BBC Scaremongering again

[ivan]

Many years ago when a student on vac work, picking sprouts on a local farm, next to an A road, an ITV crew arrived asking for info on snow blocked roads. After some thought we sent them off to a rail bridge over a deep sunk narrow lane, that often fills with drifted snow. That night, ITV news reported "roads to Thanet blocked" along with pictures of the snow filled bridge. That gives an idea of how news coverage works. Not long before, at school, we examined the same story in every newspaper published that day, to see how the same event spurs different language, and how different types of reader might respond. News has always required a little thought, especially if it stirs up emotions, one of which is panic.

Businesses round here are having to put up with delayed / no delivery of goods. There are vast numbers of containers waiting to dock and deliver. Farm slaughter of animals has begun as the fresh meat processors who kill butcher and prepack are running slow, and unpicked veg is being ploughed in. There is a combined covid/brexit problem, which will probably end up with a quiet issuing of more temporary visas for E european workers, or more food imports; it's a govt. decision either way. Our Xmas dinner is already in the freezer.

The licence is for your TV - at least in theory. We used to have a radio licence, even if you only listened to radio Luxemburg. The govt wanted to keep tabs on who had comms!

The Beeb is already short of cash, which doesn't help, as it's trying to max on viewers, which as the Sun knows, requires "populist" journalism. I think the World Service (radio) arm of the Beeb is probably the best source of plain news. As a pensioner I grew up with the BBC, and compared with news channels in the USA (we have rellies there) it is still a paragon of virtue. But it's not as good as it was, and the technical stuff is often dumbed down compared to the early days of BBC2. Now paying again, as the free tv perk has gone, only because of some good stuff on BBC4. If that went, so would I, and go streaming only of other channels.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

The TV license fee is a tax. Based on households it has more in common with council tax than income tax. Unlike both it is not progressive - irrespective of the size of house occupied, or the income enjoyed, all pay the same.

It is the only tax hypothecated for a particular purpose. Collection requires separate systems, registers and enforcment processes. It is an anachronistic legacy and should go as dog licences did in 1988. It is absurd that a licence is need to watch live TV , but not catch up.

The BBC needs to radically revisit is reason for existing. Measuring success on audience size will drive quality down in pursuit of lowest common denominator ratings.

If it is to be taxpayer funded (preferably out of general taxation) it should engage in that which is arguably in the national interest but not available (sometimes better) from commercial media.

 

[doctor Bob]

Media still saying fuel shortage down here, total nonsense.
Got lunch from Sainsbury today, fully stocked on everything.
Managed to bag 90 toilet rolls, 5 turkeys (i'm vegan but who cares)

 

[southendwoodworker]

I don't have a strong view on the BBC TV licence, my family never watch live TV or the news, we don't even have a tv antenna

But one thing I must point out, that having lived in a few countries and travelled extensively to many more, is that BBC is actually pretty good value overall compared to a subscription system which other countries have. Once the licence fee goes and BBC is allowed to have mid-program advertising to help fund themselves, there will be no going back. It's something to be very cautious of because the grass isn't necessarily greener on the other side.

From my foreign perspective:

1) the bcc are somewhat unbiased (all news is biased or sensationalist in some way)
2) advertising on tv is horrible, really really really horrible. Watching a 30 minute program means having to watch 9 minutes of ads, it becomes tiring very very quick
3) that the fee isn't really a lot compared to a basic package from another supplier like sky. the basic packages are generally too lean by design and you're forced in to paying more to see anything of real interest, which I have found to still offer less than what the BBC does for its price
4) if bbc becomes user or advertising funded, it will have to find a profitable audience market. This will mean they will likely become more focussed towards whatever market is most profitable for them, introducing further bias

If the issue is about BBC being biased, just remember all news is biased and always has been. It only really becomes apparent when its bias starts to differ from your own. Our biases change over time, so has our bias changed or has the bbc's bias changed? I don't know.

We all have different biases, and when we find a news source we do like we will perceive it as being neutral, when in reality all it means is that news sources bias just aligns with our own bias at that time.

