National News The BBC

[Sheik djibouti]

If you were to put BBC "dross" as a percentage of "dross" available on Freeview, I am pretty confident it would be favourable in comparison.

In any case, one persons dross is another persons quality programme (weren't you rather fond of watching Pointless/Eggheads whilst you cook @Essexyellows )

 

[bashamwonderland]

That depends on what you think of as "quality" - "quality" sports presenters cost money. He has also taken a large pay cut recently.

Cheaper 'filler' is still of interest to some people. The majority of the country still watches BBC daily at some point. If channels only existed on the basis of what some people consider 'quality programming' then the Sky channel list wouldn't be hugely long.

The only reason the BBC is an 'issue' is that Murdoch despises it, and has waged a long war against it, both via his media, and via his political interference.

The only reason is because Murdoch despises it? Where do you get that from? I think the fact that you have to have a licence/pay a tax to watch TV (a UK only concept - wonder why it hasn't caught on elsewhere...) and they send goons to your house to check you've paid it, combined with the lies told about "licence detecting vans" and the stream of false-threat letters that is getting people riled.

Add to that the ever-widening gap between what the customer wants and the rubbish that is actually being served up to them (more drag queens, anyone? Or how about a BLM Vicar of Dibley crossover episode? What do you mean the audience hates it!? Bigots!) and you see why the discontent is growing.

Commercial outlets shouldn't be propped up by the taxpayer unless absolutely necessary. A media company is not absolutely necessary. Charge me £150 per year and re-nationalise the utility companies or do something genuinely worthwhile.

 

[Marked Ox]

Unlikely - times are changing.

There is an awful lot of good quality BBC output alongside a lot of mundane dross, that needs weeding out, if the organisation wishes to retain its stature.

The other problem for the BBC is how we consume our viewing now and how much it is changing and at pace

I probably watch 70%+ on catch up rather than live and it might be the same for many others.

Then there is the competition, we don`t have SKY, but we have Freesat (part funded by the licence fee IIRC), Netflix, Amazon Prime and some sport channels as part of our BT package. If the BBC was thrown into that mix for "premium" programmes we would probably subscribe to it.

It's also surprisingly easy to not pay the licence fee if you so wish.

Your mundane dross is somebody else's good quality output.

 

[Wandering Yellow]

To be honest, I watch very little BBC content and I do find it irritatingly anti-British in its output, but this is so obviously an attempt by the Tories to distract from that moron Boris's Downing Street raves.

 

[chuckbert]

I look forward to bbc content being shown here. Subscribed to britbox for a bit, but didn’t get enough use of it.
I don’t recall any anti-British content anywhere.

 

[OUFCGav]

The only reason is because Murdoch despises it? Where do you get that from? I think the fact that you have to have a licence/pay a tax to watch TV (a UK only concept - wonder why it hasn't caught on elsewhere...) and they send goons to your house to check you've paid it, combined with the lies told about "licence detecting vans" and the stream of false-threat letters that is getting people riled.

Add to that the ever-widening gap between what the customer wants and the rubbish that is actually being served up to them (more drag queens, anyone? Or how about a BLM Vicar of Dibley crossover episode? What do you mean the audience hates it!? Bigots!) and you see why the discontent is growing.

Commercial outlets shouldn't be propped up by the taxpayer unless absolutely necessary. A media company is not absolutely necessary. Charge me £150 per year and re-nationalise the utility companies or do something genuinely worthwhile.

But those people are a large minority, and are likely more influenced by the agenda driven my the Murdoch media empire.

I think that what the customer wants is an ever fragmenting thing. It is seen across the whole media spectrum. Just because you deem drag queens rubbish, doesn't mean they are not enormously popular.

 

[OUFCGav]

To be honest, I watch very little BBC content and I do find it irritatingly anti-British in its output, but this is so obviously an attempt by the Tories to distract from that moron Boris's Downing Street raves.

anti-British? Ah yes, like not playing the National Anthem at the end of programming.

