General : Coming Soon to Virgin TV (2013) Vol. 5.

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by ocav

Those headlines have 2 totally different meanings, one means that it is being scrapped, one means it is being criticised.

Do you read a paper? If so is it the Daily Mail?

No, the "removal of the spare room subsidy" is referred to as "the bedroom tax". The headlines mean the same thing. I don't know what your understanding of the bedroom tax is, but it isn't actually a tax where somebody has to pay more, it's a removal of a benefit, where somebody gets given less.

That said, I don't read the Mail, and I honestly wasn't looking to give my opinion here about that specific policy. To be honest, my opinion of it is irrelevant as far as a discussion about the BBC is concerned, and as far as news broadcasting goes I don't mind how Sky News or CNN or whoever dress up their coverage, but from the BBC, the nation's broadcaster, paid for by us through our licence fee, I don't want any dressing. The BBC should be where I go for factual reporting of the highest order. They have a hard won world wide reputation for quality. They deserve that to a certain degree, but they don't get to keep it without working hard to do so. That's the point I'm trying to make.

---------- Post added at 19:03 ---------- Previous post was at 18:58 ----------

Originally Posted by passingbat

But this is the overall conclusion and it says there is no hint of bias.





And Nigel Farage gets loads of exposure these days.

I said the BBC themselves acknowledged the bias, and so it is the quotes from the person who was in charge of the news output, Helen Boaden, who acknowledged it, that was the salient point of that article, as far as I'm concerned. As far as the report's conclusions are concerned, I would suggest you'd have to question the validity of a report that includes quotes from the person in charge of news output to the effect that the output was biased which then concludes that it wasn't, but perhaps that's just me?

And of course Nigel Farage gets loads of coverage these days - the left will be the big winners if Farage does well and splits the centre right! (Cynical, moi?)

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by passingbat

Why mess up a system that works very well by adding commercial funding into the mix?

The BBC offers tremendous value for money at the current cost of the licence fee.


I wonder how many of those who complain about the licence fee also download most of the things they watch to avoid paying anything for content?

I don't deny that it would have to be done carefully, but the current arrangements are not sustainable. They have led to the BBC being bloated and wasteful, they compete unfairly with the rival broadcasters and they create tremendous resentment with the licence fee.

There is a better way and it needs to be looked into with the clear objective of ensuring that the BBC does have sufficient money to continue to deliver quality services.

---------- Post added at 19:06 ---------- Previous post was at 19:05 ----------

Originally Posted by toady

Suddenly this thread is full of Daily Mail readers who want to shut down the BBC by killing off the license fee

I haven't even suggested shutting down the BBC. I want the BBC to continue to operate and offer good programmes. But all is not well with the current arrangements and if the BBC is to survive in the long term, we need to do something about it now.

---------- Post added at 19:08 ---------- Previous post was at 19:06 ----------

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

Getting rid of the license fee, would just be ridiculous in my eyes. BBC radio 2,3,4 and 5 are worth the fee on their own. :-).

I respect your view, Harry, but we have to acknowledge that a lot of people don't watch the BBC and resent paying the licence fee.

[andy_m]

Andrew Marr in 2006 - "The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities, and gay people. It has a liberal bias, not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias."

Andrew Marr!!!

---------- Post added at 19:09 ---------- Previous post was at 19:09 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I don't deny that it would have to be done carefully, but the current arrangements are not sustainable. They have led to the BBC being bloated and wasteful, they compete unfairly with the rival broadcasters and they create tremendous resentment with the licence fee.

There is a better way and it needs to be looked into with the clear objective of ensuring that the BBC does have sufficient money to continue to deliver quality services.

---------- Post added at 19:06 ---------- Previous post was at 19:05 ----------

I haven't even suggested shutting down the BBC. I want the BBC to continue to operate and offer good programmes. But all is not well with the current arrangements and if the BBC is to survive in the long term, we need to do something about it now.

---------- Post added at 19:08 ---------- Previous post was at 19:06 ----------

I respect your view, Harry, but we have to acknowledge that a lot of people don't watch the BBC and resent paying the licence fee.

This ^^

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by fenman35

Why do you think it is not as efficient as a commercial operation?

Have you not read the news reports? Sending 15 reporters to a news event when all the other broadcasters send one or two? That is just one example of many reports about the BBC's wastefulness. I, for one, don't want to pay for waste.

---------- Post added at 19:14 ---------- Previous post was at 19:11 ----------

Originally Posted by passingbat

Sorry but this ratings competition on Saturday night is one thing about the BBC that does annoy me. I don't watch either of those shows, but they are popular so why put them head to head? The only people who loose out are the British public.

And as far as I recall, ITV had that reality game show spot with X Factor, before the BBC launched Strictly. The BBC should have picked a different time for Strictly.

I don't worry about these clashes any more. That's why I have a recorder and make use of the i-Player. I am surprised that so many people still watch so much live TV, particularly on the commercial channels.

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Have you not read the news reports? Sending 15 reporters to a news event when all the other broadcasters send one or two? That is just one example of many reports about the BBC's wastefulness. I, for one, don't want to pay for waste.

