BBC: important institution or passed sell by date

[mamafeelgood]

in an attempt to steer a thread away from estate agents, kids and LL etc... i was wondering what people think of the BBC.

i see it as an important provider in an age where radio 4 and bbc 4 would not exist without the way the bbc is funded. since hutton i have found that the press is all too happy to slate the corporation and 'queengate' certainly has not helped.

am i the only person who believes that the bbc remains an essential organisation that should be appreciated for all that it offers?

[david_carnell]

No mama you are not the only one who belives that.

I continue to believe that the BBC provides a service far in excess of the cost of its license fee. You only have to watch SkyOne for a day to see that its competitors who rely on advertising funding have a poor output by comparison.

BBC4 is, at last, a channel that does not pander to the lowest common denominator and the range of digital radio stations the BBC provides is outstanding.

I, for one, hope it continues to be revered as an august institution and treated with respect by both government and the commercial media. The fact that it is unique in being able to ignore commercial pressures enable it to provide content second to none.

[citizenED]

I concur, the beeb has got to be one of the best things about living in Britain - no ads on TV, no ads on radio, some brilliant presenters, range of programming is awe-inspiring...etc, etc

[Nero]

It ia worth the licence fee, but there is some complacency there. Nero

[Jah Lush]

Indeed yes in full agreement. No commercials is the major plus and the quality of it's programming. Of course I sometimes think that the licence fee is a bit of an outrage but realise you can't have one without the other otherwise or we'd end up having commerical breaks every ten minutes like they do in the USA.

[Brendan]

I think it is a very worthwhile institution. If only for the invaluable service it provides internationally by delivering objective news to people in countries that do not have access to it because of totalitarian regimes with state controlled media.

I know many South Africans and Zimbabwains who use the BBC?s website and radio broadcast to help them filter through the state run propaganda that gets fed to them through the local media in those countries. I?m sure that in other parts of the world where the situations are even worse the same applies.

Although having said that it is not completely immune to turning the odd blind eye to the a little bit of international ?foul-play? by the UK.

[cdonline]

The BBC does many great things. Some of which don't often get mentioned, such as the many Orchestras they run.

But of late, I get really angry at the continual snipping at this Government, that seems to go beyond presenting a balanced picture. Speculation has taken over from investigation, even to the point that the speculation becomes the News.

The News approach seems a combative one and it often seems that they are taking a stance that all politicians set out to lie. It may be right, but eventually it leaves us all bitter and twisted that everybody in Government is out to decieve us, which I don't believe.

[Alan Dale]

?135 per annum does seem a bit expensive.

Whilst I take the point about the relative quality of the output of the BBC and commercial organisations I'm not sure whether people who never watch or listen to BBC programmes should subsidise those who do.

I suppose it could be viewed as a tax levvied on TV users in order to pay for educational programmes but then if that is the case why should it be used to pay for Strictly Come Dancing?

I think there is a case for state funded television for informative and educational TV but there is no sense in being forced to pay a fee to give them a competitive advantage when they go toe to toe with ITV to show karaoke competitions and soap operas.

[mockney piers]

Vast room for improvement and need to some u-turns on their dumbing down especially with the likes of Panorama and to a lesser extent Newsnight and Question Time, but still the best broadcasting institution in the world, and a necessary part of the national fabric.

I'd be happier for them to up the licence fee realistically rather than hamstring resources.

Let's see, who ruled on that recently, a certain 'culture' secretary perchance?

Sooooo the it's ok for the olympics to go 7 billion over budget.....

*edited to say here here to AD, ban reality tv and celeb lite shite from the beeb I say*

[downsouth]

For me it is money well spent and supports Uk talent in the fields of broadcasting, drama, journalism, music, education, comedy etc...

YEs it sometimes gets things wrong and is often victim/stooge of the Government of the day, but I for one and happy we have it.

[mamafeelgood]

i ask this to keep discussion going:

is it fair to pay for high brow output if most people don't care about it?

also,

as an information providor are they doing enough to anticipate new viewing habits? ie: online on demand etc...

[Thequietone]

At ?135 per annum it is effectively a household tax. Even if you could disable access to the BBC you would still have to pay.

That is wrong.

By being a tax and going their own sweet way we pay for incompetence and feather bedding same as with all nationalised industries and the civil service.

