RIP BBC

First topic message reminder :

Ok, maybe a bit of an exaggeration but the coming years are going to totally change the beeb as we know it, as the tories wield the axe.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/sep/07/tony-hall-bbc-cuts-bbc4


Can anyone see any justification for these brutal cuts and is anyone looking forward to an even greater proportion of our media being provided by Murdoch and chums?

I can only hope there is something left of the BBC to be saved when PM corbyn takes the reigns in 2020.

#allHailtheBBC

Personally, I love it. Suits me, merely for their quality of football coverage alone. Their presence in sport (at least the ones important in Britain) is incredible, and their output is consistently up there with the best you'll get. Their drama content is of a much higher class than most British output, Sadly they have dropped the ball in recent years on sitcoms.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Rowley wrote:I just view it as a tax, we pay countless taxes for things we don't use. Guess a lot of taxpayers pay towards libraries they will never set foot in, other however do use them, we pay for services we will use above and beyond how much we pay for them and some we pay less than the value of our usage. The BBC is no different, for some of us it is poor value, for other it represents terrific value.

Oh come on! That's far too sensible. When I pay for something, I expect to get something out in direct proportion otherwise I'm not interested in contributing! :sarcasm:
It's trendy to slag off the BBC and say it's biased/scheiss/not worth the license fee.
I wonder how many who think the BeeB license fee isn't justifiable will be on the end of a serious chronic illness? Or maybe know someone who is? What about the PTS-affected veteran who can no longer serve or even work? Or the child with terminal cancer who'll never get to pay into the NHS? I wonder whether they think it's worth paying in for others to get more benefit than those others had contributed towards or that they themselves might ever require?

What a rambling bunch of nonesense.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:What a completely ridiculous viewpoint, if i'm paying a licence fee to use the BBC services then yes I do want value for money and I see no reason why I wouldn't while comparing it to the NHS does not make it justifiable. One of the worst arguments i've seen on here.

Strike the odd nerve did I?
Never mind...

Like many British institutions and systems, the BBC is envied and respected by many foreigners. So we of course decide to change or destroy it. If you think the BBC is bad try having RAI as your national broadcaster...

I don’t have kids and have no intention of having them, but I am sure a reasonabe proportion of my various taxes goes into funding the schools and education system, similarly I have no intention of adopting or fostering kids but am sure I contribute to that system. Absolutely terrible value for money both of them for me.

All fine to have opinions but I think it's hard to say that 50p a day isn't decent value for a service that's meant to cater for all sorts. Now, if the argument is about whether you should pay for content that others want to see, that's another thing altogether. I submit that the fact you don't like the idea really is typical of today - what am I getting out of it? What's in it for me?

Well yes, why wouldn't I? I pay a monthly subscription to Sky which carries a lot more programming that i enjoy, yet i still have to pay the licence fee for the BBC.

I don't go to work to pay taxes for other people's benefit, i go to earn money to support ME and MY family. So yes, I am about what's in it for me.

As I have mentioned above though Alistair, within those taxes you will be paying for countless things you don't use, or use to a far lesser degree than the value of the money you contribute. The BBC is no different.

Rowley wrote:As I have mentioned above though Alistair, within those taxes you will be paying for countless things you don't use, or use to a far lesser degree than the value of the money you contribute. The BBC is no different.

Yes, I agree, I was more so arguing his point about how i'm part of the common 'What's in it for me?' crowd, when I fail to see why I would feel value in paying a licence fee so Bob, my neighbour can enjoy call my bluff with his 18th cup of tea of the day.

Rowley wrote:The problem with taking advertising on board Sean is if it becomes your main or a too crucial revenue stream you become driven by it. Do this and you will make programmes exclusively from the perspective of what will generate the most advertising revenue and either sideline or not make the programmes that don’t generate the revenue. .

I was thinking the big hitters like Match of the Day, Eastenders and University Challenge. And only on prime channels BBC1, BBC2.

