Forum menu
I think the support of the BBC is more for the gammons, based on the myth of British exceptionalism
I'm sorry, but you really aren't paying attention.
I wouldn’t and I don’t (no license)
However I watch very little TV (Netflix does me fine and has the nature-related BBC documentaries anyway) and get my podcasts/music through Spotify
If I spent more time at home or had kids I would though, if you use it it’s probably worth it
As an aside I don’t like the broadcast model and prefer the on demand model because I’ll only watch something if I want to, not just sit in front of back to back episodes of homes under the hammer because it’s on. But that probably says more about my self control than the BBC 😁
I consume so much BBC content, broadcast TV and radio, plus iPlayer, every day of the week - I have no problem with the licence fee and if it changed to a subscription model instead I'd happily pay for that
I also have access to Netflix, but rarely watch anything on it, the main problem with all these subscription services is they only have a limited selection of content to choose from. It's a bit like going into Blockbuster back in the day, but only being allowed to rent films from selected shelves in the store
I never watch live TV, and haven't for around 5 years.
Still pay for the TV license though, well worth it for the TV/Radio/Kids Online stuff etc etc.
I happily pay the License Fee for two very simple reasons:
1: I regularly find programmes to watch on the iPlayer that other channels and providers just wouldn't make, usually some niche interest or a documentary. Usually one a week as a minimum but sometimes I can find more in one sitting than I would in a month on my Prime subscription (I have it for the delivery, the TV stuff is basically a freebie).
2: Having the BBC helps keep the quality of other channels up. You may not like Eastenders, Strictly or even the nature documentaries but they mean that the commercial channels have to make their offerings as good or better to get eyeballs on their adverts. Without this 'quality check' the BBC provides then we could easily end up with TV like the US. We may love the shows we get over here that they make but they are the quality stuff they make, the vast majority of US output is dire and can help spread misinformation and enforce stereotypes, racial bias etc. Our TV output is nowhere near perfect but without the BBC providing a certain standard the commercial stuff will only go one way: down.
I don't actually watch that much TV on the whole but I can still see the value the BBC brings.
The problem there is that people will immediately go “four quid to watch the new season of Strictly? Screw that, I’ll torrent it.” Then next year everyone will be whining / shocked because the BBC’s stopped making it. Do you want the BBC to produce shows which are of high quality, or which are profitable?
Strictly? High Quality?
We did a zoom quiz at Christmas with the extended family. One of the rounds of questions was on dances from strictly. I was very proud that neither me, nor my wife, nor my three kids could answer a single question correctly as we have never watched it. The rest of my family looked at us like we were freaks.
we have never watched it.
A poor position from which to make pronouncements regarding the quality.
Would happily pay for the programmes and radio if they were split from the news.
Between Laura Kuenssberg acting as Johnson's personal spokesperson and Tim Davie being in the pocket of the Conservatives I no longer want my money funding that.
I would pay for the BBC before anything else
This
Channel4 news all the way. But the BBC is far more than news (for now).
Without this ‘quality check’ the BBC provides then we could easily end up with TV like the US
That's an argument I've not heard before, suspect it has an element of truth in it.
There do seem to be a lot of people complaining about something they haven't tried for years.
I would pay for the radio content as I can't imagine life without radio 4. Tv i could take or leave although i do love a bit of Simon Reeve or Rick Stein.
TV with advertising in it......this is going to sound sooooo middle class!
I binge watched It's a Sin the other day Channel 4 on demand with adverts in it. First time in as long as I can remember when I've had to sit through adverts as everything we watch normally is Prime/Netflix/Now or a smattering of Iplayer. Felt bloody weird . Then it felt like someone was wasting my time.
Given the option of paying a subscription or having 20mins of my evening wasted watching adverts it would be the paid for subscription every time. My leisure time is too precious to me.
Given the option of paying a subscription or having 20mins of my evening wasted watching adverts it would be the paid for subscription every time
Don't get Sky then.
The most expensive subscription I pay, with the most adverts.
That's the real scandal here.
In the last week or two I have watched Question Time, Darren McGarvey’s Class Wars, two Storyvilles, documentaries on (what was) the Forestry Commission, Landward, The Place Beyond The Pines, University Challenge, Newsnight, The Nine (Scottish news), Only Connect, a Rose Matafeo standup, a Romesh Ranganathan programme and no doubt some other bits and pieces.
Tricky one. I can't imagine myself watching any of that dross. The news is getting more and more like North Korea every day, but there are some good dramas and occasionally journalism that goes across the grain - Americast, Jeremy Bowen.
