Inform, Educate, Entertain What has the BBC ever done for us?

[Mic09]

8 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I'm immensely proud that the UK still has these institutions like the BBC and the NHS that offer some sort of resistance to the damage that modern feudalist free market thinking has on our societies - I get why the likes of Blackstone hate them, but I always feel a little bit sad when real, actual people want them taken away on some sort of idealogical grounds, it strikes me as strange.

 

You could argue that you would like to stop modernisation of services that are staying behind competition on, well, ideological grounds. Because we always had these institutions. 

And that is absolutely fair in my opinion, and while I don't agree, it's a point of view that has to be considered. 

My problem with pushing certain services (especially not vital ones) like the BBC is the overall lack of accountability. It goes wrong? Heck, it's the government. Maybe it's some minister. Maybe people have moved on from TV. Maybe broadcasting Jamaican music on the radio brings 2k listeners, but hey, it's a valuable service for a minority (while 95% of fans of Jamaican tunes listen on Spotify). The tories have ruined it. Labour will fix it. They haven't? Well, the tories messed it up too much. 8 years later we are back to tories.

And it will get worse and worse and stuck behind fast moving competition of a Journalist who left the corporate world (or the BBC) and runs his well informed news show on Youtube.

I think there is some middle ground. Maybe adverts. At the same time, I don't know how much that would bring in. Because people have moved on from Top Gear to watch the Grand Tour. So companies would rather pay to advertise on Amazon.

It's not great, but at some point some decisions on BBC have to be made. And I would like to have a conversation where we treat it as any other service - on it's merits. Not on the fact it was nice to watch the Queen's speech in 1956. 

 

[sidcow]

57 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

I might argue that keeping up a service in the way it has been run for yours is the very definition of conservatism. 

I fully appreciate everything is not for profit. But it's not a hospital or a police force. It's entertainment (and news) and things you arguably don't need.

You could think of a million things run by government policy, but some would be silly and could be better provided by a private investor.

Radio, podcasts, MOTD, Top Gear, I believe are some of those things.

Heck, look at top gear as a prime (no pun intended) example. It survived the test of fire by going to Amazon. Some people don't have amazon. But some might have it if they weren't made to pay £15 a month either way. 

I fully appreciate the service BBC provides to people. I just feel it doesn't have to be run the way it is, and vast majority of it could be privatised. 

Would Top Gear ever have existed without BBC. 

Take it as a fresh idea to a commercial TV executive and they probably say it sounds expensive and risky. 

Tell you to go back to the drawing board and ask you to created a show about celebrities competing in the Decathlon on ice skates. 

[Mic09]

Just now, sidcow said:

Would Top Gear ever have existed without BBC. 

Take it as a fresh idea to a commercial TV executive and they probably say it sounds expensive and risky. 

Tell you to go back to the drawing board and ask you to created a show about celebrities competing in the Decathlon on ice skates. 

Sure, BBC has been a foundation for many modern TV models. It's ancient so it has been an innovator in the past.

You could say they got very lucky in picking the 3 hosts that worked so well together in Top Gear. 

But is it a valid argument to keep charging people a fee? 

There might be valid arguments, and I appreciate them, but I don't think this is one of those. 

[OutByEaster?]

10 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

It's not great, but at some point some decisions on BBC have to be made. And I would like to have a conversation where we treat it as any other service - on it's merits. 

I'd agree with that too - but I think the most important point of that sentence is that 'merits' should not be replaceable by profit - if the BBC produces good quality, perhaps niche, perhaps unusual content at a loss, then I'd rather be talking about ways to tax other content providers in order to continue to fund it than I would be talking about making the BBC worse so it can produce profit. 

I'd be in favour of a tax on broadcasting services like Netflix and so on that could be used to provide a base of public funding to the arts in the UK - a sort of extension to the licence fee, leveraged onto those companies directly.

[sidcow]

9 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Sure, BBC has been a foundation for many modern TV models. It's ancient so it has been an innovator in the past.

You could say they got very lucky in picking the 3 hosts that worked so well together in Top Gear. 

But is it a valid argument to keep charging people a fee? 

There might be valid arguments, and I appreciate them, but I don't think this is one of those. 

You're missing the point. 

Blackadder is a other one where they say they couldn't believe The BBC let them make it in the first place and even more suprised when they let them go again after the first awful series. 

