Forum menu
Before we start demanding that the BBC model changes and/or it goes - what else do we get in replacement. And how much will this cost - if at all practical.
As an example add together Spotify, Netflix, Amazon, The Times and it come out far more expensive - and I don't get any of Radio 4.
How do you plan to make the BBC a subscription service? While many people can stream it already, large numbers of people watch the BBC on Freeview or listen to the BBC on FM/DAB. How can you make them pay?
While the BBC is not perfect, what will replace it - and not just the bits you use - and ensure that the costs are no more than current. Now if anyone can answer that, then I am all ears - at the moment it is all about news to fill the airways to stop news programmes reporting another party at No 10!
Oh, and the current DG was a Tory councillor and former chairman of his local conservative party.
You'll be shocked at James Purnell's background
I can't understand why the main focus of this argument is on news output - other than it being a battlefield in the culture war.
In relation to the Beeb's immeasurable cultural contribution to the nation, its news is almost an insignificant part.
I'm still getting used to John Peel not being around. Imagine if it had all gone.
Talk about voting to make yourself poorer............
Agree with this
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1482778798001201157?t=mQw4GmB6CtqKmfjtCgaQyA&s=19
I think they're just handing ammo to Labour for the next GE
sadmadalan.
Pay for it out of general taxation (hardly going to annoy people any more than the current licence situation).
Cut the expensive celebrity crap that plenty of other channels do so well anyhow.
Build a new news and current affairs department that reflects something more than what the tabloids said.
Stop bidding millions for sports events.
Be more like BBC Radio.
Here's the BBC news being unbiased because both sides complain about bias
https://twitter.com/SteveNickSmith/status/771840984388894720
Yup, this actually happened
I’m still getting used to John Peel not being around. Imagine if it had all gone.
As his self admitted behaviour reminds some of Jimmy Saville I'd suggest picking a different BBC hero
Personally I will only be a little sad to lose some of the excellent TV from the BBC due mainly to the poor news service from BBC Scotland where despite its name editorial decions are ultimately taken in London
As his self admitted behaviour reminds some of Jimmy Saville
Peel was definitely creepy but I think comparing him to Saville is OTT to say the least.
Cut the expensive celebrity crap that plenty of other channels do so well anyhow.
The opposite would be better. Keep the entertainment, documentaries and arts coverage, and get rid of news and current affairs. Sky news is miles better than bbc news in pretty much every area. The only news I’d keep is newsnight, and even that is pretty poor.
Why not make it a subscription service exactly like Netflix? The Beeb's back catalogue would bring in £££ from around the world.
I cannot stand the bias in the news programmes and don't watch a lot of TV butI would pay the license just for the sport on 5live.
& the bias in the news could be corrected pretty easily.
why all the emphasis on the news? The BBC has far more content than that. Much of it excellent and likely to be lost if it ever gets forced into the competitive (i.e. lowest common denominator) market.
Peel was definitely creepy but I think comparing him to Saville is OTT to say the least.
You can pick your heroes, I can pick my villians. Let's just say he wasn't to be trusted with 14 yo groupies in a caravan etc
Its also a generational thing. As a mid/late 20 year old myself and all of my friends have never paid for a TV license. Maybe we have less money or maybe we get our content elsewhere - I think a bit of both
An organisation that harboured and protected prolific paedophiles for decades. No not the Tories, the BBC. They knew about Savile and others but did nothing, even going so far as protecting them.
Hate to break it to you but that wasn't the BBC, that was the 1970s and to an extent 1980s. The BBC was but one cog in a way larger machine of moral bankruptcy, we were burying this shit left and right.
Vermin like Esther Rantzen as an example.
Esther Rantzen who ran a consumer affairs show for years and created Childline? Either you've lost your mind or I've totally missed a scandal somewhere here.
I can’t understand why the main focus of this argument is on news output
This. The BBC is more than Question Time and Newsnight. It's almost like the people shouting about bias might be cherry-picking because of, eh, wait, it's on the tip of my tongue...
...because its so important?
As already posted Margaret Thatcher was close friends with him and lobbied to have him knighted despite knowing about his crimes. Interesting selective memory you have there.
Can you provide any evidence for this statement ?
Thought this was interesting about bias:
https://twitter.com/paulbernaluk/status/1483354518314274816?s=21
As a mid/late 20 year old myself and all of my friends have never paid for a TV license. Maybe we have less money or maybe we get our content elsewhere
I'm honestly interested in this, where do you get your content from that doesn't require a license?
George Monbiot is wrong on two counts there.
If the licence fee goes then the Gov't will still be able to hold a direct grant over the BBC's head.
And BBC dramas are usually bland and formulaic.
