privatising public services fails, just look at our transport system!!! the bbc already pisses me off with all it's digital channels, and how all programs are shown on there before on terestrial. the bbc should remain public, we have too little public services left, and having something like the bbc in the media industry is priceless
Yeah, and look at all the quality TV pumped out by private TV companies in America, and Sky, and the ITV.....
Fuck... here we go again... I really get annoyed at these people who believe that privitisation is some kind of holy grail... it isn't... it is a shit idea... Don't get me started on this... Fly... .
Privately owned media suffer from much more bias and partisanship in things like news coverage and current affairs, too. The American model is a good example of how the free market produces dumb television. The Beeb is uniquely different, largely because of its status as a public corporation and legally enshrined duties to be fair and non-partisan in news, and representative of minority and non-commercial interests in radio and television.
This is instinctive hostility and little more. Do we need a BBC newspaper? I mean shit how do we survive without the BBC to publish a "fair and non-partisan" paper for us helpless citizens? The very idea that most people like the BBC the way it is should be evidence enough that it would attract a huge market without state support, and in fact would seem to indicate that it could positively flourish once it became free to compete as it chose. America produces great television without state intervention. Does nobody have faith in the UK to produce great television without the state to guide it? Why am I being forced to pay for the BBC? Do I need the state to decide FOR ME what is good media?
But this misses the point... the very fact that commercial broadcasters have to compete with one another for ratings and advertising means that they are incapable of producing material which is minority interest or not commercially viable. Which is fine if you believe that value is nothing more than a monetary term, but the BBC is arguably uniquely capable of producing valuable broadcasting which would not survive in a commercial environment. The BBC's charter makes representation of minority interests and investment in new talent its duty! Case in point - commercial radio. Which commercial radio stations invest time and money in new and unsigned bands and play records which never have a chance of getting into the charts? Only BBC Radio 1 and 3's specialist programming is capable of doing this precisely because it does not have to compete for advertising revenue. We have a very valuable cultural resource as a result. You could make the case that the existence of BBC radio and its investment in new talent is one of the reasons we have had such a vital and innovative music industry in this country over the last forty years. Throw the whole thing to the marketplace and the investment in, coverage and nurturing of new talent will in a moment stop happening in such an inclusive and openminded way. Commerce seeks saleability over inherent quality, while the BBC is the reverse: a sanctuary of quality over monetarism. Lose the publicly funded BBC and our broadcast and journalistic culture will be vastly diminished as a result. Well, have a look at ITV and Sky, our major homegrown commercial networks ... they have nothing rivalling the consistent level of excellence in original programming achieved by the BBC. In large part this is because of the way the BBC is run as a public service. You're not forced to pay for it. You have to pay if you want to watch broadcast tv. If you don't want to pay for it, get rid of your TV. You can still enjoy radio for free.
Very typical of your attitude. Dismissing opinions simply on the basis that they don't conform to your own view of the situation. There's little point arguing with a zealot.
This is hardly the point of the BBC. The major networks in the US produce plenty of minority interest programming. How does BET survive? How do the Hispanic channels survive? They don't need a TV license forced on the whole country. For the narrow audience that listens to this stuff, having the whole country subsidise their listening tastes may seem great. But what about the rest of us? Why does the US have such a vital and innovative music industry if it doesn't have a giant state TV station to 'guide' the arts in some enlightened way? This is the textbook definition of elitism. It is important that the stupid masses subsidise the artistic preferences of the superior minority. Ridiculous. I have to pay for a service I don't want. And I don't feel priviliged that the government "allows" me to enjoy radio for free. One of the fundamental problems with these arguments is DISPLACEMENT. All the things we like on the BBC exist only because of the BBC. How do we know the private networds wouldn't do these things on their own if the BBC wasn't doing it? Because either one of two things are happening: a lot of people are being forced to pay for something they don't want to watch and won't watch, in which case this is pure elitism, or else everybody wants to watch the BBC in which case why can't the be allowed to pay for it voluntarily? And why don't we need BBC newspapers? Why doesn't the BBC publish books? How can us helpless citizens survive without the BBC providing us with these media?
