I’ve always been a big fan of the Beeb, and have argued in support of the licence fee many times. There should be a reliable broadcaster with balance and no agenda, reliable, honest, trustworthy. And no frigging adverts.
But….but. I’m losing my faith. Their election coverage was pretty poor, their support for the two party solution, that awful debate where Jo Swinson was crucified where it turned out the tickets were allocated in proportion to current parliamentary seats (for the next parliament election….). The vox pops with angry pensioners in Stoke shouting about “we should be out” with never a follow up question, never some exploration of why it matters to them so much. Question Time, which is unwatchable. The Today Programme which is often unlistenable with their habit of inviting (e.g.) a scientist and populist nutter and give them the same airtime and the same patina of respectability. Thought For The Day. The bloated website. The adverts for their own programmes. The over-paid presenters. The senior management cost (cars from the station to the office as obviously they can’t get the tube). Allegedly the Beeb team at major sporting events is multiples of 10 bigger than commercial stations. The non-equal pay….I could go on.
Unencumbered by the need to make money (though they do – a lot), it seems to me there is a complacent culture at the corporation which is trading in a public affection which I fear is on the wain. If I’m thinking that way I suspect a lot of other people are too. I just asked Twang Jr (nearly 16) what he watches on the BBC. Answer – nothing. Does he know what’s on for young people? “No”. Is he interested? …but he’s looking at his phone again. Does this matter?
I don’t like the idea that the current government is exacting some revenge on the Beeb for some perceived slight. But it doesn’t feel like all is well despite that.
What do you think? and what should be done, before it’s too late?
I’m very much on the same page. There is a real groundswell of opinion for doing away with the licence fee, and surely the fast changing TV market will hasten that as it becomes an anachronism. We mainly watch the BBC, Netflix, Amazon Prime, Sky Atlantic and Sports, and the Beeb is brilliant value, but I see the argument for making the BBC a subscription service if you never watch it. Having said all that, the Tories would just love to see a weakened BBC, which they see as a thorn in their side, so I’d hate this to happen.
Yes I can live without the popular entertainment (Norton, cakes, dancing) but Beeb 4 and documentaries, history etc I’d pay for. BBC Crap and BBC Serious subscription channels. And the free one is a proper balanced news and current affairs channel. Or something.
Budge up, there’s three of us with at least one buttock on this page.
It seems to me to essentially be what you describe Twang – BBC Crap for the hoi-polloi and BBC Two for anyone with half-a-brain.
I’d keep both of these OTA and Licence funded. I’d make BBC Four online only, and not worry about licence fees for that at all, and crucially I’d ditch Radio One. It’s not clear to me who it’s aimed at, though it costs a bloody fortune and I don’t seem to ever encounter any people who listen to it. White van man is always on a LCD shouty commercial channel, shops and hairdressers all seem to have Spotify pumping out the Modern Drivel playlist, and kids just plug into their phones to hear sweary rap.
I’d bin – OK, just stop enlarging and updating – a huge swathe of the website.
I’m not sure what I’d do with News 24 – we tend to watch quite a big chunk of it in dribs and drabs throughout the day, and it has some top class programmes of its own – Click and The Travel Show for example. Maybe they could move to BBC Four and the rolling news could be on the Red button with Parliament in a subtitled window?
Having dribbled on about all of that, I just can’t see how we can take the risk of removing the licence fee – to my mind the BBC is a vital thread of British public life that provides a clear differentiator between living in this country and living anywhere else on the planet.
We should provide subsidised free viewing to those who cannot afford to pay, and that obligation should be enshrined in law as the Government’s responsibility on behalf of the nation. Anyone earning a wage should stump up for the BBC as a pillar of British life, and in return the BBC shoudl stop pissing away so much dosh on stupid salaries and unecessary content production.
I continue to believe that an independently funded BBC is a vital institution we should never lose, especially at the behest of the vermin© currently sitting in Westminster.
©Nye Bevan 1948
BBC News 24 probably has enough appeal to be a global channel, a bit like CNN – every hotel room you check into in Asia had it as the default channel on the telly.
The problem with the website is it ventures into magazine content and reference material which can be found elsewhere. It should stick to the news. No recipes etc.
And whoever spent millions on the Sounds app should be fired and the thing abandoned. There are plenty of podcast apps. Why is the licence fee paying to develop another one when the Beeb apparently can’t provide a free service to OAPs?
I quite like the Sounds app! It’s good for archive content on tap.
I only use it to stream radio and it doesn’t allow me to bookmark stations. I have to go scrolling through loads of stations to find the one I want. Restarting the stream is good though.
Ah I see.
Maybe I just use it differently. I don’t listen to the radio a lot, but occasionally I’ll just search for a random word or person and see what comes up. The other day I searched “Philip Larkin” and got his Desert Island Discs appearance from 1970-something. Searched for “David Hepworth” and got a programme from a few years ago where he was talking about his favourite pieces of classical music. That kind of thing.