Whenever we read the news we got to consider whether there is a bias. This grows tiresome, people don't like having to evaluate each and everything they see or hear for truthfulness. As a foreigner, I find the the BBC pretty low effort (which actually is a good thing and something UK deserves a high five for); what I am meaning is that I don't feel that I have to question every word in a BBC article (maybe every tenth word), whereas when reading the Sun, Metro or Guardian I have to spend significantly more effort in reading them because I have to ***** every single word.

 

[southendwoodworker]

The TV license fee is a tax. Based on households it has more in common with council tax than income tax. Unlike both it is not progressive - irrespective of the size of house occupied, or the income enjoyed, all pay the same.

It is the only tax hypothecated for a particular purpose. Collection requires separate systems, registers and enforcment processes. It is an anachronistic legacy and should go as dog licences did in 1988. It is absurd that a licence is need to watch live TV , but not catch up.

The BBC needs to radically revisit is reason for existing. Measuring success on audience size will drive quality down in pursuit of lowest common denominator ratings.

If it is to be taxpayer funded (preferably out of general taxation) it should engage in that which is arguably in the national interest but not available (sometimes better) from commercial media.

I think you are spot on with all of what you said there.

 

[ian33a]

I don't have a strong view on the BBC TV licence, my family never watch live TV or the news, we don't even have a tv antenna

But one thing I must point out, that having lived in a few countries and travelled extensively to many more, is that BBC is actually pretty good value overall compared to a subscription system which other countries have. Once the licence fee goes and BBC is allowed to have mid-program advertising to help fund themselves, there will be no going back. It's something to be very cautious of because the grass isn't necessarily greener on the other side.

From my foreign perspective:

1) the bcc are somewhat unbiased (all news is biased or sensationalist in some way)
2) advertising on tv is horrible, really really really horrible. Watching a 30 minute program means having to watch 9 minutes of ads, it becomes tiring very very quick
3) that the fee isn't really a lot compared to a basic package from another supplier like sky. the basic packages are generally too lean by design and you're forced in to paying more to see anything of real interest, which I have found to still offer less than what the BBC does for its price
4) if bbc becomes user or advertising funded, it will have to find a profitable audience market. This will mean they will likely become more focussed towards whatever market is most profitable for them, introducing further bias

If the issue is about BBC being biased, just remember all news is biased and always has been. It only really becomes apparent when its bias starts to differ from your own. Our biases change over time, so has our bias changed or has the bbc's bias changed? I don't know.

We all have different biases, and when we find a news source we do like we will perceive it as being neutral, when in reality all it means is that news sources bias just aligns with our own bias at that time.

Whenever we read the news we got to consider whether there is a bias. This grows tiresome, people don't like having to evaluate each and everything they see or hear for truthfulness. As a foreigner, I find the the BBC pretty low effort (which actually is a good thing and something UK deserves a high five for); what I am meaning is that I don't feel that I have to question every word in a BBC article (maybe every tenth word), whereas when reading the Sun, Metro or Guardian I have to spend significantly more effort in reading them because I have to ***** every single word.

I agree too, you are spot on.

We also have to remember that almost nothing broadcast on a TV set or streamed via a media player is actually free. Viewers either pay a licence fee, a subscription fee or, indirectly, bundled within the cost of the advertising of anything that they buy online or in the shops.

The BBC frustrates me at times but being subjected to TV advertising (as an example) frustrates me even more. At a couple of quid a week, its pretty decent value. Also, the licence fee isn't just to pay for the BBC and the people who work there. It also goes toward the cost of transmitting all terrestrial broadcasts to our homes and not just the output from one provider.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

At a couple of quid a week, its pretty decent value ...

Not if you are forced to pay it when you wish to watch something else, it isn't.

