The British Broadcasting Corporation....

[admin_exported]

In the last few moments the BBC Trust have issued a reply to James Murdoch and attempted to outline where it sees the future of the Corporation and the License Fee going forward....

I have not seen the exact wording of the reply... but I laughed at James Murdoch attack. Without getting too political I find that the son of Rupert (purveyor of Fox News and News International) finds the BBC 'chilling'...

I trust the Corporation far and beyond the Media Mafia we can group under the title of 'The Murdoch's', I am proud of a Corporation that fights to maitain its unbias (as much as anything can be) view of news reporting (a good example of this is that I actually sourced, for this post, a copy of James's speech at the BBC web portal - if James had his way I would of had to pay for that from News International, if they carried the story - has anyone else noticed that The Times does not like running stories about China and that Sky seems to be doing well in China?) & I feel the Fee is good value....

Anyway I just wanted to do a straw poll of what people thought about the BBC and the services that they provide? Are they 'chilling'? Are they too big? Is the License Fee too large?

Interested what people feel about this as a lot of the content we now listen to and stream is probably from the Beeb....

 

[hammill]

Having spent a fair bit of time in the US and also having lived in Germany, Norway and Holland, I am very glad we have the BBC -there is simply nothing in the world to compare with it. The highly politicized parochial news (if you can call it that) you get in the US is particularly worrying - which is what we would get if the Murdochs had their way.

 

[chebby]

I cannot begin to imagine how different my life would have been without the BBC.

It is almost part of my very being.

The BBC is not beyond criticism but the alternative is unthinkable (to me).

 

[Clare Newsome]

Charlie Brooker's opinion in Saturday's Guardian is a highly amusing take on Murdoch vs BBC

 

[hammill]

Clare Newsome:Charlie Brooker's opinion in Saturday's Guardian is a highly amusing take on Murdoch vs BBC
Yes, read it on Saturday. Recommended.

 

[fatboyslimfast]

chebby:The BBC is not beyond criticism but the alternative is unthinkable (to me).

Well said that Chebbster...

 

[Anonymous]

Clare Newsome:Charlie Brooker's opinion in Saturday's Guardian is a highly amusing take on Murdoch vs BBC

Just read it and it is exactly the riposte that Murdoch deserves... had himself and his father been providing a BBC-esque service then his words might of hit a target... but coming from a man who represent an avatar of Fox News & The Sun then it is laughable.

The only depressing thing that is in Charlie's view is that the current BBC is merely awaiting Cameron to dismantle it....

 

[Anonymous]

why pay for something i never watch rather give fee to nhs

 

[Anonymous]

The BBC produce some excellent programmes but also an awful lot of rubbish as well. There is no way they need £3.5 billion per year and could still produce excellent stuff on much less money.

I am sure it is not in the BBC's remit to become the largest news broadcaster in the world but that is what has happened, I would definately say they are certainly not unbias. They won't mention the word "terrorist" and you never hear them criticise Palestine.

IMO, could do the same job with a lot less money. They sent more staff to the China olympics than the Britsh athletics team, and waste huge amounts of money on outdoor broadcasts/Flights(1st class)/accomodation.

If they had nothing to hide, why can't we see what the so called "talent" earns (Chris Moyles), and what about the BBC accounts?

Otherwise pretty good job.

 

[the record spot]

The BBC - not beyond criticism, very few public bodies are, but, rather like the NHS, it does its job well and the cultural benefit alone to us (live arts events, etc.) is worth enough to justify the fee IMO.

 

[a91gti]

The licence fee is a bloody liberty.

 

[chebby]

Whereas I would willingly pay another £50 per year if asked to.

 

[laserman16]

Likewise, brilliant value for the money.

 

[Anonymous]

chebby:Whereas I would willingly pay another £50 per year if asked to.

Cheers, I will inform the corporation that you are willing to pay £50 of my fee.

Anyone else like to contribute?

 

[laserman16]

Clare Newsome:Charlie Brooker's opinion in Saturday's Guardian is a highly amusing take on Murdoch vs BBC

Perhaps an element of truth in it as well.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree. It is a bargain when you compare it to the average sky package and think about the number of radio stations and media outlets in runs.

People will always loath being forced to pay for something but I think what they do is brilliant. Something for everyone and something to be proud of.