I'd definitely pay for Ch 4; BBC... not sure.
we could easily end up with TV like the US
Braeking Bad, The Wire, Sopranos, Stranger Things, Big Little Lies, etc etc ...
What actually is the deal with owing the BBC a living though? I use Spotify and really rate the service but I’m not going to suggest people who don’t use it should pay for it.
All the arguments seem to be just saying in one way or another ‘yeah but it’s a great service’ I’m sure it is so surely they have a large enough customer base to pay for it right? That’s kinda how capitalism works
Agreed that Sky is the scam though, I know people who pay £100 a month for it and one when threatening to leave got a discount of almost half
No I wouldn’t pay for it if I had the choice.
It is now just a government communications channel with some somec to keep the proles happy.
Perhaps Bojo, Gove et al want to make the U.K. Oceania and the BBC is their propaganda channel and the majority are happy to pay for the privilege.
Don't have a TV license and don't watch TV. Pay for Netflix though.
No interest in giving the BBC any money.
I’d like it to remain “independant” from the whims of any particular government.
Time was when a government of any colour hated the BBC as they were always anti-government. Which in my opinion is as it should be.
Would I pay a subscription? Providing it's no more than the licence fee probably yes. If I could subscribe to individual channels at lower cost then, BBC2, BBC4 and Radio3 please.
The news is getting more and more like North Korea every day,
It really, really isn't as bad as you think it is.
It is now just a government communications channel with some somec to keep the proles happy.
Perhaps Bojo, Gove et al want to make the U.K. Oceania and the BBC is their propaganda channel and the majority are happy to pay for the privilege.
This, very much so. All I've missed since ditching the license is BBC4 but there's more than enough world drama on All4.
The BBC is one of only two remaining 'nationalised industries' within the UK and is well overdue for demolition. Also, I strongly object to Capita being in charge of licensing. Can you believe that after cancelling a letter arrived acknowledging and telling me that I had to inform them of any change of address. Regardless of whether or not I had a license. WTF.
Meanwhile, I await visits from the Capita thugs. Should be fun.
I'd be interested in different levels of service.
I know not everything will be to everyone's taste so I don't mind that. But I'd separate out sport, for example. I don't know what they spend on football but things like that any many other sports are of no interest.
Do channel 4 get any central budget? They manage to make some very good programs. I'm using 4s on demand service more than iplayer right now. Rarely watch live stuff - either catchup or tivo.
It really, really isn’t as bad as you think it is.
It really is. When are they going to lead with Hancock's corrupt contracts the same way they are leading with Salmon -Sturgeon, to mention just the latest example?
It is now just a government communications channel with some somec to keep the proles happy.
Perhaps Bojo, Gove et al want to make the U.K. Oceania and the BBC is their propaganda channel and the majority are happy to pay for the privilege.
The politicising of the BBC was started by the tories when they appointed Patton as DG (well all governments have tried to some extent, but that was the biggest real success up to then) but the big move came under labour with the rigged Hutton enquiry. Unfortunately Greg Dyke resigned with a whimper instead of fighting for the organisations independence, and then it's fate was sealed as Murdoch instructed Blair to defund their journalism efforts.
Now the BBC largely exists to facilitate the transfer of public money to private organisations so shareholders can reap the benefits of an inflated license fee while the public suffer deflated quality of programming. Just another example of the tories main unstated policy driver.
Yes!
DIY SOS and the repair shop are worth the cost on their own
If it was just BBC TV, then maybe not. However BBC is so much more and I happily pay the "TV" license for all that it offers, even if some of that is currently seen as free.
Stop funding the BBC and you'd lose the 5 excellent radio stations I regularly listen to, the website and the local output.
Yes, and not just because I indirectly work for them sometimes.
Be honest, most of netflix output is pretty dire. Especially the documentaries. Why have an interesting hour long BBC documentary when you can have the typical netlix true crime 6 hours of interview padded out with b-roll and archive on Netflix? Netflix does a good job of aggregating content from (mostly North American) broadcasters, but their own commissioning is just awfull. The feature films make BBC Christmas specials looks good!
And can you imagine a news media landscape without the BBC? Or BBC directly funded via a government Grant?
And can you imagine a news media landscape without the BBC? Or BBC directly funded via a government Grant?
News really isn't a good advert for the BBC.
Wouldn't pay and haven't watched it for a while, i simply don't watch TV.
That’s an argument I’ve not heard before, suspect it has an element of truth in it.