I know that Heppo is a big fan of Thomas Tallis’s “Spem in Alium” album from 1971 – sorry 1570.
Top motet, that.
Definitely! That was one that jumped out from his selection. I’ve since looked up the piece and listened to it a few times. It sounds amazing – completely alien and futuristic. Mesmerising. And what a concept – a “u” shaped choir with the listener in the middle so the tune gradually travels from left to right?? Sixteenth century surround sound!
1570 must be the 1971 of the sixteenth century.
Out of interest I searched for the Hep with my (free) app and found 26 programmes including the classical one you mention. The app was developed by one person and is great. Why did the Beeb feel the need to make another one at a cost of £10m? A perfect example of BBC scope creep. Make podcasts, yes, brilliant. Don’t spend millions creating another thing we already have to play them then make BBC content exclusive to it. Gnashes teeth.
*collects shards of enamel*
Sympathises and agrees.
Ah I see what you mean. So it’s not the content but the bloated and expensive interface.
Hmm. I don’t know. Apps like Sounds and iPlayer might be expensive and arguably just do what other apps already do – but there is something neat and well-designed about them. It feels like you are getting a spruced up, BBC-branded experience and not just piggy backing on another app. You know what I mean? I suppose I’m talking about iPlayer specifically – since it launched (what, a decade ago?) it’s been a fixture on any device or smart TV I’ve bought.
iPlayer today (and for the last several years) is an entirely different beast to the iPlayer that launched on 27th July 2007 – almost twelve years ago.
The infrastructure and technology that supports iPlayer today DID NOT EXIST back then.
However, due to the vision of the pointy headed folks who got the funding approved within the BBC, the imminent arrival of the infrastructure and technology you rely upon TODAY was anticipated back then, and was ALWAYS a part of the iPlayer development programme.
ALL of the other VOD players were playing Johnny come lately catch-up in the shadow of the BBC. The BBC played a VERY smart game with their foresight as regards iPlayer, and should be heartily congratulated for doing so.
Unfortunately it’s a fact that spectacularly good tech industry foresight and an outstanding programme delivery effort don’t mean diddly squat to Joe Public, who are content to avoid any kind of thought process more difficult than dialling for a pizza, in case it gives them hives.
I like the phrase “scope creep” though! I’ll use that.
Once a programme manager always a programme manager. We spend our lives trying to get people to stick to what they said they wanted, rather than the latest shiny thing they thought of.
I can’t fathom why you’d have “no recipes” for goodness sake.
It costs diddly squat to host a few thousand pages with lists of ingredients, instructions and a single finished meal photo, all on the back of broadcast material that people have watched and enjoyed – myself included.
You can take away the Hairy Bikers recipe pages over my cold dead spatula, you bastard!
I use it too. But it’s scope creep. they should focus on core business.Effectively because of their reach they crowd out everyone else.
Nah, that’s not scope creep, that’s legit supporting material for OTA broadcast content.
It’s no different at all to the “Write to Blue Peter at this address with a stamped addressed envelope for a neat fact-sheet about Pachyderm Pissing”. Except you don’t need to hassle your Mum for two envelopes and a stamp.
Whaddya want me to do, scroll back on the DVR to watch them cook their fab Boeuf Bourgignon all over again when all I need to do is look it up on the BBC Food pages?
Naff off!
Not sure why 24 hr News channels are necessary when there is also a website with much of the same content. The days when people switched on the television for big news events are probably over. I think hardly anybody watches it and there were recently mass redundancies. Anyway, Sky News has won that battle. And there is also a version broadcast around the world called BBC World News, so there are two news channels.
In Canada we have a somewhat similar set up with national broadcaster CBC, there is no licence fee. They broadcast two main television channels (with regional variations) one in English and one in French, both are available for free via OTA, but they carry commercials. There are at least 3 radio channels (2 in English, 1 in French) which do not carry commercials. They also have a news channel which you have to pay for through cable or now also can be found in an app, very similar to iPlayer but youcan pay for some extra content like the news channel.
Can’t seem to edit. Meant to add there are two commercial free stations in Ontario. TV Ontario (TVO) and French equivalent (TFO), public service broadcasting, they don’t attempt at all to compete with the big boys, and are quite similar to BBC2 or what it used to be. In fact they do co-productions with the BBC sometimes and there is overlap in what they show.
Yebbut, Sky News has a big problem. It’s shit.
I agree, but also gaining some traction worldwide actually.
So is the coronavirus.
I don’t live in the UK any more so shouldn’t have a voice really, but I have always been in favour of the licence fee. If you keep the BBC channels as OTA (over the air) broadcasts that can be picked up with an aerial then they cannot be purely subscription based, they would have to have commercials. That would be a shame.
I think you’d have a core public service slimmed down offering OTA and subscription packages via digital.
Makes sense. See my post above.
The Beeb should stop trying to be….the Beeb and concentrate on what it’s good at: putting out high quality work.
Trying to fulfil the huge scope it thinks it currently has will kill it.
