Media, BBC and Government

[DynamicSpirit]

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.

I agree that having to pay a license fee if you only watch ITV seems an anomaly. I'd argue that it's an anomaly that ought to be fixed by funding the BBC from general taxation, with some law ring-fencing the level of funding to ensure the BBC can't be subject to financial threats by the Government.

But as long as we have a license fee funding the BBC, then I'd be opposed to any changes that reduce the numbers of people paying it. That's partly because we all benefit indirectly from having the BBC there as a source of reliable information - so it seem fair that, as far as possible, we all pay for it. And partly because it seems likely that the current proposals to decriminalise the license fee are motivated mainly by the desire by many in the Tory Party to weaken the BBC in order to move away from public service broadcasting, and to a model where television can be used to push out something more akin to the propaganda that you see in other countries (notably Fox News in the USA).

 

[The_Train]

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.

At no point have I said that we should strip the country of the BBC. My point is, and always has been, that I shouldn't have to pay the BBC to be able to watch non-BBC channels. I mean, if Tesco suddenly said 'you need to pay us £150 per year so you can shop at other supermarkets' what would your reaction be?

As for the UK becoming like a far away state of the US, unfortunately that death warrant was signed when 52% decided leaving the EU was a good idea. We are now Emu to America and their hand is well and truly up our rear

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'm not sure the BBC is a million miles away from what you've described there anyway. Even their flagship daily game show serves up paltry prize money compared to others

 

[The_Train]

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.

I don't really use social media barring railway and football forums so I tend to avoid all of this fake news. Probably for the best if I lack the relevant skills to deal with it......

this is silly. I am out

The famous 'that's silly' comment from DarloRich - you've done well to get this far into a thread without throwing it out there

Don't question people's interest in life if you can't deal with all possible responses. I'm rarely that open with people about stuff like that but you sent me down a bit of a cul-de-sac and there was no alternative response without me lying.

 

[The_Train]

I'm not going to respond to the last batch of responses individually as we will just keep going around in circles until the thread gets locked.

My argument is, and always has been, that we shouldn't have to pay a fee to an organisation to be able to watch the channels of different organisations. A subscription service doesn't have to change the service offered by the BBC, it just gives people the choice as to whether they watch BBC channels or not.

And funnily enough, some will agree and some won't which kind of proves my point that a subscription service is the fairest way all round.

Anyway, I've made my point so I'll leave it there and get back to talking trains

 

[Howardh]

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?

No. On the grounds that the NHS (or any other body requiring taxpayers money other than the licence-fee) isn't ringfenced. Your taxes go into a pot, of which they then take out a proportion for defence, highways, train subsidies, NHS, education, policing and so on.
Am I entitled to a refund because we haven't had a war?
Of course if you don't like paying taxes because you don't use the services, then earn just enough so you are below taxable/NI income. Except, of course, you will be paying VAT, duty.....but the BBC has to be paid even if you don't use the service but need the equipment to view alternative media, and I don't think you can opt-out on grounds of being poor other than the over 75's. Someone can clarify that, is there a reduced or no fee for anyone on benefits?

 

[Howardh]

I'm not going to respond to the last batch of responses individually as we will just keep going around in circles until the thread gets locked.

My argument is, and always has been, that we shouldn't have to pay a fee to an organisation to be able to watch the channels of different organisations. A subscription service doesn't have to change the service offered by the BBC, it just gives people the choice as to whether they watch BBC channels or not.

And funnily enough, some will agree and some won't which kind of proves my point that a subscription service is the fairest way all round.

Anyway, I've made my point so I'll leave it there and get back to talking trains

Perhaps the system should be that everyone pays the licence but it gets distributed amongst ALL the broadcasters proportionately to their viewing/listening figures and website hits !!

 

[433N]

I'd happily pay the licence fee if the BBC got rid of Fiona Bruce.

 

[DarloRich]

I don't really use social media barring railway and football forums so I tend to avoid all of this fake news.

But you do acknowledge the fake news is there and that it is insidious. BTW I bet you don't avoid it and I bet you consume it, even if it is just silly transfer rumours. We all do. The trick is to know how to sniff bullcrap. Sadly lots of people don't know how or don't care.

The famous 'that's silly' comment from DarloRich - you've done well to get this far into a thread without throwing it out there

Don't question people's interest in life if you can't deal with all possible responses. I'm rarely that open with people about stuff like that but you sent me down a bit of a cul-de-sac and there was no alternative response without me lying.

I am happy with the responses, as long as they are sensible and based on some logic. I am not sure yours are. No one lives a life of sunshine, rainbows and unicorn tears. To suggest they do is silly. People live different lives. Few lead easy lives. Dull, boring politics is one of the reasons why. If more people took an interest we might see an improvement in both policies and calibre of politician.

