I have had increasingly less sympathy with the BBC in recent years, all too frequently their very obvious bias annoyed me. But I have been watching the Loudest Voice about Ailes and the growth of Fox News. There are worse alternatives out there.
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
Not sure about that. The licence fee days are coming to an end.
Many will back this from the young to the elderly who now have to pay
Ten or Twenty years ago I would have wholly disagreed with you.
In the digital age there are better sources of news and entertainment than the BBC. It's programming is depleted through budget constraints, it's news coverage is generally subservient to the government of the day (Boris and the Cenotaph for one). BBC News journalists recruited in the last decade or so seem to be wannabe Tory MPs. It is a hostage to impartiality. The main and regional news bulletins assume the viewer to be a moron and broadcast accordingly. Question Time for example has become a parody of itself.
The BBC is doomed. I wish that were not the case. But it is. No country on earth can continue to poll tax all citizens for a broadcasting service used by a minority. It is nuts.
Worse, the way the BBC is funded makes its drama and story productions uniquely mediocre, as it is so scared of offending anyone, lest they cut its cash flow. Cf the recent His Dark Materials, which was just..... cringe.
Where is the protest?
It doesn't exist.
The mad Tory Cummings-Beanie-Hat Right have invented yet another massive problem that needs solving that no one else gives a fuck about (other than those who can't afford the TV licence - you can do work on that without destroying the BBC).
The injustice is that it is a flat tax which all pay but which disproportionately benefits the rich. Move it to general taxation and the problem disappears.
So you want us to be taxed to pay for the rich elderly to watch Antiques Roadshow rather than schools and hospitals?
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
Not sure about that. The licence fee days are coming to an end.
Many will back this from the young to the elderly who now have to pay
Ten or Twenty years ago I would have wholly disagreed with you.
In the digital age there are better sources of news and entertainment than the BBC. It's programming is depleted through budget constraints, it's news coverage is generally subservient to the government of the day (Boris and the Cenotaph for one). BBC News journalists recruited in the last decade or so seem to be wannabe Tory MPs. It is a hostage to impartiality. The main and regional news bulletins assume the viewer to be a moron and broadcast accordingly. Question Time for example has become a parody of itself.
It is way past its best.
Actually, 10 or 20 years ago we did not have the amount of choice or subscription tv and news streaming. To be honest I rarely watch BBC news or much else on the BBC
If you want to watch the BBC, you should likewise be able to purchase a VOLUNTARY subscription.
Yes, great. Goodbye BBC journalism.
What's so special about the BBC's journalism?
Every time there is a television program discussed here about politics (except for election night coverage) it's the BBC who made it. There are rare exceptions - Ken Burns's Vietnam War documentary was discussed here, and that's PBS - but mostly it's the Beeb. I take your point about drama, but when it comes to political documentaries and near-news[1], the stuff we talk about here is BBC.
[1] Or whatever the word is about documentaries made 6-24 months after an event.
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
I couldn't give a shit if the BBC is destroyed or not. In my view it already is substandard shit.
If people think the BBC is fantastic why wouldn't they voluntarily subscribe to it? What are you so afraid of?
I keep trying to think of decent BBC output I value.
Attenborough is superb. It's news website is useful. And radio 4 can be interesting when it checks its bias.
Most of the rest of it is dross, I'm afraid. I can't remember the last time I watched any prime time BBC1 or BBC2 output. And the TVLA are nasty bullies.
The BBC is doomed. I wish that were not the case. But it is. No country on earth can continue to poll tax all citizens for a broadcasting service used by a minority. It is nuts.
Worse, the way the BBC is funded makes its drama and story productions uniquely mediocre, as it is so scared of offending anyone, lest they cut its cash flow. Cf the recent His Dark Materials, which was just..... cringe.
Where is the protest?
It doesn't exist.
The mad Tory Cummings-Beanie-Hat Right have invented yet another massive problem that needs solving that no one else gives a fuck about (other than those who can't afford the TV licence - you can do work on that without destroying the BBC).
The injustice is that it is a flat tax which all pay but which disproportionately benefits the rich. Move it to general taxation and the problem disappears.
So you want us to be taxed to pay for the rich elderly to watch Antiques Roadshow rather than schools and hospitals?
Because the rich elderly are not an important Conservative constituency?
If you want to watch the BBC, you should likewise be able to purchase a VOLUNTARY subscription.
Yes, great. Goodbye BBC journalism.
Having to pay a licence fee to own and watch a TV is basically on the same level as the 16th century tax on windows.
It's over. It is finished. It's done. Windows are now a thing.
The BBC has to find a new model, and it needs to hurry up and justify that new model, because the old one is becoming absurd.
And I speak as a British patriot who would love the BBC to continue as a world leader, spreading British values.
When FreeView was being rolled out, the BBC guy in the negotiations for the spec for FreeView receivers boasted that he had deleted the requirement that all FreeView systems support encrypted channels.
The reason? If all TVs could support encrypted content, then the logical step would move to encrypt BBC - pay your license fee, get a key - which would mean the call to make the "TV tax" voluntary would be irresistible.
The sad, stupid fact is that the BBC had a massive chance to move its model to online, worldwide subscriptions. One study suggested that revenue from the US alone would be more than the current license fee. Think of that as a sales pitch "The BBC - free for you. Paid for by foreigners"....
The problem was that many of the companies that make BBC content are owned by errrr... people not exactly a million miles from the BBC, in a number of cases. In quite a few cases across the breakfast table....
