Media, BBC and Government

[DerekC]

A number of things seem to be happening in the UK media and government world just now. The government is launching its review, aiming at decriminalising failure to pay the BBC licence fee (which, whether you think it's right or not, will reduce the BBC's net income by £millions). At the same time 10 Downing Street is setting out to limit media access to government briefings to "friendly" organisations and has banned Ministers from appearing on "unfriendly" programmes such as BBC's "Today". And it's no secret that Dominic Cummings has an agenda to Americanise the UK media, abolishing the legal duty for TV channels to report in a balanced way and opening the door to channels like Fox News.

Should we be worried?

 

[The_Train]

With regards to the decriminalisation of a failure to pay the tv license, I can only see that as a positive. No-one should he having their life ruined by a criminal conviction for not paying the most archaic of license fee. Why should anyone pay the BBC to enable them to watch all other channels? It should become a subscription and if you don't want to pay it, you just lose access to BBC channels, which lets face it is no great loss.

As for the 2nd part of your post regarding the government limiting access to media. Isn't this part of what people wanted by voting for brexit? The chance for our 'great' government to be able to do what they want without fear of reprisal from the EU and it's legislation?

 

[Bantamzen]

With regards to the decriminalisation of a failure to pay the tv license, I can only see that as a positive. No-one should he having their life ruined by a criminal conviction for not paying the most archaic of license fee. Why should anyone pay the BBC to enable them to watch all other channels? It should become a subscription and if you don't want to pay it, you just lose access to BBC channels, which lets face it is no great loss.

I see this as phase one of removing the licence fee altogether, and the BBC services becoming subscription based. And whilst a lot of people might see this as a positive, it could end up costing them more. Still its what the people want, and talking of which....

As for the 2nd part of your post regarding the government limiting access to media. Isn't this part of what people wanted by voting for brexit? The chance for our 'great' government to be able to do what they want without fear of reprisal from the EU and it's legislation?

I'm one for often talking about unintended consequences, and this could certainly be one. Our government are no doubt keeping a close eye on how Trump's administration is starting to annex part of the US media, either directly by denying them access, or indirectly by targeting them as "fake news". If the US situation carries on the way it is, I fully expect our administration to go the same way. As I said to someone on social media just the other day, if anyone thinks the government blocking out sections of the media simply because they are not "on message", I would strongly advise reading Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four.

 

[Howardh]

Basically, you shouldn't be forced by law to pay for a service you may not use at all. Frankly the amount of BBC I watch is under single figures/week - save for something big like the Olympics, and I could get away with watching zero hours - the TV is there mainly for youtube and streaming sports (ie NowTV0

On the other hand I do think we need a commercial-free TV service, so the BBC should be funded by a mix of subscription and government direct funding. So certain channels and the radio would be "free" to air, but the rest by subscription - so the BBC might be able to afford a proper sports channel showing Tests, live league football etc.

So maybe BBC1 and the News Channel stay "free" paid for by the government, and possibly children's TV, with the rest subscription. Maybe "big" shows could be shown first on the sub-channels and then repeated later on the "free" one?

Anyhow, the licence-fee is way out of date!!

 

[The_Train]

I see this as phase one of removing the licence fee altogether, and the BBC services becoming subscription based. And whilst a lot of people might see this as a positive, it could end up costing them more. Still its what the people want, and talking of which....

I would absolutely expect a subscription to cost more, although the BBC have to remember that there is a lot of competition out there already. The positive for me is that I will no longer be paying one organisation for the privilege of watching channels run by different organisations - it amazes me that the BBC have been allowed to get away with this for so long!

I'm one for often talking about unintended consequences, and this could certainly be one. Our government are no doubt keeping a close eye on how Trump's administration is starting to annex part of the US media, either directly by denying them access, or indirectly by targeting them as "fake news". If the US situation carries on the way it is, I fully expect our administration to go the same way. As I said to someone on social media just the other day, if anyone thinks the government blocking out sections of the media simply because they are not "on message", I would strongly advise reading Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four.