And if they select James Purnell, a weapons grade wanker, to succeed Tony Hall, they’re dead.
I’m in favour of keeping a changed BBC. They are trying to fight all of the battles with every other broadcaster which is going to become impossible. They should wake up to the reality of the new world and how the next generation will watch ‘TV’. Quality over quantity.
I love the BBC but I don’t like the general direction it’s going in. What would be wrong with BBC 1, BBC 2 and a small number of national radio stations. Surely that can be done for a reasonable licence fee and to a high standard.
Some BBC4 content to be shown on BBC2. While I don’t like most BBC local radio, it is different to commercial radio so probably has a place.
BBC4 has some great stuff and I think the best TV channel. Shame if it has to go, however I think budget cuts already introduced have reduced considerably the programmes that it can make e.g. the famous music documentaries seem few and far between these days, apart from ones already shown.
I'[m a huge fan of BBC4 too. Though I struggled with the recent Stewart Copeland doc – struggled through part one, don’t have the will for 2 and 2. It feels like an Open University programme on music psychology with a former pop star goofing around the world instead of standing in front a blackboard. I don’t know what its audience is.
The Copeland documentary was….ok. I watched it in half hour chunks which seemed to suit it better.
BBC4 is basically BBC2 content. Stick it all on BBC2 and cut some of the dross. And I forgot the local radio – let’s keep that. But basically be a 2 tv station, 6 national and local radio stations and be done with it. Have BBC worldwide as a profit making exercise (that has to pay for content from the licence paying bit if it uses it). Nothing more.
BBC4 programming is content that would have been on BBC2 before that channel became full of knack-all but cooking, antiques and ‘lifestyle’ shows for the hard of thinking – bloody Top Gear FFS…
Even BBC4 has had its budget slashed to an extent where it can no longer afford to commission drama or comedy (with a very small number of exceptions), or the amount of factual content it boasted at its inception and fills its schedule mostly with repeats.
Why would Antique and cooking shows be for the ‘hard of thinking’?
Because they are.
You obviously don’t watch them then. You must let us know what you do watch so us plebs can have something to aspire to.
They’re nothing more than cheap barrel scraping schedule fillers. There really is no need to broadcast for the sake of it. Cull all the daytime schedules and put the money into interesting programming instead. There’s plenty of lowest common denominator channels available on Freeview without the BBC needing to contribute.
Truly laughable. What’s lowest common denominator about a beautifully crafted Antique and hearing about it’s history? Most Antique shows (which we are really interested in) are fun and educational.
Sit and down and watch one, you might learn something.
You think I haven’t? Don’t be so presumptious and pompous. It’s just dreadfully dull people pontificating and basically promoting themselves – most appear to be antiques dealers promoting their own businesses. THAT is what is laughable. Not what a public service broadcaster is for.
I’ll make this my last thought on this. If this sort of stuff makes you so angry watch something else. We enjoy it, so do loads of other people so it is probably providing a public service. They pay the licence fee as well. Bye Bye.
Obviously Jim’s too big and clever for antiques and cookery, and much too busy watching difficult stuff while eating TV dinners.
I lost all hope when they started paying our money to that dreadful Gemma woman from Essex to make a bloody podcast.
Paging @iainess. In a bien-pensant guardianista stylee
And good old Faux who thinks it was sold years ago anyway.
Of course, it’s not just about the telly. Let alone national and local radio, there’s the World Service and all that provides.
My brother used to work on the World Service during the 80s and had this tale. There was a round of cuts throughout the BBC, and certain African language programmes were being cut. When the audience heard about this, distressed at the hardship of those back in London and desperate to support the service they valued so much, they sent food parcels. From Somalia.
The best pop music is the stuff around the edges.
The best cinema is the independent European film about keeping bees.
The best live sport is to be found on a muddy field a million miles away from Old Trafford.
So too with the BBC.
For Radio 4, Radio 4 Extra and Radio 5 Extra (Test and County Cricket) alone it effortlessly takes up the majority of my non-CD listening time.
Until the recent Christine Keeler drama, I don’t think I’d actually tuned into BBC 1 since about 1993.
The corporation is at its worst when it chases a big audience.
Why are they so obsessed with 16-35 year olds?
Absolutely no one else is.
Nail. Head.
Under 35s on’t watch TV. BBC3 was taken off terrestrial a few years ago now.
Since losing my wife, I have found my viewing habits have changed. I watch less and less real time TV but find myself searching out old BBC programmes on all these oddly titled stations which seem to specialise in screening old BBC progs – must be some money in those deals? I realised that what I was enjoying was well crafted, well delivered programmes: comedy with a sense of humour and no shouty people; drama with a credible story line not involving zombies/vampires/weirdos; documentaries on interesting topics delivered by authoritative presenters. I’m not finding it hard to avoid real time TV.
