Well I certainly think it's a desirable social service that we should endeavour to protect in its current form. Although it's worth noting that when the premium placed on goods to fund advertising is taken into account, we actually pay more for ITV than we do for the BBC. We don't have a choice over that, either.
San Francisco supports its own chinese television station (http://www.ktsf.com/ktsf_e/index.asp). So you are telling me San Francisco, with a Chinese population of about 250,000 can support its own chinese channel, but the UK cannot support minority channels and needs government intervention? If there were a chain BBC theatres showing independent and arts films where everyone were forced to buy tickets regardless of whether they actually wanted to see the films, what would be the prospects of the free market providing independent cinema? Zero. As I said before, DISPLACEMENT. For profit channels provide the entertainment people want. I don't see a problem with that. If what people want to watch is not important, then their opinions and tastes must be in some way be illegitimate. So are they? I'd argue quite confidently that it does. Funded entirely by a tax, with directors appointed only by the government. That's what matters. Again, DISPLACEMENT. Of course if the government funds BBC stations all across the country, then some artists who appear on the BBC will eventually become successful. Who decides what will be nurtered? Why did pirate radio have its place in british music history if the BBC oracles were guiding our music industry in the correct direction? And are you saying that with the arrival of internet radio that we STILL need state broadcasters to second guess the market? You are trying to mix two arguments here, the "high art" argument and the "minority" argument, in an intentionally misleading way. I have said clearly that minority interests can be served by a free market providing they are not displaced by a state monolith. I have also said that I have absolutely no interest in the government deciding what I should be watching, which is elitist. I see no need for anyone to decide, on behalf of other people, what creative excellence is. I would have thought you had enough confidence in the case for license fees to avoid this kind of semantics. I wonder how the newspaper market would have developed if there were a BBC newspaper that everyone had to pay a tax for - sorry pay a "newspaper reader's license fee"? Maybe a little displacement? I wonder if the BBC World Service, which is run for profit, is a den of capitalist corrupted evil within BBC headquarters, broadcasting horrible biased and non-independent programming around the world? Wow man, that's really deep. Yeah that's totally true except for the fact that you don't have to pay for ITV and you don't have to buy any products they advertise. Other than that excellent point though.
But in reality, you can hardly avoid all advertised products. I would have thought you had enough confidence in the case against license fees to avoid this kind of semantics.
The BBC is skint ... but they still are churning out channels . 1:46 BST, Wednesday 19th May 2004 -- by James Welsh BBC Broadcast will open offices in New York City during July, it has been announced. The commercial media services arm of the BBC is planning an "aggressive" expansion into America, and hopes to provide its services to both terrestrial and cable television channels in the US. "Our offering of high caliber award-winning work, talent and global entertainment perspective has not been available in the US until now," said Andy Bryant, BBC Broadcast's Director of Creative Services. "We see a tremendous opportunity in the U.S. marketplace as the market continues to grow and the desire for a unique perspective is in demand. With an expert team of creative service professionals on-staff in London, supported by the efforts of our soon-to-be-named US executive, we are now able to offer that same level of quality marketing and design solutions to networks here in America. Working as a commercial entity, BBC Broadcast delivers incredibly effective concepts and designs at a very competitive rate." BBC Broadcast's new offices will be located at 747 Third Avenue in New York City. They got rid of Eastenders from BBCAmerica... but are looking into creating an american version. The BBC supposedly has the best journalists in the world...but all 7000 are going 'back to school'. How come the oldest media outlet in the world is so screwed up. They make just enough to make it worth while ...but put it out at times and channels that not a lot of people have BBC3 - 4 for instance. Stop the Licence fee...let them survive with out us... probably better all round.
No, the idea is not to prevent you from the horror of being exposed to commercials. The BBC is not allowed to run commercials because that would be unfair competition with the for-profit networks for advertising dollars. This is the essence of the license fee. If you don't want the BBC, then fuck off you're not allowed to watch television. Well ain't that a system to be proud of. You have missed the point for the third time. IF YOU ARE SO HAPPY TO PAY THE LICENSE FEE THEN WHY DOES IT NEED TO BE MANDATORY? The answer is obvious, so you can force other people to pay it. So that the way YOU want things can be forced on OTHER people.