It was pointed out to me in uni by a journalism student, it made sense then and still stands up now. Basically the BBC sets the benchmark and the commercial channels have to come close to it or do even better. Without the benchmark it quickly becomes a race to the bottom.
The easiest example is ad breaks. While the BBC has none (just the odd promo for another of their shows in between programmes) the commercial channels have to have ads to pay the bills. While ITV, C4 and C5 could have gone down the US model of having ads everywhere (ads before show intro, after show intro but before show starts, every 10 mins throughout, before final credits, after final credits plus lots of product placement where things like scoreboards, studio sections and updates are sponsored) the rules were drawn up to allow then IIRC 3 slots an hour and a max of 12 mins. Product placement has only recently started happening bar cars on loan or prizes being 'donated' etc. This was all drawn up on the back of the viewers being used to ad-free BBC output and rules being used to encourage decent programming content rather than the constant 'before the break' catch-up nonsense you get on US and lots of Sky shows where each segment only has 1-2 mins of new show and you end up with a 40 minute show (1 hour scheduled but 20 mins of ads and credits) actually being only 20-25 mins long once you cut out all the recaps and 'after the break' bullshit. As for the Sky model of C5 quality but with adverts AND a subscription charge - they'll never get any of my money.
we could easily end up with TV like the US
Braeking Bad, The Wire, Sopranos, Stranger Things, Big Little Lies, etc etc …
Like your selective quoting there, let me get the rest of it for you to add context:
We may love the shows we get over here that they make but they are the quality stuff they make, the vast majority of US output is dire and can help spread misinformation and enforce stereotypes, racial bias etc.
When you're a country the size they are compared to us you have to look at it in terms of quality/crap ratio. Theirs is massively more biased towards crap than ours is. They do not produce 10x the amount of quality programming despite being 10x our population or more.
It really is. When are they going to lead with Hancock’s corrupt contracts the same way they are leading with Salmon -Sturgeon, to mention just the latest example?
I have to agree.
Bojo / Hancock could gun down babies in the street and the BBC wouldn't report it.
Yes there are worse channels eg Fox news, but the BBC has lost all credibility for me and I've stopped paying the license fee as a result.
The benchmark issue is important. If you lower the bar the bar is lowered and unlikely to be raised again.
Would no longer put BBC news in the benchmark category though, that bar got lowered long ago. Prefer ITV for mainstream news and C4 for more in depth content. Alhough I rarely watch it SKY news seems to put the boot in to the government a bit harder than the BBC these days. Shows you how far the beeb has fallen. Just thinking about the political roster at the BBC the last few years:
Andrew 'Murdoch' Neil
Jeremy 'I nearly stood as a Tory candidate' Paxman.
David 'Bullingdon boy' dimblewit.
Nick 'Cameron's fluffer' Robinson.
Laura 'My sources at Downing St" kunesberg.
Fiona 'Fox news' Bruce.
I'd pay for A package of BBC4, Radio 1xtra, BBC2 and radio3 though.
I’d pay. Happily.
Why on earth would you pay? It's utter crap. Crap programming, biased politic programming. totally overtaken by the PC Woke brewage. Just let it go commercial and lets see if it survives in true Darwin style. (spoiler alert: it wont).
inkster and wobbliscott's posts remind everything is alright with the world.
Within the space of 2 posts in the last 3 the Beeb has been derided as being both in the tory's pocket AND lefite Woke nonsense.
And relax...
biased politic programming.
totally overtaken by the PC Woke brewage
Well, which is it? Boris' fluffer, or a liberal lefty PC melting pot?
I've been considering cancelling Netflix as it's mostly tosh and most of what we watch is on iplayer
Not for the TV side, I just don't watch "normal TV" any more. But for the iplayer, yeah.
Happy to pay a fee/subscription (eg BBC) or have ad breaks (eg C4) - but not both (eg Sky)
I object to paying twice.
Just let it go commercial and lets see if it survives in true Darwin style. (spoiler alert: it wont).
Let me see, advertise on channel 5, or sky, netflix, or the world famous BBC? Its a tough one.
The commercial channels do not want the BBC to go commercial because what they receive from advertising revenue is being spread pretty thin through the myriad of channels already.
totally overtaken by the PC Woke brewage.
Is this the name of some beer from a new brewery I haven't heard of?
The BBC is one of only two remaining ‘nationalised industries’ within the UK and is well overdue for demolition.
Yes, because it turned out so well for us when all those other industries were 'demolished'. I think we can guess what the other industry is.
The BBC is not the problem. You are.
