I meant the news doesnt count in regards to whether a show is good or not. The news is...the news. It cant be good or bad. Sorry for the confusion.SenseOfTumour said:
BBC and the licence fee - a good thing?
- Thread starter SenseOfTumour
- Start date
Recommended Videos
"BBC and the license fee" did you mean to rhyme? Generally, the more money you have the possibility to gain or lose will draw degradation into anything. It's the mighty corrupter. Also, I hate the fact that someone must "pay" for un-biased news. Sounds like paying for tap water to me. Of course though, the world is run by money and all that jazz.
Tell me about it. I literally got bombarded with letters and I used to have someone come over atleast once a month that tried to offer me some licensing and when I said that I didn't watch TV he looked at me like some kind of criminal. Strange people those licensing folk.SenseOfTumour said:
Anyway I really respect the BBC. It's miles above the rest of the tripe you can catch in Britain. I think it's gone down in quality over the years, but then again which channel competing for ratings hasn't?
What I really love about them are the documentaries and excellent forays into art. Such style and such a good way to promote beneficial material to their viewers. I don't watch TV so I can't really judge how good their program is but if they keep promoting excellent documentaries and other movies I'll be happy.
License fee a good thing? Yes, yes, a thousand times yes!
The huge amount of services the beeb provide could not be funded any other way, BBC2 and BBC4 could never survive in the commercial sector but provide a vital outlet for non mainstream television. A programme like The Office, for example, could never have been broadcast anywhere else.
Then there's radio like the glorious 6music, and Test Match Special is worth the license fee on it's own.
The huge amount of services the beeb provide could not be funded any other way, BBC2 and BBC4 could never survive in the commercial sector but provide a vital outlet for non mainstream television. A programme like The Office, for example, could never have been broadcast anywhere else.
Then there's radio like the glorious 6music, and Test Match Special is worth the license fee on it's own.
It is when they give far better programming than the BBC.RAKtheUndead said:
They couldn't survive because they show mostly rubbish 90% of the time. BBC's daytime layout is HORRIFIC being made of mostly antique shows and various other auction shows and BBC4 is basically just a glorified biography channel.Rotating Bread said:
Not-worth-MY-money.
They can do what they like as long as they stop demanding everyone pay a liscence fee just for owning a TV. If I could I'd get rid of BBC from my sky package so i never have to even see the channels on the list anymore.
Hmm I'd counter 'news can't be good or bad' with a short phrase. BBC vs Fox.
One point I don't think I've made clearly however, I think what the BBC should do, and certainly does less than it used to, is make shows that really please smaller audiences, niche shows, instead of trying to appeal to everyone with everything. That's what the commercial stations do.
I'd like to see the return of Tomorrow's World, The Sky at Night, even Gamesmaster.
BBC4 at least appeal to this section, with more shows appealing to smaller audiences but really hitting the spot in the niche areas. The BBC have the money, they don't NEED to appeal to 10 million people for the advertisers, so they don't have to worry about scaring people off with some smart stuff occasionally, look at what a success QI has been.
However, they don't do themselves any favours,throwing shedloads of money on pointless self promotion, when we, the viewers, don't have a choice, as Charlie Brooker wrote about:
"See also the deeply unnecessary high-gloss "blood on the carpet" ads for The Apprentice earlier this year. Don't spunk a billion on an ad where Alan Sugar strides through a blitzed boardroom, you maniacs; divert that cash into the programme itself, then cut a trail from that. Similarly, if you want to convince me to listen to Fearne Cotton, find a good bit of the Fearne Cotton show and replay it over a still photo. And if you can't find one, hire another DJ.
It's all quite depressing. At a time when repugnant vested-interest newspaper scumbags are circling the BBC peevishly seeking any opportunity to kick it hard in the arse, the corporation has bent down and painted a lavish target right on the seat of its trousers in high-gloss paint. I love the Beeb so much I'd gladly kill you and your children to keep it running, but it doesn't half do some dumb things sometimes."
On top of that, he has a fair go at explaining the whole newspaper/BBC rivalry, after dealing with that Ross/Brand thing. He also makes a good point for a lot of TV that might never get made if it needed to sell advertising space:
Oh and as for SKY, as I don't watch sport, the one annual discworld adaptation, as wonderful as it is, doesn't justify me trading in the BBC for SKY. Especially not when SKY is vastly more expensive annually than the BBC.
One point I don't think I've made clearly however, I think what the BBC should do, and certainly does less than it used to, is make shows that really please smaller audiences, niche shows, instead of trying to appeal to everyone with everything. That's what the commercial stations do.
I'd like to see the return of Tomorrow's World, The Sky at Night, even Gamesmaster.
BBC4 at least appeal to this section, with more shows appealing to smaller audiences but really hitting the spot in the niche areas. The BBC have the money, they don't NEED to appeal to 10 million people for the advertisers, so they don't have to worry about scaring people off with some smart stuff occasionally, look at what a success QI has been.