A lot of young inexperienced producers, directors, writers, actors, comedians etc are given a go who never ever would in the commercial world.

Just look at Hollywood.. No risks are allowed to be taken ever anywhere. So you end up with 90% of movies being remakes, continuation of franchises, an already successful genre made into a movie. They are so scared of a failure they only authorise something that they know will guarantee a big number of people will go to see it regardless. 

I think artistic creativity in the UK would fall off a cliff without the BBC. 

It's not about commercialism, it's about space and creativity.   The UK punches way above its weight in TV and Movies and so much of it has its seed in The BBC. 

People would soon complain about the shit on TV/Streaming services. 

Edited December 6, 2023 by sidcow

[bickster]

1 hour ago, luckyeddie said:

This is not a tax, which I have no objection to paying. It is a licence fee charged to use other products the BBC have no investment in. It is closer to a protection racket than a tax. If they decided to become a streaming service and charge a monthly fee in a competitive market, they would be extinct in a decade, which shows they are not value for money. 

You can call it want you want, it's a tax

You seem to not understand what the role of a state broadcaster is

[Mic09]

18 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I'd agree with that too - but I think the most important point of that sentence is that 'merits' should not be replaceable by profit - if the BBC produces good quality, perhaps niche, perhaps unusual content at a loss, then I'd rather be talking about ways to tax other content providers in order to continue to fund it than I would be talking about making the BBC worse so it can produce profit. 

I'd be in favour of a tax on broadcasting services like Netflix and so on that could be used to provide a base of public funding to the arts in the UK - a sort of extension to the licence fee, leveraged onto those companies directly.

I almost agree - I think there should be a "voluntary" tax where I pay say £10 for Netflix, and if you want, you pay £15 and that bumps up BBC.

I don't use much BBC, but if you feel it's valuable, feel free to pay extra.

And before someone says NHS or Police, we are talking about the BBC. You know, the service that many people use to watch Marcus Wearing politely smile while some guy butchers an £80 beef joint. 

[Seat68]

4 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

I almost agree - I think there should be a "voluntary" tax where I pay say £10 for Netflix, and if you want, you pay £15 and that bumps up BBC.

I don't use much BBC, but if you feel it's valuable, feel free to pay extra.

And before someone says NHS or Police, we are talking about the BBC. You know, the service that many people use to watch Marcus Wearing politely smile while some guy butchers an £80 beef joint. 

Your last sentence, you are choosing one small piece of the BBC content to represent the Corporation, is it intentional, when its not even what its known for, to say that many people use it for that, when if you surveyed a million people, no one would say that is specifically why they use the BBC.

Why do you support Aston Villas? Well I wanted to ensure that James Collins could go on the piss with Barry Bannan,

[Mic09]

10 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

I almost agree - I think there should be a "voluntary" tax where I pay say £10 for Netflix, and if you want, you pay £15 and that bumps up BBC.

I don't use much BBC, but if you feel it's valuable, feel free to pay extra.

And before someone says NHS or Police, we are talking about the BBC. You know, the service that many people use to watch Marcus Wearing politely smile while some guy butchers an £80 beef joint. 

@OutByEaster? Heck, what about a pay as you use model? 

If you only watch MasterChef, pay £5 for the season. Want to use BBC Lincoln radio? Pay £2 a month.

I think it would work out cheaper than the license for most people and would give an indication of what people actually want to use. And some people who really want the BBC would probably pay more than the license fee. 

It's probably a stupid idea that I just thought of, but hey, it's an idea. 

[Mic09]

3 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

Your last sentence, you are choosing one small piece of the BBC content to represent the Corporation, is it intentional, when its not even what its known for, to say that many people use it for that, when if you surveyed a million people, no one would say that is specifically why they use the BBC.

Why do you support Aston Villas? Well I wanted to ensure that James Collins could go on the piss with Barry Bannan,

I only use BBC football news and watch MasterChef once a year... I guess I'm not the only one! 

Now that I think about it, snooker WC too. But ITV would easily take it over. 

[luckyeddie]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

You can call it want you want, it's a tax

You seem to not understand what the role of a state broadcaster is

Quote

1.

a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.

It is neither compulsory (to watch TV) nor is it added to the cost of anything, it is a stand alone charge levied against a service which they have no investment or authority over, so by definition if is not a tax.