LMAO!!!! You're so fucking ignorant that you can't even see the wood for the trees! I suggest a better example of elitism might be the way that you just assumed that the 'stupid masses' don't have any artistic preferences and aren't interested in quality television.
The BBC produce the best programmes, they are the amongst the world's largest news agencies. Best of all they remain their own entity by not always subscribing to the politics of the government like other national stations seem to do in other countries. However I agree that they sometimes appear to have left wing bias ... maybe this is because they are not being influenced by money grabbing corporations just out for a profit. I'm not sure if any other countries have a television license system, maybe someone else can answer this. However, the licence might no longer be the best way for them to be funded as it isn't fair that the people who don't watch have to pay. I personally hardly ever watch television, but often listen to the radio. One idea might be something like a subscribtion service that included radio as well. Another idea might be for the government to stop wasting its income on useless American wars and start investing some of our tax into homegrown industry such as our BBC.
I hardly watch TV, but I'm happy to pay for my TV licence in order to keep funding the BBC - in the same way that I'm happy to pat taxes for the NHS and schools, neither of which I've currently got any use for.
I'm the one that thinks people should choose what TV they want. You're the one that thinks BBC should be imposed on people. Why don't you think about that for a while. Exactly. People who want to watch BBC can subscribe to it. How can that be a bad system? Everyone seems to think that the BBC is great and everyone likes it AND YET the can't accept the idea of people being allowed to freely choose the BBC. Why is that?
America has a huge Hispanic population, so that sort of programming survives on the free market model. A more valuable comparison is the one I made with our own commercial TV stations, ITV and Sky. Do they cater for minority interests in the way the BBC does? Do they achieve consistent excellence in original programming? No, because they are run for profit and have to compete as economically as possible for the maximum number of viewers. If you took away the BBC would they suddenly up their game to the BBC's level? That's not the way profit-led businesses work. Firstly I'd argue that the US does not have as vital and innovative a music industry as the UK. For such a comparatively small country, we have been world leaders in music talent for decades. Secondly the BBC is not a state TV station, it's a legally autonomous public corporation. Thirdly, nurturing new talent affects the entire culture when these artists "break through" to the mainstream as has been seen time and again with artists whose first break was on the BBC. It also encourages a culture of innovation and creativity - one which feeds the entire British music industry in a quite unique way. The BBC serves minority interests - note the plural. A multiplicity. A plurality. It is a public service mass media broadcaster which is obliged to represent the interests of the entire population; minority interests alongside majority ones. You say the BBC is elitist, its charter says that it is to represent the interests of the entire population. Those two are not compatible, unless you regard any minority interest as inherently elitist. Take away the publicly funded BBC and the entire population will not be represented in broadcasting by the free market and broadcast culture will be homogenised along monetarist lines. Do you believe that profit margins and market efficiency are the best indication of creative excellence? You said you were "forced" to pay the licence fee, I made the point that you're not. As the law stands, you choose to pay it or not have a TV. Just a technicality. The BBC does publish books. Newspapers are an entirely different market, with a history quite distinct from that of the broadcast media. Although you could make the case that the BBC is venturing into 'printed' news with BBC Online.
Well good for you then. You'll be happy to pay for a voluntary subscription BBC too. The question is why the fact that you WILLINGLY pay means other people should be FORCED to pay.
Why not? You're 'forced' to pay for schools, hospitals, roads, the military, local council services.... etc etc etc. You're 'forced' not to kill people. You're 'forced' not to rape people. You're 'forced' not to steal. Why shouldn't you be 'forced' to pay for the BBC?
Well that really told me, huh? I love the way you've intelligently addressed the point and rebutted my excellent point. Oh, hang on, you didn't, did you? You're the snob here dude. Totally hypocritical and elitist.
I think that would depend on whether you saw the BBC as a vital service, necessary for the wellbeing of the country and its inhabitants or just a mechanism for entertainment.