I'm pretty sure Boris is basing all of his decisions on that particular novel

 

[ComUtoR]

TV has evolved. The entire media industry seem to act as a law unto themselves and have been 'getting away with it' for years. Now that the tables are turning they are crying like babies.

I don't think that the BBC has any automatic right to carry out the political interviews. If a Politician, Celebrity, Activist, Musician or anyone decides that they do not like being interviewed by X Journalist of channel then they should have the right to choose. Just this week the Beeb was called out by Louis Tomlinson for their interview. Krishnan Guru-Murthy has been rather infamously called out for his interview style and awkward questioning.

As to the License Tax Fee. It's out of date and needs to go. I don't think decriminalizing is the way to go as it will cause a drop in revenue they are currently entitled to and it will cause the same headaches as some people will get chased through the civil courts and inevitable debt collector visits. Just drop it all together. Personally I'd never watch the BBC again or listen to any BBC radio channels.

 

[Bantamzen]

TV has evolved. The entire media industry seem to act as a law unto themselves and have been 'getting away with it' for years. Now that the tables are turning they are crying like babies.

Who are they that you refer to, and what exactly have they been getting away with?

I don't think that the BBC has any automatic right to carry out the political interviews. If a Politician, Celebrity, Activist, Musician or anyone decides that they do not like being interviewed by X Journalist of channel then they should have the right to choose. Just this week the Beeb was called out by Louis Tomlinson for their interview. Krishnan Guru-Murthy has been rather infamously called out for his interview style and awkward questioning.

I would agree that everyone expect politicians should be able to choose, and just in case you didn't realise it they already do.

However politicians should not be allowed to choose their own media channels. They are accountable to all people, not just the followers of one media source or another. What you are proposing here is something like Fox News in the US who, with only a couple of commentators as an exception, fawn over the President, repeat his mantra parrot fashion, and are increasingly becoming like something out of North Korea. I'm just waiting for the Fox News piece about how Trump completed his favourite golf course in just 18 strokes, rides up & down mountains on his horse, and whose birth was blessed by the gods.....

Thanks, but no thanks. I prefer my politicians grilled, not massaged....

As to the License Tax Fee. It's out of date and needs to go. I don't think decriminalizing is the way to go as it will cause a drop in revenue they are currently entitled to and it will cause the same headaches as some people will get chased through the civil courts and inevitable debt collector visits. Just drop it all together. Personally I'd never watch the BBC again or listen to any BBC radio channels.

I think it is inevitable that they will move to a subscription model. And it is also inevitable that the same people moaning about the licence fee will be setting up those Direct Debits for their dose of EastEnders or whatever other crap Beeb drama they are addicted to, with the exception of your good self of course....

 

[najaB]

Should we be worried?

Yes.

(filler)

 

[najaB]

Basically, you shouldn't be forced by law to pay for a service you may not use at all. Frankly the amount of BBC I watch...

I haven't used the NHS in the last two or three years, nor do I have children in school. Does that mean I'm entitled to a tax refund?

Also, the licence fee funds a lot more than just BBC TV.

 

[The_Train]

I haven't used the NHS in the last two or three years, nor do I have children in school. Does that mean I'm entitled to a tax refund?

We are really likening the BBC to a life saving service or a service towards the education of the future of this country? I guess Eastenders could be on par in terms of importance

 

[DarloRich]

Should we be worried?

Absolutely. But the desire to "Americanise" the news media will be lost in the guff about the licence fee. We should be protecting the BBC but we wont because people are led by the nose by other media barons to complain about it rather than question WHY these people so dislike the BBC. Sadly, few people seem able to grasp that. Perhaps it is an educational, intelligence and sophistication problem with society.

Personally I'd never watch the BBC again or listen to any BBC radio channels.