Not at all. In fact not much would change except that instead being forced to get a "TV license", people that want the BBC can pay to subscribe. There is no reason the BBC would need advertising. If so many people want the BBC, and are happy to pay the license fee, then why couldn't a system based on choice work? And if the problem is that most people would not choose BBC voluntarily, then why force it on them? I see a fundamental contradiction here - if everybody likes the BBC the way it is, then why wouldn't it survive if people were free to choose? Who's to say it wouldn't be even better?
"KTSF is an independent, full-power station, reaching over 1.4 million Asian-Americans throughout 10 Bay Area counties." A direct comparison is almost impossible given the totally different broadcasting environment and differences between the USA and the UK. Given these differences, this station is probably comparable to the local independent TV station which operates near me, serving a few cities in the area and focusing on local news and features. Consistently excellent representation of minority interests it certainly isn't. Your argument here is so muddy as to be totally incomprehensible. Are you saying there would be a vibrant and healthy independent film industry in this country if it weren't for public funding? On what do you base this assumption? Your metaphorical model is also flawed to the point of meaninglessness. The licence fee supports a vast range of BBC activities designed to appeal to and represent the interests of everyone in the country. It is very far from being a case of the masses subsidising elite cultural production in which they have no interest. By far the largest budgets go to extremely popular productions like Eastenders and mainstream drama, while minority interests, of the kind which are certainly not commercially viable, also receive funding and - crucially - the BBC's world renowned professional expertise. Do you believe that minority interests should not be catered for if they can't survive in the free market? If so, you are in favour of less choice, not more. What people want to watch is extremely important to the BBC, it's what they base their entire existence upon. The trouble with your model is that the free market will only provide the kind of broadcasting that enough people want to watch to make it highly profitable, and they would do this for the least amount of expenditure in order to maximise market efficiency. That's what profit led businesses do. This necessarily and unavoidably excludes non-commericial minority interests and tends towards homogeneity and ultimately, a lack of choice. The BBC by contrast focuses on not only providing broadcasting for what the majority wants, but also catering for minority interests in a consistently excellent way that the free market simply cannot match. You miss the subtlety of the argument I put forward regarding the encouragement of a climate of innovation away from direct commercial pressures. Try reading through it again. The results in the historical success and originality of British music speak for themselves. Also, don't keep calling the BBC a "state broadcaster", an autonomous public corporation is quite a different thing. Continuing to make this mistake just makes you look stupid. Firstly you have not made a convincing case that minority interests could be served at the level of excellence consistently attained by the BBC by the free market in this country. Secondly the government does not decide what you should be watching, you can watch whatever you want, provided you pay your licence fee - there's plenty of choice of media outside of the BBC. As for creative excellence, your point is irrelevant and meaningless. All broadcasting involves judgements and the creative standards of those involved, I made the point that a publicly funded corporation is free to do this away from the limiting pressures imposed by the concerns of market efficiency, and that excellence in creative standards in that situation become paramount. You fail to answer this point. Do you believe that nothing has value unless it has monetary value? That the higher the margin of profit, the better the product? Those are the criteria on which all profit-driven broadcasting is based. I've never made the case in favour of the current system of television licencing. Pay attention. You said you were "forced" to pay the licence fee, I simply pointed out that you are in no way forced to do something which you have the choice to avoid. Just a little accuracy! Besides all of which, what positive benefits would a privatised BBC actually bring? Why did you propose it? You haven't made a positive case for it at all. The only thing you've said is that it would survive in the marketplace - which is perfectly true, albeit with massive alterations bringing it closer to comparatively poor quality broadcasters like Sky and ITV. Try thinking through why you regard it to be a good idea, or is it simply an ideologically driven Pavlovian spasm?
here's a choice for you...if you don't want to watch it then don't pay your license fee...and don't watch tv...no-one is holding a gun to your head and making you watch tv...
I kinda gave up on being polite to him in a previous topic. He's an arrogant, patronising twat. Not only that, but he's so overwhelmingly convinced of the veracity of his own arguments that he treats anyone who disagrees with him with utter disdain. If he showed some respect towards the views of others, then I'd be more inclined to discuss the issues politely. As it is though, arguing with pointbreak just reminds me of wiping my ass after a particularly unpleasant shit.
Hmmm...I think this does kind of typify the point I made before. Some discussions on here are increasingly degenerating into verbal abuse slogging matches. Tis a shame.
