/History Channels anymore the other 1000 channels or so seems like a bunch of sensationalist garbage lately.

    Since TLC started doing those retarded "divorced tattooed pregnant midget biker welfare whore reality shows" I lost all interest in that channel too--it was nice when it was actually The Learning Channel
     
  18. djellison macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Location:
    Pasadena CA
    #18
    Here's how much I now appreciate what the BBC does. I'd happily pay the licence fee from here in the USA, for access to the iPlayer.
     
  19. niuniu thread starter macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #19
    You love it - you pay for it. I have no interest in it, but I still have to pay for it.

    Funny how one guy mentioned Planet Earth and Blue Planet - both of which I bought for my Dad as Christmas presents several years back, and that's the way it should be. If I want something, I'll pay for it. But I shouldn't have to pay for some guy's love of poxy reruns, or for his skewed news reporting that isn't any better than what I can get for free on Sky.

    I think the solution is - scrap the licence fee, and lets see these Beeb fans put their money where their mouth is and subscribe.

    I'll be spending my free time doing something better than watching reruns.
     
  20. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #20
    I don't watch any television, so I don't pay any licence fee. I'm grateful for BBC Radio News, however.
     
  21. ChrisWB macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago
    #21
    How do you know who to vote for if you can't see who has the better haircut?
     
  22. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #22
    It's a tough call.
     
  23. paddy macrumors 6502a

    paddy

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Location:
    TN
    #23
    I'd still regard that as a relatively small price to pay for not having utter ***** on 24/7. Imagine having nothing but the likes of ITV and Sky News *shudder*
     
  24. XnavxeMiyyep macrumors 65816

    XnavxeMiyyep

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Washington
    #24
    I'm not British, but from what I understand, you can just not get a TV license if you don't watch it.
     
  25. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #25
    Murdoch also does that...
     

Share This Page