Alistair wrote:...I don't go to work to pay taxes for other people's benefit, i go to earn money to support ME and MY family. So yes, I am about what's in it for me.

Actually, that's what pretty much all of us do. I assume you pay NI as one of your deductions? What do you think you're paying tax at 20/40/45% for?

Alistair wrote:Yes, I agree, I was more so arguing his point about how i'm part of the common 'What's in it for me?' crowd, when I fail to see why I would feel value in paying a licence fee so Bob, my neighbour can enjoy call my bluff with his 18th cup of tea of the day.

I wasn't trying to be personal. I just think that, in general, our society is becoming more and more "What's in it for me?" and ignoring the (arguable, I admit) wider benefits in contributing to things that one doesn't necessarily benefit from. Personally, I think this is pretty sad but I accept that some people may feel it's fair enough to only pay in what they get out. Pretty crap society if that were the universal position of everyone......although I guess we have to put up with TopHat...

navyblueshorts wrote:

Alistair wrote:...I don't go to work to pay taxes for other people's benefit, i go to earn money to support ME and MY family. So yes, I am about what's in it for me.

Actually, that's what pretty much all of us do. I assume you pay NI as one of your deductions? What do you think you're paying tax at 20/40/45% for?

Alistair wrote:Yes, I agree, I was more so arguing his point about how i'm part of the common 'What's in it for me?' crowd, when I fail to see why I would feel value in paying a licence fee so Bob, my neighbour can enjoy call my bluff with his 18th cup of tea of the day.

I wasn't trying to be personal. I just think that, in general, our society is becoming more and more "What's in it for me?" and ignoring the (arguable, I admit) wider benefits in contributing to things that one doesn't necessarily benefit from. Personally, I think this is pretty sad but I accept that some people may feel it's fair enough to only pay in what they get out. Pretty crap society if that were the universal position of everyone......although I guess we have to put up with TopHat...

Sorry, i meant i don't choose to pay Tax, it's something you can't opt out of but you come to accept as actually it does do good for a wider range of people (even if the government spunk it up the wall at times).

I agree, we perhaps have become that kind of society, but if you put it in to perspective, with things like the rise in benefit claims, the immigration, you can sort of understand why people think like that.

As a doctor, I would like to thank you for the taxes you pay.

I save it all up and then spend it on cars I see on Top Gear.

Judging by the BBC website I think it might be time to drop the "British" and consider a different funding mechanism.  Sports and current affair articles on the website are becoming far too tabloidy, sensationalist, one sided, leftish campaigning.  There are a few good parts of the BBC and the website but they seem to be on the decline.

Here is an example: In the news article "Jeremy Corbyn takes big risk with McDonnell appointment" it states "The appointment of John McDonnell is a risk, a big risk."  But no where does it explain what that risk is and why John McDonnell is a risk.  So it's a story but it is a shell of a story lacking content and meaning   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34243236.

There is of course a reason why they don't go into any detail (it's part of their obvious bias).

BBC Radio 4 news states that John McDonnell is a controversial choice because he "holds extremists views even for the labour party", but doesn't go into any detail what those extremist views are.  Of course it is well known from other non BBC sources that Jeremy Corbyn associates with many people who hold extremists views.

Interestingly if you try to specify what in fact those extremists views are on the comments section of BBC news webpage (when they open up an appropriate news article for comments) - they are removed because they break the "house rules".

Nore Staat wrote:Judging by the BBC website I think it might be time to drop the "British" and consider a different funding mechanism.  Sports and current affair articles on the website are becoming far too tabloidy, sensationalist, one sided, leftish campaigning.  There are a few good parts of the BBC and the website but they seem to be on the decline.

Here is an example: In the news article "Jeremy Corbyn takes big risk with McDonnell appointment" it states "The appointment of John McDonnell is a risk, a big risk."  But no where does it explain what that risk is and why John McDonnell is a risk.  So it's a story but it is a shell of a story lacking content and meaning   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34243236.