Indeed. It's a shame that self-righteous, arrogant ass-holes seem to be coming here looking for a fight.
Precisely because the UK market is dominated by the tax funded BBC. Rather a circular argument. How much chance does an independent station have when it is being displaced by the tax funded BBC? I am not impressed that you simply brush aside independent, minority owned broadcasters giving their markets want they want in favor of the state solution. Don't let these communities control their own media, let the state provide correct media for them. You are deliberately avoiding my point about newspapers which directly addresses this issue, because you don't have an answer. If the BBC produced a daily newspaper, and everyone had to pay a "newspaper readers fee" regardless of whether they wanted to read the BBC paper, what impact would this have on the newspaper market? The BBC is 100% tax funded and its governors are appointed by the government. Who would have thought anyone could be fooled into thinking that doesn't make it a state broadcaster? Who would have thought that calling a tax a 'license fee' would fool anyone? I don't believe in cultural gurus deciding what I should be watching. I believe that people can be trusted to make their own decisions, and I don't want my tax money being used by cultural gurus who make film/music/television that nobody watches but which they decided is "creative excellence". How can you explain the spectacular successes in the US if profit is ruining these mediums? This is the essential lie to your whole BBC defence. Everybody supposedly loves the BBC just the way it is, and they are happy to pay the license fee. Yet if it were privatised, it would undergo "massive alterations" and become bad. Why, because the shareholders would want to drive their audiences away? Or because - as I think you really fear - the BBC would make some changes to give the audiences what they want, and audiences have incorrect wants, which need to be repressed. The benefits would be A) People who don't want the BBC would not be forced to pay for it. B) The BBC would actually answer to its audiences instead of cultural gurus appointed by the government and C) The BBC would not unfairly compete with other channels. Please try to answer my question. If you think most people like the BBC, and are happy to pay for it, then why do they have to be forced to pay for it? I think this is a fair question. Look at the BBC World. It is a for profit operation with advertising. Is BBC World bad? Is it corrupted? Is it biased and lacking independence? If not, why not?
Duh. It's not financially viable! Even local papers have struggled to survive over recent years. Given the much greater cost of TV production, what chance does local TV have? The implication of the term 'state broadcaster' is that the BBC serves the interests of the government. Seeing as the government of the day (be it Tory or Labour) are always whining about being treated unfairly, this is patently not the case. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!! Oh yeah, in a country where The Sun is the best selling newspaper, and Neighbours is a top rating scorer, sure, the people know what's best! So art has to be popular to be art? No many people who've been to the Tate recently? No, because they'd want to focus on the lowest common denominator and cater to the widest possible audience. Absolutely! And if you look forward to a diet of reality TV and soap operas, then there's really no hope for you. Nope. Not at all. Quite happy for commercial TV to cater for them. My heart bleeds for the poor darlings. I see. So your advocating the rule of the mob? Hang on. One minute you're blathering on that the BBC churns out minority interest programming in which nobody's interested, and the next you're arguin that it's competing with commercial broadcasters? You're changing your argument to suit your mood again. Easy. People are fundamentally selfish. Most people would be happy to pay for schools through taxation. If you made this voluntary, how many people do you think would pay? Again, simple. The world's a big market. Say 1% of people in Britain like a program. 1% of Britain would not be enough of an audience to justify making a program. Say 1% of the world like a program. Now it becomes profitable to distribute to that wider audience. Anything else?
I'm not sure who or what you are referring to, but I think this has been one of the politer argumentative threads I have read on here. Look at the ones in which Jonny2mad is involved for an example of belligerent superciliousness! For the record, I always feel guilty about calling people names (eg "monumental tit") but sometimes comedy value has to take precedence... There is another issue at hand, though - critical as opposed to constructive thinking. The way this one has evolved is a prime example of that. Pointbreak suggested an idea based entirely upon an ideological position, with no original constructive argument. He then proceeded to respond to criticisms of this ideological position by attempting to deconstruct the objections raised. There was no constructive thinking on his part to begin with - just look at the first post in this thread. Debates entirely centred upon critical thinking are perfect examples of the "clash" system in which there is the assumption that in order to prove a point right you need to entirely trash the opposing opinion. When often, a compromise of ideas or a direct engagement with constructive (rather than negative, critical, deconstructive) ideas would prove far more valuable. So, debates such as this always degenerate into orgies of criticism rather than evolving into a constructive and interesting exchanges of ideas. This is probably a subject for another thread, though...
