The fucking Tories are eyeing up the BBC!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

May I just say, "Fuck Gordon Ramsay."


Do carry on.

[leo-rcc]

As an outsider that watches BCC 1 to 4 on occasion, I do feel that there is lots of fat to trim off this organisation. The need for BBC3 and 4 for example completely escapes me. However I do not think that the BBC should be privatized. It gives the BBC the opportunity to try new programs, to have better programming that wouldn't sell commercially. The shows that do have a commercial value can however be licensed to other station as it has been done before (I use to be in one) and I see no problem in allowing commercials between shows as the Dutch public broadcasting system does.

The TV stations here in Holland are in the hands of the dutch government and an agency called STER regulated the commercials on them. This compensates the cost of the broadcasting and there is no need to have TV shows stopped in the middle for commercials and then continued like the commercial stations do. Which TV broadcasting company is on which channel is determined by viewer ratings and membership numbers of the public broadcasters. The commercial stations have their own channels which they pay for themselves.

[Clinton Huxley]

To summarise the anti-BBC arguments:-

1) The BBC shouldn't produce popular programmes.
2) The BBC shouldn't produce unpopular programmes.

Am I missing something?

[devogue]

How would he control it any more?

Personally, I would introduce some kind of citizenship requirement so that anyone wanting to own more than 5% of "The media" had to be a British Passport holder. I'd do it specifically to annoy Murdoch. The sight of PMs and potential PMs scurrying to Murdoch-sponsored events to give talks is nauseating.

I agree with this. As I said, I hate the bastard - but I also hate subsidising something which isn't necessary for the health or well-being of the nation and which I hardly ever use.

Get rid of the BBC (or privatise it as a company run on advertising revenue) and the playing field will be much easier for Channel Four to play on - more viewers will lead to an increase in advertising income and even better programme making.

So sack 18,000 people? Or sell it (to whom?). Then have adverts (which we still have to pay for). The argument here seems to be if you destroy the best programme maker in the UK (which, for all its dross, the BBC still is), that enables the rest to compete. Wacky.

18,000 people! To run a budget of more than £3 billion and all we get (in between the odd gems) are repeats of Murder She Wrote and The One Show on a couple of dreadful main channels, a couple of poxy secondary channels which show the same stuff over and over, a clatter of shitty radio stations and mediocre regional coverage. I don't pay taxes to create jobs for the sake of having jobs - if the BBC needs 18,000 people and a budget of £3 billion a year, go private and see how they get on. Fuck them doing it at my expense. I'm happy to pay the people at all the channels on Sky, Sky+, all the customer service people, engineers, camera men, commentators, news readers etc. When I'm not happy I'll stop paying. Fair's fair. I don't see why I should pay £145 a year so some people can make a bloody principled point about something.

In that case you should have no problem with Murdoch's editorial power at The Sun and The Times and presumably no problem with his influence through Sky.

Well, the issue here is how much of the national media one organisation controls. As long as there are diverse views, it's not a problem.

SKY hate the BBC. That in itself is reason enough to keep it.

Well then - you pay my £145 so I can keep my TV and you can make your point.

[Pappa]

The need for BBC3 and 4 for example completely escapes me. However I do not think that the BBC should be privatized.

In the past, the kinds of programming now shown on BBC3 and 4, such as new comedy and arts documentaries, were shown on BBC2. But as BBC1 has had more of it's schedule filled with reality TV and similar crap, BBC2 has become more of an entity in itself rather than a test bed for new comedy and a place to show less popular but important public service shows. BBC2 is as popular as BBC1 in many ways, but has a different remit. The two additional channels do seem to allow the BBC to show a lot more niche programming. I don't watch them all that often, but they do have some fantastic quality programming at times. There's no dross as such, but perhaps things that don't work so well and are presumably axed quietly.

I also think that there is a lot of dross on BBC1 that I would like to see cleared away, but unfortunately it seems to be the kind of shite that the common plebes want to watch (or they've been made to believe that anyway). Still, the quality of the more serious stuff on BBC1 is the best in the world (IMO) and BBC2 has a load of programming I will happily watch too. I do think BBC3 and 4 are necessary as test beds for new programming and a home for niche interests.