The price for the buying in the content is the production costs + a nice profit. For that the BBC gets the UK broadcast rights. The production company owners get a program paid for - and a free run at the world wide rights. A product that literally costs them nothing.....
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
Not sure about that. The licence fee days are coming to an end.
Many will back this from the young to the elderly who now have to pay
Ten or Twenty years ago I would have wholly disagreed with you.
In the digital age there are better sources of news and entertainment than the BBC. It's programming is depleted through budget constraints, it's news coverage is generally subservient to the government of the day (Boris and the Cenotaph for one). BBC News journalists recruited in the last decade or so seem to be wannabe Tory MPs. It is a hostage to impartiality. The main and regional news bulletins assume the viewer to be a moron and broadcast accordingly. Question Time for example has become a parody of itself.
It is way past its best.
Actually, 10 or 20 years ago we did not have the amount of choice or subscription tv and news streaming. To be honest I rarely watch BBC news or much else on the BBC
I would miss BBC Radio though. That on the whole is still very good and should be saved for the nation.
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
I couldn't give a shit if the BBC is destroyed or not. In my view it already is substandard shit.
If people think the BBC is fantastic why wouldn't they voluntarily subscribe to it? What are you so afraid of?
I keep trying to think of decent BBC output I value.
Attenborough is superb. It's news website is useful. And radio 4 can be interesting when it checks its bias.
Most of the rest of it is dross, I'm afraid. I can't remember the last time I watched any prime time BBC1 or BBC2 output. And the TVLA are nasty bullies.
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
Not sure about that. The licence fee days are coming to an end.
Many will back this from the young to the elderly who now have to pay
Ten or Twenty years ago I would have wholly disagreed with you.
In the digital age there are better sources of news and entertainment than the BBC. It's programming is depleted through budget constraints, it's news coverage is generally subservient to the government of the day (Boris and the Cenotaph for one). BBC News journalists recruited in the last decade or so seem to be wannabe Tory MPs. It is a hostage to impartiality. The main and regional news bulletins assume the viewer to be a moron and broadcast accordingly. Question Time for example has become a parody of itself.
It is way past its best.
Actually, 10 or 20 years ago we did not have the amount of choice or subscription tv and news streaming. To be honest I rarely watch BBC news or much else on the BBC
I have no problem with the BBC becoming a mainly subscription service but I think the Government should provide a subsidy from tax even if the licence fee is scrapped for key coverage of news and current affairs and sporting events, cultural and scientific programmes available to all the main broadcasters, ITV, C4, C5, Sky as well as the BBC.
The tax could be raised by a small levy on broadcasting advertisers on popular programmes
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
Not sure about that. The licence fee days are coming to an end.
Many will back this from the young to the elderly who now have to pay
Ten or Twenty years ago I would have wholly disagreed with you.
In the digital age there are better sources of news and entertainment than the BBC. It's programming is depleted through budget constraints, it's news coverage is generally subservient to the government of the day (Boris and the Cenotaph for one). BBC News journalists recruited in the last decade or so seem to be wannabe Tory MPs. It is a hostage to impartiality. The main and regional news bulletins assume the viewer to be a moron and broadcast accordingly. Question Time for example has become a parody of itself.
It is way past its best.
The fact that in the year 2020 BBC1 isn't even fully HD is a demonstration of just how shit and antiquated the BBC has become. Top listed channels on Sky's listings are all HD except for the BBC, scroll down and put BBC1 HD on and it won't be long before you get a message saying "programming is not available in your area".
The BBC simply isn't worth the licence fee. That's why its defenders are so terrified about it being a voluntary subscription - Netflix is considerably cheaper than the licence fee.
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
Not sure about that. The licence fee days are coming to an end.
Many will back this from the young to the elderly who now have to pay
Ten or Twenty years ago I would have wholly disagreed with you.
In the digital age there are better sources of news and entertainment than the BBC. It's programming is depleted through budget constraints, it's news coverage is generally subservient to the government of the day (Boris and the Cenotaph for one). BBC News journalists recruited in the last decade or so seem to be wannabe Tory MPs. It is a hostage to impartiality. The main and regional news bulletins assume the viewer to be a moron and broadcast accordingly. Question Time for example has become a parody of itself.
It is way past its best.
Actually, 10 or 20 years ago we did not have the amount of choice or subscription tv and news streaming. To be honest I rarely watch BBC news or much else on the BBC
I rarely visit my local hospital, it wont matter when it is gone.
If you want to watch the BBC, you should likewise be able to purchase a VOLUNTARY subscription.
Yes, great. Goodbye BBC journalism.
What's so special about the BBC's journalism?
Every time there is a television program discussed here about politics (except for election night coverage) it's the BBC who made it. There are rare exceptions - Ken Burns's Vietnam War documentary was discussed here, and that's PBS - but mostly it's the Beeb. I take your point about drama, but when it comes to political documentaries and near-news[1], the stuff we talk about here is BBC.
[1] Or whatever the word is about documentaries made 6-24 months after an event.
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
I couldn't give a shit if the BBC is destroyed or not. In my view it already is substandard shit.
If people think the BBC is fantastic why wouldn't they voluntarily subscribe to it? What are you so afraid of?
I keep trying to think of decent BBC output I value.
Attenborough is superb. It's news website is useful. And radio 4 can be interesting when it checks its bias.
Most of the rest of it is dross, I'm afraid. I can't remember the last time I watched any prime time BBC1 or BBC2 output. And the TVLA are nasty bullies.
It needs to do fewer things far better.