I understand what it was 40 years ago, but now it is obsolete and just a cash cow. 

If people want to pay for the BBC and it stands on its own two feet, great. But it is acting like a monopoly in a competitive market and the only thing keeping it afloat is outdated laws.

Just my opinion, which is why I don't have a license. 

[blandy]

2 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

Maybe the question that needs asking is "If the output of the BBC is, in general, of a better quality and more appreciated and consumed by people than the output of those providers on the private market, then what other companies and services that currently sit within the private market could be be improved as a service for consumers by bringing them into state ownership?"

Or the flip side, which is what if the BBC went commercial - would advertisers move to the BBC, leaving ITV and others (ch 4, Ch5 etc) underfunded, causing them to cut costs, lay off staff or even close down? And if even some of that happened, then the overall level of quality and breadth of output available over free to air TV would have fallen - everybody loses.

There is absolutely no logic to bringing entertainment channels into State ownership, but your wider point is worth asking  - things which provide a genuine public service need. But once the tories did what they did, putting the genie back in the bottle would mostly not be successful.

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, luckyeddie said:

It is neither compulsory (to watch TV) nor is it added to the cost of anything, it is a stand alone charge levied against a service which they have no investment or authority over, so by definition if is not a tax.

I understand what it was 40 years ago, but now it is obsolete and just a cash cow. 

If people want to pay for the BBC and it stands on its own two feet, great. But it is acting like a monopoly in a competitive market and the only thing keeping it afloat is outdated laws.

Just my opinion, which is why I don't have a license. 

Yeah you aren't understanding the compulsory in that definition. It's compulsory to pay income tax when you earn over the threshold, it's compulsory to pay VAT on non-zero rated goods you buy, it's compulsory to have a TV licence if you watch live TV. No one forces you to have a job, go shopping or watch TV. It's compulsory to pay the tax when you partake in the action that triggers the tax

The TV Licence is a tax

[luckyeddie]

3 minutes ago, bickster said:

Yeah you aren't understanding the compulsory in that definition. It's compulsory to pay income tax when you earn over the threshold, it's compulsory to pay VAT on non-zero rated goods you buy, it's compulsory to have a TV licence if you watch live TV. No one forces you to have a job, go shopping or watch TV. It's compulsory to pay the tax when you partake in the action that triggers the tax

The TV Licence is a tax

That makes every purchase a tax then, which I disagree with. It's a fee, it is even called that, not a tax. 

[OutByEaster?]

1 hour ago, Mic09 said:

If you only watch MasterChef, pay £5 for the season. Want to use BBC Lincoln radio? Pay £2 a month.

If you only use the A34 and A45 and a couple of roads around your house, why not only pay a small fee for those roads rather than road tax?*

This idea that everything must have the right market value to the consumer in order to produce a level of profit for the shareholding investment entity is a busted flush - the very survival of our species is dependent on us finding different models for our future, different ways to imagine how our societies should be run for the benefit of all of us, not just for  corporate return. Ideologically, I like that the BBC (and NHS) stand like some relic of a past idea, like the statue of liberty at the end of Planet of the Apes, as a reminder that there are other ways to consider how we value and fund the things that make up our societies.

*[holds Bicks back before he shouts "road tax doesn't go on roads!"]

[bickster]

1 hour ago, luckyeddie said:

That makes every purchase a tax then, which I disagree with. It's a fee, it is even called that, not a tax. 

Nearly every purchase you make is taxed, I’m not sure why you don’t seem to grasp that

[blandy]

30 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

olds Bicks back before he shouts "road tax doesn't go on roads!"]

Vehicle excise duty. 
There’s actually a similarity to a degree. Vehicle excise duty permits you to use a motor vehicle to travel on public roads. You choose how much you travel.

The TV license fee permits you to receive Free to Air TV broadcasts and on demand programmes. How much you choose to do so is up to you.

[fightoffyour]

 

[tomav84]

6 minutes ago, fightoffyour said:

 

I'm going to start every zoom meeting like this

[Tegis]

After spending a week in the USA and watching some "news" out of curiosity from the usual suspects CNN, ABC, NBC, FOX, I will happily die on the hill of national broadcasters like SVT, NRK, BBC and DR. Make sure to fight to make them better, not replace them with market forces because that is a shitshow not even fit for fertiliser.

Edited December 8, 2023 by Tegis