[redunderthebed]

To summarise the anti-BBC arguments:-

1) The BBC shouldn't produce popular programmes.
2) The BBC shouldn't produce unpopular programmes.

Am I missing something?

That its bullshit by right-wingers who hate the idea of the state running anything no matter how much they say otherwise.

Gut it sell it piss it up against the wall when the next war/election comes.

The tories mantra.

[Rum]

The need for BBC3 and 4 for example completely escapes me. However I do not think that the BBC should be privatized.

In the past, the kinds of programming now shown on BBC3 and 4, such as new comedy and arts documentaries, were shown on BBC2. But as BBC1 has had more of it's schedule filled with reality TV and similar crap, BBC2 has become more of an entity in itself rather than a test bed for new comedy and a place to show less popular but important public service shows. BBC2 is as popular as BBC1 in many ways, but has a different remit. The two additional channels do seem to allow the BBC to show a lot more niche programming. I don't watch them all that often, but they do have some fantastic quality programming at times. There's no dross as such, but perhaps things that don't work so well and are presumably axed quietly.

I also think that there is a lot of dross on BBC1 that I would like to see cleared away, but unfortunately it seems to be the kind of shite that the common plebes want to watch (or they've been made to believe that anyway). Still, the quality of the more serious stuff on BBC1 is the best in the world (IMO) and BBC2 has a load of programming I will happily watch too. I do think BBC3 and 4 are necessary as test beds for new programming and a home for niche interests.

If they didn't make the shite they would lose the audience figures and if they lose the audience figured the Tories can say it can't justify the license fee for a minority interest. Catch 22.

[Clinton Huxley]

18,000 people! To run a budget of more than £3 billion and all we get (in between the odd gems) are repeats of Murder She Wrote and The One Show on a couple of dreadful main channels, a couple of poxy secondary channels which show the same stuff over and over, a clatter of shitty radio stations and mediocre regional coverage.

You get some highly popular TV and radio programming which you (and I, generally) don't much like. The gems are few and far between but I would point out some of the recent science programming,- documentary series about physics, maths, chemistry on the "poxy secondary channel" BBC4. You think SKY will produce programmes like that? Not likely. Can't see the advertisers clamouring for a slot halfway through a documentary about sodium. I never listen to Radio 1 but I don't think it should be scrapped. Likewise Radio 2 and 3. Radio 5 Drive Time is worth a £billion on its own.

I don't pay taxes to create jobs for the sake of having jobs - if the BBC needs 18,000 people and a budget of £3 billion a year, go private and see how they get on.

That's £3 billion a year going into the economy and being spent on things (admittedly some of it is spent on Graham Norton but you can't have everything). It's not like the BBC just burns it in a field.

Fuck them doing it at my expense.

SKY produces programmes at your expense.

[Hermit]

So when Murdoch gives the public what they want (America's Next Teen Bounty Hunter or whatever), that's ok, but when the BBC does it, its the end of the world?

I can choose not to pay Murdoch.

Like fuck, you can. Where on earth do you think the money comes from that goes into running the "free" to air television channels and radio stations? You pay Murdoch every time you pay for your shopping.

[klr]

Fuck the BBC. I'm sick of paying a tax for a load of shit masquerading as entertainment.

Radio 4.

Has absolutely no relevance to my life in Northern Ireland.

And BBC Northern Ireland has absolutely no relevance to my life in the Republic of Ireland*!Why do they insist on inflicting it on us? Why?

*Or, I suspect, to most people in Norn' Iron'.

[devogue]

So when Murdoch gives the public what they want (America's Next Teen Bounty Hunter or whatever), that's ok, but when the BBC does it, its the end of the world?

I can choose not to pay Murdoch.

Like fuck, you can. Where on earth do you think the money comes from that goes into running the "free" to air television channels and radio stations? You pay Murdoch every time you pay for your shopping.

Technically you are right - major companies factor in the cost of advertising on television in their budgets, a cost which is ultimately passed on to the consumer in the price they pay at the till for their products. However, by buying products which may be advertised on Sky or the Murdoch press I implicitly choose to accept the fact that Murdoch gets my money. If I was really bothered I would go to the trouble of finding out and boycotting all products which are advertised on Murdoch's TV interests or in The Murdoch press. In fact here's a list of Fox News Advertisers for 2010 - I'm sure there's a list of other Murdoch advertisers somewhere:

http://foxnewssucks.blogspot.com/2009/0 ... isers.html

My point is that even at that level the consumer has a choice - "Fuck it, I'm not going to buy Campbell's soup - I'll buy Heinz instead." With the BBC, the only choices are:

1) Pay your licence fee

2) Imprisonment

3) Don't own a TV

[devogue]

Fuck the BBC. I'm sick of paying a tax for a load of shit masquerading as entertainment.

Radio 4.

Has absolutely no relevance to my life in Northern Ireland.

And BBC Northern Ireland has absolutely no relevance to my life in the Republic of Ireland*!Why do they insist on inflicting it on us? Why?

*Or, I suspect, to most people in Norn' Iron'.

Indeed.

[Hermit]

So when Murdoch gives the public what they want (America's Next Teen Bounty Hunter or whatever), that's ok, but when the BBC does it, its the end of the world?

I can choose not to pay Murdoch.

Like fuck, you can. Where on earth do you think the money comes from that goes into running the "free" to air television channels and radio stations? You pay Murdoch every time you pay for your shopping.

Technically you are right - major companies factor in the cost of advertising on television in their budgets, a cost which is ultimately passed on to the consumer in the price they pay at the till for their products. However, by buying products which may be advertised on Sky or the Murdoch press I implicitly choose to accept the fact that Murdoch gets my money. If I was really bothered I would go to the trouble of finding out and boycotting all products which are advertised on Murdoch's TV interests or in The Murdoch press. In fact here's a list of Fox News Advertisers for 2010 - I'm sure there's a list of other Murdoch advertisers somewhere:

http://foxnewssucks.blogspot.com/2009/0 ... isers.html

My point is that even at that level the consumer has a choice - "Fuck it, I'm not going to buy Campbell's soup - I'll buy Heinz instead." With the BBC, the only choices are:

1) Pay your licence fee

2) Imprisonment

3) Don't own a TV

What? Are you trying to tell me that you can possibly survive in your environment by only buying products that are not advertised on the so-called "free to air" television channels or radio stations? Face up to it; you are paying for what is laughingly called "free to air" media whenever you buy a car, and when you fill it up with petrol. Even when you buy a product that is not specifically advertised, chances are that you buy it from a supermarket that marks up that product to cover its own advertising costs. Then there are computers. Do you own one that is not made by Apple and is not powered by an Intel CPU? What about your telephone connection?

For crying out loud, surviving without buying goods that are advertised on the aforementioned "free" media is impossible in your environment and mine, so don't try to pull the wool over our eyes; like it or not, you, I and everybody else pays for the use of the so-called "free" media, and I bet the contribution amounts to way more than the piddling £145.50 per year.

As for your complaint that you don't avail yourself to the services you pay for, let me just point out that I don't listen to commercial radio and I don't watch commercial television either, but I am still paying for them every time I go shopping.

[klr]

Fuck the BBC. I'm sick of paying a tax for a load of shit masquerading as entertainment.

Radio 4.

Has absolutely no relevance to my life in Northern Ireland.

And BBC Northern Ireland has absolutely no relevance to my life in the Republic of Ireland*!Why do they insist on inflicting it on us? Why?

*Or, I suspect, to most people in Norn' Iron'.

Indeed.

I'm talking about the Northern Ireland specific bits of the service , not the service as a whole.

Hands off Auntie I say. At least the important bits.

[Pensioner]

I have never had a major operation and I don’t see why my taxes should be used for those that need one.