It is worth pointing out that all that is being talked about is decriminalisation of non-payment of the license fee.
Hilariously, the drug de-criminalisation types are against this - but most of the people that end up in court about TV licenses are poor, often single mums. Is there no compassion among progressives?
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
I couldn't give a shit if the BBC is destroyed or not. In my view it already is substandard shit.
If people think the BBC is fantastic why wouldn't they voluntarily subscribe to it? What are you so afraid of?
I keep trying to think of decent BBC output I value.
Attenborough is superb. It's news website is useful. And radio 4 can be interesting when it checks its bias.
Most of the rest of it is dross, I'm afraid. I can't remember the last time I watched any prime time BBC1 or BBC2 output. And the TVLA are nasty bullies.
It needs to do fewer things far better.
I would miss their radio output much more than their TV. And even there it is diamonds in the dross.
The BBC is doomed. I wish that were not the case. But it is. No country on earth can continue to poll tax all citizens for a broadcasting service used by a minority. It is nuts.
Worse, the way the BBC is funded makes its drama and story productions uniquely mediocre, as it is so scared of offending anyone, lest they cut its cash flow. Cf the recent His Dark Materials, which was just..... cringe.
His Dark Material is crap, Doctor Who is crap, Sherlock is now also crap.
Holby City. Top Gear. Call the Midwife. Mock the Week comedians doing second rate travel shows.
All of literature, journalism, music, public performance, publishing and broadcasting since the dawn of time has worked on a free market model (with a few special add ons to protect IP) whereby if people like stuff they pay for it and if not, not. Why is the BBC uniquely exempt from this model?
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
Not sure about that. The licence fee days are coming to an end.
Many will back this from the young to the elderly who now have to pay
Ten or Twenty years ago I would have wholly disagreed with you.
In the digital age there are better sources of news and entertainment than the BBC. It's programming is depleted through budget constraints, it's news coverage is generally subservient to the government of the day (Boris and the Cenotaph for one). BBC News journalists recruited in the last decade or so seem to be wannabe Tory MPs. It is a hostage to impartiality. The main and regional news bulletins assume the viewer to be a moron and broadcast accordingly. Question Time for example has become a parody of itself.
It is way past its best.
Actually, 10 or 20 years ago we did not have the amount of choice or subscription tv and news streaming. To be honest I rarely watch BBC news or much else on the BBC
I have no problem with the BBC becoming a mainly subscription service but I think the Government should provide a subsidy from tax even if the licence fee is scrapped for key coverage of current affairs and sporting events, cultural and scientific programmes available to all the main broadcasters, ITV, C4, C5, Sky as well as the BBC.
The tax could be raised by a small levy on broadcasting advertisers on popular programmes
All that could and generally is handled better by ITV and C4.
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
Not sure about that. The licence fee days are coming to an end.
Many will back this from the young to the elderly who now have to pay
Ten or Twenty years ago I would have wholly disagreed with you.
In the digital age there are better sources of news and entertainment than the BBC. It's programming is depleted through budget constraints, it's news coverage is generally subservient to the government of the day (Boris and the Cenotaph for one). BBC News journalists recruited in the last decade or so seem to be wannabe Tory MPs. It is a hostage to impartiality. The main and regional news bulletins assume the viewer to be a moron and broadcast accordingly. Question Time for example has become a parody of itself.
It is way past its best.
Actually, 10 or 20 years ago we did not have the amount of choice or subscription tv and news streaming. To be honest I rarely watch BBC news or much else on the BBC
I rarely visit my local hospital, it wont matter when it is gone.
And I speak as a British patriot who would love the BBC to continue as a world leader, spreading British values.
Then include a codicil to the act that says British-shown programming must include a certain percentage of stuff made in Britain. The French and the Canadians have done it in the past and it's an important safeguard for local talent. Otherwise we'll just turn into a training crib for US providers.
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
What's so wonderful about the BBC?
It made some decent shows about 30 years ago when there weren't any rivals.
Right now? Beats me.
They've also lost fans on the centre-right with their relentless obsessiveness over "diversity" and identity politics. Just look at what they've done to Doctor Who.
Should have worked out it'd catch up with them eventually.
Everyone seems to have forgotten that when the BBC charter was renewed under the last Labour government, the government stated that the licence fee model was becoming obsolete and would need to be replaced in a decade or so, i.e. now.
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
I couldn't give a shit if the BBC is destroyed or not. In my view it already is substandard shit.
If people think the BBC is fantastic why wouldn't they voluntarily subscribe to it? What are you so afraid of?
I keep trying to think of decent BBC output I value.
Attenborough is superb. It's news website is useful. And radio 4 can be interesting when it checks its bias.
Most of the rest of it is dross, I'm afraid. I can't remember the last time I watched any prime time BBC1 or BBC2 output. And the TVLA are nasty bullies.
It needs to do fewer things far better.
I would miss their radio output much more than their TV. And even there it is diamonds in the dross.
I don't understand why TV viewers should be taxed to fund radio output.
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
I couldn't give a shit if the BBC is destroyed or not. In my view it already is substandard shit.
If people think the BBC is fantastic why wouldn't they voluntarily subscribe to it? What are you so afraid of?
I keep trying to think of decent BBC output I value.
Attenborough is superb. It's news website is useful. And radio 4 can be interesting when it checks its bias.
Most of the rest of it is dross, I'm afraid. I can't remember the last time I watched any prime time BBC1 or BBC2 output. And the TVLA are nasty bullies.
It needs to do fewer things far better.