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.

Put aside that you don't bother watching dull, boring news/politics for a moment. I don't watch the kind of silly programmes you do but I still pay for them.

Are you able to acknowledge that the changes you propose would fundamentally change the way the BBC operated and mean that independent news, politics and current affairs programming would be at risk?

 

[najaB]

Of course if you don't like paying taxes because you don't use the services,

See my post earlier...

(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).

 

[433N]

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.

I'm not sure that we live in a time of massive propaganda ... we live in a time when anyone can go and find information which they agree with and believe it to be gospel truth without critical evaluation. This is the irony of the internet, too much information to ingest and process ... so, generally, people don't.

You may regard the BBC as a source of independent honesty but I can assure you that if you are stupid enough (as I sometimes am) to look at BBC Have Your Say comments, you will see that not everyone regards the BBC as such a source. I'm sure that there is a section of society that believes Kay Burley and Sky News is gospel and a massive section of society that believes whatever The Sun reports.

Welcome to the Post-Truth world ; you might not like it, but it's here and it's not going to go away.

 

[nlogax]

For every HYS ‘the BBC are all Tories’ keyboard mash there’s a ‘the BBC are all old Trots’ line. It’s an age-old argument but t’Beeb must be doing right if both left and right believe there is bias against their viewpoints.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

For every HYS ‘the BBC are all Tories’ keyboard mash there’s a ‘the BBC are all old Trots’ line. It’s an age-old argument but t’Beeb must be doing right if both left and right believe there is bias against their viewpoints.

Agreed. And what has worked well up to now is that, although both left and right think that the BBC is biased against them, both sides have on the whole respected the status quo and, by and large, left the BBC to get on with its job. Now, for the first time in living memory, we have a Government that appears both keen and willing to destroy that balance and seek to create a broadcasting environment where its own point of view can dominate. That ought to deeply worry anyone concerned about maintaining our democracy.

 

[Busaholic]

''And always keep ahold of Nurse
For fear of finding something worse''

are the concluding lines of ''Jim'' by Hillaire Belloc. Given that the BBC used to be known as Auntie in certain circles twenty and thirty years ago, I feel they're very apposite. ''You don't know what you've got til it's gone'' as Joni Mitchell said, although Paradise might be a stretch for the imagination. Beware the Fox in sheep's clothing.

 

[ComUtoR]

I don't have a problem with the license fee. I know others do. My question is why.

For me it's about choice. If people want to support the BBC, their ideals and want to consume their content, then they should pay for it. For those who could happily live without it, then they shouldn't have to pay.

 

[Bantamzen]

For me it's about choice. If people want to support the BBC, their ideals and want to consume their content, then they should pay for it. For those who could happily live without it, then they shouldn't have to pay.

That seems like a reasonable argument. And as I don't agree with governments getting involved in Middle Eastern conflicts, and don't want all the issues that affect us directly & indirectly, on that same logic I can look forward to a tax rebate.....?

Seriously though, whilst I do agree the BBC needs to modernise how it generates revenue, i.e. via subscription, the "I don't use, I don't want to pay" argument doesn't wash any more than my silly example above. Whether you watch it or not, having a media channel designed to sit more or less in the centre of the political spectrum is one that does not allow politicians to hide behind left or right leaning media alone. And that, believe it or not is a good thing.

 

[yorksrob]

For me it's about choice. If people want to support the BBC, their ideals and want to consume their content, then they should pay for it. For those who could happily live without it, then they shouldn't have to pay.

Realistically though, endless choice alone doesn't always produce quality.

Take radio for example, at present we have four channels providing different services to people with different tastes. Without the BBC you'd end up with the commercial sludge of everyone aiming for the same audience.

The BBC undoubtedly has its faults (a desire to be too trendy and 'right on' perhaps being one) but I still believe we need a broadcaster that is supported nationally and therefore less enchained by commercial considerations.

 

[SteveP29]

Should we be worried?

Yes

Krishnan Guru-Murthy has been rather infamously called out for his interview style and awkward questioning

Is that because he asks questions and scrutinises statements and policies that Kuenessberg and Peston wouldn't dream of?

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.

We pay quarterly, by Direct Debit, you simply don't have to divvy up for a year in one or two payments.
There are options, and you pick which is easiest for you

A subscription service doesn't have to change the service offered by the BBC

Simple fact is though, it WILL change the service if people decide not to pay for it.
You won't get your Attenborough nature docs, you won't get your 'unbiased' news and current affairs service the way it is now, you won't get top quality comedy and drama.
You will, however, get lots more reality TV, paid for by premium rate phone voting, you will, get lots more biased news and political reporting, sponsored by the party willing to contribute the most.