However, they don't do themselves any favours,throwing shedloads of money on pointless self promotion, when we, the viewers, don't have a choice, as Charlie Brooker wrote about:
"See also the deeply unnecessary high-gloss "blood on the carpet" ads for The Apprentice earlier this year. Don't spunk a billion on an ad where Alan Sugar strides through a blitzed boardroom, you maniacs; divert that cash into the programme itself, then cut a trail from that. Similarly, if you want to convince me to listen to Fearne Cotton, find a good bit of the Fearne Cotton show and replay it over a still photo. And if you can't find one, hire another DJ.
It's all quite depressing. At a time when repugnant vested-interest newspaper scumbags are circling the BBC peevishly seeking any opportunity to kick it hard in the arse, the corporation has bent down and painted a lavish target right on the seat of its trousers in high-gloss paint. I love the Beeb so much I'd gladly kill you and your children to keep it running, but it doesn't half do some dumb things sometimes."
On top of that, he has a fair go at explaining the whole newspaper/BBC rivalry, after dealing with that Ross/Brand thing. He also makes a good point for a lot of TV that might never get made if it needed to sell advertising space:
Oh and as for SKY, as I don't watch sport, the one annual discworld adaptation, as wonderful as it is, doesn't justify me trading in the BBC for SKY. Especially not when SKY is vastly more expensive annually than the BBC.
I think the Big British Castle is a wonderful organisation and I'm happy to support it. I think their radio station are worth the cost of the license fee alone (despite being free).
Radio 4 has been the spawning pool for some of the finest comedy known to man, and I love the privilege of being able to listen to reruns of those programmes on Radio 7.
Radio 4 has been the spawning pool for some of the finest comedy known to man, and I love the privilege of being able to listen to reruns of those programmes on Radio 7.
British News shows (on the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Five at least) all get a cut of the licence fee. Part of the deal is that they present the news in as even handed way as possible, even when that news shows them in a bad light.Valkyrie101 said:
It can be a slightly double edged sword, it's effectively government funded news and occasionally things get glossed over because of it. Although not so much in my lifetime. Mostly it's a very good thing as there is no opportunity for people like Glenn Beck to gain a foothold on our TV.
Well, let's see. Off the top of my head you've got:
Once you get over the selfishness and see the service you are providing to millions upon millions of other people, who might not like what you like, you can truly see the massive contribution you're making not just to the UK, but to every country the BBC is operating in. I remember reading in one of my economics books about how targeting of markets and privatisation has reduced our sense of community. If you don't want to put up with other people's tastes [footnote](Which is essentially what 'community' is- obligation and annoyance in return for support and stimulation)[/footnote], you can just tune into a channel that only plays what you want, all day long. If you don't like the opinion you're hearing, you can just switch to a channel which tells you what you want to hear- much like the internet.
This way, I think, we maintain a higher level of tolerance and understanding, the news maintains a higher level of objectivity[footnote](Due to not having to pander to specific audiences)[/footnote], and the community at large a greater sense of cohesion.
Plus you can always use a BBC programme as a conversation starter, at least in the UK. The other person is bound to have watched it.
Definitely worth 12 pounds a month. Or, if you don't mind black and white, 4 pounds a month.
[HEADING=3]TV[/HEADING]
UK Channels
BBC 1
BBC 2
BBC 3
BBC 4
BBC HD
BBC News 24
BBC Parliament
CBBC
CBeebies
BBC Red Button
Ceefax
Foreign BBC Channels
BBC World News (UK doesn't get this officially)
BBC America
BBC Canada
BBC Kids (Canada too)
BBC Prime/ Entertainment
BBC Lifestyle
BBC Knowledge
UK.TV
UKTV
People+Arts
Animal Planet
BBC Persian
BBC Arabic Television - Arabic
[HEADING=3]Radio[/HEADING]
AM+FM+Digital 'standard' Channels
BBC Radio 1 (New Music)
BBC Radio 2 (Good Music)
BBC Radio 3 (Classical, Jazz Music)
BBC Radio 4 (current affairs, factual, drama and comedy)
BBC Radio 5 Live (24 hour news, sports and talk)
BBC Radio Switch (Youth stuff. Also a talent Springboard)
Innumerable local channels
Digital-only radio channels
BBC 1Xtra
BBC Radio 5 Live Sports Extra
BBC 6 Music
BBC radio 7
BBC Asian Network
National Ones
BBC Radio Scotland
BBC Radio nan Gàidheal
BBC Radio Shetland
BBC Radio Orkney
BBC Radio Wales
BBC Radio Cymru
BBC Radio Ulster
BBC Radio Foyle
[HEADING=3]Internet[/HEADING]
The BBC online site (Huge. Just visit it)
Metric Fucktonne of educational stuff
UK Channels
BBC 1
BBC 2
BBC 3
BBC 4
BBC HD
BBC News 24
BBC Parliament
CBBC
CBeebies
BBC Red Button
Ceefax
Foreign BBC Channels
BBC World News (UK doesn't get this officially)
BBC America
BBC Canada
BBC Kids (Canada too)
BBC Prime/ Entertainment