 

[SteMerritt]

I think the fact that you have to have a licence/pay a tax to watch TV (a UK only concept - wonder why it hasn't caught on elsewhere...)

That's not true though, from reading the link I posted earlier apparently the Nordics all have a tax-based system, and was it chuckbert who suggested it's the same in Australia as well?

 

[bashamwonderland]

But those people are a large minority, and are likely more influenced by the agenda driven my the Murdoch media empire.

I think that what the customer wants is an ever fragmenting thing. It is seen across the whole media spectrum. Just because you deem drag queens rubbish, doesn't mean they are not enormously popular.

A large minority? Again - where are you getting that from? Yougov (I'll admit to being cautious when it comes to polls) tracks audience opinion on the BBC and consistently shows - since tracking began in 2019 - that a majority of people say the BBC does not offer good value for money and that a significant minority believes the TV licencing model is the best way to fund it.

Where's your evidence to suggest the Murdoch empire is controlling public thought on this? Or do you say that because you just disagree with Murdoch media?

Hopefully if the content they produce is as popular as you suggest the business will thrive on it's own merit / funding. Netflix etc. proves that we aren't afraid to spend on quality content.

 

[RyanioBirdio]

I for one welcome the destruction of all media that isn’t privately owned.

 

[bashamwonderland]

That's not true though, from reading the link I posted earlier apparently the Nordics all have a tax-based system, and was it chuckbert who suggested it's the same in Australia as well?

You're right on the general model (should have been clearer) but Australia doesn't have it because they abolished them in the 70s and i don't think it's a crime not to have one in Scandinavia.

 

[SteMerritt]

You're right on the general model (should have been clearer) but Australia doesn't have it and i don't think it's a crime not to have one in Scandinavia.

I believe it is an additional tax on income from what I heard on the radio this morning, so in theory more people will be paying than if it was a licence per household. The thinking was along the lines of the more you earn the more you pay up to a price cap. I guess its sort of a half-way house solution, definitely not a pure subscription model.

 

[QR]

The only reason is because Murdoch despises it? Where do you get that from? I think the fact that you have to have a licence/pay a tax to watch TV (a UK only concept - wonder why it hasn't caught on elsewhere...) and they send goons to your house to check you've paid it, combined with the lies told about "licence detecting vans" and the stream of false-threat letters that is getting people riled.

Add to that the ever-widening gap between what the customer wants and the rubbish that is actually being served up to them (more drag queens, anyone? Or how about a BLM Vicar of Dibley crossover episode? What do you mean the audience hates it!? Bigots!) and you see why the discontent is growing.

Commercial outlets shouldn't be propped up by the taxpayer unless absolutely necessary. A media company is not absolutely necessary. Charge me £150 per year and re-nationalise the utility companies or do something genuinely worthwhile.

Do you only watch BBC programmes that you don't like?

 

[chuckbert]

You're right on the general model (should have been clearer) but Australia doesn't have it because they abolished them in the 70s and i don't think it's a crime not to have one in Scandinavia.

The ABC is funded by the tax payer and you can’t opt out because it’s just part of your tax.
If you don’t pay tax you don’t need to fund the national broadcaster.
It does however mean that the abc budget is not ringfenced and can be more easily altered by the govt.

 

[Sarge]

be careful what you wish for ( as someone once said) ..... - without wanting to reopen the brexit can of worms, (which thus far has brought in higher fuel prices, higher energy prices, higher food prices, lower/ no wage increases ,) what is claimed to be 'good' for all ( BBC wasting money/ not impartial/ etc etc) by rich media barons very probably in reality is the exact opposite.... the BBC maybe isn't everybody choice for viewing , there are few programmes I watch regularly that are screened on a BBC TV channel these days, however the BBC licence funds more than 3 terrestrial plus one online TV channel, there's also BBC radio National stations, as well as BBC LOCAL radio ( such as BBC radio Oxford ), it will highly likely be Local BBC radio stations that get axed, or merged if the licence fee is scrapped - BBC Oxford sport IMO are second to none in the coverage they provide of OUFC , and for that matter other Oxon based sport teams/ clubs/ organisations too.

