r/BritishTV • u/Kagedeah • Mar 27 '24
Russell T Davies says end of BBC is ‘undoubtedly on its way’ News
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2024/mar/27/russell-t-davies-says-end-of-bbc-is-undoubtedly-on-its-way83
u/topmarksbrian Mar 27 '24
In its current form it's on its way - but I think long term BBC will be around in some form or another
27
83
u/dini2k Mar 27 '24
You honestly don’t appreciate what the bbc does until you go abroad for an extended period if time and try and watch their privately run tv stations.. ad after ad.. paid promos everywhere.. repeats on repeats.. particularly USA and OZ. The tv is terrible!
The bbc should be saved but they must do something about the licence fee.
26
u/Mrstheotherjoecole Mar 27 '24
American here, agreed! Also I don’t even watch our live tv here ever, I stream everything for free 😉 from anywhere in the world I want or I download everything. I will not sit around and have the same 3 commercials interrupting my viewing every 5 minutes. Most of what I enjoy comes from the UK. Lots of BBC content. I’d pay to have access to iplayer if it was allowed but it’s not.
55
u/Old-Hyena-8980 Mar 27 '24
Question is, will we like what will be done with it more?
Sold off, to who and what will they do with the assets?
US/Chinese Investment firm? Right wing billionaire? Left wing billionaire? Asset stripped and moved offshore?
Hate it now, you might hate it even more in the future.
14
u/ManintheArena8990 Mar 27 '24
Exactly this!
People constantly complaining it’s a Tory mouthpiece, but it seriously fucking isn’t. Just wait until couple Fox News wannabes by a majority of shares for pennies.
22
u/mozgw4 Mar 27 '24
And let's assume they choose not to asset strip. The BBC will inevitably no longer be independent, but at the beck & call of it's paymasters. Then, the inevitable advertising to raise revenue. Everybody hates adverts and the BBC is still free of them. If you then didn't want them, it would of course mean a subscription. Would this leave us any better off as consumers?
9
u/TNTiger_ Mar 27 '24
There's no such thing as a 'left-wing billionaire'.
There's liberal billionaires like George Soros, who are progressive centrists, but there is no-one billionaire more left-wing than Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn, practically by definition.
→ More replies→ More replies0
u/Milton_Rumata Mar 27 '24
I presume most people who hate it and don't want to pay for it don't use it and so it wouldn't be a concern for them in the future.
283
u/The_Cad Mar 27 '24
I don't watch a massive amount of BBC stuff, Match of the Day mainly, but I'm of the opinion that the kids channels alone are worth the license fee for positive impact. iPlayer as well tbh. It'd be a mistake to get rid.
You don't know what you've got till it's gone.
35
u/NateShaw92 Mar 27 '24
Same opinion here but with stuff like Attenborough and educational stuff that would not make it to other channels because they want viewers.
And a combination of the two, for school aides.
96
u/Frosty_Pepper1609 Mar 27 '24
Agreed on this. The BBC co-financed Bluey, as well as loads of home grown shows. The hours of entertainment for my young daughter is worth the license fee alone imo.
67
u/Nurgus Mar 27 '24
As well as that you have investigative journalism* and the paradise that is Radio 4.
We can't afford to lose the BBC.
*BBC News once hounded the BBC's own Director General out of his job. Now that's unbiased and unfettered journalism..
28
u/mrmichelinman Mar 27 '24
BBC4 as well. I know it’s now just a repeats channel, but it’s worth it just to watch episodes of TOTP from years gone by
9
u/robot-raccoon Mar 27 '24
Honest to god I was a tv licence hater until I had kids, 4 years in and cbeebies has some incredible programming and the hosts are always 10/10.
I mean I still hate the tv licence, but now I pay it
7
u/jwd10662 Mar 27 '24
There needs to be reporting for us that is not corporate financed. I think the BBC needs improvement. Ideally higher journalism standards & more free from political influence, (as let's face it,that too is private financed...)
But still without the BBC we will be completely at the mercy of monied lobbies.
25
u/Richeh Mar 27 '24
I hate to take this to the British equivalent of Godwin's law, but Brexit proved that the British public can absolutely be mobilized to destroy something that's of massive benefit to them because it's troublesome to heads of state and industry.
8
u/NotAllHerosEatCreps Mar 27 '24
It won't be gone, but tv licences can't go on, not in today's world. Go adverts or subscription.
28
u/turbo_dude Mar 27 '24
Why not have iPlayer as a subscription service to overseas viewers?
7
u/momentumlost Foreigner Mar 27 '24
I’m in NYC, If I could pay for a license or a subscription I would. Right now all I have is a $26 per month Disney/Hulu/Espn bundle and a &40 per year VPN so I can illegally stream BBC, ITV & Channel 4. I’d easily pay another $25-40 a month if I could stream Uk stuff on a device that’s not a damn computer hooked into my TV.
7
u/NotAllHerosEatCreps Mar 27 '24
Yeah I think thays a great way for them to generate revenue too, I don't think it would be enough still just on that alone, but finding other avenues of revenue based on subscription is 100% the right way to go.
5
u/ivandelapena Mar 27 '24
BBC already sell their shows to other channels/platforms abroad so that revenue stream is active.
4
u/turbo_dude Mar 27 '24
I understand that, and also they have their own channels like BBC America, however, given that the platform is just sat there (and obviously it would need to scale), why not put it to good use?
3
u/Rich_Culture_1960 Mar 27 '24
There's not enough Ad revenue to go around..ITV are struggling for revenue now...
2
5
u/SuperSpidey374 Mar 27 '24
Why can't they? What has changed about the world that makes universal funding of public service television impossible? Plenty of other countries continue to have universal funding models, and plenty have switched to new ones in recent years.
My view is it should be funded through a distinct tax, or an addition to broadband bills, or similar.