BBC Lifestyle
BBC Knowledge
UK.TV
UKTV
People+Arts
Animal Planet
BBC Persian
BBC Arabic Television - Arabic
[HEADING=3]Radio[/HEADING]
AM+FM+Digital 'standard' Channels
BBC Radio 1 (New Music)
BBC Radio 2 (Good Music)
BBC Radio 3 (Classical, Jazz Music)
BBC Radio 4 (current affairs, factual, drama and comedy)
BBC Radio 5 Live (24 hour news, sports and talk)
BBC Radio Switch (Youth stuff. Also a talent Springboard)
Innumerable local channels
Digital-only radio channels
BBC 1Xtra
BBC Radio 5 Live Sports Extra
BBC 6 Music
BBC radio 7
BBC Asian Network
National Ones
BBC Radio Scotland
BBC Radio nan Gàidheal
BBC Radio Shetland
BBC Radio Orkney
BBC Radio Wales
BBC Radio Cymru
BBC Radio Ulster
BBC Radio Foyle
[HEADING=3]Internet[/HEADING]
The BBC online site (Huge. Just visit it)
Metric Fucktonne of educational stuff
Once you get over the selfishness and see the service you are providing to millions upon millions of other people, who might not like what you like, you can truly see the massive contribution you're making not just to the UK, but to every country the BBC is operating in. I remember reading in one of my economics books about how targeting of markets and privatisation has reduced our sense of community. If you don't want to put up with other people's tastes [footnote](Which is essentially what 'community' is- obligation and annoyance in return for support and stimulation)[/footnote], you can just tune into a channel that only plays what you want, all day long. If you don't like the opinion you're hearing, you can just switch to a channel which tells you what you want to hear- much like the internet.
This way, I think, we maintain a higher level of tolerance and understanding, the news maintains a higher level of objectivity[footnote](Due to not having to pander to specific audiences)[/footnote], and the community at large a greater sense of cohesion.
Plus you can always use a BBC programme as a conversation starter, at least in the UK. The other person is bound to have watched it.
Definitely worth 12 pounds a month. Or, if you don't mind black and white, 4 pounds a month.
Firstly, BBC news services doesn't count when evaluating the quality of their TV programming. (plus I don't use the BBC for news since well...it's mostly stuff that has absolutely no affect on my life what so ever so why should i care?)RAKtheUndead said:
Second: Clearly you haven't watched daytime BBC programs...they are horrendous.
As for showing what you want, they very rarely show things that actually cater to the current 20-30 demographic (the one who arnt drug addicts, alcoholics or just plain stupid).
As for all round better programming, it generally depends on your tastes. If you are as boring as Jeremey Clarkson tweed jacket then yes, the BBC will mostly appeal to you. If however you actually have interests outside of antiuing, auctioning and pointless soap operas. Sky provides a far greater variety. For example: Sky provides a MOUNTAIN of material for scifi fans. BBC provides *nothing* aside from doctor who at the moment and that is on a break.
Except that as mentioned in my previous posts...their available content is well...very limited.Danny Ocean said:
If you ctually look at what they have available television wise (since we arn't discussing radio at the moment). They've only got 4 channels you can watch in the UK that the regular person *might* actually watch.
That's because it's the summer. You're meant to be outside enjoying the world. Most of the best programmes run from September-March.jasoncyrus said:
To be honest, I don't really care. I watch all the BBC channels, even 3 at times. Especially BBC4, and News 24. I don't care if most of the stuff doesn't cater to me because some of it does, I'd say the programmes that do, on their own, are worth the license fee and lack of adverts, and I'm happy in the knowledge that other people are getting what they want, too.
And you can't discount the radio channels. They're a huge part of the BBC and probably more ubiquitous than the TV channels world wide.
I like the fact that we pay a license fee. Otherwise the only way to keep BBC running would be for it to become a commercial station. Meaning that BBC news will be owned by a a company or business... Rather than being owned by the people. Meaning that the BBC News will no longer be a none bias new station. Also because BBC doesn't require commercial funding... It can show more controversial programs or factual programs on controversial subjects that it may be limited against if they where run as a commercial station (They couldn't have a show that told you how bad Kitkats where for your teeth as the company that owned Kitkats may find it a conflict of interest and refuse to have their adverts running on that station (meaning a cut in funding).
Summer is over rated, that means they are simply extremely lazy and that my money is going to waste.Danny Ocean said:
Once again, I would be made very happy if they cut me off from the bbc channels (happy with sky) so i dont have to throw my money away on a liscence fee.
Personally I find it rather annoying that i have to pay a tax to watch sky tv that doesn't even go towards sky, it goes to the bbc which i dont even watch.Sovvolf said: