[DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread

[iup=3534683]Moggy[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3534675]Holpil[/iup] wrote:Come on now, I think a member of the fire service or an NHS nurse would find some offense to being compared to a BBC reporter who's likely to be on a comparatively huge salary but ultimately funded from the same source. For the sake of both sides of the argument I think financial transparency is something that needs taking more seriously at the BBC, they do need to be held to account much more in some areas where their spending is concerned.

Edit: Then again, on balance, there are many people in highly paid marketing roles within the NHS, even at a very local level where you could argue they shouldn't be there. You can't win when it comes to fair spending of absolutely huge organisations like this, and privatisation probably isn't the solution.

I agree firemen and doctors are different to the BBC. My point is that there are people in this country that would privatise the NHS and Fire Brigade as they don't believe in publicly funding such organisations.

I think it would have been better to have just plainly said that, rather than analogise services essential to mass human well-being with services essential to only a relative few.

Whilst I personally think the BBC is a fantastic service and worth every penny, I can sympathise with the criticism of the principle of paying for it being a legal requirement even if you don't use or value the service.

That said, I also don't understand why anyone would single out the BBC. I can think of far more onerous things that have been funded by taxes that I'd face imprisonment for withholding.

The BBC and NHS are, indeed, more or less the only two things that I fund through taxes that I feel I am getting a good deal out of! It is a shame to hear people seek to privatise them. We would without a doubt lose two of the things that make this a nice place to live.

Karl wrote:The BBC and NHS are, indeed, more or less the only two things that I fund through taxes that I feel I am getting a good deal out of! It is a shame to hear people seek to privatise them. We would without a doubt lose two of the things that make this a nice place to live.

Definitely. When I think that my TV license is less than a tenth of my council tax it's amazing value for money.

[iup=3534754]TimeGhost[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3534683]Moggy[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3534675]Holpil[/iup] wrote:Come on now, I think a member of the fire service or an NHS nurse would find some offense to being compared to a BBC reporter who's likely to be on a comparatively huge salary but ultimately funded from the same source. For the sake of both sides of the argument I think financial transparency is something that needs taking more seriously at the BBC, they do need to be held to account much more in some areas where their spending is concerned.

Edit: Then again, on balance, there are many people in highly paid marketing roles within the NHS, even at a very local level where you could argue they shouldn't be there. You can't win when it comes to fair spending of absolutely huge organisations like this, and privatisation probably isn't the solution.

I agree firemen and doctors are different to the BBC. My point is that there are people in this country that would privatise the NHS and Fire Brigade as they don't believe in publicly funding such organisations.

I think it would have been better to have just plainly said that, rather than analogise services essential to mass human well-being with services essential to only a relative few.

I could have, I preferred turning Cal's post around to compare to other public funded institutions that most people want and a relative few want privatised.

To be fair, I do think the BBC is far, far bigger than it needs to be. At the very least, it should be...rebooted from the ground up.

Some of their output can be deemed essential, but the vast majority of it really isn't. It's an unusual organisation in many ways. Dysfunctional, really.

I would gladly pay a subscription for the BBC, I think its brilliant. Find it odd out of all the things to complain about, its the BBC, when like Karl I would consider it and the NHS the best things about the country.

One criticism of the BBC I have that would, if addressed, provide a better defence of the service is a stronger focus on educational shows, especially for children, and other documentaries, rather than aping commercial TV's focus on lowest common denominator tripe like Strictly Come Dancing and The Voice.

There's definitely a case to be made that it's a positive thing to have a service provider that's not dependent on income from advertisers supplementing subscription incomes and that can thus simply focus on making programmes without a profit motive; allowing them to take chances on new talent and underserved niches (like kid's shows that can't be easily turned into a toy range (Blue Peter, Horrible Histories and Newsround spring to mind as examples that were never matched on commercial channels)) that for-profit commercial rivals are often less inclined to explore.

As I say, I personally adore the BBC, but if it delivers little to distinguish itself from commercial outlets, I can understand criticisms of the funding model.

I must admit that the frequency the TV Licencing send out letters is a bit much. That's really what pissed me off the most. I used to return them to the sender marked as 'not known at this address' they still kept sending them though.

Despite that though I still think the BBC is great value for money and the only UK broadcaster that I actually watch content from. Especially as I don't legally have to pay for it

[iup=3534771]Karl[/iup] wrote:The BBC and NHS are, indeed, more or less the only two things that I fund through taxes that I feel I am getting a good deal out of! It is a shame to hear people seek to privatise them. We would without a doubt lose two of the things that make this a nice place to live.

Well the NHS yes, but as much as I like them, I can live without Top Gear, Dr Who, the Great British Bakeoff and The Apprentice, the only things I use the BBC for.