 

[paulrbarnard]

I’m not a fan of the BBC but advertising really frustrates me. I’m close to giving up watching YouTube due to the recent increase in advertising. A few year ago a small percentage of videos were monetised but now you find one or two non skip able adds that you have to endure before discovering that the enticing title and thumbnail leads to 5 minutes of some self important idiot telling you to click subscribe and smash that notification bell accompanied by lots of arm waving and wild gesticulation. At least you can FF past that but then hit their “sponsored by” section where you get the most insincere commentary on products seen anywhere on the planet. But at least you can FF past it. You then hit the mid video advertising which again can’t be skipped. After that you then hit the content you were looking for to discover that the “presenter” actually has no idea at all and you have just lost 10 minutes of your life which you will never get back.
maybe the BBC isn’t quite as bad as we all think.

 

[Jacob]

The TV licence fee is a “hypothecated tax”. A hypothecated tax is one which is designed to reflect the cost of a particular service or infrastructure. The tax itself does not pay for the service in any direct sense.
"The revenue is collected privately by Capita, an outside agency, and is paid into the central government Consolidated Fund, a process defined in the Communications Act 2003. Funds are then allocated by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Treasury and approved by Parliament via legislation. Additional revenues are paid by the Department for Work and Pensions to compensate for subsidised licences for eligible over-75-year-olds."

It wouldn't make the slightest difference if funded by govt. with no licence scheme but a tax rise instead; it's already controlled by govt, with an associated particular form of taxation.
BBC also has a commercial wing, selling programmes and other services.

I think the BBC is brilliant but it is dominated by the upper clarses - quite a lot of posh girls and boys and hence innately establishment biased, but not driven by profit. Infinitely preferable to being dominated by Murdoch et al.

 

[Keith Cocker]

The BBC (and many other MSM channels) are activists in Social Engineering. They are not the news channels they used to be.

And we are forced to pay for it via the TV license.

It’s a conspiracy

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Infinitely preferable to being dominated by Murdoch et al.

We choose whether to read or watch anything owned by Murdoch or anyone else. If we wish to watch any other live TV we have to pay the BBC tax. That's where it is different, wrong and beyond any justification. Whether it is or isn't good value or biased doesn't even come into it.

 

[Jacob]

We choose whether to read or watch anything owned by Murdoch or anyone else. If we wish to watch any other live TV we have to pay the BBC tax. That's where it is different, wrong and beyond any justification. Whether it is or isn't good value or biased doesn't even come into it.

Well yes it's illogical and also gives an unfair boost to the independents. Better to fund BBC straight out of taxation, as with other public services

 

[Sporky McGuffin]

It’s a conspiracy

That's what the conspiracy theorists want you to think!

On the bias question, I've noticed that pretty much everyone thinks the BBC is biased, which suggests that either the bias varies by programme, or that it's very middle of the road. Or equally shoddy in all directions.

 

[Jacob]

That's what the conspiracy theorists want you to think!

On the bias question, I've noticed that pretty much everyone thinks the BBC is biased, which suggests that either the bias varies by programme, or that it's very middle of the road. Or equally shoddy in all directions.

Or maybe tells the truth, which nobody wants to hear?

 

[Sporky McGuffin]

Or maybe tells the truth, which nobody wants to hear?

Yes - I meant to encompass that in my reply but failed. Good call.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Well yes it's illogical and also gives an unfair boost to the independents. Better to fund BBC straight out of taxation, as with other public services

Except it isn't a public service.

 

[Jacob]

Except it isn't a public service.

er, yes it is! It's set up and run by the govt.

 

[selectortone]

Except it isn't a public service.

The BBC is a public service broadcaster whose remit was defined by Lord Reith, its first Director-General as to "inform, educate and entertain". As such, I believe it has an obligation to report the news objectively and responsibly, and not indulge in scaremongering down in the gutter with the worst of the tabloids.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_service_broadcasting_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

[Jacob]

The BBC is a public service broadcaster whose remit was defined by Lord Reith, its first Director-General as to "inform, educate and entertain". As such, I believe it has an obligation to report the news objectively and not indulge in scaremongering down in the gutter with the worst of the tabloids.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_service_broadcasting_in_the_United_Kingdom

What BBC scaremongering did you have in mind?

 

[selectortone]

What BBC scaremongering did you have in mind?

Eh? The scaremongering I referred to when I started this thread.