As for radio, someone – James Purnell, I’m looking at you – seems determined to destroy the BBC as a respected, authoritative broadcaster. Some of my favourite broadcasters and shows have been despatched from the airwaves in the pursuit of the 16-34 year olds who have no interest in what the Beeb has to offer. And don’t get me started on BBC Sounds and its obsession with podcasts and playlists aimed at the same uninterested audience.
I may well be an old fogey, in fact I definitely am, but I resent being cast aside by an organisation which has been part of my life and to whom I pay a substantial annual amount. Definitely time for change and I think I agree with your suggestion, Twang.
I’m possibly the only BBC-trained person on the AW.
Yes, it has its faults, many a hangover from a previous age. 11am tea-break? Soft shoe allowance? Daytime quiz shows. I could go on. But, generally, it is brilliant and leads the way in quality in every aspect.
If you want to see what a future hell would look like, try watching only ITV, listening to commercial local radio, and getting your news from the Daily Mail website for a day. Then imagine those being the only options.
What the BBC needs is reform, not a withdrawl. And a PM who is prepared to stand up to morons and the gutter press and to trumpet all the wonderful things the Beeb does. But, seeing how Cameron caved into the swivel-eyed loons, and the result of letting the public have their say, and with the current occupant of No. 10, neither of those is going to happen during the next 5 years.
If the Beeb goes, we’re all f***ed.
ITV is awful. But compare to Netflix which costs half the licence fee.
Half the cost to provide less than half the service – no radio, no orchestras, no training, no R&D.
And all those Netflix employees – or the good ones, at least – are trained at BBC Wood Norton.
You’ll be telling us next that all the doctors working in private health are trained by the NHS. Are you a communist?
The pigeons are leaving Vostok early this year, Comrade.
..but Netflix is losing money.
https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/netflix-debt-junk-bond-2-billion-content-spending-1203377007/
It is in debt. So who knows how it will pan out when it has to pay the debt it has accrued ? Higher fees probably and less content. That’s if it survives against the rest (Disney etc)
I’m with you @fentonsteve.
No Beeb? No more tax from me, we’ll be out of here, cos that would be the last straw.
The end of civilisation. “Dogs and cats living together…. mass hysteria.” (Name that quote)
Whatever else happens, the concept of the TV Licence is doomed. It’s just a matter of time.
Johnson is planning to introduce a law to decriminalise non payment of the Licence fee. A great incentive not to pay and guaranteed to reduce Auntie’s funds and programme quality.
A recent survey showed that 48% either did not trust, or had very little trust in the BBC. An appalling statistic for a national public service broadcaster. With Kuenssberg tweeting lies about Matt Hancock’s special advisor getting punched by a Labour supporter at a hospital in Leeds during the election, and yesterday’s boycott by senior journalists (including Kuenssberg and Peston) of a briefing at No.10 in protest at the exclusion of certain news organisations, barely getting a mention on the BBC, it is hardly surprising.
Well I heard a full report about the Johnson media lockout on the Today programme this morning. They covered it.
Kuennsberg was one of several journalists (Robert Peston was another) who tweeted the story about fisticuffs too early and then acknowledged it was wrong. A lesson for journalists to lay off the social media, for sure, but the BBC was far from the only culprit.
Of course what Kuenssberg actually wrote was “hearing… one of them punched Hancock’s advisor”. This is not uncommon on social media, even among news agencies – report the allegation, then follow up as the situation unfolds. But the ‘tweeting lies’ narrative quickly became the truth for a lot of people because it suited them to find bias in the Beeb.
A journalist should check their sources. The story was untrue as proved by the footage. If there was no footage would it then be true? Or would the story be the Tories say he was punched, Labour deny it, so make of that what you will. This was poor journalism by any standard. What is the point of political journalism at the BBC if they give us crap like that?
I like Kuenssberg and think she’s pretty fair. She gets most things right. Her error rate is well below the human average, I’d say.
That baffles me. Her bias was so blatant during the 2017 election that I couldn’t bear to watch BBC news in last year’s. Every single report consisted of her going somewhere, anywhere, and finding someone who would say that they has always voted Labour but couldn’t under Corbyn. Really, it would take mere seconds before they were vox-popped. I’m no Corbynite and not even a nailed on Labour voter but her agenda was obvious and made no pretence at fairness. The BBC has always hedged towards being the voice of the government of the day but she went way beyond that accepted leaning into campaigning.
Also tweet that says something like: according to unnamed govt source everything is fine/Brexit will be great, bad things will not happen.
And this goes unchallenged, and is not questioned. Doing a great PR job for no. 10.
Is it possible that these tweets get amplified within your Twitter sphere, while the ones that report negativity towards to government don’t?
Well I follow her so I see everything but I suppose the kind of tweet I refer to can get a lot of comment in my sphere as it were. I think there is an issue with social media that journalists can be manipulated in this way, which is smart of those doing the manipulating but people like LK should be aware of the risk of being used. Maybe less twitter activity in general.