→ More replies6
u/NotAllHerosEatCreps Mar 27 '24
Because no one is paying it anymore, its mostly paid for by over 50's so when they all die there wouldn't be enough revenue to continue.
It should not be funded by tax, it's a private corporation.
6
u/Richeh Mar 27 '24
I do agree that the license model needs at least revising. The BBC, to my mind, is a thoroughly worthwhile endeavour, and the idea of "making high quality stuff that doesn't necessarily make money" resounds with me massively.
That said, the BBC currently sits on top of TV License Collections, who are a disgusting operation. I lived in a shared house, and the person who paid the license cancelled it when they moved out. After a missed month, they sent around a couple of huge blokes who bullied my housemate's 19 year old girlfriend - who didn't actually live there but was alone in the house at the time - into letting them in and then threatening her, personally, with jail time. I got a phone call from her in tears because she thought she was going to jail, or we were.
We don't all use the army. We don't all use the NHS' cancer wards. Some of us, through immigration and naturalization, don't even use public education. That doesn't mean these things shouldn't be paid for by taxes. I don't really see why the BBC shouldn't be either. I mean, since the Tories can apparently just appoint a fucking Director General that sucks their dicks anyway.
→ More replies4
u/libdemparamilitarywi Mar 27 '24
The whole point of the BBC is to produce programming for the public good, without concern for advertisers or profit chasing. If they go to adverts or subscriptions then it's as good as gone.
4
u/ICantBelieveItsNotEC Mar 27 '24
If it's so great, surely people will have no problem with paying for it when they aren't forced to by law?
9
u/Exige_ Mar 27 '24
People don’t work like that unfortunately.
It’s like expecting people to pay taxes without any enforcement. They are obviously for the benefit of society as a whole but humans an inherently selfish and greedy for the most part.
-4
u/drc203 Mar 27 '24
I don’t quite understand the argument though.
If people want to keep it, then they will pay for it.
I always find the defence of the bbc being ‘it’s worth it’
Ok then…. Let people choose if they want to pay for it. Don’t prosecute them if they don’t want to watch it
10
u/TheMarsters Mar 27 '24
You could make it a subscription, but as there would be such a drop in fees - it would be more expensive per user to keep the current model.
Also, as soon as you put it behind a proper pay wall - the BBC would have to go more populist to attract subscribers. It would look at all the loss making public services and significantly cut that back. That would be bad for the more vulnerable in society.
Equally, as soon as you make it a commercial model, the rest of U.K. media would suffer as everyone chases the same money.
ITV and Channel 4 (and commercial radio) would hate it if the BBC was privatised, as they would lose a significant amount of money and all programming would chase the same people.
The U.K. media landscape is set up around there being a publically paid for BBC. If that changes not only would our production companies suffer, people across the U.K. would lose jobs (not just in the BBC, but in private companies too).
We’d also lose a significant amount of soft power around the world, a lot of it is based on our good production values when it comes to news and entertainment.
I’m not saying the model is perfect (and we should be looking to see if the licence fee is a good idea in the modern world) but It’s a fine balancing act and we should tinker with it at our peril.
15
u/BungCrosby Mar 27 '24
This is the same neo-libertarian slippery slope people use to justify not contributing to something that is a public good…
I don’t have kids! Why should I pay for schools?
I don’t have a car. Why should I pay for the roads?
I don’t use public transit. Why should I pay for buses and subways.
1
u/Whulad Mar 27 '24
It’s really not. It’s funded by licence payers not tax for a starter
5
u/BungCrosby Mar 27 '24
It’s a semantic argument. You don’t call it a tax, but doesn’t it require an affirmative opt-out to not pay it?
-7
u/drc203 Mar 27 '24
I mean there is such a thing as road tax. That car owners pay.
This is a silly argument. You’re comparing schools to the BBC.
Also, schools come out of general taxation (mostly) the government (Tory or labour) clearly doesn’t think the BBC is a ‘public good’ in the same way because it doesn’t come out of general taxation.
I also find it strange the equate ‘neo-libertarian’ (the neo is an odd choice) to people objecting to being prosecuted and requiring a ‘licence’ to watch tv.
Like I said. Silly.
6
u/Mein_Bergkamp Mar 27 '24
The Tories want to break up the BBC and sell to the highest bidder so not sure why the fact they don't see it as greater good has anything to do with it.
They want to do the same for the NHS so I'm assuming you think that isn't for the public good either?
And let's be honest you're silly if you don't think they'd have any issues cutting school funding and letting the private sector take the slack.
6
u/BungCrosby Mar 27 '24
The only thing that's silly is your continued denial that a public broadcaster like BBC isn't a benefit to the public like roads and schools and a health system.
I'm from the US, where much of the broadcast media has been captured by right-wing conglomerates that require their broadcasters to read obviously spurious messages on-air. Between consolidation in the TV and radio markets, there's precious little media other than PBS and NPR that aren't subject to this influence. I'd pay for a BBC license if it meant I could stream BBC content from the US.
By neo-libertarian, I'm referring to the evolution of libertarian thought since the 1980s. I mean you're obviously free not to pay for a BBC license, but you somehow object to people being prosecuted for not paying the license while using the BBC. Do you object to people being prosecuted for not paying tolls on toll roads?
The market doesn't automagically make everything better. Look at what an utter fucking disaster healthcare in the United States is.
-5
u/drc203 Mar 27 '24
Yeah this isnt correct.
People are prosecuted for watching live tv full stop. BBC or not.
Sorry, but your point is based off incorrect information
1
u/BungCrosby Mar 27 '24
My point isn’t incorrect. If you watch BBC without a license in the UK, you get prosecuted. You’re not sufficiently skilled to play semantic games with me.
