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
nice acronym
what exactly does Quasi Autonomous mean then?
I guess I'd always just assumed it was partially state controlled, seeing as it's illigal not to pay your license fee and watch tv. Which means you have to by law pay this fee, which makes it a bit like tv tax.
It means quasi, as in 'sort of' and autonomous as in 'independant'
ah ok
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:8tq5HV_G9CgJ:www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmcumeds/82/4062911.htm+who+owns+homechoice&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=4
sorry, I have nothing sensible to add, just the word quasi always makes me chuckle.
I don't have a tv. I don't listen to bbc radio either.
Hmmm, you've got me doubting now, I swear I saw on the bottom of one of their ad's that it was owned by Sky. I'll check.
This suggests they want to buy it;
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1591015,00.html
And their movie on demand service is inconjunction with Sky.
Video Networks Ltd
Chairman and CEO: Roger Lynch
COO and Board Member: Dean Hawkins
CFO; Managing Director, Corporate Development; Board Member: Peter Gutman
Ahem. The beeb is a quango now is it? I always though it was entirley state. Hmm.
Nope, the structure of the BBC is set by the government, but after that they have only a very little say in how the money is spent. Thus they are quasi autonomous.
There are some bad things about America, too. For all the Seinfields and Frasiers, there is a huge sludge pit of abominable television that we are fortunate enough to be spared. It's a cliche, but our state broadcaster is still the envy of the free world (I don't know why I said 'free' world particularly, it's just something people say. I guess the non-free world has other things to worry about).
The interview of Colleen Graffy by John Humphreys at 8:10 this morning was worth today's 35p right there...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/
OT, but I wish we had HBO, they seem to produce/show excellent TV and film.
Personally, I think the BBC (in all incarnations) is well worth the licence fee, so I don't complain about it.
Top sketch.
To say that investigative journalism cannot be presented on commercial television is ludicrous. Channel Four News continues to be the best television news service by far, and that- funnily enough- is on commercial TV. Similarly, the BBC had to back down with regards to David Kelly because the Government controlled the purse strings.
And again, Channel Four provides an excellent education programming schedule.
But all this is irrelevant. The BBC operates as a commercial organisation, and as such it should be funded as one. If it wants to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on "stars" like Norton, Clarkson, Lineker and Kaye, then fair enough. But it should pay for it from its own pocket, not mine.
The only parts of the BBC which can possible be justified as being in the public interest to remain free from commercial pressures are the social programming, such as religious programming, education programming, such as the OU, and local radio. You could possibly make a case for BBC News, and probably for BBCi, which is an excellent internet resource that is free at the point of delivery.
If the BBC wishes to chase viewers, it can do so with it's money, not mine.
As for the advertising argument, nobody will remove your liberty if you don't pay for ITV. As I've said before, my local butcher doesn't sponsor Millionaire, and my local greengrocer doesn't advertise during the footy. The corner shop doesn't sponsor Corrie, now, does it? There are enough products out there that do not advertise on the TV.
And as I've asked on the other thread, I'll ask here. Can you tell me where I can vote out the DG, or vote for a DG who will sack mental deficients like monkey boys Kaye and Norton?
I'm similarly waiting to see if anyone will justify the situation where ITV ahs to pay a huge premium to the BBC, via the Government, in order to broadcast. That's as ludicrous a situation as Asda only being allowed to open if they pay £300m a year to Tesco.
If ratings are a broadcaster's only concern, the contents are going to be dumbed down rather drastically.
Like it or not the BBC is a cultural asset to this country and indeed the world. I agree that the licence fee is not fair but until someone comes with a solution, if it comes to choosing between keeping the BBC as it is vs. scrapping the licence fee and allowing the BBC to dumb down and become just another ITV, then I say fuck that and give me licence fee baby.
Sorry to those who disagree.
Ratings are its only concern anyway.
Why else does every bus in this entire city have a huge advert for Hotel Babylon on it? And last week is was for Becky Beaker, and the week before it was for chuffing EastEnders. They're not there to look pretty.
Perhaps.
I'll leave you to mull over Fame Academy, Just the Two Of Us, Celebrity Come Dancing, EastEnders...
BBC One is already a populist station based entirely on viewer ratings. BBC Two is little better, and as for three and four...well.
The BBC should be around to show programmes that would not otherwise be shown- i.e. arts, religion, current affairs, education. But if it is acting as a commercial actor, creating programmes simply for big audiences, then it can pay for it itself.