The concept of the BBC is great. "And nation shall speak unto nation." But the reality of Celebrity Come Dancing is just a slap in the mouth if you have an IQ in double figures.

Get rid of it.

Paul

[Alan Dale]

> is it fair to pay for high brow output if most

> people don't care about it?

That's what you get in comprehensive schools up and down the country.

[mockney piers]

Surely in a public service broadcaster it's always better to try to elevate, even if it that's not always appreciated.

The BBC's remit is to have a balanced output, but now that there are so many channels churning out dross I's say it's almost their duty to be a little bit highbrow.

But then I can listen to noodly jazz or watch the late review til the cows come how, even when I haven't got the foggiest idea what they're on about.

It's a great soporific in ways ready steady cook can't compete with, if nothing else.

[wee quinnie]

I absolutely love the BBC, however I really cannot see why they need both BBC3 AND BBC4. If they weeded out all the repeats, would they have enough to fill even one of these channels?

By the way, I am loving Flight of the Conchords.

[david_carnell]

I thought it was possible to avoid paying the TV license if you actively de-tuned your TV so that it was unable to receive the BBC channels. I may be wrong.

It is certainly better to put out content that seeks to educate and inform rather than entertain. That is what ITV is for.

As a public service provider it does have to sometimes mitigate all its good work with cack like the aforemention Come Dancing, Fame Academy etc etc. Whislt I would be happy to watch Olivier-narrated documentaries or Attenborough wildlife films all day I appreciate that the unemployed and students have to be catered for...eg Neighbours and Ready Steady Cook.

I think post 7pm the BBCs content is of a fairly high standard on average.

[Nero]

Remember, people, we are not just talking about the TV channels - 1, 2, 3, 4, HD, but also the radio stations - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 1 Extra, 5 Extra, local and regional radio, Asian network, Radio Cymru and Radio Nan Ghadheal (sp), World Service - in English 24/7, plus all the language services - including Burmese, Chinese, Russian, and Cantonese, BBC Online, regional telly, regional websites, orchestras, neighbourhood initiatives, campaigns. There truly is something for everyone, and actually, a lot of things for everyone.

The whole 'dumbing down' is a canard. The BBC has always had fun programmes - Generation Game, anyone?

Anyone who thinks it is not worth having, or, more likely, uses his antipathy to the licence fee to call for a ban, is really not thinking fairly. Nero

[mockney piers]

>'dumbing down' is a canard. The BBC has always had fun programmes - Generation Game, anyone?

Yes, but Panorama was once a serious documentary/investigative journalism programme, not a docudrama/newstainment half hour slot. And news readers were once serious journalists, not pretty girls fresh out of uni.

Totally agree with you regards just how much the BBC offers, but I'd ignore the dumb-quacking at your own peril.

[mamafeelgood]

panorama debate is interesting. my dad was a producer/director in the golden years when it was often regarded with caution by policticians, much like the today prog of today. they made them under extreme pressure and very demanding editorial standards. i agree it's dumbed down to disgrace BUT is it not catering for a section of society that wants what they are now producing? and by keeping the panorama tag they don't have to package a new title.

then ... i suppose channel 4 has picked up with dispatches etc... and on bbc4 there is a wealth of interesting docs, some investigative some just watching the world go by (did anyone see the great one about the chinese school class monitor election?). has the hole that panorama left not been filled by other docs?

[mockney piers]

Fair point, and I guess the answer is possibly. Perhaps if they ditched the Panorama moinker and got Fiona Bruce to do it, it would better suit the target audience.

[downsouth]

Even if it is a tax it is one of the few I am gladly willing to pay. What is the alternative?

[mamafeelgood]

i am still intrigued to see where they (bbc) will sit in the future world of myspace telly etc...

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

BBC is bloody great, can't stand watching/listening to adverts from some slick arsehole trying to get everyone paranoid about their breath/toilet/armpits/spots/fat bits etc.

What's wrong with hi-brow. I know taxi-drivers who listen to Radio 4 all day. I listen to radio 4 and the world service pretty much all day too. Can't be bothered watching a lot of telly, but we all pay the licence fee, so we should all be catered for. Lo-Hi, and middle brow.

[Jah Lush]

Or if you're like the Gallaghers mono-browed. Oh! sorry I'll get me coat.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

I thought you meant the Gallaghers from Shameless at first, so was a bit puzzled! Did I get the name right? I'm crap with names.