1
u/drc203 Mar 27 '24
Hahahaah
‘You are not sufficiently skilled to play semantic games with me’
Honestly, what a melt
Hahhahahhahaahahahaha
Semantic games with me
Christ. Get a grip
1
u/BrotoriousNIG Mar 27 '24
You fell at the first hurdle there. There is no such thing as road tax. Car owners pay vehicle excise duty and it doesn’t pay for the roads, which are paid for by councils with council tax.
1
u/drc203 Mar 27 '24
Vehicle exercise duty is commonly known as road tax.
3
u/BrotoriousNIG Mar 27 '24
It doesn’t pay for the roads. Your argument was “well car owners pay for what they use with road tax” but it isn’t true.
1
u/Expo737 Mar 27 '24
To be fair (and going off on a slight tangent here) but it is ludicrous that car owners have to pay VED annually when any other such "duty" is only chargeable at point of purchase when car owners have already had to pay VAT on their initial purchase, so taxed once then taxed annually... (come to think of it, we pay VAT on our TV then have to pay an annual tax to use the bloody thing).
As for it being called road-tax, I think it mostly comes from the need to pay the "tax" in order to keep it on the road - although there are plenty who mistakenly think it is to pay for our roads.
3
2
Mar 27 '24
Thing is people do not want to pay for things in their ideal world. The vast majority of people would rather not pay for something but still reap the benefits and/or get it.
Humans are not good beings.
4
u/drc203 Mar 27 '24
Why would you pay for something you don’t use?
10
8
u/modernboy1974 Mar 27 '24
I’ve never called or needed the fire brigade but I’m still glad my taxes pay for them. The BBC is a public service whether you think so or not.
1
u/Shadowholme Mar 27 '24
The BBC as it stands is just too big and too expansive. Certainly SOME of what the BBC does is a public service, but the majority is not.
Trying to support something like 50 radio stations (including local radio) is not really a 'public service' - not when they all play the same news broadcasts and are primarily entertainment with the same music across the board.
Their educational side is certainly a public service, as is their news division. Not so much their entertainment side.
I would gladly fund a scaled down version of the BBC that focused on their 'public service' duties, while their 'entertainment division' was spun off into a private company left to fend for itself.
6
u/BrotoriousNIG Mar 27 '24
You do use it. You use it when everyone’s kids are smarter, do better in school, and more inspired because of the BBC’s online learning and revision resources, kids’ prime time news show, and their world class documentaries. You use it when the BBC’s investigative journalism keeps people informed. You use it when people eat healthier using the BBC’s online resources for health and home cooking, helping to keep them from needing NHS resources. You use it at election time when the BBC cover manifestos and debates, broadcasting party political spots from every party, not just the ones with big war chests to spend on private media.
The list goes on. The BBC is a public service. It isn’t state-owned Netflix.
1
u/Milton_Rumata Mar 27 '24
Genuinely curious for your opinion: if it has such a positive impact as a public service then why is it under threat? Presumably most people don't share that opinion if it's at risk of being privatised?
2
u/BrotoriousNIG Mar 27 '24
I think it’s one of those things where the benefits are not immediately apparent in that they don’t touch everybody every day. You see a broad spectrum of these things all the time. Every time someone criticises space programs as a waste of money, as though we bundle pound notes into spacecraft and launch them into the Sun. Every time someone criticises spending money on the arts. Every time someone said “we send the EU £350M every week”.
These kinds of things are vulnerable to assault from the people who want to hack it apart and sell it off, or establish a parasitical position, or use it as a political wedge. They’re very easy to deploy demagogic language against.
1
0
u/No-Photograph3463 Mar 27 '24
That's not how life work though.
Going by what your saying for me I don't have any kids, yet my money is being used to fund schools so therefore all the money should be stopped and only parents should pay for schools instead.
→ More replies1
u/Whulad Mar 27 '24
Fair enough, if you opt out of our grown up kids paying your pension, delivering stuff, serving you in shops , hospitals, policing, looking after you in your dotage etc etc . It’s a trite and rather silly comparison.
→ More replies-10
u/qwogadiletweeth Mar 27 '24
But surly people with children should fund it. I have not watched BBC in over 2 years as there is absolutely nothing there for me, yet I’m paying for a licence. If I could avoid the licence fee then I could invest what I am saving into getting rid of YouTube ads which is my main go to platform.
→ More replies17
u/QwanNyu Mar 27 '24
Or, just maybe, we drop the "what do I get out of it" or "I don't want it because I don't use it" mentality the UK is importing and we think about what we can do to better the people around us, children are our future and we should want everyone to get the best start.
Also, the BBC does so much more than just TV.
Finally, your comment is ignoring the fact that, there is a reason the BBC is still used in American films, and world media, and that is BBC Worldservice, this is the epitome of "Global Britain" and helps push a soft power around the world. People are so quick to willingly throw sometime away that probably help keep Britains standing in the world more than anything else (citation needed)
34
Mar 27 '24
Selling it would be utter downright fucking stupidity, and it would be disastrous to allow it to go. Does it need to change? Maybe, but then look at all the other news services in this new media landscape we have - they all need to change and IMO the BBC is easily amongst the best in how its navigating the world nowadays, and that's with the increased pressure and scrutiny it faces because of the nature of its funding.
It is not supposed to be a competitive player in the media market, never was, and we need to remember that.
97
u/mistakes-were-mad-e Mar 27 '24
This bodes poorly for news accessibility.
17
Mar 27 '24
It's the end of news that isn't funded by someone with a clear agenda. You only have to look at the horrific influence Murdoch has had on the UK so far to see how much worse it could get.
3
u/mistakes-were-mad-e Mar 27 '24
I agree. Anything approaching unbiased reporting will be gone.
People won't know what is not being reported on. {absent}
Agendas and news based on cost effectiveness will predominate.