No worries - stick to whichever channel delivers news in the way that reaffirms your political prejudice. Personally I would prefer to hear a range of voices ( via a range of platforms) and make up my own mind. The problem seems to be, often, that the BBC doesn't simply parrot a line the listener wants to hear ( and the politician wants to push), challenges the listeners "man", wont accept trite bullcrap, uses the politicians own words and asks them to justify them and tries to hold what are professional liars and con men to account and so is therefore bad.

That wont continue without the license fee. Why do you want that?

which lets face it is no great loss.

I disagree - in particular unbiased news, current affairs and political programming is invaluable. Why are you against that?

I don't think that the BBC has any automatic right to carry out the political interviews.

I agree. I also think that we should be told if a politicians is too much of a coward to be interviewed by a certain person and be allowed to draw inferences from that decision. They represent us. We are entitled to scrutinise them and consider their charterer and beliefs. The only way they can be tested is by a harsh media spot light. What have they got to hide?

This entire proposal is designed to remove scrutiny from politicians and ensure they are only ever treated nicely. Why do you want that?

The licence fee funds a lot more than just BBC TV.

Absolutely. I rarely watch the TV ( beyond the news) but listen to the radio a great deal and use I player and the BBC website

 

[87 027]

So if the BBC becomes a subscription only model then they will need a way of turning off the signal for people who don’t use it. Does this mean pensioners who want to carry on watching will need to get HDMI plug in dongles or smart TVs and upgrade their broadband packages if they are on a light user tariff?

 

[najaB]

We are really likening the BBC to a life saving service or a service towards the education of the future of this country? I guess Eastenders could be on par in terms of importance

No, but the principle is the same: I didn't have my life saved, nor do I have children being educated so why do I have to pay for them?

 

[Bantamzen]

So if the BBC becomes a subscription only model then they will need a way of turning off the signal for people who don’t use it. Does this mean pensioners who want to carry on watching will need to get HDMI plug in dongles or smart TVs and upgrade their broadband packages if they are on a light user tariff?

It depends really, they might start by making some of their package subscription based whilst leaving BBC1/2 and some radio stations free to air, with a proposed switchover date to allow people to prepare. But yes, eventually if people wanted to watch a full subscription based model they would need some form of upgrade if they don't already have it available.

 

[najaB]

So if the BBC becomes a subscription only model...

It already is a subscription-only model. Everyone with a TV is a subscriber, unless they opt out.

 

[The_Train]

I disagree - in particular unbiased news, current affairs and political programming is invaluable. Why are you against that?

I don't watch the news and I have no interest in politics. In fact I could probably count on one hand the amount of things I watch on the BBC in a week and one of those is a 'game show' that involves the contestants jumping out of a box at the right time and having an average weighted vegetable of some sort - hardly the entertainment we enjoyed in the 90s is it?

Therefore it would be of no great loss to me and without this compulsory license, I'd have that flexibility to choose if I wanted to watch the BBC or not. If it would be a loss to you, which I guess from the points you've made it would be, then you'd just need to pay the subscription.

I'm not advocating the removal of the BBC, I just find it galling that if I don't pay the BBC the license fee then I can't watch any other channels on my tv without one of their rent-a-thugs turning up at my door. Why do I have to pay the BBC to watch ITV or Dave or Yesterday or any other freeview channel?

 

[The_Train]

No, but the principle is the same: I didn't have my life saved, nor do I have children being educated so why do I have to pay for them?

Because the 2 things you've mentioned are necessities in life. The reality is that unfortunately we will all need the NHS at some point in our lives but it's safe to say that no-one needs the BBC

 

[najaB]

Because the 2 things you've mentioned are necessities in life.

They aren't necessities in my life.

The reality is that unfortunately we will all need the NHS at some point in our lives but it's safe to say that no-one needs the BBC

"No need for an unbiased media." This way democracy dies.

 

[pdeaves]

They aren't necessities in my life.

They are but you don't realise it yet. If you ever fall ill you will need assistance from a health service, administered by people who are suitably educated. Our tax is the 'insurance policy' to make sure this happens. Like other insurance policies, some people claim the benefit more than others but we all pay the subscription.