It is worth pointing out that all that is being talked about is decriminalisation of non-payment of the license fee.
Hilariously, the drug de-criminalisation types are against this - but most of the people that end up in court about TV licenses are poor, often single mums. Is there no compassion among progressives?
Well, that'd be a start.
There's no such thing as a friendly reminder from the TVLA. They go straight in with "six days left before we smash your kneecaps".
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
I couldn't give a shit if the BBC is destroyed or not. In my view it already is substandard shit.
If people think the BBC is fantastic why wouldn't they voluntarily subscribe to it? What are you so afraid of?
I keep trying to think of decent BBC output I value.
Attenborough is superb. It's news website is useful. And radio 4 can be interesting when it checks its bias.
Most of the rest of it is dross, I'm afraid. I can't remember the last time I watched any prime time BBC1 or BBC2 output. And the TVLA are nasty bullies.
It needs to do fewer things far better.
None of what you like will survive subscription.
You do realise the TV Poll Tax is a regressive, er, tax?
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
Not sure about that. The licence fee days are coming to an end.
Many will back this from the young to the elderly who now have to pay
Ten or Twenty years ago I would have wholly disagreed with you.
In the digital age there are better sources of news and entertainment than the BBC. It's programming is depleted through budget constraints, it's news coverage is generally subservient to the government of the day (Boris and the Cenotaph for one). BBC News journalists recruited in the last decade or so seem to be wannabe Tory MPs. It is a hostage to impartiality. The main and regional news bulletins assume the viewer to be a moron and broadcast accordingly. Question Time for example has become a parody of itself.
It is way past its best.
The fact that in the year 2020 BBC1 isn't even fully HD is a demonstration of just how shit and antiquated the BBC has become. Top listed channels on Sky's listings are all HD except for the BBC, scroll down and put BBC1 HD on and it won't be long before you get a message saying "programming is not available in your area".
The BBC simply isn't worth the licence fee. That's why its defenders are so terrified about it being a voluntary subscription - Netflix is considerably cheaper than the licence fee.
So long as we keep free to view terrestrial TV for the old and the less well off, I can't argue with you.
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
I couldn't give a shit if the BBC is destroyed or not. In my view it already is substandard shit.
If people think the BBC is fantastic why wouldn't they voluntarily subscribe to it? What are you so afraid of?
I keep trying to think of decent BBC output I value.
Attenborough is superb. It's news website is useful. And radio 4 can be interesting when it checks its bias.
Most of the rest of it is dross, I'm afraid. I can't remember the last time I watched any prime time BBC1 or BBC2 output. And the TVLA are nasty bullies.
It needs to do fewer things far better.
I would miss their radio output much more than their TV. And even there it is diamonds in the dross.
I don't understand why TV viewers should be taxed to fund radio output.
Joni Mitchell. You don't know what you've got, till it's gone.
...His Dark Material is crap, Doctor Who is crap, Sherlock is now also crap. Holby City, Top Gear, Call the Midwife, Mock the Week, comedians doing second rate travel shows: utter utter wank....
Whilst I agree with some of them (is Casualty/Holby City still on? Good Lord), I'm not entirely sure describing "Call the Midwife" as crap would enjoy unanimous agreement...
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
What's so wonderful about the BBC?
It made some decent shows about 30 years ago when there weren't any rivals.
Right now? Beats me.
They've also lost fans on the centre-right with their relentless obsessiveness over "diversity" and identity politics. Just look at what they've done to Doctor Who.
Should have worked out it'd catch up with them eventually.
Exactly. Having a state broadcaster that pumps out the fringe Left's propaganda is unacceptable. I shudder to think how much I've paid out in that fucking TV tax over the years for something I barely use - with the exception of Election Night coverage, of course!
...His Dark Material is crap, Doctor Who is crap, Sherlock is now also crap. Holby City, Top Gear, Call the Midwife, Mock the Week, comedians doing second rate travel shows: utter utter wank....
Whilst I agree with some of them (is Casualty/Holby City still on? Good Lord), I'm not entirely sure describing "Call the Midwife" as crap would enjoy unanimous agreement...
If the Conservatives are leading an assault on the BBC, they really don’t understand their new voters.
I suspect they all have Sky anyway. Don't you remember the old joke from 20 or so years ago? What is grey and hangs off a satellite dish? A council house!
Is the 15 times thing meant to be surprising? I mean, I don't think there's any book that I have read quite that many times, but I have read some at least 10 times while only being 33. If it's his favourite book then I'd not be surprised if he read it once a year, in which case 15 might well be low given he's near 40.
Must confess to skipping most of Frodo's journey post the break up of the Fellowship these days. Gets as tedious as Arya's time with the Faceless Men. But LOTR is great to dip into.
It wouldn't be my choice of a book to reread so many times for reasons such as that - and bigger, denser fare generally would be hard to manage.
But something likeGood Omens? No problem.
But there is something great in discovering a new story for the first time.
LotR is quite light compared to much modern fantasy that's come since.
I've probably read many Wheel of Time Books (especially Eye of the World to Lord of Chaos) about 15 times. I got introduced to it when Lord of Chaos (book 6) was released and after reading the series and realising it was incomplete I re-read the series start to finish a few times and before the release of each subsequent release (until book 14 was released).
The latest book in Brandon Sanderson's series Stormlight Archive, Oathbringer, was around 450,000 words long... meaning it was just short of the 480,000 word count of the entire LOTR trilogy. The first three books in the series released so far have a 1.2 million word count, meaning it's already around 200,000 words longer than the entire Harry Potter series. And Sanderson is apparently going to write another SEVEN (well technically six now he's finished the draft of the fourth book) books in the series. That's how long epic fantasy series' are these days.
