Bbc

[Jerrek]

Shabba, why don't you go and sit in the sun and photosynthesize a bit. Whether the war was right or wrong is irrelevant to this thread. Please don't hijack the thread.

[downquark1]

The thing is, I'm not forced to fund ITN or Sky News. I am forced to fund the BBC and therefore would like to get what I consider, as a consumer, what counts for good news reporting.
I feel that I do not get this from them.

Unfortunally, this argument is flaw since people have so many varying opinions, if it was upto the public the BBC would play fame academy 24 7.

Time is money advertisments are taking your time

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Shabba

Privatise the beeb

Actually, according to family I have in the Advertising industry, privatising the BBC would cause massive financial problems both for Independant TV and the advertising industry itself. Basically ,in terms of advertising, the market would increase way beyond the demands placed on it, so prices for advertising space would go through the floor. This would mean less money for programs, and therefore the quality would go down (and we would probably get more reality TV).

Anyway, I am off topic. I like the BBC, but I accept that all news services are biased in some way. As I said earlier, I find it best to get my news from a few different sources. Hopefully, that way, any bias is cancelled out.

BTW Jerrek, I definately wouldn't consider any news channel owned by Rupert Murdoch to be unbiased.

Originally Posted by Graham

...Finally Gogogo...Can I assume, therefore, that you've never watched Sky News? Pointless "on the spot interviews" between the Studio presenter and the Journalist "in the field" which tell us what we've already heard, but add the "journalists opinions" (which are usually just worthless speculation), rumour reported almost as fact, suppositions reported almost as truth? Do you consider this to be *better* than the BBC??

Over the years the quality of BBC TV news has been watered down to an extent that now as I wrote before we get the typical clown act as a regular feature of the 6 o'clock TV news, news by entertainment, correction, opinion by entertainment. Compare what you experience from BBC radio news programmes on Radio 4 or 5. Radio news programmes are more news oriented have more depth can be far more challenging and interesting and treat listners like adults. BBC TV news however has little international content and too much trivia. BBC News on BBC 4 is much better.

I think BBC governors would be horrified to learn the Corporation is "anti-government" that indeed is not the role of the Corporation. The BBC should report news and refrain from opinion making or forming. The Sky News "method" that you refer to of a field journalist being interviewed via the studio presenter is a method used by news departments in all TV newsrooms including the BBC.

BBC TV news needs a thorough shake up, new blood, there ought to be separate news bulletins for international and UK news. And, I am rather sick of seeing news for London region being labelled LDN.

I also find dispicable and disgraceful the let's get a Minister attitude, which Minister can we goad into resigning. Once an issue is found it becomes the number one priority. Currently Maragret Hodge is being placed right at the centre of an issue that frankly she cannot be blamed for, she has pioneered a role as Minister for Children. It is Parliament that should decide if a Minister should go not the mass media.

[downquark1]

I think BBC governors would be horrified to learn the Corporation is "anti-government" that indeed is not the role of the Corporation. The BBC should report news and refrain from opinion making or forming. The Sky News "method" that you refer to of a field journalist being interviewed via the studio presenter is a method used by news departments in all TV newsrooms including the BBC.

If the BBC is anti-government they are certainly anti-torry, this therefore isn't showing bias they are merely being 'mean' unless they are being biased towards the lib dems - which I don't see.

The BBC seem to be anti allot of things but hey why should they car when everyone is being forced to hand over a tv tax to them

Originally Posted by Defiant

The BBC seem to be anti allot of things but hey why should they car when everyone is being forced to hand over a tv tax to them

Licence or no licence, at the end of the day *you* will still be paying one way or the other for the BBC to stay on the air.

Originally Posted by dr wadd

Licence or no licence, at the end of the day *you* will still be paying one way or the other for the BBC to stay on the air.

I don't think so

Originally Posted by Xaccers

When was the last time you saw them deal with the Iraq situation in a positive way?
When did they last discuss the rebuilding of the water supplies, electricity, food and medical supplies?
When did they last state that where there is hardship it was like that before the war or caused by the war, rather than just making ambiguous comments like "the doctors at this Bahgdad hospital say they are low on supplies"?

When was the last time you wrote *to the BBC* to complain about the "lack of balance" in their reporting?

But if I wanted to I could live off my own land, or go across the channel and shop at Carfours and still watch TV.
But if I don't pay for the BBC, well then I'd be up in court facing the possibility of time inside and £1000 fine!

That sounds very much like "I don't use public service X, Y or Z why should I pay taxes to support them?"

"I don't go out at night, why should I pay for the upkeep of street lamps?"

"I don't drive on the roads, why should I pay tax that goes to them?" (NB to anyone about to jump in here, "Road Fund Tax" was discontinued after the Second World War! You now pay "Vehicle Excise Duty" ie a tax on your ownership of a car)

"I don't use council care homes, why should my taxes go to pay for them...?"