I think she’s well aware that people on both sides will select some of her tweets to confirm their bias and ignore the rest. Her Twitter biog says “I know it’s fashionable, but there is nothing big or clever about shooting the messenger”
She chooses what to post or not post. That is a considerable responsibility. Not every one of these pronouncements by unnamed source is worthy of distribution, at least not without some caveat. It’s not necessarily about bias, more about acting unprofessionally and irresponsibly, considering the consequences.
The Tories don’t like her either and believe she is biased. I take it as a good sign that she is attacked from all sides.
Forget bias. It comes down to tweeting without thinking what you are doing. ‘Reporting’ something as fact without checking facts, giving the misleading impression what you tweet is true (see also the assault rumour). Lay off twitter if you can’t control your impulses or give what you write context. Stick to TV. Not you Tigger.
Except laying off Twitter in her job isn’t an option. You have to be visible, across everything, and immediate. That’s become more important than fact checking and context, sadly. Peston did exactly the same, got less than 10% of the reaction.
Both LK and Peston had more than one source for the punch story, and framed their tweets as is ‘sources say…’ not as fact. Normally two sources is the standard professional journalists need to run with an allegation. They apologised not so much for misleading as for being misled.
Now if you really want to see deliberate lies masquerading as journalism you need to go to The Canary, where you’ll find a lot of the anti-Kuessenberg narrative originates https://www.thecanary.co/uk/2017/09/27/need-talk-laura-kuenssberg-shes-listed-speaker-tory-party-conference/
See, I didn’t see that at all. She was equally critical of Johnson hence current BBC ban from the government. People generally seem to see bias when the side they like isn’t getting fluffed by the media I suspect.
Quite right.
Up there @Alias says “the story was untrue” but it was no such thing. The ‘story’ was that she’d heard about a punching event, which she had, and so the story was completely true.
The fact that it turned out to be an innaccurate report that she’d heard has no bearing on the truth of the fact that she did hear it.
FFS
John Humphrys: ‘There will be scattered showers this afternoon.”
(It doesn’t rain on Vulpes)
Vulpes: “TORY LIES!”
arf!
But David Cameron DEFINITELY stuck his dick in a dead pig, right?
Even Question Time regular Isobel Oakeshott who put it in her book admitted she had no evidence for saying it but “the reader can make up their mind”.
BBC News is not the whole BBC. And I’ve yet to hear how BBC Radio is going to be paid for in this utopian subscription future?
Personally I think it should be funded out of general taxation. But much leaner.
Goodbye Radio 3, 6 Music, 1 Xtra, Radio 4 Extra, all local stations except London, Birmingham, Manchester and Scotland then.
Well in your ideal scenario maybe but I’d keep them. The point is there is some difference between Armageddon and spraying free money everywhere to produce a result for many people resent paying. I’m just interested to see what a sensible balance is.
People resent paying for it because freetard culture has now become rife. Funding it through general taxation is not going to stop people grumbling about paying for it. There is a general culture of resenting taxation while expecting publically-funded services to be of the very highest standard.
Also the BBC’s media enemies are actively influencing public opinion against them, in the same way that they influenced public opinion against the EU. Not such an easy job for them as Brexit, but I imagine they are very happy that anti-BBC sentiment is growing in both Right and Left political groupings.
It looks like the BBC has about 7 years to come up with an alternative means of funding itself, after which the licence fee plug will be pulled and it will be sink or swim. Presumably C4 and S4C will be sold off by then too.
“funded out of general taxation”
Like the North Korean state media you mean?
Don’t kid yourself the license fee is a hypothicated tax at the end of the day.
Semantics. What about the cost of a passport or a driving licence? Are those taxes too? Hypothecated or otherwise. Or are they just fees to offset the cost of a service the public relies upon?
The BBC isn’t a service for the public it’s a service for those who pay the licence fee. But it should be for all. QED.
Yebbut, the TV licence fee is supposed to insulate the BBC from having to tug its forelock to the likes of Cameron and Johnson – or more likely Raab and Patel, this year’s nasty pieces of Tory work – (or Blair and Brown for that matter).
It’s no good saying it ‘should be for all’ if it becomes some sort of fucked up propaganda arm for the incumbent HM Govt.
How can you minimise that risk if it’s funded with a handout from general taxation collected by the same central Govt?
We’re going round in circles here – I know you value the BBC as do I, but I can’t contemplate a retreat from the licence fee model (and have failed to think of a better way to fund it) if it castrates the BBC any more than it has already been constrained by successive governments’ interventions.
I don’t want Fox-lite and I don’t want RT, I want independent national OTA broadcasting, something that has been a strong thread of the British identity since before I was born.
Yes agreed I’m just enjoying the debate. 🙂
Like Australia. The ABC is even more vulnerable to government meddling than the BBC, if that’s possible.
I agree with much of what you say.
One bugbear of mine you missed was the reporter standing outside an empty building. How much does it cost sending the reporter and the crew for no purpose at all.
Newswatch had ana editor on recently addressing this – as ever with these Newswatch interviews it was pointless because they never admit that anything needs changing. His response seemed to be that you don’t want to see people talking from behind a desk all the time.
