If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
In fact the opposite is true. The more commercial they are, the harder they fight for audience share, the shittest they tend to be. ITV is a prime example. Sky is an ever bigger one.
And there is a simple explanation for that: lowest common denominator. Easiest to put car-crash, no-braincells-required programmes such as Jeremy Vile, Jerry Springer or endless repeats of The Simpsons. It will attract large numbers of viewers at the expense of quality programming.
Channel 4 does produce some good programmes but then it also produces some regrettable shite, and IMO the latter today outweighs the former by a worrying margin. 80% of Channel 5's output is binnable.
The BBC remains the best broadcaster not only in Britain but on the entire planet. It's no coincidence that TV channels all over the world queue up to buy BBC-produced programmes.
He could stop having (taxable) income.
Except when you look at US commercial channels and get things like Lost, Battlestar Galactica. even in the UK both 4 and five often do both better documentaries and history than BBC. The BBC used to be a world beater - now its not.
That said I'm happy with licence, but think it could be used better. BBC 3 and 4 should be closed, as should the local radio output and the web prescence scaled back to the News and Sport
And if they did that all the time, the budget would have to be far larger, and people would complain about the licence fee costing even more money than it does now. So again, it's a lose-lose situation as far as its critics are concerned.
The BBC does get American blockbuster series too- Heroes being the latest example. But there is little it can do other than pay absurd amounts of money when Murdoch's Evil Empire decides it will buy the latest fashionable series for its ultra piss-poor Sky 1 channel, specially since half of the time it's another branch of its empire who produced the series in the first place. The same can be said of many sports.
What you don't get with most commercial channels is such jewels as Coast, Planet Earth and hundreds of other documentaries, dramas, biographies and historical series- many of them not just shown on the BBC, but created by the corporation itself.
C4 and five make most of the history and documentaries themselves (and make a tidy sum from selling them). Also the US commercial channels aren't buying from anyone - they are making quality programmes that the BBC and C4 and Five buy (ITV buys some but not much, but Pushing Dasies is about the only US drama in primetime I can remember - ITV is much more home-grown)
And to be fair even a lot of the BBC's dramas (Rome for example) are also financed by the US (HBO does a lot with the Beeb).
Now I'd accept that individual programmes would be more expensive, but the BBC should do less and do it better. it could cut lots of digital channels - except News 24 and BBC Parliament (which costs fuck all), cut back on web, stop doing local radio etc. And put the money back into decent progs on BBC1 and 2
All of the BBC's latest wildlife documentaries including Planet Earth were joint projects with US commercial broadcaster Discovery. And of course, probably the most famous science documentary series ever made (Cosmos), was made by American commercial TV. The US shows that it simply isn't true that commercial TV = shit TV. They do dramas better than anyone else. They do pretty good comedy and kids shows too. And in terms of shit gameshows and reality TV, if anything, it's the UK that's flooding America with bullshit like Dancing with the Stars and The Weakest Link (both BBC). And of course absolutely none of this compares to films, which are the ultimate commercial project, because they stand and fall on their own merits (whereas a shit show that advertisers like can run for years). And the cinema is without a doubt the place you go for quality. Hell, even the turd is polished at the cinema.
I think that any public funding of television should be done in a similar way to arts funding tbh. It should be awarded to private companies on a project-by-project basis, ensuring that any project that public money funding is either doing something important to the artform (e.g. bringing new talent through, trying something that would be too much of a commercial risk for broadcasters), or offering a type of programming that people consider important, that the free market is struggling to provide (e.g. kids shows, science and education etc). And then the private companies can do whatever they want with it (presumably sell it to a commercial broadcaster).
Why should tax money be used to prop up a commercial organisation? Tax money should ONLY be used to protect things that would not otherwise be protected- in the case of TV, that means faith and educational programming, local news, and not much else. Tax money- whatever the source- shouldn't be used to prop up commercial ventures and shouldn't be used to distort a commercial marketplace. That includes the Olympics, since you ask.
But since you love the BBC and all it stands for, I'll ask you one simple question: should someone who refuses to pay the BBC their pound of flesh be sent to prison? You never did quite get around to answering that last time. Yes, or no, should people who don't pay the BBC get sent down? Is The Office worth removing someone's liberty?
I suggest you start writing to your MP so the law is changed then, instead of suggesting a television broadcaster actually has the power to send people to jail and does so.
The BBC has the power to send people to prison if they do not pay the TV Tax. That is the reality of the "unique funding" that the BBC has. Don't pay and you go to prison. The BBC enforces the law and the BBC prosecutes the law- they send people to prison.
Out of interest, Aladdin, what should the penalty be for watching ITV or Sky without paying the BBC's TV Tax first?
The law can be changed by sending MPs pieces of paper but I think you have the wrong ones there. Furthermore, the BBC will probably have more of them than Kermit so he will never be able to compete.
You could argue that the TV licensing authority should be fully seperate from the BBC, but that's a different argument (and one I wouldn't neccessarily disagree with).
Semantics on my part, perhaps, but I think you mean evade. There is a legal difference between them.
Mea culpa
The BBC has the same kind of 'power to send you to prison' as the council does for you not paying council tax. Or the corner shop keeper for reporting you to the police and demanding you are prosecuted if you are caught stealing his goods. What kind of country we live in when a shopkeeper can send you to prison, eh? Disgusting if you ask me.
No matter how much you twist it, you know this particular argument of yours is bollocks- certainly in the form you phrase it. The BBC has as much power to send people to jail as every other body, institution, business or citizen in the country.
Regarding the point you were making, the BBC is far more than just a service. It's a national instutution and an asset that should be protected. It might seem unfair to some that they are forced to pay for it even if they don't use its services. But the same can be said of those who don't visit museums, who have no time for certain sporting or cultural events, who don't care about architectural heritage, or to object to the existence of the armed forces, and yet have to pay through it all through their taxes.
That is the price we all pay for living in the society we live in. Believe me, there are various things I don't use or even support myself that I'm having to pay for through my taxes all the same.
"a PriceWaterhouseCoopers study estimating that the BBC contributes a total of £6.5bn a year to the wider economy, more than double the £3.27bn it made last year from the licence fee."
Also when it comes to journalistic content I believe BBC is one of the top at radio level. Admittedly when you watch BBC 6 o clock news it can seem a bit dumbed down but when you compare it to what ITV broadcast it is infinitely better. To me ITV seems to be the Tabloid of Broadcast News.
Mind you i tend to watch Channel 4 news.
I should hope so. It's a business. It should be making a profit.
Having said that though I do think that there should be equal pay rises for all in virtually every organisation - if the cleaner is getting 2.5% so should the guy at the top.
And Radio 4 is still worth the licence fee alone.
It's small beer compared to the money Hollywood generates for the US with no public subsidy. If you argue on purely economic terms you are actually destroying the argument for it being paid for by the public. If all it delivers is things which are commercially viable I've got to ask - why? The BBC main aim shouldn't be to make money but to act as an independent news organisation and to make programmes which are not commercialy viable (though I recognise it needs to make enough Eastender and My Family to persuade people to fork out cash for it)