Funding of the BBC

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Mr K

It's a point of view, there are others, which should be heard. I think you and many others want a broadcaster that only reflects your views. [SEPH]: Not me, Squire. I don't like to see the bias that the BBC displays on topical items.

The Govt. has done nothing less than try to bully the BBC since 2010, with the threat of hitting funding if they don't comply. It'll be a sad day if they submit and we don't have independent reporting any longer.

Getting back to funding, freezing the licence fee for 6 years has led to more repeats and the loss of BBC3. As with everything else pay less, get less. Blame HM Govt., not the BBC [SEPH]: Other than the political bias, the BBC is pretty much doing fine.
.

Strange how, if the BBC is "anti-Brexit", it is often labelled "the Brexit Broadcasting Service" on lots of Leaver social media, and on websites like "Order-Order", which are very pro-Brexit.

Seems to be in the eyes of the beholder...

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Strange how, if the BBC is "anti-Brexit", it is often labelled "the Brexit Broadcasting Service" on lots of Leaver social media, and on websites like "Order-Order", which are very pro-Brexit.

Seems to be in the eyes of the beholder...

Brussels Broadcasting Corporation.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Brussels Broadcasting Corporation.

Mmmm - wonder how it manages to be both?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Jimmy-J

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ence-year.html

'Netflix effect' sees nearly a MILLION Britons cancel their TV licence in last year as viewers ditch BBC in favour of streaming services

Thank you, Jimmy. Unfortunately, all the evidence in the world will not shake Chris and jfman from their infathomable beliefs that our future world will not look rather different from today.

Digital technology is moving at such a speed that a lot of people find it difficult to keep up. That's fair enough, but to keep challenging the clear trends that are happening and have been evidenced without any facts to support the challenge is tiresome and futile. In my humble opinion.

Err ... I asked you to cite your source for the evidence that switching from a licence to a subscription would result in only a small reduction in payers. The item from the Daily Wail - aside from having all the academic credentials of a public urinal - addresses a different issue entirely. So stop pretending we don’t all know you’re just making stuff up and try harder.

The same article, but in the Times - they had a line the Fail missed out.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/v...hold-fj3lfgk9c

Television licences are compulsory for anyone who watches live television or uses the BBC’s iPlayer catch-up service. As of March last year 25.8 million licences were held, a record high driven largely by population growth.

Originally Posted by Hugh

The same article, but in the Times - they had a line the Fail missed out.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/v...hold-fj3lfgk9c

Funnily enough, the Wail article does eventually admit to the fact that the high number of cancellations is in large part due to house moves and singletons getting married and moving in together. The number they quoted is an absolute number of cancellations, not a reduction in the overall total. The only useful thing you can do with the figure the Mail has quoted is use it alongside the figure for new licence fee payers to arrive at the total number of TV licences held. Oddly the Mail hasn’t done so. Can’t think why.

But frankly it’s a waste of pixels pointing this out to OB because it’s facts and evidence, which he wouldn’t understand if it came accompanied with a copy of Facts And Evidence For Dummies.

[telegramsam]

The BBC,in my opinion, is stuck in the past and the license fee is likewise. It must be scrapped and forced into a subscription service. People argue that it would cost too much and the quality of programs would suffer. I disagree. The money raised through subs plus advertising revenue would provide more than enough for them to make or buy good programs. Also,if they stopped paying the likes of Gary Lineker silly money for jobs that anyone could do they'd save a hell of a lot of money.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Thank you, Jimmy. Unfortunately, all the evidence in the world will not shake Chris and jfman from their infathomable beliefs that our future world will not look rather different from today.

Digital technology is moving at such a speed that a lot of people find it difficult to keep up. That's fair enough, but to keep challenging the clear trends that are happening and have been evidenced without any facts to support the challenge is tiresome and futile. In my humble opinion.

If you have any clear evidenced trends I’d certainly like to read them.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by telegramsam

The BBC,in my opinion, is stuck in the past and the license fee is likewise. It must be scrapped and forced into a subscription service. People argue that it would cost too much and the quality of programs would suffer. I disagree. The money raised through subs plus advertising revenue would provide more than enough for them to make or buy good programs. Also,if they stopped paying the likes of Gary Lineker silly money for jobs that anyone could do they'd save a hell of a lot of money.

The BBC is indeed stuck in the past but if they were on a subscription model, they would die - unless they can compete with the likes of Amazon & Netflix which they can’t because they would also have to fund the PBS side of things like the News, QT, etc and would thus be uncompetitive.

Originally Posted by Chris

Err ... I asked you to cite your source for the evidence that switching from a licence to a subscription would result in only a small reduction in payers. The item from the Daily Wail - aside from having all the academic credentials of a public urinal - addresses a different issue entirely. So stop pretending we don’t all know you’re just making stuff up and try harder.

---------- Post added at 15:23 ---------- Previous post was at 15:21 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Strange how, if the BBC is "anti-Brexit", it is often labelled "the Brexit Broadcasting Service" on lots of Leaver social media, and on websites like "Order-Order", which are very pro-Brexit.

Seems to be in the eyes of the beholder...

Which underlines the point that the BBC is actually doing the job it is supposed to when all sides accuse it of bias.

[Sephiroth]

I do happen to think there is bias at the BBC. My subjective view is based on editorial choice when bad news is reported and attributed to Brexit when that is not the only cause. Rarely/never do they attribute economic good news to “despite Brexit”. I’ve also noticed panel bias on QT.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I do happen to think there is bias at the BBC. My subjective view is based on editorial choice when bad news is reported and attributed to Brexit when that is not the only cause. Rarely/never do they attribute economic good news to “despite Brexit”. I’ve also noticed panel bias on QT.

You noticed that as well!

Nigel Farage appeared 32 times since 2000, and UKIP appeared in 24% of the QT shows in 7 years, despite never having more than 2 MPs, and there hasn’t been a pro-EU MEP on QT since 2002.

Definite bias...

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

You noticed that as well!

Nigel Farage appeared 32 times since 2000, and UKIP appeared in 24% of the QT shows in 7 years, despite never having more than 2 MPs, and there hasn’t been a pro-EU MEP on QT since 2002.

Definite bias...

Maybe I should have said since 2016.