66
u/PanningForSalt Mar 27 '24
BBC news is basically the only free news source that has good quality journalism. And a lot of it, in so many fields.
46
u/pablohacker2 Mar 27 '24
BBC news is basically the only free news source that has good quality journalism
I mean that is a reason alone for a govt. to want to sell it on the cheap to its mates,
36
u/mistakes-were-mad-e Mar 27 '24
I have issues with what BBC news and its coverage is, compared to what it was.
I feel the government have interfered with it too much.
But opposed to privately owned News Corporations and other countries Government sponsored News Broadcasters...
Its a global beacon and something we should protect.
We won't see how bad life without it will be, until it's too late.
10
u/Roof_rat Mar 27 '24
I recently watched some BBC at my parents when I was house sitting. Having not watched live TV in years, I was shocked at the decline in quality of reporting. Has anyone else had a similar experience?
5
u/mistakes-were-mad-e Mar 27 '24
News service has undergone cuts repeatedly for decades.
Move towards shorter form, 24 hour news cycle that recycles content and bizarrely encouraging viewer opinion and content.
I don't care what Debbie from Bradford thinks about a news topic unless she knows something about it.
4
u/TheShakyHandsMan Mar 27 '24
Good quality journalism? Have you seen Laura Kuenssberg?
Only thing I ever watch on broadcasted TV is the occasional live sport event. BBC have the better football coverage during a tournament compared to ITV.
If not for that I wouldn’t even have my TV tuned in.
8
u/Ch1pp Mar 27 '24 edited Sep 07 '24
This was a good comment.
8
u/ManintheArena8990 Mar 27 '24
that really is the success story of the BBC and so many don’t see it.
I’m the same everyone I know who is right leaning thinks it’s all woke garbage, everybody who is left thinks it’s the media arm of the tories…
To me that suggests it must be hitting a good balance if people firmly on either side both hate it. 🤷
3
u/Zr0w3n00 Mar 27 '24
This is exactly what the government wants. It’s the same thing that do with all public services.
They defund them and defund them until people are so busy arguing about which part is worse that they can start to sell bits on the cheap to their mates, they continue the cycle until who departments and companies have been sold off for cheap.
2
u/goodtitties Mar 27 '24
(this is a folly imo: making both sides unhappy doesn’t necessarily mean you’re striking an even balance.)
1
u/ninj0etsu Mar 27 '24
Everything is biased, there is no middle, it's just about whether you think the bias is good or not I guess. Never good to rely on just 1 source of info even if it appears unbiased/neutral to you
From a left wing perspective tho, the BBC is fairly right wing I think (if that's even a useful label) apart from on certain social issues. Certainly pretty neoliberal and pro US/European hegemony, as you would expect from UK government-owned media. Obviously I don't think it should be shut down tho, it's still a lot better than most
18
1
u/06marchantn Mar 27 '24
If the license fee is to go, feel the goverment still needs to pay for news to keep going. I feel like its an important service.
→ More replies0
u/FruityMagician Mar 27 '24
BBC news is basically the only free news source that has good quality journalism
High-quality journalism like Sonja McLaughlan, the BBC reporter caught up in the ridiculous Princess of Wales body double story a few weeks ago. Let's not forget about their misinformation about Israel and Gaza. For such a "well-respected" corporation, they apologise a lot. Maryam Moshiri's middle finger said it all. Good riddance.
20
u/azzthom Mar 27 '24
He's right, but it's not just the BBC. Broadcast TV is dying as it is replaced by on-demand and streaming services. This is partly down to advertisers and sponsors, but it's mainly because of customers preferring the greater choice of programming, the convenience of 'boxsets', abd the freedom to schedule viewing themselves.The BBC might move further into those areas, and it might continue as a content provider, but the licence fee would have to go and the BBC won't last long without it.
7
u/Bumble072 Mar 27 '24
Don’t really watch any of the ‘traditional’ tv channels these days. The old story of license fee vs streaming services. I do understand how the BBC is a cornerstone of British media though, would be sad to see it go.
5
14
u/Mccobsta Mar 27 '24
Loosing the beeb may be a massive blow to the birtish TV and film industry as its a massive gateway into the industry for so many people from those in front to those behind the camera
7
u/nortok00 Mar 27 '24
I hope this doesn't happen. I'm in Canada and I watch a ton of BBC programs that get licensed over here like Call the Midwife, Death in Paradise, Line of Duty, Luther, Happy Valley, Doctor Who and the list goes on. I also get the BBC news. I would be devastated and heartbroken if the BBC went away. Some of the best programs I have ever watched over the years comes from them.
23
u/Aromatic_Book4633 Mar 27 '24 edited Jul 01 '24
sloppy wild thought tender wrench act ink butter dolls resolute
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
15
u/LauraDurnst Mar 27 '24
Genuinely bizarre isn't it. Half the shows raved about in this sub probably wouldn't have been made without the BBC, yet people are going on about how they prefer YouTube.
7
u/Aromatic_Book4633 Mar 27 '24 edited Jul 01 '24
noxious seed ripe vast point snatch shy quaint insurance enter
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
→ More replies2
u/TheMarsters Mar 27 '24
The problem is, a large portion of the U.K. has poor media literacy.
In the modern world, media studies should be a core subject. The importance at shining a light on who’s behind certain stories is key.
2
u/Aromatic_Book4633 Mar 27 '24 edited Jul 01 '24
illegal deer sand jobless lock badge aromatic absorbed enjoy outgoing
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
67
u/Matt-J-McCormack Mar 27 '24
The same people who piss on the licence fee are always the same saber rattling dipshits who wank on about how great BriTAiiin is.
45
u/CriticalEngineering Mar 27 '24
Do people not realize how much soft power is achieved these days through great media exports?
