Save Newsnight!

disgruntledgoat

Surely the BBC should be there for programmes which other stations lack the resources to produce or that do not represent mass appeal and are, therefore, unattractive to wholly commercial stations. What does Radio 1 offer that the DAB stations on a freeview box can't these days? What role does BBC 3 fulfil? This is particularly true now the BBC outsource production of a large number of programmes.

The genuine public service stuff (iplayer, documentaries, natural history, news etc) could probably fill 2 TV channels and 3 Radio Stations, the rest is just sprawl to attempt to compete with ITV etc. I never listen to Radio 3, but I can see it's value. I also never watch Snog, Marry, Avoid and can't understand why the BBC commissioned it.

For years now, the beeb has attempted to play it both ways, having all the benefits of being state funded (large budgets, multiple locations, thousands of staff) but none of the drawbacks (accountability, transparency, not making Celebrity Dog School).

That and the Newsnight report on Welsh Care Home Abuse would have shamed a local freesheet. Appalling journalism from the bottom up.

GiantMike

Having seen a lot of TV around the world I can't think of a better broadcaster than the BBC. It doesn't make it perfect, and I'd happily shoot the Strictly Come Dancing production team in the face*, but it is far better than the commercially-funded dross elsewhere. And the licence fee pays for radio too. I listen to Radio 4 a lot and would hate to have adverts for Dave's Carpets every 5 minutes.

*disclaimer. This is a Clarksonesque joke not a declaration that I intend to GBH them all. Maybe.....

GiantMike

disgruntledgoat wrote:

That and the Newsnight report on Welsh Care Home Abuse would have shamed a local freesheet. Appalling journalism from the bottom up.

Unfortunate turn of phrase

finchy

B.M.R. wrote:

It's time the BBC either scrapped the license fee and started advertising (Adverts are annoying, but I don't see why I should pay £12 a month just to not have any), or made the BBC channels pay-for-view and charged £12 a month that way. The current system is archaic, dictatorial, and monopolistic.

I would say that if you were going to go down this route, it would be better to have subscription-only channels and no advertising. Make no mistake, all of that advertising money comes out of your wallet, and if you can't afford the satellite channels, that's even more unfair than having to pay a licence fee for the BBC which you can watch/listen to if you so choose.

finchy

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Surely the BBC should be there for programmes which other stations lack the resources to produce or that do not represent mass appeal and are, therefore, unattractive to wholly commercial stations. What does Radio 1 offer that the DAB stations on a freeview box can't these days? What role does BBC 3 fulfil? This is particularly true now the BBC outsource production of a large number of programmes.

I agree with you up to a certain point, but 2 objections come straight to my mind:

1) How would you define "mass appeal"? Should the BBC be barred from making popular comedies such as Only Fools and Horses or Fawlty Towers? Given that ITV has more or less given up on comedy and Channel 4 goes for minority comedies such as Peep Show and imported sitcoms, I'm not sure which other channels would be willing to produce shows like these.

2) Would that not then lead to accusations that the majority are funding the minority?

I would prefer to see the BBC forced to increase the proportion of genuine public service broadcasting, slash budgets so that we aren't just getting over-produced shows which are more about style than substance and not paying "star" presenters massive wages.

finchy

tiredofwhiners wrote:

The BBC DG admitted that yes, surprise surprise, the BBC was full of left wingers and despite their best attempts to be balanced, they couldn't. they haven't changed since then by all accounts.

2010 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvan ... mpson.html

He was talking about the situation 30 years ago and he says it's completely changed now. If you believe him when he talks about the what it was like 30 years ago, why don't you believe him when he talks about the situation today?

tiredofwhiners wrote:

You only have to look at the last decade of reporting where the balance tends towards the 'business bad - employees always good' angle and in every dispute its about the people wanting more and never about the survival of their employer longer term. It has however changed tone over the last few quarters, with a lot more 'our businesses are actually very good' programmes. Polls show 76% of the populations support a £26k benefit cap (60% support even lower!) but the BBC plays the left wing angle of why its unfair to Somalis living in Knightsbridge. They rarely report the side of people paying more taxes to support the lifestyle of non-workers.

Can you provide any actual evidence of this bias? You know, links to news items on the website, etc.? They've got all of their articles archived, so given just how biased it is, it shouldn't take you long.

tiredofwhiners wrote:

They still noticeably however 'promote' news on public sector disputes and protests and almost never provide a counterbalance on the lack of support the protest get from the majority of UK workers. Given the lack of support from the public at large, public sector strikes should be a footnote on the news - not the main item.

They report the government view and the view of the striking workers. What's so bad about that?

tiredofwhiners wrote:

The BBC has also been quite fairly criticised for providing undue publicity and a voice to fringe views, in a manner which is out of proportion to the level of support of the fringe view. The recent example was the recent MMR vaccine situation where they continued to give the same airtime to the banned Doctor and to the medical consensus when fair balance' would be 99% of the airtime being the latter with a brief statement to say 'Doctor X believes otherwise but nobody else thinks he is sane'. Even when the doctor was disbarred, the BBC continued to give equal prominence to his views despite them being utterly refuted.

In attempt to provide balance, the BBC shows its bias in giving its own minority beliefs/politics more prominence than they deserve.

True. They also give a voice to the likes of James "it's all a Marxist conspiracy" Delingpole on global warming, despite the fact that he obviously knows absolutely nothing whatsoever about science. Does that mean that they are biased to the right?

Frank the tank

I don't care what anyone says I believe the BBC is excellent value for money, at least we all know how much it costs.

How much does ITV cost Joe public? No one knows because it's imposible to calculate. Therefore how can anyone say whether it's good value or not.

I know one thing, since the deregulation of TV the results IMHO have been very mixed. Standards of some broadcasting has been improved but there isnt half a torrent of sh1t filling the schedules.

verylonglegs

The radio is its best output by a long way imo so it's an odd situation for me as I don't pay the licence but would be loathe to lose the radio stations. So yeah, fantastic value from my point of view as I enjoy stuff I don't pay for!

finchy

Frank the tank wrote:

I know one thing, since the deregulation of TV the results IMHO have been very mixed. Standards of some broadcasting has been improved but there isnt half a torrent of sh1t filling the schedules.

Too true. I sometimes flick through the digital channels and just think "that's sh*t... that's sh*t... that's sh*t... that's sh*t". Sky is even worse.