The BBC News site is regularly awarded for its content and design and something I'd dearly miss if it went.

 

[JamesPianoman]

Good

• News coverage
• Sports coverage
• Website

Bad

• Guaranteed licence fee = complacency and waste and 100's of reporters tripping over each other all the way through the sports calendar
• Endless magazines (at vast cost) on everything from flowers, through food and family trees

Solution? Halve the licence fee. If the beeb wants to operate in loads of other markets, like selling Top Gear around the world then fine- use this income to make up the shortfall in the licence fee.

Rant over. Think I'll head over to the BBC website to check the weather for the weekend...

 

[Anonymous]

That expenses release tarnished the beeb for me. Although every single company uses loopholes and tax relief, it is a public corporation and should be subject and accountable to the same rules on expenses civil servants are.

And they should cap ridiculous contracts for idiots like Mr J Ross.

IMHO, of course.

 

[idc]

I like the BBC, but I would prefer it if;

they ended the use of presenters with regional accents and a returned to the clipped and easy to understand tones of Valery Singleton and Mr Chumley-Warner,

stopped wasting money on focus groups,

stopped the News going on about bad stuff like wars.

had Top Gear on all the time.

 

[a91gti]

As I watch maybe three hours of BBC tv a week it seems a ripoff. Surely now most folk view via some form of digital thingie we could just pay for what we view?

 

[chebby]

andrewknight:As I watch maybe three hours of BBC tv a week it seems a ripoff. Surely now most folk view via some form of digital thingie we could just pay for what we view?

No, because for most BBC viewers/listeners it would cost a bomb compared to the current arrangement. (39p a day for unlimited access to BBC television, radio on Freeview and FM and DAB, website, iPlayer)

Perhaps you never use a public library. Would you also like to bring the day closer when no-one can borrow books free of charge with a scheme to allow us to 'opt out' of the little bit of the council tax that pays for libraries if we personally don't use them?

 

[sometimesuk]

I think as a whole the BBC is great and we would be worse off without it.

The license fee costs approximately £12 a month, which is similar to some Sky or Virgin T.V packages, but offers far more services. You have the T.V, radio, internet etc all to suit all different tastes. Without the BBC there would be no radio stations like BBC 3 coverage of the proms or Operas at the Met, or interesting topics covered on BBC 4.

As for shipping loads of people over to cover the olympics, I think they pretty much covered ever event and with loads going on at the same time, you are bound to need staff to report this and technical staff to ensure everything is covered. The alterantive would be to pay Sky £50 for only half the coverage.

The BBc do say that its international arm does make money through selling programmes they have produced, so this cant be a bad thing.

I do think that it coudl say money by getting rid of "minority" services, such as anyother channel with a number higher than 3, and some of the radio stations too.

On a similar note, I also think that Channel 4, also produces some really good programmes so.

 

[professorhat]

andrewknight:As I watch maybe three hours of BBC tv a week it seems a ripoff. Surely now most folk view via some form of digital thingie we could just pay for what we view?

Might suit you, but certainly wouldn't suit me. Barring the last two England matches, everything I watch is on the BBC - Formula One, Match of the Day, Dragons Den and Shooting Stars (I'm not a big telly watcher, but considering the vast cost someone has to pay to watch the Premiership season live, £11 odd a month is small potatoes for the entire Formula One season, including the practise sessions now). Also, now BBC iPlayer is so much easier to use on the PS3, I find I turn to that in moments of boredom rather than Dave!

 

[professorhat]

JamesPianoman:Solution? Halve the licence fee. If the beeb wants to operate in loads of other markets, like selling Top Gear around the world then fine- use this income to make up the shortfall in the licence fee.

Erm, maybe I'm missing something, but isn't this what they already do?

 

[chebby]

sometimesuk:
I do think that it coudl say money by getting rid of "minority" services, such as anyother channel with a number higher than 3, and some of the radio stations too.

If you are referring to BBC4 then hands off! I love that channel.

I love Radio 2, 3, 4 and 7 and World Service and my youngest daughter loves Radio 1

The 'minority' services are partly what gives the BBC it's unique appeal. The depth and breadth. On radio everything from hip-hop to Bartok and stuff for every generation.