How do you plan to make the BBC a subscription service? While many people can stream it already, large numbers of people watch the BBC on Freeview or listen to the BBC on FM/DAB. How can you make them pay?
Fairly easily. It would be via iPLayer/BBC Sounds only which would require login/paid account. Those stuck in the past who are not on the internet will have to quickly do so.
BBC on FM/DAB would need to either supported from profits of TV side or include adverts as can't really have a subscription radio service can you.
The BBC needs to be weaned off the teat of the licence fee because, as others have pointed out, a majority of the current under 20s will probably never buy one.
As someone who spent some time working there, I think its central problem is that it can no longer claim to be anywhere near the best in several areas. News, Children's programming, Comedy, Drama, Sport and documentary making (with the exception of nature docs). Local news and radio is, for the most part, dross. Online is bloated, poorly organised, and lifeless compared to many modern sites - I can remember a time when the news site was entertaining and took risks, but it has been homogenised with the rest of news in the normal fashion.
The lack of need to compete (and a couple of decades of running scared from government interference), means that its offering is bland and risk-free. There is very little innovation, and that is partly driven by the fact that the BBC does not need to excel to earn its money.
And BBC dramas are usually bland and formulaic.
Maybe sometimes, but saying you don't like some part of its output is like criticizing the NHS for providing cancer treatment when all you want is insulin for your diabetes (in an extreme life-threatening metaphor compared to just how you alleviate the boredom between 8 and 9 on a Wednesday evening).
Take for example this year's coverage of the Olympics, is that what we have to look forward to with the BBC's budget cut? I'm not a fan of Clare Balding but she's better than the highlight reel from a couple of random sports that no one else could be bothered to televise. Then what, in another decade sports funding (inc cycling) gets cut because it's not on free to view TV anymore and no one GAS. Just look what happened to Cricket, or F1. The latter only surged in popularity when Netlfix made it possible to follow it cheaply (albeit 10 months delayed).
I’m honestly interested in this, where do you get your content from that doesn’t require a license?
You only need a license for live TV and iPlayer IIRC, neither of which we use.
We get my news from various online sources (Guardian, FT, Economist, NYT, Le Monde etc) and we watch Netflix / Amazon Prime.
Maybe sometimes, but saying you don’t like some part of its output is like criticizing the NHS for providing cancer treatment
Not really - and I'm criticising George Monbiot's taste rather than saying the Beeb shouldn't be allowed to make their bland, formulaic dramas.
Surely unstreamed Freeview has a limited future itself? Will that content not be fully streamed in the not too distant future?
Take for example this year’s coverage of the Olympics, is that what we have to look forward to with the BBC’s budget cut? I’m not a fan of Clare Balding but she’s better than the highlight reel from a couple of random sports that no one else could be bothered to televise. Then what, in another decade sports funding (inc cycling) gets cut because it’s not on free to view TV anymore and no one GAS.
IIRC the BBC take more people to the Olympics than any other similar organisation, it's disproportionate to to unique coverage they produce.
However the loss of the licence fee doesn't necessarily mean loss of a free to air TV channel from the BBC, we already have defined events which must be on free to air TV. No suggestions that it will change.
Surely unstreamed Freeview has a limited future itself? Will that content not be fully streamed in the not too distant future?
Long way off, not everyone has affordable broadband access sufficient for streaming and won't have for a long time.
Plus it's great for emergency communications etc
You only need a license for live TV and iPlayer IIRC, neither of which we use.
We get my news from various online sources (Guardian, FT, Economist, NYT, Le Monde etc) and we watch Netflix / Amazon Prime.
You need a licence if you watch TV live on any streaming service so you can't, for example, watch live tennis on Prime.
Correct.
You need a TV licence for two things: watching, recording or streaming TV programmes live as they are broadcast; and iPlayer. If you only watch say catch-up TV or on-demand 'box sets,' you don't need a licence.
If you only watch say catch-up TV or on-demand ‘box sets,’ you don’t need a licence.
... and which, really, has been the writing on the wall for the TV Licence for a long time. It's becoming increasingly difficult to define "TV" and its actual use case is declining. When did you last have to dash home because this week's episode of your favourite show was starting? People just don't do that any more, it's going to be as alien to Generation Alphas as taping the Top 40 off the radio (and trying to edit out the DJ).
My other half watches vacuous nonsense pretty much as background noise but I very rarely watch live TV any more. I quite like Pointless and I watch Only Connect on iPlayer, that's probably about it. Oh, and my guilty pleasure which is Death In Paradise, most of which I binge-watched on demand back when I had Sky. I think this year is the first time I've watched it as broadcast.
On the other hand, I have a to-watch list as long as my arm on Netflix; I have an Amazon Prime account which to be honest I rarely use as anything I actually want to watch on there costs money on top of the subscription; I have a media server where I've ripped (or torrented) all my old DVDs / BDs. Ironically, I'm paying for 200+ channels on Virgin cable but I've probably watched it three times in the last year because it's in the wrong room.
