Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
I agree with your first paragraph but not your last. Why should we have a licence fee if some don’t make use of the service and when this guaranteed flow of money encourages waste like this? ITV could just as easily act as our national broadcaster. The BBC has become bloated and steadily angers people by its increasing wokery and excessive expenditure, such as the example given by the OP. There are plenty of other examples that have been exposed by the press.
Enough is enough.
|
ITV is its own explanation for the limits of commercially funded public service broadcasting. Its offering is is just so limited. When you look at the back catalogue of stuff ITV franchisees were making in the 1960s and 70s, where is that content now? They make soaps, reality shows, talent contests and police procedurals. Where is the adventure, fantasy, sci fi, heck even decent local interest programming? Did you know Granada used to produce a brass band competition in northwest England? The reality is that ad-funded broadcasting simply can’t support niche content like that. Gerry Anderson’s iconic puppetry, high concept sci fi like Sapphire and Steel, even action/adventure series like The Saint, The Professionals and The Avengers … all of it commissioned or part-funded by ITV. None of it the sort of stuff ITV is making today.
The benefit of a universal charge is that everyone pays a little and it ensures everyone gets a slice of the pie. It may seem trivial compared to schools and hospitals but the principle is the same. We all pay equally regardless of the extent to which we actually need the resource because we believe the resource is for the greater good of society as a whole.
If you think that broadcasting is just about making the TV shows you like, you won’t get this at all. But public service broadcasting isn’t just about that, and never has been.