Did you catch this debate on Today this morning concerning whether the BBC’s remit should be reduced over time to include only those programmes and services which the market would not provide? Former Sky TV executive, Martin le Jeune and the BBC’s director of strategy, John Tate, discussed what the corporation should be producing. I think that it is a very curious idea that the BBC should exist to produce programmes that no one would pay for, don’t you? Surely the BBC should be encouraged to produce programmes and services that people want – and then see if they sell them to us. That, of course, means the ending of that…ahem…”unique” means of funding.
REDUCE OR REMOVE?
Bookmark the permalink.
There is an argument to produce quality programmes that perhaps don’t get huge viewing figures, The Sky at Night being one that I’m sure gets low viewing figures but provides an educational function.
Where i have a problem with the BBC is spending money on political indoctrination via re-writing history (Robin Hood) or using family TV to promote left wing views (Dr Who)
At the moment to get good quality educational programmes you have to turn away from the BBC to Discovery and the National Geographic channels for example.
So why do I have to pay twice?
The BBC license tax is incredibly feudal,much like the medaeival church or nobles being granted the tithes and taxation rights to particular geographical areas.
Despite being jam packed with progresives,socialists,marxists,crypto-communists anarchists,Maoists,Stalinists and Liberal Democrats,the BBC is a throwback to an earlier,less enlightened age.
Garden Trash: It is very strange that the BBC is still funded in the same way it was 60 years ago.
The licence fee is just another drug to the BBC and like the cocaine and smack that many of them use they need to be weaned off it somehow.
Making the BBC work for its money would be a good start.
there is a logic to that – commercial channels will not produce that which is unprofitable
they will stick to soaps, reality tv and sensationalised news (see the US with its ‘action news’)
no documentaries, special interest shows or political programming
the beeb shouldnt exist the way it does.
as it exists currently it should only make educational material.
beeboid idea of educational at the mo is indoctrinal
Lets not fool ourselves…the BBC does produce some quality program content.
Its just that to get to it you have to wade through so much bile its not funny!
The BBC should focus on what it does well (without the bias) and leave commercial channels to produce programming people will pay for.
The problem with the BBC producing content that people will pay for is that the BBC has an advantage that no other commercial channel does, that several billion pounds a year tax!
So, stick to things like quality documentaries (less the global warming ™ bias), childrens shows like in the night garden…and lets start seeing some quality political shows that Fox airs (ie. letting people see BOTH sides of the coin).
Mailman
Martin – Where i have a problem with the BBC is spending money on political indoctrination via re-writing history (Robin Hood) or using family TV to promote left wing views (Dr Who)
What about Torchwood. What was the purpose of making the main protagonist gay? What bearing does his choice of partner and preferences in the sack have to anything? Good luck to him for his lifestyle choices but does where his todger ventures affect aliens then? I think not.
IMO it was simply so they could tick the box on the diversity forms. Thats also why Friar Tuck has just morphed into a Black martial arts expert and next will proabably become ‘Imam Tuck’ a one legged lesbian eskimo seeking to relate to 15th century Nottingham.
Think of the boxes that would tick!
BBC – a shower of shi’ite or something like that.
Tarquin –
Not quite. The History Channel and many Discovery Channel outlets, not ot mention HBO, A&E and others produce documentaries that rival the depth and quality that the US non-profit broadcaster PBS does. And PBS usually does them in conjuntion with the BBC,CBC, and other entities funded through involuntary means.
Quality children’s programming, even some that is entirely free of advertising is also being rivalled by market-based operators such as Qubo. The same goes for arts programming (Ovation), craft/cuisine/DIY stuff, and just about anything that was traditionally the bailiwick of PBS and CBC, even though they continue to produce that content.
Radio and television providers focussing on non-majority musical tastes (i.e. Opera, Symphonies, regional forms like folk and jazz) have also found their place on free to air, satellite radio, and on the net.
Other than broadcasting government proceedings (from local to national bodies), there is simply no reason for there to be an internal government broadcaster. None whatsoever.
Tarquin:
“they will stick to soaps, reality tv and sensationalised news (see the US with its ‘action news’)
no documentaries, special interest shows or political programming”
That pathetic argument doesn’t wash with the likes of :
National Geographic HD
Discovery HD
History HD
National Geographic Wild HD
& Sky Arts HD
being extra charge premium channels does it ?
The concept of high quality specialty programming which otherwise wouldn’t get done is very nice (Performance on 3, for example), but will this include BBC News or not?
If I become a dentist in the U.K., will anybody come to me? Why do the English have worst teeth than Zulu tribesmen in Africa? That’s why they call it French kissing and not English kissing!! Does one dentist exist in London? I thought you people had health insurance?