For me it's about choice. If people want to support the BBC, their ideals and want to consume their content, then they should pay for it. For those who could happily live without it, then they shouldn't have to pay.

So, are you telling us that you don't:
Watch BBC TV
listen to BBC Radio
look at the BBC Website

Ever?

 

[ComUtoR]

So, are you telling us that you don't:
Watch BBC TV
listen to BBC Radio
look at the BBC Website

Ever?

I pay for my TV License. I am entitled to watch any and all BBC content.

However, If I had the choice to never pay for my TV License and then never consume any BBC content; I would take it.

 

[krus_aragon]

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?

They aren't necessities in my life.

I doubt many of us reach adulthood without any interaction with the NHS, as that's a lot to dodge: midwife care during pregnancy & childbirth, vaccinations, vision and hearing assessments (some of which are done at school), etc...

(Though that just moves the argument from "I don't use it" to "I don't use it now", of course.)

 

[krus_aragon]

I'm not sure that we live in a time of massive propaganda ... we live in a time when anyone can go and find information which they agree with and believe it to be gospel truth without critical evaluation. This is the irony of the internet, too much information to ingest and process ... so, generally, people don't.

Which in turn is mainly due to the fact that anybody and everybody can create and provide that information, as opposed to days of yore when you'd have to own a newspaper/tv station/similar to get your message as widely distributed.

You may regard the BBC as a source of independent honesty but I can assure you that if you are stupid enough (as I sometimes am) to look at BBC Have Your Say comments, you will see that not everyone regards the BBC as such a source. I'm sure that there is a section of society that believes Kay Burley and Sky News is gospel and a massive section of society that believes whatever The Sun reports.

If people on all sides of the political spectrum complain that it's biased against them, it's probably doing a fairly good job of being unbiased and staying in the middle.

 

[WelshBluebird]

My argument is, and always has been, that we shouldn't have to pay a fee to an organisation to be able to watch the channels of different organisations. A subscription service doesn't have to change the service offered by the BBC.

Really? You don't see the link between funding via subscriptions and specifically changing the output to boost that number?

 

[najaB]

I doubt many of us reach adulthood without any interaction with the NHS, as that's a lot to dodge: midwife care during pregnancy & childbirth, vaccinations, vision and hearing assessments (some of which are done at school), etc...

True, but the point is that I paid hundreds of pounds in taxes last year and didn't use NHS services once.

See how ridiculous that position is?

 

[krus_aragon]

True, but the point is that I paid hundreds of pounds in taxes last year and didn't use NHS services once.

See how ridiculous that position is?

Oh yes. But then we're back to the health "insurance" discussion above, which I won't bother repeating.

 

[DerekC]

There seems to be a general consensus amongst those posting that the BBC's funding method should be changed, but (unsurprisingly) not about how valuable the BBC is or how it should be paid for in future.

I think we should be very careful. Those who are driving this government's policies are clever. There is a quite clear wish coming from the same people who pushed and funded the campaign for leaving the EU, to get rid of the BBC in its current form because they see it as an obstacle to the kind of media they want, where the message and the selection of "facts" presented is what the owners want it to be. I think that would be hugely detrimental to the UK and another milestone in the path towards a future I very much hope we can avoid, as a second class American look-alike. This consultation is the next step in a process which started with giving the BBC financial responsibility for free licences for over-75s and then blaming them for not being able to fund it. This step will undermine BBC finances and require further cuts. Next step - I don't know, but there will be one. The Mail and Express have already tasted blood.

There is an assumption around that because the internet allows access to multiple sources of information, people can make their own minds up what to believe, that we now live in a "post-truth" society (as if truth was an old-fashioned concept that we don't need to bother about any more) and that sources which work hard to offer accurate information and a balanced view are unnecessary. I think that's wrong. Social media is a rumour machine and having a trustworthy organisation which is obliged and funded specifically to provide accurate and balanced information is more, not less, valuable than it used to be. The BBC isn't perfect, but it is the best we have got.

It's worth reading the government consultation paper - see:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consu...ltation-on-decriminalising-tv-licence-evasion

It is notable that there is only eight weeks to respond (which isn't long) and that only responses on the criminality issue will be accepted. It makes clear that only five people have been imprisoned in the last year, that that was for repeated non-payment of fines and that the average sentence was 19 days. If failure to pay becomes a civil offence, not only will the legal costs be greatly increased but the ultimate recourse for the BBC (if a court order fails) will be to send the bailiffs in to seize property. I bet the No 10 think tank is already salivating over that!!