There is of course a reason why they don't go into any detail (it's part of their obvious bias).

BBC Radio 4 news states that John McDonnell is a controversial choice because he "holds extremists views even for the labour party", but doesn't go into any detail what those extremist views are.  Of course it is well known from other non BBC sources that Jeremy Corbyn associates with many people who hold extremists views.

Interestingly if you try to specify what in fact those extremists views are on the comments section of BBC news webpage (when they open up an appropriate news article for comments) - they are removed because they break the "house rules".

Your link, above, doesn't seem to work but I wouldn't say this link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34245371) portrays McDonnell as anything other than a leftist and somewhat controversial character. Problem?

navyblueshorts wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Judging by the BBC website I think it might be time to drop the "British" and consider a different funding mechanism.  Sports and current affair articles on the website are becoming far too tabloidy, sensationalist, one sided, leftish campaigning.  There are a few good parts of the BBC and the website but they seem to be on the decline.

Here is an example: In the news article "Jeremy Corbyn takes big risk with McDonnell appointment" it states "The appointment of John McDonnell is a risk, a big risk."  But no where does it explain what that risk is and why John McDonnell is a risk.  So it's a story but it is a shell of a story lacking content and meaning   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34243236.

There is of course a reason why they don't go into any detail (it's part of their obvious bias).

BBC Radio 4 news states that John McDonnell is a controversial choice because he "holds extremists views even for the labour party", but doesn't go into any detail what those extremist views are.  Of course it is well known from other non BBC sources that Jeremy Corbyn associates with many people who hold extremists views.

Interestingly if you try to specify what in fact those extremists views are on the comments section of BBC news webpage (when they open up an appropriate news article for comments) - they are removed because they break the "house rules".

Your link, above, doesn't seem to work but I wouldn't say this link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34245371) portrays McDonnell as anything other than a leftist and somewhat controversial character. Problem?

They haven't shown the Stalin tattoo on his left bollock nor the Chairman Mao Tattoo on his right

John McDonnel May 2003:
“It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA … deaths of innocent civilians in IRA attacks is a real tragedy, but it was as a result of British occupation in Ireland. Because of the bravery of the IRA and people like Bobby Sands we now have a peace process.”
report

BBC report that navyblueshorts couldn't link to: click here

Anyway my criticism was that the BBC report around the issue but don't describe the issue itself - creating hollowed out reporting.  Hollowed out reports is just one type of dreadful practice undertaken by the BBC.  I was surprised it also happened on the 1pm BBC Radio 4 News broadcast.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34245371 < The BBC Report

During the New Labour years he was chairman of the Campaign Group of socialist Labour MPs - a fairly small band who rebelled on a regular basis - on issues ranging from the Iraq War and tuition fees to ID cards and fast food firm McDonald's sponsorship at Labour's 2001 conference.
There were controversies along the way - in 2003 he told a gathering to commemorate the IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands: "It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table."
In 2010 McDonnell had to apologise for saying during a radio warm-up that if he could go back in time he would "assassinate Thatcher" - with Jeremy Corbyn taking part in the debate about the comments on the Daily Politics:


So your argument is in the format that the bbc used for the one opinion by a political editor, not the supposed left wing bias of the channel as a whole?

ShahenshahG wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34245371 < The BBC Report
So your argument is in the format that the bbc used for the one opinion by a political editor, not the supposed left wing bias of the channel as a whole?

No. There are many hollowed out reports including the BBC radio broadcast I mentioned.  There are some that are not hollowed out.  On the whole the standard is declining and the bias is clear cut.  The bias includes a bias towards celebrity here and a bias towards misrepresentation and feminist activism (when should be considering who is best suited for the job): here and an article complaining that top shadow jobs didn't go to women (this one has disappeared - it was originally on the news front page) . Anyway the BBC keep moving around their articles that they put on the web homepage - they appear, then they are hidden etc. I was just taking a sample.