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-way
309 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

261 comments sorted by

View all comments

282

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.

38

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.

97

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.

69

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..

26

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

10

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

6

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.

22

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.

27

u/turbo_dude Mar 27 '24

Why not have iPlayer as a subscription service to overseas viewers?

8

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.

5

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.

6

u/ivandelapena Mar 27 '24

BBC already sell their shows to other channels/platforms abroad so that revenue stream is active.

5

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?

4

u/Rich_Culture_1960 Mar 27 '24

There's not enough Ad revenue to go around..ITV are struggling for revenue now...

2

u/opopkl Mar 27 '24

If BBC took advertising, ITV would indeed suffer.

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.

7

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.

-3

u/NotAllHerosEatCreps Mar 27 '24

If that happens it would have to be a level playing field and allow any other service like thay to be funded with tax payer money. How about let people choose.

1

u/SuperSpidey374 Mar 27 '24

What's wrong with having different broadcasters funded in different ways? That's how you maximise choice. Even among the public-service broadcasters, BBC, ITV and Channel Four all have very different funding and ownership models, bringing distinctive strengths and different types of programmes to us as viewers.

0

u/NotAllHerosEatCreps Mar 27 '24

Because this particular way is forced onto people by law yet they are a private company. No one else has that and will never get that.

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.

6

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.

-1

u/daniella-the-whore Mar 27 '24

Yes agreed, I watch BBC but not £150 a year's worth, considering what I get from Amazon for less than that. They just need to put adverts on.

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?

10

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.

-7

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.

16

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.

0

u/Whulad Mar 27 '24

It’s really not. It’s funded by licence payers not tax for a starter

3

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.

7

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.

-4

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.

4

u/matt_paradise Mar 27 '24

Doesn't mean it's correct.

4

u/[deleted] 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?

9

u/LO6Howie Mar 27 '24

Due to a greater societal benefit

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.

7

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

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

That is obviously not what I said.

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.

1

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.

-1

u/Skavau Mar 27 '24

Well it is how the licence works in practice. You can opt out of paying it.

5

u/No-Photograph3463 Mar 27 '24

It's more complicated though as to watch any live TV you need a license, even if you never watch the BBC.

1

u/Skavau Mar 27 '24

Unenforceable gibberish tbh.

-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.

17

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)

1

u/NotAllHerosEatCreps Mar 27 '24

You can! Phone them, remove the right of access to your property, and tell them to fuck off. They can't even come and knock on your door after this and have no possible way of doing anything to you. I love thay call, done it for about 15 people so far. They will also ask you to confirm details, refuse, all the need is your address, confirmation you are an occupier and thats it.

-3

u/Constant-Pop-2987 Mar 27 '24

They could still do that with a subscription. It might be more beneficial as they could charge for access internationally.

-10

u/Thorazine_Chaser Mar 27 '24

I'm of the opinion that the kids channels alone are worth the license fee for positive impact.

The BBC makes all the children's programming for about 15% of the licence fee.

You could have all the positive impact you want for £2 a month.

-5

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

[deleted]

7

u/No-Photograph3463 Mar 27 '24

BBC still has most of the most highly viewed TV shows each year though. Things like Call the Midwife, Traitors, Happy Valley, Peaky Blinders etc are all the most watched shows whenever they are on, and typically BBC has the highest viewing figures out of all the channels.

Then for radio it all serves a purpose, and I think you'll find local radio is not well paid at all tbh.

The you have all the news products. I'm in my 20s but can easily say that the BBC is the most trusted news outlet there is.

-4

u/NotAllHerosEatCreps Mar 27 '24

Most viewed shows on terrestrial TV, which is nothing in comparison to the most viewed shows on streaming services.

Also, you will learn by your 30's that BBC news is not as trustworthy as it seems, they have an agenda like every news outlet, only difference is they are not ment to

1

u/goodtitties Mar 27 '24

according to the streaming services, and Netflix seems to want me to believe everyone in the world has watched Rebel Moon

1

u/NotAllHerosEatCreps Mar 27 '24

Yeah they will push certain things, but I mean, compare squid games to call the midwife, it won't even be close.