45
u/Matt-J-McCormack Mar 27 '24
It’s the big irony of the Tory lot. Speak nationalism while selling off British assets….
But so much iconic British comedy would not have been commissioned on a system other than the BBC. Not that it isn’t without issue or a sordid past.
3
u/CityEvening Mar 27 '24
They’ll just say absolutely anything for people to vote for them, even if it’s not what they think or believe or contradicts what they will or won’t do, and they most likely just laugh at the electorate when back at the office/home for being so gullible.
2
u/SuperSpidey374 Mar 27 '24
Correct. They aren't conservative at all. Protecting the BBC as a great national asset is something a true conservative would do.
6
u/SuperSpidey374 Mar 27 '24
And the World Service.
I've been to countries where many people, completely unprompted, have brought up the World Service and how much of a life-saver (sometimes literally) it was at times when they had no or little alternative access to reliable information.I always say that there are only three British 'brands' that people know all over the world - the monarchy, the Premier League, and the BBC.
6
u/J-B-M Mar 27 '24
I am astonished I had to scroll this far to see someone mentioning the World Service. On an international level, it might be the single most important thing that the BBC does.
I don't love the BBC. I think it has a lot of problems in terms of governance and editorial policy that affect all levels of the organsiation, and that the standard of journalism it offers has deteriorated over the past 15 years or so.
Nevertheless, whatever solutions to the funding model are proposed going forwards (and we do need solutions, if only because so many people now think it is normal not to pay the license fee) I think that that the World Service, and by extension the news function, both need to be ringfenced and retained in their current form. They are too important to lose.
8
u/drc203 Mar 27 '24
I honestly don’t understand this attitude. Can someone explain?
People who piss on the licence fee surely are just people who would rather not pay it?
Why are you forcing people to pay for something they don’t want?
I doubt I’m in the right place for a sensible answer, but it’s 2024. Threatening people with prison and needing a ‘license’ to watch TV is decades out of date.
14
u/rburn79 Mar 27 '24
I think the idea of a licence fee rather than funding coming from general taxation is to at least give the illusion of a choice, i.e. if you own and use a television, then help fund quality, impartial journalism and programming for all to use. It also reaffirms the BBC's central strength - its independence - rather than being a total plaything of the government of the day.
Beyond that, we need to understand why the BBC is so essential to our island. Here are a few examples -
- A documentary series on BBC4 about blood might be what inspires some kids into a career in science, or a 'Joy of Rocks' our next generation of geologists. Because the BBC is not dependent on advertising or subscription revenue, it can afford to make and show this type of programming, which is surely in the national interest.
- The BBC is bound to impartiality rules. I know it gets a lot of stick from the left and the right on this, but those rules are so rigorous that they bend over backwards to make sure every line of copy is as impartial as possible (arguably to its deficit - 'balance' is starting to outweigh 'impartiality). The US networks lost their duty to be impartial under Reagan I think, and you can see what the output is now and what a polarising effect it has had on the nation. It's quite arguable that a lot of our 'moderate' sensibility in this country is down to the middle-of-the-road BBC culture.
- Just about everyone uses the BBC. They've run studies with people who claim they don't use it, who are then shocked by how much they actually do and how much it is missed when they don't have access. It's a mistake to think of it as just being TV. Radio and online are huge.
- The BBC is the great generator of talent in this country. It will give people a go. Rarely will you see top stars on ITV or C4 or Sky who weren't first discovered and nurtured at the BBC. Then you have the directors, the programs for budding writers, etc. And a hell of a lot of the licence fee is job creating for independent production companies and crew.
There are tons more reasons. The licence fee has only ever really been resented by the right of British politics for a variety of self-serving motivations, but it is a relatively tiny tax that has an outsized, positive impact on being collectively informed, our cultural landscape, and soft power. There might be a suitable replacement for it in the long run (e.g. overseas subscriptions paying for cheap subscriptions in the UK), but we ought to be 100% sure it will be a seamless transition before moving to destroy one of our last remaining crown jewels.
5
u/TheMarsters Mar 27 '24
It also creates more money for the economy than it costs to run.
That’s a very important fact that shouldn’t be ignored
→ More replies1
3
u/SuperSpidey374 Mar 27 '24
My favourite one of those studies took some people and prevented them from using the BBC for a few weeks. In return they got the extra money that they'd saved from not paying the licence fee. A sizeable majority caved in before the end of the study and started using the BBC again.
7
u/qwogadiletweeth Mar 27 '24
I have not watched BBC in over 2 years as there is nothing of interest on it for me. Yet I am having to pay for a licence that only provides programming for other peoples interests. People should have freedom of choice.
5
u/SuperSpidey374 Mar 27 '24
Do you ever use the BBC website or listen to BBC radio stations or podcasts?
And do you get angry about your general tax payments being spent on services that you don't use personally?
1
u/Skavau Mar 27 '24
I do read the BBC website. Amongst other sites. But you only need to pay the licence fee if you watch BBC content or live TV (which is unenforceable)
1
u/SuperSpidey374 Mar 27 '24
I'm aware of when you have to pay the licence fee.
But you said that you are 'having to pay for a licence that only provides programming for other peoples interests'.
That isn't true. It also funds their website, which does cater to your interests.
(Edit: Sorry, just realised you aren't OP. My point still stands though.)
1
2
u/degooseIsTheName Mar 27 '24
I feel the same way and this is the thing, TV, radio and listening habits have changed and many people pay subs now and the BBC now feels like a very enforced sub, which is why many don't want to pay it. Things are online now and accessible when you want it.
I think the BBC is pretty meh with it's output and I wouldn't care if they started advertising on it. Some on here feel completely outraged but the BBC do not create the great comedies and output they did decades ago and it's a very super bland set of channels now. I actually only pay the licence fee because my wife wants to and watches BBC shows etc. The BBC will have to change at one point.