I don't like the way the BBC chases ratings. Surely the idea of a public service broadcaster is to produce stuff that wouldn't be catered to by blind profit motive. They are about the only network that can actually afford to take huge risks with the types of programme so it seems strange they they do not do so more often.

[iup=3535161]Meep[/iup] wrote:I don't like the way the BBC chases ratings. Surely the idea of a public service broadcaster is to produce stuff that wouldn't be catered to by blind profit motive.

Ratings are representative of how many people are watching. On a publicly funded network, there is no point in putting out programmes that no one is going to watch. The BBC has niche channels devoted to niche programming, such as BBC4 if you really care about that stuff.

[iup=3535161]Meep[/iup] wrote:They are about the only network that can actually afford to take huge risks with the types of programme so it seems strange they they do not do so more often.

Every other network (except maybe C4) can afford to take the same risks.

[iup=3534591]Karl[/iup] wrote:The BBC is a public service. You can't opt out of paying National Insurance if you prefer BUPA - and you shouldn't be able to opt out of paying the license fee if you prefer ITV.

A public service should not have biased reporting. I don't think a public service like the BBC should operate as a news service at all, it is almost impossible to report without any bias at all, no matter what way it's leaning.

The BBC ceasing its news broadcast operations would be like FIFA halting all football matches.

[iup=3535211]Alvin Flummux[/iup] wrote:The BBC ceasing its news broadcast operations would be like FIFA halting all football matches.

The same way because both would be for the greater good?

i hate football...

The BBC may be a British institution, but that does not mean that it cannot improve and should never change. The BBC does have a lot of good qualities, it has/has had some of the best documentaries, comedies and drama and other entertainment programming in the world, but I think this is also one of the ways it hookwinks the public into accepting it's monopoly and bias.

[iup=3535213]Faust[/iup] wrote:The same way because both would be for the greater good?

i hate football...

I mean in the sense that it's never going to happen.

[quote="[iup=3535213]The BBC may be a British institution, but that does not mean that it cannot improve and should never change. The BBC does have a lot of good qualities, it has/has had some of the best documentaries, comedies and drama and other entertainment programming in the world, but I think this is also one of the ways it hookwinks the public into accepting it's monopoly and bias.[/quote]

There's always room for improvement, and of course it should change to better itself, but I don't think getting rid of its news broadcasting is the way to go at all. I'd take the BBC News over shite like CNN, ITV, MSNBC and others any day; it's easily some of the very best reporting in the world. Yes, there's always going to be some bias there, but even so it remains one of the very best, most trustworthy names in journalism on the planet, and compared to many other news broadcasters, the bias of the BBC News is very subtle.

[iup=3535213]Faust[/iup] wrote:The same way because both would be for the greater good?

i hate football...

I mean in the sense that it's never going to happen.

[iup=3535213]Faust[/iup] wrote:The BBC may be a British institution, but that does not mean that it cannot improve and should never change. The BBC does have a lot of good qualities, it has/has had some of the best documentaries, comedies and drama and other entertainment programming in the world, but I think this is also one of the ways it hookwinks the public into accepting it's monopoly and bias.

There's always room for improvement, and of course it should change to better itself, but I don't think getting rid of its news broadcasting is the way to go at all. I'd take the BBC News over shite like CNN, ITV, MSNBC and others any day; it's easily some of the very best reporting in the world. Yes, there's always going to be some bias there, but even so it remains one of the very best, most trustworthy names in journalism on the planet, and compared to many other news broadcasters, the bias of the BBC News is very subtle.

[iup=3535214]Alvin Flummux[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3535213]Faust[/iup] wrote:The same way because both would be for the greater good?

i hate football...

I mean in the sense that it's never going to happen.

[quote="[iup=3535213]The BBC may be a British institution, but that does not mean that it cannot improve and should never change. The BBC does have a lot of good qualities, it has/has had some of the best documentaries, comedies and drama and other entertainment programming in the world, but I think this is also one of the ways it hookwinks the public into accepting it's monopoly and bias.

There's always room for improvement, and of course it should change to better itself, but I don't think getting rid of its news broadcasting is the way to go at all. I'd take the BBC News over shite like CNN, ITV, MSNBC and others any day; it's easily some of the very best reporting in the world. Yes, there's always going to be some bias there, but even so it remains one of the very best, most trustworthy names in journalism on the planet, and compared to many other news broadcasters, the bias of the BBC News is very subtle.[/quote]

The favoured journalism is often the one that agree's with the readers stance.

Maybe you should stop supporting right-leaning policies and then you'd not care about the BBC's bias.

[iup=3535221]Stugene[/iup] wrote:Maybe you should stop supporting right-leaning policies and then you'd not care about the BBC's bias.

Yes of course, because we should all become placid and accepting like sheep. No, that mindless herd mentality does not suit me.