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
I couldn't give a shit if the BBC is destroyed or not. In my view it already is substandard shit.
If people think the BBC is fantastic why wouldn't they voluntarily subscribe to it? What are you so afraid of?
I keep trying to think of decent BBC output I value.
Attenborough is superb. It's news website is useful. And radio 4 can be interesting when it checks its bias.
Most of the rest of it is dross, I'm afraid. I can't remember the last time I watched any prime time BBC1 or BBC2 output. And the TVLA are nasty bullies.
It needs to do fewer things far better.
I would miss their radio output much more than their TV. And even there it is diamonds in the dross.
I don't understand why TV viewers should be taxed to fund radio output.
No more or less anomalous than Sky viewers being taxed to fund bbc tv output.
If the Conservatives are leading an assault on the BBC, they really don’t understand their new voters.
You think Northerners love the BBC?
Its the Conservatives old voters (literally) who most enjoy the BBC. There's no great North/South divide but there is a massive young/old divide as the young have gotten used to superior mechanisms of broadcast.
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
Not sure about that. The licence fee days are coming to an end.
Many will back this from the young to the elderly who now have to pay
Ten or Twenty years ago I would have wholly disagreed with you.
In the digital age there are better sources of news and entertainment than the BBC. It's programming is depleted through budget constraints, it's news coverage is generally subservient to the government of the day (Boris and the Cenotaph for one). BBC News journalists recruited in the last decade or so seem to be wannabe Tory MPs. It is a hostage to impartiality. The main and regional news bulletins assume the viewer to be a moron and broadcast accordingly. Question Time for example has become a parody of itself.
It is way past its best.
Actually, 10 or 20 years ago we did not have the amount of choice or subscription tv and news streaming. To be honest I rarely watch BBC news or much else on the BBC
I rarely visit my local hospital, it wont matter when it is gone.
Hospitals are needed.
The BBC is not.
I disagree. BBC content is hardwired into our culture. I seem to recall this blog being full of Terry Jones quotes not three weeks ago.
Monty Python would not have existed without the BBC.
The list is endless.
I hate Top Gear, but would another broadcaster have nurtured into a world talent?
The biggest reason the tv licence fee has to go and be replaced by something else...it is totally unenforceable. And the BBC in a way have shot themselves in the foot, remember when we were all switching to digital / freeview, they demanded that the services couldn't have the sort of technology sky use in their boxes.
There is also a problem of over-reach with the BBC. Remember they decided to get involved with a project to compete with Raspberry Pi, their news site has a "magazine" element, which is clearly trying to compete with the newspapers.
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
What's so wonderful about the BBC?
It made some decent shows about 30 years ago when there weren't any rivals.
Right now? Beats me.
They've also lost fans on the centre-right with their relentless obsessiveness over "diversity" and identity politics. Just look at what they've done to Doctor Who.
Should have worked out it'd catch up with them eventually.
Exactly. Having a state broadcaster that pumps out the fringe Left's propaganda is unacceptable. I shudder to think how much I've paid out in that fucking TV tax over the years for something I barely use - with the exception of Election Night coverage, of course!
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
Not sure about that. The licence fee days are coming to an end.
Many will back this from the young to the elderly who now have to pay
Ten or Twenty years ago I would have wholly disagreed with you.
In the digital age there are better sources of news and entertainment than the BBC. It's programming is depleted through budget constraints, it's news coverage is generally subservient to the government of the day (Boris and the Cenotaph for one). BBC News journalists recruited in the last decade or so seem to be wannabe Tory MPs. It is a hostage to impartiality. The main and regional news bulletins assume the viewer to be a moron and broadcast accordingly. Question Time for example has become a parody of itself.
It is way past its best.
Actually, 10 or 20 years ago we did not have the amount of choice or subscription tv and news streaming. To be honest I rarely watch BBC news or much else on the BBC
I rarely visit my local hospital, it wont matter when it is gone.
Hospitals are needed.
The BBC is not.
I disagree. BBC content is hardwired into our culture. I seem to recall this blog being full of Terry Jones quotes not three weeks ago.
Monty Python would not have existed without the BBC.
The list is endless.
I hate Top Gear, but would another broadcaster have nurtured into a world talent?
I could go on.
Monty Python wouldn't have existed without the BBC because that is all that it was.
Nowadays a new Monty Python is more likely to be found on Netflix than the BBC. And Netflix is more likely to create new Top Gear etc not the BBC.
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
Not sure about that. The licence fee days are coming to an end.
Many will back this from the young to the elderly who now have to pay
Ten or Twenty years ago I would have wholly disagreed with you.
In the digital age there are better sources of news and entertainment than the BBC. It's programming is depleted through budget constraints, it's news coverage is generally subservient to the government of the day (Boris and the Cenotaph for one). BBC News journalists recruited in the last decade or so seem to be wannabe Tory MPs. It is a hostage to impartiality. The main and regional news bulletins assume the viewer to be a moron and broadcast accordingly. Question Time for example has become a parody of itself.
It is way past its best.
Actually, 10 or 20 years ago we did not have the amount of choice or subscription tv and news streaming. To be honest I rarely watch BBC news or much else on the BBC
I rarely visit my local hospital, it wont matter when it is gone.
Hospitals are needed.
The BBC is not.