I'd miss the coverage of OUFC on BBC Radio Oxford if this government fuckover the BBC

 

[OUFCGav]

A large minority? Again - where are you getting that from? Yougov (I'll admit to being cautious when it comes to polls) tracks audience opinion on the BBC and consistently shows - since tracking began in 2019 - that a majority of people say the BBC does not offer good value for money and that a significant minority believes the TV licencing model is the best way to fund it.

Where's your evidence to suggest the Murdoch empire is controlling public thought on this? Or do you say that because you just disagree with Murdoch media?

Hopefully if the content they produce is as popular as you suggest the business will thrive on it's own merit / funding. Netflix etc. proves that we aren't afraid to spend on quality content.

YouGov (and I have an account on there) is as representative of the wider British public as this forum is of the wider OUFC fanbase.

there is a difference between controlling and influencing. There has been a regular tide of articles in the Murdoch owned press that exactly mirror the personal opinions of the ownership. The ownership are led by their own commercial self-interests in the attacks.

 

[bashamwonderland]

YouGov (and I have an account on there) is as representative of the wider British public as this forum is of the wider OUFC fanbase.

there is a difference between controlling and influencing. There has been a regular tide of articles in the Murdoch owned press that exactly mirror the personal opinions of the ownership. The ownership are led by their own commercial self-interests in the attacks.

Ok you're welcome to question my evidence, but earlier you said it was a significant minority opposed to the BBC as though that was fact. What is that based on? Or is it just your guess?

Do you think some of the core messages of the Murdoch media might genuinely resonate with people, or are we all being maliciously influenced into wanting an alternative funding model for the BBC to serve the aims of the Murdoch empire?

 

[bashamwonderland]

I believe it is an additional tax on income from what I heard on the radio this morning, so in theory more people will be paying than if it was a licence per household. The thinking was along the lines of the more you earn the more you pay up to a price cap. I guess its sort of a half-way house solution, definitely not a pure subscription model.

So it's not a licence but it's not commercial - which again I would find problematic - but in any event it's not backed up by conspiracy "TV detector vans" and goons with misleading court enforcement and investigation letters.

My point is simply that it makes sense for people to choose to fund whatever media it is that they wish to consume.

 

[SteMerritt]

So it's not a licence but it's not commercial - which again I would find problematic - but in any event it's not backed up by conspiracy "TV detector vans" and goons with misleading court enforcement and investigation letters.

My point is simply that it makes sense for people to choose to fund whatever media it is that they wish to consume.

Yes, I get you point, and am in some ways sympathetic to it. Personally I'd rather it stayed as it is, because the BBC provides a hell of a lot more than just 3 channels and Radio One. Having a company that isn't beholden to advertising or in the pocket of billionaire media moguls can only be a good thing for choice.


Not to mention the fact it really gets under the skin of the far left and far right, who hilariously think it is biased towards the other side. Comedy like that is priceless

 

[bashamwonderland]

Yes, I get you point, and am in some ways sympathetic to it. Personally I'd rather it stayed as it is, because the BBC provides a hell of a lot more than just 3 channels and Radio One. Having a company that isn't beholden to advertising or in the pocket of billionaire media moguls can only be a good thing for choice.


Not to mention the fact it really gets under the skin of the far left and far right, who hilariously think it is biased towards the other side. Comedy like that is priceless

Someone did make a good point earlier in praising BBC Oxford's football content and I must say I agree with that. So I can understand people have a fondness for it.

As an exile though it angers me that I have to theoretically pay twice for BBC Oxford if I'm outside of Oxfordshire . I don't get that - we pay for BBC Oxford, just for them to give it to Ifollow to whack a further charge on?

Stuff like that just keeps me from having any level of warmth towards it.