My response is “Yes I do, if the reporter on location has nothing to say that couldn’t be said in the studio”.
It also applies to any Royal news story where Nicholas Witchell will be dispatched to stand outside a Palace or hospital. No-one is going to rush out to give him an update. Waste of money.
Good things – the post Paxman Newsnight with Emily Maitlis and Emma Barnett leading the way.
BBC Breakfast needs a good shake up. My wife has it on and I think it is appalling. I don’t think it works as a news bulletin and it doesn’t work as a magazine show. To suggest the presenters are anodyne, is to heap far too much praise on them.
On the plus side, Piers Morgan isn’t a presenter on BBC Breakfast.
I understand Morgan hates BBC Breakfast – which should be another plus for the programme, I suppose.
Laura Kuenssberg (who, incidentally, doesn’t deserve the abuse she gets) joked about this on the Electioncast podcast. “6 weeks of standing in car parks”.
Can’t abide Emma Barnett though. She thinks interrupting all the time is tough interviewing.
Yes, with you there – there seems to be a nasty side to Barnett, or that’s how it comes across to me. And she needs to buy a hairclip – all that brushing back the curtain is really annoying.
I love the BBC and would happily pay double the licence fee to preserve it.
For me, archive content is as big a thing as new content. I think a hugely important part of the BBC is maintaining and making available its archive.
That makes two of us. This from 1980:
But it isn’t. A proper service with all the content would be great but a minority interest I expect. On subscription.
er, are you sure it isn’t?
The Archive content on iPlayer is constantly changing as they trawl the tapes. At the moment there are 7 pages of programmes on offer, many of which have multiple episodes available:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/categories/archive/a-z?page=7
Out of idle curiosity, has anyone on here signed up to Britbox?
I don’t think I’ve heard of it, no. Is it archive programmes?
Joint venture between BBC, ITV and C4 (which is part-owned by BBC).
The idea is when progs go off iPlayer at the end of their free month, they go onto Britbox for ever (at £5.99 a month).
Kangaroo it used to be called. Been around for over a decade as vapour-ware, now has a presence in meatspace apparently.
What in blazes are you talking about? 🙂
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_(video_on_demand)
Actually that sounds quite good!
C4 part-owned by the BBC? I think you’re confusing it with the Welsh language service S4C, the financing of which was foisted on the BBC by the idiots Cameron and Osborn in the last charter settlement.
Not BBC-owned but publicly-owned.
This is from it’s Wikipedia entry:
“Although largely commercially self-funded, it is ultimately publicly owned; originally a subsidiary of the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA), the station is now owned and operated by Channel Four Television Corporation, a public corporation of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, which was established in 1990 and came into operation in 1993.”
Although also originally owned by the DCMS, S4C has always been separately run to C4. Originally it replaced C4 in Wales but used some of C4’s programmes out of peak hours. Since 2013 responsibility for funding has gradually been transferred to the BBC, with the DCMS reducing it’s funding by 94% by 2015. The BBC have agreed to provide £74.5m a year from the licence fee until 2022. The government agreed to provide £6.72m a year until 2020. It is intended that S4C will be entirely funded from the licence fee by 2022 and it’s funding decided as part of the licence fee settlement, for ten year periods.
C4 and S4C are now separate wholly-digital channels and both are available throughout the UK.
Didn’t I read somewhere that programmes will be on iPlayer for a year now..?
Yes. And great value for money it is here in the States.
Shetland, for a start. And all of Only Fools, which is keeping Sharon entertained.
I have…forgot to cancel after the free period more like. Can do without the over 200 episodes of Love Island, but there’s loads of good stuff. Carry On and Norman Wisdom, for instance 😉
You’ve just reminded me – I have forgotten to cancel after the free period too…
I’m working from home today, a fairly unusual event for me. The license fee is worth it for Radio 3 alone. I’ve had it on all day and couldn’t substitute, say, Classic FM because of that irritating little ident which is repeated every 5 minutes to announce yet another advert for dental implants or over 50s life insurance. There is enough that is genuinely superb about the BBC to make it irreplaceable, and what that is will vary depending on your taste and demographic.
Completely agree regarding Radio 3 – apart from the adverts issue, the content is unmatched by any of the commercial classical stations…
Lots of great points here – persuasive stuff from Twang and Carl but also good arguments from Fento and Vulpes. If it were gone and we were left with the Daily Mail site and ITV, we’d regret it – we’d be in Hades. But then the BBC seems obsessed with these ‘young viewers’ who aren’t viewing and the institution clearly needs massively shaken up/trimmed in size and focused on core stuff.
As I said in the OP, my wish is the management would save the BBC by moving to a more sustainable model as the world is changing around them. I don’t think there’s a “do nothing” option. Cutting news services is a terrible decision though making them more cost effective makes sense.
Why would we just be left with “Daily Mail site and ITV”?