I disagree. BBC content is hardwired into our culture. I seem to recall this blog being full of Terry Jones quotes not three weeks ago.
Monty Python would not have existed without the BBC.
The list is endless.
I hate Top Gear, but would another broadcaster have nurtured into a world talent?
I could go on.
I hate to agree with Philip Thompson, but he is correct, and all you quote is ancient history. Monty Python 50 years ago, and Top Gear in its current form almost 20 years old.
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
Not sure about that. The licence fee days are coming to an end.
Many will back this from the young to the elderly who now have to pay
Ten or Twenty years ago I would have wholly disagreed with you.
In the digital age there are better sources of news and entertainment than the BBC. It's programming is depleted through budget constraints, it's news coverage is generally subservient to the government of the day (Boris and the Cenotaph for one). BBC News journalists recruited in the last decade or so seem to be wannabe Tory MPs. It is a hostage to impartiality. The main and regional news bulletins assume the viewer to be a moron and broadcast accordingly. Question Time for example has become a parody of itself.
It is way past its best.
Actually, 10 or 20 years ago we did not have the amount of choice or subscription tv and news streaming. To be honest I rarely watch BBC news or much else on the BBC
I rarely visit my local hospital, it wont matter when it is gone.
Hospitals are needed.
The BBC is not.
I disagree. BBC content is hardwired into our culture. I seem to recall this blog being full of Terry Jones quotes not three weeks ago.
Monty Python would not have existed without the BBC.
The list is endless.
I hate Top Gear, but would another broadcaster have nurtured into a world talent?
I could go on.
If you're anchoring your argument in a show that last ran 50 years ago, may I suggest your point might not be as strong as you hoped it would be?
I love (and still love) Not the Nine O'Clock News and Yes Minister. They are still fresh but were both made in the 80s.
The biggest reason the tv licence fee has to go and be replaced by something else...it is totally unenforceable. And the BBC in a way have shot themselves in the foot, remember when we were all switching to digital / freeview, they demanded that the services couldn't have the sort of technology sky use in their boxes.
That and it would remove all the evasion cases (disproportionately targeting the poor) that presently clog up the Magistrates' Courts.
...His Dark Material is crap, Doctor Who is crap, Sherlock is now also crap. Holby City, Top Gear, Call the Midwife, Mock the Week, comedians doing second rate travel shows: utter utter wank....
Whilst I agree with some of them (is Casualty/Holby City still on? Good Lord), I'm not entirely sure describing "Call the Midwife" as crap would enjoy unanimous agreement...
I'm not a fan.
They cancelled Garrows Law (which I loved) for that.
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
I couldn't give a shit if the BBC is destroyed or not. In my view it already is substandard shit.
If people think the BBC is fantastic why wouldn't they voluntarily subscribe to it? What are you so afraid of?
I keep trying to think of decent BBC output I value.
Attenborough is superb. It's news website is useful. And radio 4 can be interesting when it checks its bias.
Most of the rest of it is dross, I'm afraid. I can't remember the last time I watched any prime time BBC1 or BBC2 output. And the TVLA are nasty bullies.
It needs to do fewer things far better.
None of what you like will survive subscription.
The BBC will need to do a lot better than just deploying that argument.
...His Dark Material is crap, Doctor Who is crap, Sherlock is now also crap. Holby City, Top Gear, Call the Midwife, Mock the Week, comedians doing second rate travel shows: utter utter wank....
Whilst I agree with some of them (is Casualty/Holby City still on? Good Lord), I'm not entirely sure describing "Call the Midwife" as crap would enjoy unanimous agreement...
You are easily pleased
As I have rather sadly pointed out in the past, I don't watch much television these days, if any. However I have relatives who always watch CTM. Ditto for Strictly and Mrs Brown's Boys. And as I raved about over Xmas, I really liked Dracula.
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
Not sure about that. The licence fee days are coming to an end.
Many will back this from the young to the elderly who now have to pay
Ten or Twenty years ago I would have wholly disagreed with you.
In the digital age there are better sources of news and entertainment than the BBC. It's programming is depleted through budget constraints, it's news coverage is generally subservient to the government of the day (Boris and the Cenotaph for one). BBC News journalists recruited in the last decade or so seem to be wannabe Tory MPs. It is a hostage to impartiality. The main and regional news bulletins assume the viewer to be a moron and broadcast accordingly. Question Time for example has become a parody of itself.
It is way past its best.
Actually, 10 or 20 years ago we did not have the amount of choice or subscription tv and news streaming. To be honest I rarely watch BBC news or much else on the BBC
I rarely visit my local hospital, it wont matter when it is gone.
Hospitals are needed.
The BBC is not.
I disagree. BBC content is hardwired into our culture. I seem to recall this blog being full of Terry Jones quotes not three weeks ago.
Monty Python would not have existed without the BBC.
The list is endless.
I hate Top Gear, but would another broadcaster have nurtured into a world talent?
I could go on.
Monty Python wouldn't have existed without the BBC because that is all that it was.
Nowadays a new Monty Python is more likely to be found on Netflix than the BBC. And Netflix is more likely to create new Top Gear etc not the BBC.
We leave the EU, with Boris shouting 'believe in Britain' and all the rest of it.
And then agree that US content giants are so good there is no point us making our own original content.
In the US there are 2 BBC TV channels - BBC America, and BBC World News. Both are supported by advertising and look and feel just like any other commercial operation.