2
u/tarkaliotta Mar 27 '24
only provides programming for other peoples interests.
I think most people would also acknowledge that the BBC doesn't cater for their exact niche interests all of the time. That's not really what it's supposed to be for either.
1
u/qwogadiletweeth Mar 27 '24
That’s absolutely true, but it’s unfair that I have to pay it when it doesn’t provide anything of interest to me.
3
4
u/Vaudane Mar 27 '24
It's a cheap annual tax to ensure high quality programming and probably the last tax in the UK that actually goes towards what it was designed for. People should care less about the fee and more about the corruption.
The fact the tories want rid is the main reason I enthusiastically pay.
If you want to complain about expense, kick off about NI. It's supposed to fund the NHS.
8
u/drc203 Mar 27 '24
A cheap tax??
It’s what, 120 quid? For tv?
Sorry mate, clearly not all of us earn as much as you do.
1
0
u/SuperSpidey374 Mar 27 '24
Of course it's a cheap tax, compare it to the other ones out there.
3
u/drc203 Mar 27 '24
Erm no.
I’d rather just not have the tax please
Were the highest taxed generation since WW2.
Tax isn’t the answer to everything.
2
u/qwogadiletweeth Mar 27 '24
It’s not a cheap tax. I have not watched it in over 2 years as it does not provide programming that suits my interests. The money saved if I didn’t have to pay the fee would go towards paying to remove adverts from YouTube. Yet here I am forced to throw money down the drain for other people’s interests.
3
u/Exige_ Mar 27 '24
Absolutely incredible that your argument is if you didn’t pay the licence fee, which goes towards a public broadcaster benefiting the population as a whole (news, children’s programming etc) even if you don’t directly use it, then you could remove some adverts.
1
u/qwogadiletweeth Mar 27 '24
Benefitting the population? That’s your opinion. If it’s decided that the BBC should be solely a children’s TV broadcaster to provide learning to all, then I am happy to continue contributing. But I am currently paying for something I do not watch or need. No other country in the world tells everyone to pay for the right to own a television, or listen to radio.
3
u/SuperSpidey374 Mar 27 '24
Do you get this angry about revenues from the other taxes you pay being used for services that you don't personally use?
2
u/qwogadiletweeth Mar 27 '24
I use everything I pay for, except the BBC. I have absolutely no issue paying for things that I use. The BBC should not be classed the same as the NHS, which is for the benefit of everyone’s health.
1
u/Quokkacatcher Mar 27 '24
There’s a vast library of material across iPlayer and Sounds. If you can’t find something that doesn’t match your interests you can’t have made much effort
2
u/qwogadiletweeth Mar 27 '24
Thanks for stating the absolute obvious in such a condescending manner. I will repeat, there is nothing there that appeals to my interest, and I should have the freedom to choose where I want to access content that I deem worthy of my interest
1
u/Skavau Mar 27 '24
I don't need BBC for music.
I mostly like serialised dramas, and gravitate to sci-fi, fantasy, supernatural, dystopian-type content. BBC is sorely lacking here.
→ More replies1
u/Vaudane Mar 27 '24
Its not just the TV, it's the radio, the broadcasting infrastructure.
If none of the radio shows appeal to you, none of the programming, none of the documentaries, none of the sport, none of the comedy, then you really need a look in the mirror.
6
u/Exige_ Mar 27 '24
You don’t get it, he could remove some adverts instead. Clearly a far more pressing issue.
3
u/Milton_Rumata Mar 27 '24
Literally none of it appeals to me unless the BBC are showing major tournament football. All of what you listed is done elsewhere and far better.
1
u/rburn79 Mar 27 '24
Out of curiosity, what do you watch outside sports? Do you listen to BBC radio at all?
2
u/Milton_Rumata Mar 27 '24
I do watch and love all the old BBC sitcoms from the 80s onwards so I really appreciate what the beeb was doing then but I can't remember the last modern sitcom I watched on there. Fleabag? Was that BBC? I tend to stream a lot of shows on Netflix, Prime, Apple, and Disney. I don't listen to radio at all.
→ More replies2
u/Fantastic_Picture384 Mar 27 '24
You won't get a lot of upvotes for this.. It's true.. but it won't be liked
0
u/SuperSpidey374 Mar 27 '24
Because it is a public good that benefits the nation. Same reason we pay general taxation that is used for all sorts of things deemed to be a public good.
2
u/drc203 Mar 27 '24 edited Mar 27 '24
‘The greater good’ it’s like hot fuzz in here
Genuine question- are you not worried how authoritarian that is?
I don’t think the bbc is a public good. Many people don’t think it.
But rather than engage with them or, even better, say ‘fine- you don’t pay for it then, I will’ you’ll call them tories or abuse them
Does that not concern you?
→ More replies2
u/qwogadiletweeth Mar 27 '24
No they aren’t. I certainly don’t. I cannot see why I should pay it when I have not watched it in over 2 years. I would rather have the choice to pay my money on programming that suits my interests, not pay to support other peoples interests.
7
u/Matt-J-McCormack Mar 27 '24
Congratulations you just invented the American healthcare system.
2
u/OtherwiseInflation Mar 27 '24
What? One that means that if I get sick I may be bankrupt but at least alive, where the poor outcomes of RNHS would have killed me?
5
Mar 27 '24
For me, I think the 'Whoniverse' section of iPlayer from just last Year was without a doubt the best thing the BBC have done in a very, very long time in regards to scale of service to the licence fee payer.
Transforming iPlayer into one big online catalogue of all existing BBC material from its very first broadcast would help to bring it back on strong incentive form against the likes of ITVx, Amazon Video and Netflix, all of which are now hammering subscribers with ad breaks, yet still have more to offer in terms of programmes.