"inkster and wobbliscott’s posts remind everything is alright with the world.
Within the space of 2 posts in the last 3 the Beeb has been derided as being both in the tory’s pocket AND lefite Woke nonsense.
….......................
Fair point, though the BBC does have a problem with its news content. I never said it was in the Tories pocket, far from it. For some reason the BBC has chosen to place establishment Tories in the hot seats within an overall framework of political correctness. This gives the impression that the presenters are being 'held back' and prevented from saying what they really think.
This is born out with the set up of news UK etc. The basic proviso is that Andrew Neil had been muzzled by the beeb and needs a 'free speech' platform on which to tell the truth. (This could be the BBC's fault for employing him in the first place)
To be on the BBC political team you have to have gone to Oxford and public school. (Grammar school at a push). You know that these characters inhabit a tiny gene pool, these people don't do the kinds of things we do, they don't encounter working class people unless they are offering them a service. They don't know people of colour (unless they went to the right school / uni), there is a complete absence of egalitarianism.
The light entertainment side of the beeb is dominated by Cambridge graduates who conform to a similar profile and has contributed to notions of elitism just as much as the news content. Every light entertainment comedy programme is a re run of the TWTWTW sketch with Cleese, Barker and Moore, (the I'm middle class so I look down on / look up to him sketch)
The culture and history stuff is bloody ace though, as is the radio.
I find something unsavoury about this “I don’t watch it therefore I shouldn’t pay for it” sentiment. I’ve not been ill for a while, don’t see why I should pay for the NHS.
That quote just seems totally stupid to me comparing the NHS to the BBC. I’d personally rather see the money I pay for a TV license go towards the NHS rather than what it does go on.
Conversely, I agree with @2tyred on this. The BBC produces a huge variety of output precisely because it doesn't need to pander to the whims of what advertisers might want to associate with. It is unique in this respect and that gives it the artistic freedom which allows it to produce some exceptionally high quality and diverse material. Something for everyone.
This has parallels with the NHS, which I similarly wouldn't want to move to an optional subscription based model.
These kinds of universal provisions are great levellers in our British society and I truly believe our culture would suffer if either (or both) were taken away from us.
I value their contribution to society highly - even though I rarely directly use either of them myself. Although it's clear that both the NHS and BBC are not perfect in their current states (for different reasons and in different ways) I'm willing to continue to pay for both to remain as contributors to that society.
Just let it go commercial and lets see if it survives in true Darwin style.
Yep. Not sure how a subscription would actually work for live TV, i.e. if I don't subscribe how does my TV stop BBC but not the other channels? I think that is why it will never be done.
However, if it was technically possible with a charge of £15 a month I can't see it being very successful which would mean the price would need to increase which would mean even less successful.
I would just allow advertising on the channel and make it free just the same as other live tv and radio channels. If the programmes are as great as some of you think the advertising revenue will be massive...
News really isn’t a good advert for the BBC.
agreed. I gave up listening to Radio 4 news a couple of years back. No apparent investigation. Weak editorial approach. BBC news on radio, TV, and web is not much more than a PR regurgitation machine that is a disappointing waste of time.
Paying an optional subscription for BBC content I expect would reduce the amount the BBC receives.
As the license fee is fairly cheap and the output wide ranging and readily accessible then I don’t see such a subscription as attractive compared to the current setup.
Within the space of 2 posts in the last 3 the Beeb has been derided as being both in the tory’s pocket AND lefite Woke nonsense.
It can and is both, the "lefty woke" parts are the culture war pieces that appear to be on the right side of the war, but are really mainly just fluff pieces that lack substance are uninformative and just seam to exist to drive the click bait division algorithms. If you are already supportive of those issues they are just flimsy old rope, if you oppose those issues the headline will make you blood boil and you will read no further (but might want to head straight to the comments to show your hate*), and if you are affected by the issues you will be left still feeling marginalised by the pathetic lack of real substance.
Politically and financially it is very pro establishment, very representative of the haves rather than the have nots. Much more programming about flipping houses for profit than struggling to pay your rent/mortgage as you live paycheque to paycheque. They talk about work life in terms of career paths, representing the content makers who have lives of opportunity that allow real choices, rather than the majority experience of being at the whim of the markets and just getting any job you can.
*it is also clear that comments sections on the media just create discourse, they exist not to have any sensible discussion's but to drive the viewing algorithm. While a privately funded organisation could be excused for their existence as they scrabble for revenues, on a publicly funded organisation there is no excuse for their continued existence at the cost of the hatred and division they enable.