In fairness, I think things have changed in this regard. I recently spoke to a BBC cameraman at a high profile news event. He said that after the news at 10 he would be driving home, whilst the other broadcasters were in local hotels, and it was now very much the case that he'd say goodbye to commercial colleagues as they entered the first class lounges and then say hello again once they'd landed.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by passingbat

What bias are you talking about?

The left wing bias, passingbat and it's obsessions such as 'man made climate change'. The BBC is renowned for its neutral news reporting but sadly it's all gone downhill in recent times. One reason why the public service thing doesn't work for me any more.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I don't deny that it would have to be done carefully, but the current arrangements are not sustainable. They have led to the BBC being bloated and wasteful, they compete unfairly with the rival broadcasters and they create tremendous resentment with the licence fee.

.

No one is denying that they need to trim back in certain areas.

How do they compete unfairly with rival broadcasters?

And where is your evidence for the bit I have emboldened?

---------- Post added at 19:25 ---------- Previous post was at 19:20 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

---------- Post added at 19:14 ---------- Previous post was at 19:11 ----------

I don't worry about these clashes any more. That's why I have a recorder and make use of the i-Player. I am surprised that so many people still watch so much live TV, particularly on the commercial channels.

Ah, but haven't you heard; people like to tweet during live shows these days. I don't understand why, but apparently people do. I don't understand why people don't record everything, but people like to watch live.

This thread is not about the BBC, get back on topic please.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by andy_m

Andrew Marr in 2006 - "The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities, and gay people. It has a liberal bias, not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias."

Andrew Marr!!!

---------- Post added at 19:09 ---------- Previous post was at 19:09 ----------

I'm guessing that most of the media is filled with such people, so is the BBC any different to other news outlets in this respect? A "cultural liberal bias" is the way the whole western world has gone these days, so that aspect is not surprising. It is making sure that they get their facts right and there is no political bias that is important to me.

And don't forget to factor in any personal bias those people expressing their opinions on BBC neutrality may have; even Nigel and Andrew!

[vincerooney]

Moving on...

Media Boy any potential surprises for us this week to wake up to and smile to? also a series of questions for you

1) how many insiders do you have currently?
2) do you message them or do they message you?
3) if you ever bring news of sky atlantic you must realise many people will propose to you?

Just general questions to move the convo onwards....

[Media Boy UK]

Originally Posted by vincerooney

Moving on...

Media Boy any potential surprises for us this week to wake up to and smile to? also a series of questions for you

1) how many insiders do you have currently?

Cant say.

2) do you message them or do they message you?

Again cant say.

[denphone]

The big question is when will these rumoured BomberAF channels arrive and from rumours in the wind hopefully it will be sooner rather then later......

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by cdf90

BBC One +1 to launch, according to the Director-General.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/lat...one-plus1.html

Excellent news! Thanks for posting it.

Coupled with a pvr, +1 channels are very handy and there really is no reason to miss your favourite show anymore. All we need now is decent shows!

---------- Post added at 20:03 ---------- Previous post was at 20:01 ----------

Originally Posted by passingbat

Given that Sony have their own TV channel, it makes you wonder why they didn't put it on there. Same with critically acclaimed Damages, which the BBC abandoned. The answer is that unpopular shows don't bring in the advertising revenue.

Netflix came to the rescue in both of those cases.

The Sony channel on VM is on too high of a EPG number, I can't remember its location on Sky. So, it's not just a matter of the US channels having their own channels here too, but their location on the EPGs as well.

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I don't deny that it would have to be done carefully, but the current arrangements are not sustainable. They have led to the BBC being bloated and wasteful, they compete unfairly with the rival broadcasters and they create tremendous resentment with the licence fee.

There is a better way and it needs to be looked into with the clear objective of ensuring that the BBC does have sufficient money to continue to deliver quality services.

---------- Post added at 19:06 ---------- Previous post was at 19:05 ----------

I haven't even suggested shutting down the BBC. I want the BBC to continue to operate and offer good programmes. But all is not well with the current arrangements and if the BBC is to survive in the long term, we need to do something about it now.

---------- Post added at 19:08 ---------- Previous post was at 19:06 ----------

I respect your view, Harry, but we have to acknowledge that a lot of people don't watch the BBC and resent paying the licence fee.

Yup, I would imagine there are some people who do not watch the BBC. Just like a lot of people don't watch Sky channels, or the numerous poor quality TV channels both Sky and VM carry, yet willingly pay for a subscription TV service. I wonder how many people (who do not watch BBC) do not watch any of the various UKTV stations and the numerous BBC repeats they show either? I imagine the number will be very minimal. No license fee would mean the end of those channels too or a considerable worsening in content!

Seriously, it's not just the TV that the licence fee pays for is it. If they listen to any BBC Radio, they will need to pay for that too.

Should there be a separate fee for TV and radio? Probably but it is not an option currently.

Anyway, thanks MB for the info. Lets hope you can give us some good news on what is actually coming soon in the not too distant future!!!!

[Media Boy UK]

2-2-1