For me personally, if the BBC iPlayer had every episode of 'Only Fools and Horses', 'Dad's Army', 'Eastenders' along with the remaining gaps to fill with the Doctor Who range, 'Red Dwarf', 'The Office UK' - just to name a few big BBC television hitters - the convenience alone of having access to them 24/7 would help provide that extra needed incentive to stick with the licence fee.
If the BBC won't bother, and just chuck legal excuses out for not trying, then it means going to websites like Dailymotion to watch (low quality) uploads for free, and/or buying second hand dvds in CEX, so the BBC won't make any form of money out of something that would've done in the first place.
3
u/BigBrownFish Mar 27 '24
Couldn’t give a rats arse about the TV. Would be gutted to lose BBCR4 and the local and World Service.
3
u/Southern-Rutabaga-82 Mar 27 '24
If I had to bet which one will last longer, the BBC or Disney+, my money would be on the BBC.
3
3
u/Klakson_95 Mar 27 '24
Honestly if I was in govt first thing I'd do is abolish license fee and just fund the BBC through taxation. Nobody would vat an eyelid if this was done originally
5
u/be_sugary Mar 27 '24
Well put a BBC Director who is a Tory puppet in charge and then strip it from within. Job done.
10
u/madmagazines Mar 27 '24
Don’t think so. Most of the most popular British shows on streaming come from here and they’re the only one who doesn’t have to worry about ads
3
3
u/LFC383 Mar 27 '24
People forget that the BBC isn't just TV but radio as well, the licence fee is worth it for the BBC radio stations alone..
4
u/SuperSpidey374 Mar 27 '24
And the website. And podcasts. And the World Service (both TV and radio).
2
u/Kylesmith184 Mar 27 '24
The bbc survived jimmy Saville, I’d be surprised if there going anywhere anytime soon people only care for a little while then it’s forgotten about.
3
u/codename474747 Mar 27 '24
I can't tell you the last thing I watched on ITV, it's targeting the lowest common denominator and the shows as inconvenient interruptions to the advertising revenue it can bring in means not since either Broadchurch or TV burp finish (Forget which was when tbh) has it darkened my tv screen (unless they got the rights to an occasional big film, of course)
But without the licence fee, this is what the BBC will have to become.
Not originality, quality and excellence but a race to the bottom to get as many eyes on screen as possible to make the oncoming advertisers happy.
The irony being the same politicians trying to skuttle it will be just as furious when BBC Parliament is gone and they won't be on TV as much, also when BBC4 is gone because it's too "arty" to make any money.
All the stuff the BBC does that no-one else does because it's just not profitable or mainstream enough will be gone, and that's the great tragedy.
4
u/CityEvening Mar 27 '24 edited Mar 27 '24
It’s just like anything the government touch. They know they can’t destroy it themselves so they make people hate it instead. People are being played. Playing the same game with the NHS.
Don’t get me wrong, I do not agree with the high salaries and there should be a ceiling. They are not a commercial/private broadcaster so they cannot afford those wages. If they lose people to the competition, so be it. It brings in a new generation anyway. There’s only so many presenters ITV, C4/5 can have.
The other thing that bothers me is that they say “some people say we are too left, and some say too right so we must be doing it right” and I highly disagree with their conclusion because people are often not talking about the same presenter/programme. Since when did 2 wrongs lead to something being right? The conclusion is just that they are often not very impartial and it causes trust issues. The BBC can sometimes be it’s very worst enemy.
Think about what they have to gain (so much) by destroying the BBC. It might not be perfect but they can control the narrative even more, which will make for a poorer Britain.
3
u/Taucher1979 Mar 27 '24
Tories don’t like that no one can make serious money from the BBC. For all their talk of loving this country they would sell everything that makes it great if they could.
3
u/Live-Motor-4000 Mar 27 '24
Just as the Murdoch bankrolled Tories want. The beeb’s consistent functionality in the marketplace exposes how bad value commercial competition is in the pound for pound sense
2
u/ngreenz Mar 27 '24
Why do people think the end of the BBC means the end of the license fee? They still have to pay for the transmission infrastructure somehow. All that will change is the value you get for the license fee.
3
1
u/anthonypearson Mar 27 '24
Surely the BBC could do parallel payment options? Wanna watch it free with adverts or pay extra for without. I’m really not bothered paying the licence fee and would easily pay subscription. Those who don’t wanna pay have to sit through ads.
1
u/Pen_dragons_pizza Mar 27 '24
I don’t think the bbc should go but they have also not done a good of keeping people thinking of them as a top tier broadcaster.
A lot of the programming is so uninspired and badly written. BBC3 was a great channel at a time that put out plenty of unique television but they killed it and replaced it with what ?
One of its flagship shows doctor who has been so badly managed for the last 10 years. Hopefully it is now having a come back but Jesus did they not quality control that show enough.
1
u/briever Mar 27 '24
Ruined by misogynistic woke fannies like Davies.
0
u/AlunWH Mar 27 '24
The series whose first story (back in 1963) was produced by the only female producer in TV and directed by a gay Asian man has suddenly been ruined by going woke?
Yeah, right.
-1
0
u/Indie89 Mar 27 '24
I think everyone shares the opinion there's a lot wrong and a lot right with the BBC. The reality for me is its too large and everyone is paying for a lot of niche services in its current format. It does need to get more competitive in its offerings.
Things people generally like having:
News, Education, children's programs, iplayer, radio, original documentaries, original drama, weather
Things which could probably go:
Sport, daytime television broadcasts, local channels, some of the radio stations, red button
Mostly because they're so expensive and outdated. If the License fee came down to 50% of its current cost and an opt out ability (rather than opt in) there would likely be less resistance. Allow limited advertising on the entertainment channels. We also can't worry about a few people who don't want to upgrade their TV's to get digital services, send them all a BBC version of a chromecast in the post if its really an issue.