I think the BBC does a decent job of providing a good service. It provides programming that other stations dont, and for that i am willing to pay. Even if it is a case of displacement that these programs are not shown by ITV, Sky etc, this would not change if it were privatised. If these are largely unique to the BBC, they are more likely to keep them going in this way because money is to be made in this way. Im not sure that a subscription service is feasible for the BBC, for one you cant do terrestrial subscriptions, so those of us still unable to push forward into the 21st century and get digital would loose two valuble channels (not profitable), and those subscribing to the new private BBC would be paying hugly more than present, look at Sky - £13.50 per month (admittedly showing more than just sky channels) The BBC is still a public service, its money comes directly from TV license, and as such is not government funded in the same sense as the NHS for example. This means it is vastly more accountable(for want of a better word) than ITV, where its only accountability is to shareholders and making money. With the BBC if a number of the population wants to see something, there is much more likelihood of it being shown on one of the BBCs channels (dunno how many of them there are now), than on a private channel whos existence is centred on profit. There are of course exceptions, however this is a general rule. If you are not happy with the BBC, you pay the ‘taxes’ for it, write to them tell them how you feel, they as a public service, must act if enough people share your view, this is the nature of democracy. I believe the vast majority of people to be content with paying for a service that caters for a large majority of people as individuals, rather than a company catering for a huge majority of individuals as a mass for profit. Sorry some of this probably covers old ground but I am, unfortunately, very opinionated. Doost
Duh. Then how do they survive in San Francisco? You may be thrilled to play the cultural elitist and judge other peoples tastes as being correct or incorrect. I'm not interested. Let peope watch what they choose to watch, read what they choose to read, and listen to what they choose to listen to. We don't need government to decide what people SHOULD be watching, reading, and listenting to. After all, what's on the BBC? Fame Academy? DIY SOS? Celebrity Sleepover? Eastenders? The Lottery? These are shows we need our license fee to pay for? No it doesn't, nor does it need BBC blessing to be art. Again, this essentially looks down on the idea of personal choice driving the market. We can't let the viewers decide what they want to see! What the hell right is it of theirs? Their tastes are incorrect. Both of which are on the BBC. Of course this is fictional anyway, look at US television. It's not all reality TV and soaps, even though the US has taken the bizarre approach of letting audiences decide what they want rather than having broadcasters decide what audiences SHOULD want. Indifference to freedom of choice and gleeful spite towards taxpayers makes you a good leftie. If that's what you call democracy. Individuals making their own choices have somehow become a "mob"? They manage to do both, obviously. Yes, you didn't answer the question at all. Here it is again: Look at the BBC World. It is a for profit operation with advertising. Is BBC World bad? Is it corrupted? Is it biased and lacking independence? If not, why not? Also, can you explain why we don't need a BBC newspaper?
Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like you agree with me on this aspect. People like it as is, and pay willingly. So under a subscription scheme, nothing would need to change. It's all going digital anyway, so the subscription problem will eventually be solved. The only way TV stations make money is by advertising. The only thing advertisers want is viewers. The only way to get viewers is to give them what they want. That's why I think free markets are more democratic. I'm not saying the market will cover everything, I'm saying that the vast majority of what the BBC does could be done by private broadcasters. To run a whole network and charge everyone in the country 100 pounds just for the small percentage of programming which really meets the public service goals is huge overkill, far more market interference than is necessary. There is a certain irony in the fact that most people are happy to pay for the license fee yet don't want it to be voluntary. But you are right, democracy says most people don't want it to change. ==== 3 QUESTIONS: 1. BBC World accepts advertising. Is it a corrupt, untrustworthy news source with no independence compared to regular BBC news? 2. We have no BBC newspaper. Why don't we need a newspaper reader's fee to support a BBC newspaper to give us unbiased, independent news and cater to minority voices which are not be served by the free market? 3. Most people like the BBC as is and are happy to pay the license fee. So why not let them pay voluntarily? ========================================= Interestingly the BBC has just published a document dealing with a lot of these issues since its charter renewal is coming up. http://www.bbc.co.uk/thefuture/