I don't begrudge the licence fee if only for things like whatever the latest Attenborough is, ripping my eyeballs out in UHD on my Big Daft Telly™. And I really would miss Only Connect. But I'm surprised it's lasted this long.
When did you last have to dash home because this week’s episode of your favourite show was starting?
Strangely enough, only a couple of weeks ago as Star Trek Discovery is now on Pluto TV (no, I'd not heard of it either) and they don't have an On Demand service.
I don’t begrudge the licence fee if only for things like whatever the latest Attenborough is, ripping my eyeballs out in UHD on my Big Daft Telly™.
I'd happily pay extra on top of my license fee if they would sort out the fact their beautiful UHD HLG HDR stuff (and in fact anything via iPlayer) is only available with poverty-spec stereo audio.
I recently upgraded my TV to even bigger and dafter, along with a decent audio system, and the problem is now that dropping from 5.1 down to 2.0 audio is more of a hardship than dropping from UHD/HDR down to HD, so I've gone back to watching everything as recording of broadcasts.
Star Trek Discovery is now on Pluto TV
This I knew.
they don’t have an On Demand service
This I did not. Bollocks.
dropping from 5.1 down to 2.0 audio
I didn't know about that either, but my 5.1 system hasn't been reconnected since moving house. I really miss it but it just wouldn't look right in the new place and it'd probably get me shouted at. Plus it's only HDMI 1.4 so I'm knackered for external 4k sources. I don't really know what to do with it if I'm honest.
@bazzer she was repeatedly warned by her aides about his dodgy behaviour making him unsuitable for a knighthood, the official records for this have been released publicly.
There are no published records showing she knew specifically of his numerous crimes against children but given that a) he wasn't exactly coy about it, and b) it was an open secret in the entertainment industry, and c) she had access to any notes the intelligence services may have had on him (remember this is someone who regularly attended Chequers etc), it's scarcely credible to suggest she didn't know.
Remember this is the lady who was close personal friends with Augusto Pinochet, a man who made regular use of a torture facility run by a nazi child-abusing cult leader, among other things. So maybe Saville didn't seem so terrible in comparison?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-48318295
There is very little innovation, and that is partly driven by the fact that the BBC does not need to excel to earn its money.
Nice example of free-market dogma but how come the BBC used to excel in many areas then?
the BBC does not need to excel
...
how come the BBC used to excel
This is begging the question. Are both of these assumptions true, that the BBC used to excel and now it doesn't? How are we measuring this?
He also said:
I think its central problem is that it can no longer claim to be anywhere near the best in several areas.
He implicitly suggests that they used to be at least somewhere near the best in several areas. My response was to his whole post not just the bit that I quoted previously. I thought that was obvious, captain trying-to-pick-holes-in-stuff-for-no-real-reason.
My argument was that they could 'claim' to be the best in several areas. Whether they actually were is something else. Certainly, before the advent of Sky and then streaming services, there were precious few alternatives anyway.
I thought that was obvious, captain trying-to-pick-holes-in-stuff-for-no-real-reason.
The reason is, it's a trope. My generation still rag on "Millennials" some of whom are now in their 40s, my gran used to wax on about it was so much better in the olden days when you could leave your door unlocked. It's easy to go "it used to be so much better..." and there may well be some truth in that, but if your question is "why?" then you first have to answer "was it actually?" or it's an impossible question.
I'll put some meat on this on a follow-up post.
I am one of those lumpen proles who still pays my TV licence. I consider it a voluntary donation/taxation to something I think is worth having, from somebody who can afford it. In the same sentiment, I started donating £20 worth of food each week to the local food bank when UK Gov withdrew the universal credit top-up to people on benefits. I know the government should fund it, but they aren't, the same applies I think.
They are the best at doing everything fairly well.
Whether they should continue to do everything, I don't honestly know.
I know they spend an enormous amount of money on tech and on managers, and as a content person I'd like to see cuts there before I saw them in programming - but it never works like that, does it?
I would pay £13 a month a subscription to BBC sounds alone. Its content is brilliant and as someone who spends a lot of time walking my dog, I absorb hours of Sounds content every week.
It’s easy to go “it used to be so much better…”
Define better. When it used to be incredibly well funded and prestigious and was one of the only shows (ha) in town making anything like quality programming it was definitely better compared to everything else available at the time. Better than now? How would you compare? But reducing funding/job cuts combined with increased threats from the government would seem to be unlikely ways of driving quality up.
I mean BBC comedy now is arguably better now because it isn't just the Cambridge footlights or whatever being gifted prime TV slots, but it's extremely hard to quantify.