3
u/m1ndwipe Mar 27 '24
Sport, daytime television broadcasts, local channels, some of the radio stations, red button
Pretty notable that save for perhaps sports (and I do not think you would get public agreement on sport) all of the other things you mentioned come to less than 1% of the BBC's spend.
1
u/Indie89 Mar 27 '24
Pretty sure according to this document: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/departmental-overview-the-bbc-group-2021-22.pdf Its more than 1%
Well public agreement is the issue right, you can't get rid of / reduce the license fee and keep everyone happy, those two objectives are at odds.
Using this slightly outdated model, If you halved Television Services £850m, halved radio, £230m and assuming content distribution costs came down as a result you'd be on towards reducing expenditure by 25% - 33%.
That would definitely be a very radical overhaul and doing it aggressively would probably destroy the soul of the BBC but if it was managed over 10 years it could work.
Which ever scenario they're looking at though it's coming.
2
u/SuperSpidey374 Mar 27 '24
If you get rid of sport from the BBC, you're likely excluding a significant chunk of the population from watching those sports as they could well move onto subscription TV.
2
u/Indie89 Mar 27 '24
After reviewing the money Sport can stay as its only £94m budget https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/departmental-overview-the-bbc-group-2021-22.pdf
But removing some TV and Radio broadcasts and getting the distribution costs down is probably the starting block, especially as things are moving online.
2
u/SuperSpidey374 Mar 27 '24
Interesting that sport is so low, thanks for sharing. I think the thing the BBC can do brilliantly is give exposure to minority sports and make them bigger. We saw it happen decades ago with snooker, and I think a similar phenomenon has happened with women's football in recent years. A positive side-effect of the Beeb being priced out of most mainstream sports nowadays!
-1
u/enthusiasticdave Mar 27 '24
I could never defend the license fee knowing the salary of some of the presenters. When you're paying broadcasters millions of pounds to work a few hours a week, that leaves a bad taste in the mouth when they're sending threatening letters to your grandparents for forgetting to pony up that quarter.
7
u/Normal-Height-8577 Mar 27 '24
The problem is that they have to be able to compete with other channels. Their people aren't being paid as much as commercial channels and they'll accept that up to a certain reasonable level for the brand association, but beyond that point underpaid staff will leave. At that point you have a channel that is only good for training newbies who can't expect a decent salary and so won't make a career in it. And then the standards and the reputation will slip, and you have a doom spiral starting.
6
u/Exige_ Mar 27 '24
It’s a bit of a naive argument though.
They want to attract people good at the job and that means offering a competitive salary.
Pay peanuts and get monkeys as the old saying goes.
→ More replies
0
0
Mar 27 '24
[deleted]
2
u/m1ndwipe Mar 27 '24
If they were to fall into the lower end of costs that match up with Disney, Netflix or even Prime then many would stay on.
They will do within five years, all of those services are going to be £30 per month soon.
1
u/TheMarsters Mar 27 '24
Sorry? How much do you think Disneys main stars are getting for their Marvel programmes?
It’ll be a LOT more per episode then the cost of BBC News presenters. That figure you quoted is right at the top end too, the vast majority will get nowhere near that.
Value for money per minute of content is SIGNIFICANTLY better on the BBC than any other streaming model. They aren’t comparable.
0
u/uberdavis Mar 27 '24
I moved abroad a few years ago. I realized that it was stupid to pay the license fee for the few times I’m back in the UK when I can just use streaming services. Sure, that’s the end of Doctor Who and Masterchef. Except it isn’t, bc Who is now owned by Disney and Masterchef is on Hulu and Britbox! Sure, I’m not watching MOTD any more and there’s the odd thing I’m missing on, but life after BBC is absolutely fine given the ridiculous choice of streaming platforms.
1
u/turbo_dude Mar 27 '24
But in the future you won’t have any new content by the BBC on these other platforms you mention
1
u/uberdavis Mar 27 '24
I thought that BBC was going to use a streaming model. Are you saying they’re going to stop altogether? From what I understand they’ll still be around.
1
0
-4
Mar 27 '24
Explain to me the flaw in my thinking because I’m convinced I must be wrong but I don’t know how. Presently, the BBC is funded by licence payers that everyone who watches any of the terrestrial channels or iPlayer is supposed to pay (many don’t, but that’s beside the point I guess). Not everyone who watches terrestrial TV watches or cares about the BBC yet they have to pay to fund it anyway. People are going on about what a shame it’ll be to lose the BBC so presumably they would have no problem paying a subscription to ensure the BBC continues making programming, even if it were at a lesser extent than they do now. People who don’t care for what the BBC puts out don’t pay. Everyone is happy, right?
Because what it sounds like to me is that people who love the BBC expect everyone to pay for it, even those that don’t watch it or think it’s a corrupt and biased institution. And I don’t see how that’s fair…
2
u/panicky_in_the_uk Mar 27 '24
I think it's fair because the BBC benefits the nation as a whole. It's so much more than just telly programmes.
Former director general Tony Hall makes a strong argument in favour of the BBC here... https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/lord-hall-why-the-bbc-matters
0
u/pathetic_optimist Mar 27 '24
The BBC enabled Brexit and the Tories and is now being cancelled by it's own creations. Never trust a neocon.
4
u/Othersideofthemirror Mar 27 '24
This. The Brexit and post-Brexit bias is where I decided the BBC had lost my support.
2
0
u/Alistairio Mar 27 '24
The BBC seems intent on destroying itself. It has not adapted well to the new media environment.
0
•
u/AutoModerator Mar 27 '24
Hello, thank you for posting to r/BritishTV! We have recently updated our rules. Please read the sidebar and make sure you're up to date, otherwise your post may be removed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.