Or how about "I don't watch Sky TV, why should money I pay to companies who advertise on their channels which goes to pay for that advertising?"

There are plenty of things in this life that you pay for that you don't use or get yourself, it's just that the BBC is an high-profile target that's easy to complain about.

Originally Posted by Graham

When was the last time you wrote *to the BBC* to complain about the "lack of balance" in their reporting?



That sounds very much like "I don't use public service X, Y or Z why should I pay taxes to support them?"

"I don't go out at night, why should I pay for the upkeep of street lamps?"

"I don't drive on the roads, why should I pay tax that goes to them?" (NB to anyone about to jump in here, "Road Fund Tax" was discontinued after the Second World War! You now pay "Vehicle Excise Duty" ie a tax on your ownership of a car)

"I don't use council care homes, why should my taxes go to pay for them...?"

Or how about "I don't watch Sky TV, why should money I pay to companies who advertise on their channels which goes to pay for that advertising?"

There are plenty of things in this life that you pay for that you don't use or get yourself, it's just that the BBC is an high-profile target that's easy to complain about.

How in the hell can you compare an unfare tax that is 50yrs out of date to those things. Thats one of the most stupid things I've heard

Originally Posted by Gogogo

Over the years the quality of BBC TV news has been watered down to an extent that now as I wrote before we get the typical clown act as a regular feature of the 6 o'clock TV news, news by entertainment, correction, opinion by entertainment. Compare what you experience from BBC radio news programmes on Radio 4 or 5.

I agree that the BBC has let the standard of its TV news presentation decline and that is certainly a shame, but they're not the only ones, see ITN's "News at 10" for example. It's no longer always at 10, it's no longer half an hour, it's gone twee and down market etc.

Personally I prefer to watch BBC News 24 which does make much more of an effort to include real international content, examine stories in greater depth etc and (usually) avoids the "Tabloid TV" behaviour of Sky News. ITN's news channel, unfortunately, has no idea *what* it is trying to do!

I think BBC governors would be horrified to learn the Corporation is "anti-government" that indeed is not the role of the Corporation. The BBC should report news and refrain from opinion making or forming.

I agree entirely. Unfortunately there are times when the *government* doesn't quite get the point and seems to think that because "they" fund it, "they" can control its output. "Oh, you want us to put up the licence fee, do you? Well you'd jolly well better start saying nice things about us!"

The Sky News "method" that you refer to of a field journalist being interviewed via the studio presenter is a method used by news departments in all TV newsrooms including the BBC.

Yes, but a) Sky was first and b) they're the worst for doing it.

BBC TV news needs a thorough shake up, new blood, there ought to be separate news bulletins for international and UK news.

They do that on BBC News 24. Some of the half-hour slots are UK based, others cover more international stuff.

And, I am rather sick of seeing news for London region being labelled LDN.

I'm sure a lot of people are sick of seeing news for London being treated as "national news"! So there's another tube strike? So what? What does this matter to the majority of the population who live outside the capital!

I also find dispicable and disgraceful the let's get a Minister attitude,

I haven't seen much of that from the BBC, especially not when compared to other news outlets.

Originally Posted by Defiant

How in the hell can you compare an unfare tax that is 50yrs out of date to those things. Thats one of the most stupid things I've heard

Ah, and this is what you call "reasoned debate" is it?

Perhaps you'd care to try again to respond to my comments in a slightly more cogent and comprehensible way and then I'll be happy to reply to you.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Defiant

How in the hell can you compare an unfare tax that is 50yrs out of date to those things. Thats one of the most stupid things I've heard

OK.

Have you used any emergency or health service facility(doctors, hospitals, police, fire etc) recently ? If not, by your arguement, you should not pay National Insurance.

The only difference I can see is that we need the emergency services, and most of the examples Graham gives. Strictly speaking, we don't need the BBC (or any radio or TV station).

BTW Defiant, you use Freeview don't you? Well, the licence fee funds parts of the transmitter network that is used by Freeview so Freeview would either become a pay-tv service or die out without the licence fee.

[downquark1]

They do give you kind of a choice - you have to own a TV.

[evil genius hat on] Does a computer with TV reciever card count as a TV? Or have a video recorder but no TV. Tape shows and put it on computer?

Originally Posted by Defiant

I don't think so

If the BBC takes advertising then companies are going to have to pay for that advertising. That will be reflected in higher prices of the products that you buy, so you will still be paying for the BBC, much in the same way that you are paying for all the other commercial channels that you watch. At least with the BBC you only need to pay if you choose to have a television, with commercial channels you are effectively paying regardless of whether you have a television or not.