 

[Darandio]

I've been saying for years that the way the license fee works needs to be modernised. Even if you want to obtain a TV license, the payment options are archaic unless you can afford to commit to a one off payment for the year.

I've known plenty of people that have wanted to pay for only one month for something such as a major sporting event, or for a month over the Christmas period. There isn't an option to do this. The TV license as it stands today is just under £3 per week, but if you want to start with their weekly payment option, it's £6 per week and you cannot just expect to pay for two weeks and then not pay for the following two weeks even though you have effectively paid for a month. Want to go Direct Debit instead? No option for a month there either, they want you to commit to buying a full licence in just six months with a first payment of £25.75. Pay Quarterly doesn't work either.

Just let people pay for a week/month/six months if they want to, it isn't bloody difficult.

 

[najaB]

They are but you don't realise it yet.

I do not have children so I will never take advantage of the education system. I'll pay for healthcare when I get sick, I don't see why my money should be spent to pay for other people's poor lifestyle choices.

(By the way, I'm just pointing out the ridiculousness of the "I don't use it so I shouldn't pay for it" argument).

 

[DarloRich]

I don't watch the news and I have no interest in politics.

Ok. Could you make a slight projection: Can you understand how having a source of unbiased news, current affairs and political reporting might be useful AND how the lack of that MIGHT explain how we have got into the mess we are in AND how without the BBC that independence might be more harder to find?

As an aside I HONESTLY cant understand your position. You are essentially saying you have no interest in life! Politics is involved in everything. How can you not be interested in what is happening in the world? I find it infuriating and puerile and a sad indictment of society.

I'm not advocating the removal of the BBC

Yes, you are. At least in the form it is today. You are advocating moving it to a commercial footing and removing from it the best/most important/most valuable parts. I know, you think those are boring and dull, but they are the parts we should be fighting to keep.

Silly game shows and soaps are fluff and can be made by anyone. Good quality independent news, current affairs and politics cant be. Sadly people seem to lap up silliness.

 

[DarloRich]

Just let people pay for a week/month/six months if they want to, it isn't bloody difficult.

Disagree. You should be able to split into 52 weekly payments but you should pay for a year, not when you want to. If you cancel you get a refund on what you have paid.

I don't have a problem with the license fee. I know others do. My question is why. I hope that is more than the guff they read in the Sun! it often isnt mind!

 

[nlogax]

Because the 2 things you've mentioned are necessities in life. The reality is that unfortunately we will all need the NHS at some point in our lives but it's safe to say that no-one needs the BBC

Entirely disagree. If you want to see the UK turn into a 51st state of the US then sure, go ahead, strip it of the BBC. The Beeb isn't perfect..the licence model is definitely outmoded and it needs further work to move towards modern consumption. That aside it's one of those rare and long-standing cohesive elements of this nation that most of us trust and value to some degree. An unbiased news operation has always been at the heart of that trust and value. In conjunction with our news media laws it also prevents the UK from a hard turn into a Fox News / MSNBC-flavoured future devoid of balance and nonpartisan reportage.

I fear the prospect of a diminished BBC becoming a fully commercial operation, or being reduced to a small-scale provider of news contracted from 3rd parties and broadcaster of classic repeats, funded solely by PBS-style pledge drives. We're better than that aren't we?

 

[DarloRich]

Entirely disagree. If you want to see the UK turn into a 51st state of the US then sure, go ahead, strip it of the BBC. The Beeb isn't perfect..the licence model is definitely outmoded and it needs further work to move towards modern consumption. That aside it's one of those rare and long-standing cohesive elements of this nation that most of us trust and value to some degree. An unbiased news operation has always been at the heart of that trust and value. In conjunction with our news media laws it also prevents the UK from a hard turn into a Fox News / MSNBC-flavoured future devoid of balance and nonpartisan reportage.

I fear the prospect of a diminished BBC becoming a fully commercial operation, or being reduced to a small-scale provider of news contracted from 3rd parties and broadcaster of classic repeats, funded solely by PBS-style pledge drives. We're better than that aren't we?