On the other side of the coin, we have CPB - the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. They run both NPR - National Public Radio, and PBS - the Public Broadcasting Service. They are both run on the honor system. Both are free to air, and people are encouraged to 'subscribe' - typically $10 to $20 a month, and in return get 'gifts' such as the ubiquitous tote bag or umbrella. For larger donations you can get dvd sets etc. and can apply for tickets to their shows. PBS also sells its own programming world wide, of which Sesame Street is the best known.
CPB also carries sponsorship ads on both radio and TV. "Local broadcast of Nova is made possible by Engulf and Devour Corporation".
PBS also makes money out of co-productions, such as Downton Abbey. Government money is drying up to public broadcasting, except for children's programming.
So free to air, subscription or commercial models are all feasible.
The other big problem with the BBC is in the modern world they aren't anywhere near as nimble or dynamic when they do create a hit show.
If HBO or Netflix get a winner, you are going to get 12-24 episodes created every single year to fit a particular season e.g. you know it July / August, you get Ozark. The BBC doesn't do "seasons", it makes them kinda of as and when, often only being 6-8 episodes long and can sometimes be 2 years between them.
Now that we can consume media on the go, people will eat up 6 episodes in a week on the way to work. For all the talk of the Body Guard or the Night Porter, most people will have consumed those 2 shows in a couple of weeks and then looking for something else, and told that perhaps we will make another season sometime in the future.
Netflix also suffers from this, but attempts to offset this with shows that have a lot of episodes and plenty of replay value i.e. why they paid the earth for Friends and the (US) Office.
If the BBC had remained impeccably neutral, as they were until about 20 years ago, the licence fee would still be supported by 90% of people.
It started with Blair.
They went full NuLab within barely minutes of his election victory, and could scarcely conceal their delight.
If they wanted to retain the support of Conservatives then they shouldn't have ditched things like the Radio 4 UK theme and the playing of the national anthem at closedown.
If the BBC had remained impeccably neutral, as they were until about 20 years ago, the licence fee would still be supported by 90% of people.
On that point I believe the BBC tries too hard to be impartial and thus fails to satisfy anyone. To the left it is too right wing and to the right it is too left wing, on that score alone it would seem it is pretty neutral.
If the BBC had remained impeccably neutral, as they were until about 20 years ago, the licence fee would still be supported by 90% of people.
It started with Blair.
They went full NuLab within barely minutes of his election victory, and could scarcely conceal their delight.
If they wanted to retain the support of Conservatives then they shouldn't have ditched things like the Radio 4 UK theme and the playing of the national anthem at closedown.
If the BBC had remained impeccably neutral, as they were until about 20 years ago, the licence fee would still be supported by 90% of people.
On that point I believe the BBC tries too hard to be impartial and thus fails to satisfy anyone. To the left it is too right wing and to the right it is too left wing, on that score alone it would seem it is pretty neutral.
It's balanced between *Tory and Labour*.
It is not on values. Look at its website any day of the week and its diversity this and trans that. Veganism woah etc etc.
It is mildly monarchist (with a postmodern bent) which is possibly the only vaguely institutionally conservative thing you can say about it.
Does this mean Who will get axed again? To be honest, I probably wouldn't miss it if it's more of Chibnall's drivel.
Season 12 is getting better, although if the rumours are true about Chibnall's backdoor reboot, I will be biting my lip. Google ohffschibnall for the rumour.
The other big problem with the BBC is in the modern world they aren't anywhere near as nimble or dynamic when they do create a hit show.
If HBO or Netflix get a winner, you are going to get 12-24 episodes created every single year to fit a particular season. The BBC doesn't do "seasons", it makes them kinda of as and when, often only being 6-8 episodes long and can sometimes be 2 years between them.
Now that we can consume media on the go, people will eat up 6 episodes in a week on the way to work. For all the talk of the Body Guard or the Night Porter, most people will have consumed those 2 shows in a couple of weeks and then looking for something else, and told that perhaps we will make another season sometime in the future.
Netflix also suffers from this, but attempts to offset this with shows that have a lot of episodes and plenty of replay value i.e. why they paid the earth for Friends and the (US) Office.
Yes, it's pathetic.
It probably isn't laziness (just bureaucratic inertia) but it sure as hell looks like it.
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
What's so wonderful about the BBC?
It made some decent shows about 30 years ago when there weren't any rivals.
Right now? Beats me.
They've also lost fans on the centre-right with their relentless obsessiveness over "diversity" and identity politics. Just look at what they've done to Doctor Who.
Should have worked out it'd catch up with them eventually.
Exactly. Having a state broadcaster that pumps out the fringe Left's propaganda is unacceptable. I shudder to think how much I've paid out in that fucking TV tax over the years for something I barely use - with the exception of Election Night coverage, of course!
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
Not sure about that. The licence fee days are coming to an end.
Many will back this from the young to the elderly who now have to pay
Ten or Twenty years ago I would have wholly disagreed with you.
In the digital age there are better sources of news and entertainment than the BBC. It's programming is depleted through budget constraints, it's news coverage is generally subservient to the government of the day (Boris and the Cenotaph for one). BBC News journalists recruited in the last decade or so seem to be wannabe Tory MPs. It is a hostage to impartiality. The main and regional news bulletins assume the viewer to be a moron and broadcast accordingly. Question Time for example has become a parody of itself.
It is way past its best.
Actually, 10 or 20 years ago we did not have the amount of choice or subscription tv and news streaming. To be honest I rarely watch BBC news or much else on the BBC
I have no problem with the BBC becoming a mainly subscription service but I think the Government should provide a subsidy from tax even if the licence fee is scrapped for key coverage of current affairs and sporting events, cultural and scientific programmes available to all the main broadcasters, ITV, C4, C5, Sky as well as the BBC.