Somebody else had used that comparison above. It is, of course, an exaggeration.
Unless you happen to have spent a week in my mum’s house, where it was all very real. I’m still twitching at the thought.
The BBC has lost its way no doubt. When they feel the need to broadcast warnings before reruns of Porridge you struggle to imagine the “outdated language” that justifies the concern. It’s the culture that’s developed within the organization that’s the problem; and being insulated from the world by the licence fee has allowed BBC management to lose sight of its primary purpose.
It’s been going downhill since the presenters stopped wearing black tie.
Bring back the BBC Marconi Type A ribbon microphone!
Hmm… BBC LS5/8 loudspeakers. *Stares into distance.*
@Twang. Beebcast?
There’s an idea. Who’s in?
Well, I suppose I’ve talked myself into the defence position. I am very dull, though.
Yes, but don’t expect me to take any prisoners. And I may swear.
The Tory strategy is proving quite effective – find ways to limit and reduce BBC funding (over 75s funding for example) so that they can’t be accused of directly shutting them down, but it slowly dwindles. De-criminalisation is the next step.
Interesting to see that Sky are now picking at ITV and C5’d public service status. From the Sunday Times “Sky, owned by Comcast, has raised concerns with Ofcom, claiming that ITV and Channel 5 benefit more from “in-kind subsidies” and “government support” than they provide in value to viewers.”. Sky would like to see ITV and C5 (and probably C4) lose their right to be listed at the top of channel listings.
Unsurprisingly I have a divergent opinion on this. The BBC even with its obvious faults is still essential in this World. Can you watch Piers Morgan on the morning news? I cant.
Can you watch for example Love Island, Made in Chelsea and all the other inane drivel on commercial tv? Not a chance.
BBC 2, BBC 4 and a lot of BBC 1 are perfectly fine. @Twang there may be a perfectly valid reason why Jo Swinson was crucified – she was beyond inept.
As regards radio – commercial radio is largely unlistenable. BBC6Music is superb as are The World Service, Radio 4 and some of Radio 2. A lot of the provincial BBC radio stations have excellent sports coverage – Birmingham is well served here and I know other cities are too.
I have been in a number of Third World countries where they value the BBC very much and if we are a competitor for CNN and RT we are streets ahead of either.
I genuinely think the alternative to a thriving BBC is unthinkable.
I like the BBC.
I trust it, especially it’s News Service (compared to ITV or Sky it just seems to have more gravitas, and less sensation).
I like the fact that it is “there”.
I may not agree with all it’s output (Mrs Browns Boys?) but wouldn’t want to change it.
I’m actually happy to pay for a service which gives me 3 TV channels, 6 national radio stations, the World Service, and a host of local stations. I may not watch/listen to them all, but its good to know they’re available.
There is a space for BBC1, BBC2, and BBCFour (despite the fact that it feels wrongly named now).
That is my view as well.
Happy to pay for it. I use it as my go to news source, consider 5Live as a mate (I must listen to at least 5 hours a day) and love some of the entertainment shows – The Apprentice, Dragons Den and Top Gear as examples.
BBC4 Music documentaries and the odd BBC3 comedy via the iPlayer add further value.
I rarely watch ITV and never listen to commercial radio so I would be happy to ;pay for the BBC on subscription in place of a TV licence.
I like a lot of the BBC, but that bloody breakfast show….it’s starting to resemble Loose Women.
I believe in a 50:50 split of gender, but it’s getting tough to spot a bloke on the breakfast show these days. And this from a corporation that still hasn’t managed to negotiate equal pay.
Men are banned from Newsnight. The presenting team are all women.
Not so. There is a male presenter, but I forget his name.
Further to your comment on ITV, I agree other than for 10:00 p.m. news.
ITV news used to be dreadful (all those supporting messages for the recently departed Alaister Stewart were undeserved, he was an awful lead presenter), but has massively improved and is far superior to the moribund BBC version.
And how is the world’s most boring man, Huw Edwards, worth a six figure salary?
There’s a bloke who deps occasionally. Have a look at the Team page on the website. Emily, Kirsty and Emma Barnett.
Hang on, I thought you were advocating binning oodles of programme support pages from the website ?
The fact that Johnson, Cummings and co are so keen to destroy the BBC ought to give us all pause for thought. They want to do it for two reasons. It would pander to the Murdoch et al free marketeers who resent the fact that it interferes with their ability to make still more money and to dominate the media industry. And, secondly, it would largely leave news coverage to those same free marketeers who are always going to support the right. God knows, the BBC makes mistakes, but it is still largely a reliable news service that tries to show balance and not simply toe the government line. That’s why Tory ministers are banned from going on the Today programme, and why Johnson wouldn’t be interviewed by Andrew Neil. NONE of his predecessors- not Thatcher, not Blair, not Cameron did that. These are genuinely dangerous times for the BBC and we shouldn’t be fooled by any flim-flam from the government about it being for any reason other than naked self interest.