I agree entirely. The situation is not perfect but is about as good as we can get. We should be asking WHY Johnson and his chums want to attack the BBC and broadcast laws and asking him ( perhaps on the BBC ) to justify his position.

 

[The_Train]

Ok. Could you make a slight projection: Can you understand how having a source of unbiased news, current affairs and political reporting might be useful AND how the lack of that MIGHT explain how we have got into the mess we are in AND how without the BBC that independence might be more harder to find?

But the BBC exists in its current guise at the moment and we have still ended up in the ultimate mess that we are in now. So how would a change to the BBC make things worse?

As an aside I HONESTLY cant understand your position. You are essentially saying you have no interest in life! Politics is involved in everything. How can you not be interested in what is happening in the world? I find it infuriating and puerile and a sad indictment of society.

Maybe that's because I do lack an interest in life. Unfortunately not everyone lives a life filled with pretty rainbows and unicorns and I generally just exist through each day with the only thing to look forward to being going back to bed at the end of the day!

At the recent General Election I decided against wasting my time by voting as my thinking was that there is no politician in the world who can make my life any better but equally no government that could make it any worse so I decided to just go with the flow. It may be viewed as peurile by some but that's just the way I view politicians and politics in general and it's safe to say that no media organisation will change my mind as I hold them in similar regard to politicians

Yes, you are. At least in the form it is today. You are advocating moving it to a commercial footing and removing from it the best/most important/most valuable parts. I know, you think those are boring and dull, but they are the parts we should be fighting to keep.

So, as I said before, I'm not advocating the removal of the service just a change in the way the corporation forces people to pay for the privilege of watching other channels away from their own.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Because the 2 things you've mentioned are necessities in life. The reality is that unfortunately we will all need the NHS at some point in our lives but it's safe to say that no-one needs the BBC

I would disagree. Maybe as an individual you don't feel you need it, but as a society, a (relatively) balanced and informative source of information is absolutely essential for the smooth running of our society and of democracy. I don't just mean news (although that is very important), I also mean widely available educational programs that allow people to understand more about the World we all live in - science, history, culture, the environment, health, etc. etc. In terms of information you can rely on to have been checked impartially and by people with the relevant expertise for accuracy, the BBC is still the most important provider outside of specialist academic publications. ITV does some work, but its comercial basis limits that. Even if you don't personally watch the BBC much, I'm pretty sure that without it, you'd find your life would be poorer because you'd be living in a poorer, less stable, less well educated, possibly more violent, society.

 

[DarloRich]

But the BBC exists in its current guise at the moment and we have still ended up in the ultimate mess that we are in now. So how would a change to the BBC make things worse?

Really? You cant see how the tide flows? You cant see the barrage of fake news that is pumped out on social media, by people like Murdoch or by state controlled media like RT? You haven't noticed how people, perhaps like you, lack the skills to asses, investigate, challenge and consider information they are consuming and simply pass it on without critical thought.

We live in a time of massive propaganda and have a society who don't care. That is why we are in a mess and why it will get worse without a source of independent honesty.

Maybe that's because I do lack an interest in life. Unfortunately not everyone lives a life filled with pretty rainbows and unicorns and I generally just exist through each day with the only thing to look forward to being going back to bed at the end of the day!

this is silly. I am out

 

[big all]

at 42.33p a day or £2.96 a week to avoid adverts well worth the money

 

[nlogax]

It may be viewed as peurile by some but that's just the way I view politicians and politics in general and it's safe to say that no media organisation will change my mind as I hold them in similar regard to politicians

It's sad that you feel that way. BBC - as well as ITN and other orgs' - journalists keep trying to provide you with an unbiased, real view of world events and help all of us understand what's going on in a world that's increasingly nonsensical. The increasingly warped nature of world politics and politicians (in case you've not noticed them) depends much on people not consuming facts and going with biased reporting.