And, as has been said by many above, there is so much about the BBC that simply wouldn’t exist otherwise, including Radios 3,4, 6 and local, and much of the content on BBC 2 and 4. Much of its drama and popular entertainment programming is great as well, and if it didn’t have it it would become a minority PBS type ghetto which would further undermine its position and unquestionably lead to the removal of the license fee and it’s destruction. It’s not perfect, and it may be that the license fee model is anachronistic. But, broadly, it works, and to lose it would be a disaster and a tragedy.
All very true.
Blue Boy , that’s exactly what I was about to contribute to this, so thanks!
On “terrestrial” TV we watch mainly BBC channels, the odd Channel 4 bit and only very occasional ITV stuff. Other channels (via Sky) are limited to one-off programmes or series, watch some good stuff on Netflix or Prime but couldn’t rely on them constantly. I use the Sounds app a lot (thankfully improved enough now not to be constantly humphing at it) and iPlayer. I happily pay the licence fee and we will be worse off with out the BBC if it goes. Not perfect but still better than any of the alternatives.
The attacks on the BBC are politically based which is why we should worry about it as we launch into a Government that, for the first time in a long time, has the power to actually do something about it and can’t effectively, be stopped.
Having a licence fee means that they have to try to provide something for everybody…as they have done for many years.
https://youtu.be/bh9hz9wsHgw
Says it all for me.
Dennis Potter covered a lot of this in that brilliant interview with Melvyn Bragg in 1994.
The one where he was taking morphine throughout!
His assertion, if memory serves, was that anything Murdoch is/was involved in is 100% self-serving shite. He even called his disease “Rupert.”
Live by that criteria and you’re probably doing yourself a favour.
Shall I start asking people why they are buying “The Sun?”
Is that a thing you can do in polite society?
I’ll need to watch that again. Haven’t watched it since it was on at the time. It’s probably on youtube.
I’ve recently been minded to watch a bit of Dennis Potter again – The Singing Detective or Lipstick On Your Collar maybe.
What about all these old BBC watchers/listeners who also (mostly) vote Tory..? Will they happily accept radical change ? I’m not convinced.
If they cut The Archers, Countryfile, and Antiques Roadshow, there’ll be hell to pay.
If Countryfile goes, I’m sharpening my pitchfork and putting on my marching boots. Don’t need to be a paid up member of the Vermin party to value and enjoy that show.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/feb/05/tv-licence-could-be-abolished-from-2027-says-nicky-morgan
Article by Dominic Sandbrook in the Daily Mail (sorry) today.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7971989/DOMINIC-SANDBROOK-plan-save-BBC-cheap-licence-basics.html
“The BBC’s typical reaction to all this is to make ever more lurid, desperate and pitiful efforts to attract younger viewers, not unlike an ageing lothario suffering a midlife crisis.”
I do quite like Sandbrook. He’s one of those level-headed, temperate right wing people who knows his history and knows how to state an argument clearly. He suggests a two-tier BBC, with a lower, compulsory licence fee for the basic stuff then a premium subscription for a full service. My initial feeling is this sounds quite sensible, no?
Works for me. Solves the problem Vulpes identified re general taxation. In response to those here saying they love it and happily pay the fee (or double it!) I would say that ship, if not already sailing, is taking an even strain on the anchor and Aunty needs to think more creatively.
I like Sandbrook too BTW. His books about the decades are superb. I held my nose and read the Heil article and it seems about right. I’ve heard about that announcement which seems beyond insensitive to me.
But with the shortfall in income that would create, they wouldn’t be able to make the premium content….
And why do they feel that they should cover the ITV non story; “Phillip Schofield: I am gay!” Anyone surprised?
How can one be surprised about something when one doesn’t give a flying fuck?
1. I haven’t watched a show with him in since he was Gordon The Gopher’s co-presenter.
2. Why, in 2020, does anyone care if anyone is gay?
I did wonder the same thing. OK, good for him, glad he’s got through with what must have been one hell of a decision to take, but the coverage has far exceeded the space I would have expected it to take.
Maybe the relative rarity of a middle aged married man coming out is a factor, who knows.
Why wouldn’t anyone be surprised? Could you “tell“?
And as to why anyone would care – disingenuous question. I think hardly anyone does care about another’s sexual orientation, but a lot of people are interested in celebs’ private lives, especially if involving sex and/or relationships. (Not us, obvs, on account of our intellectual and cultural superiority.)
No I couldn’t tell. He hasn’t got it tattooed on his forehead. I was watching ITV when Holly Willoughby was reading his statement and they were gushing about how brave he was. He’s such a soldier, I was not thinking.
But my irritation is with the BBC running with this guff.
Yes. The BBC seem to have it as current policy that if anyone else is covering a story, no matter how unimportant in the grand scheme of things, they must air it too.
Basically the same reason they cover the “fat bastards told they can’t sit in business class” story – because it’s all over the Twattosphere for half a day.
But with the shortfall in income that would create, they wouldn’t be able to make the premium content….