The tax could be raised by a small levy on broadcasting advertisers on popular programmes
All that could and generally is handled better by ITV and C4.
ITV and C4 could also receive a public subsidy for showing non populist programmes of educational value or in the public interest
Does this mean Who will get axed again? To be honest, I probably wouldn't miss it if it's more of Chibnall's drivel.
Doctor Who recently had an episode which was a 35 year low in viewership for that show.
Considering it was off air from 1989 to 2005, that isn't quite as bad it as it looks... though still not exactly great if it's dropping into Sylvester McCoy era viewing figures. How much money is it making these days? It was apparently a big cosh cow in the Tennant era, but it's undoubtedly not doing so well on that front now. If the licence fee does get scrapped, it wouldn't shock me if the BBC deemed it was luxury they couldn't afford, and then either axed it or even sold it off to Netflix or Amazon Prime.
I am all for setting the BBC free. Make it subscription-based, structure it so that it’s owned by its UK subscribers, give it full control over rebroadcast of its content, allow it to borrow money and watch it soar. It is one the globe’s great brands and a huge benefit to the UK. Let’s make the most of it.
If the BBC had remained impeccably neutral, as they were until about 20 years ago, the licence fee would still be supported by 90% of people.
On that point I believe the BBC tries too hard to be impartial and thus fails to satisfy anyone. To the left it is too right wing and to the right it is too left wing, on that score alone it would seem it is pretty neutral.
It's balanced between *Tory and Labour*.
It is not on values. Look at its website any day of the week and its diversity this and trans that. Veganism woah etc etc.
It is mildly monarchist (with a postmodern bent) which is possibly the only vaguely institutionally conservative thing you can say about it.
Paragraph 1. Is it?
Paragraph 2. So what?
Paragraph 3. Witchell amongst others comes across as a monarchist sychophant.
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
Not sure about that. The licence fee days are coming to an end.
Many will back this from the young to the elderly who now have to pay
Ten or Twenty years ago I would have wholly disagreed with you.
In the digital age there are better sources of news and entertainment than the BBC. It's programming is depleted through budget constraints, it's news coverage is generally subservient to the government of the day (Boris and the Cenotaph for one). BBC News journalists recruited in the last decade or so seem to be wannabe Tory MPs. It is a hostage to impartiality. The main and regional news bulletins assume the viewer to be a moron and broadcast accordingly. Question Time for example has become a parody of itself.
It is way past its best.
Actually, 10 or 20 years ago we did not have the amount of choice or subscription tv and news streaming. To be honest I rarely watch BBC news or much else on the BBC
I rarely visit my local hospital, it wont matter when it is gone.
Hospitals are needed.
The BBC is not.
I disagree. BBC content is hardwired into our culture. I seem to recall this blog being full of Terry Jones quotes not three weeks ago.
Monty Python would not have existed without the BBC.
The list is endless.
I hate Top Gear, but would another broadcaster have nurtured into a world talent?
I could go on.
Monty Python wouldn't have existed without the BBC because that is all that it was.
Nowadays a new Monty Python is more likely to be found on Netflix than the BBC. And Netflix is more likely to create new Top Gear etc not the BBC.
We leave the EU, with Boris shouting 'believe in Britain' and all the rest of it.
And then agree that US content giants are so good there is no point us making our own original content.
I think you'll find plenty of original British programming is made outside of the BBC.
The fact you still cling to 50 year old programming rather than name modern global British programming like The Crown or Game of Thrones etc speaks wonders.
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
Not sure about that. The licence fee days are coming to an end.
Many will back this from the young to the elderly who now have to pay
Ten or Twenty years ago I would have wholly disagreed with you.
In the digital age there are better sources of news and entertainment than the BBC. It's programming is depleted through budget constraints, it's news coverage is generally subservient to the government of the day (Boris and the Cenotaph for one). BBC News journalists recruited in the last decade or so seem to be wannabe Tory MPs. It is a hostage to impartiality. The main and regional news bulletins assume the viewer to be a moron and broadcast accordingly. Question Time for example has become a parody of itself.
It is way past its best.
The fact that in the year 2020 BBC1 isn't even fully HD is a demonstration of just how shit and antiquated the BBC has become. Top listed channels on Sky's listings are all HD except for the BBC, scroll down and put BBC1 HD on and it won't be long before you get a message saying "programming is not available in your area".
The BBC simply isn't worth the licence fee. That's why its defenders are so terrified about it being a voluntary subscription - Netflix is considerably cheaper than the licence fee.
So long as we keep free to view terrestrial TV for the old and the less well off, I can't argue with you.
"Netflix is considerably cheaper than the licence fee."
It doesn't provided anything like the breadth of material. News, radio, music etc etc.
If you want to come home from work and just watch another box set then great.
The other big problem with the BBC is in the modern world they aren't anywhere near as nimble or dynamic when they do create a hit show.
If HBO or Netflix get a winner, you are going to get 12-24 episodes created every single year to fit a particular season. The BBC doesn't do "seasons", it makes them kinda of as and when, often only being 6-8 episodes long and can sometimes be 2 years between them.
Now that we can consume media on the go, people will eat up 6 episodes in a week on the way to work. For all the talk of the Body Guard or the Night Porter, most people will have consumed those 2 shows in a couple of weeks and then looking for something else, and told that perhaps we will make another season sometime in the future.
Netflix also suffers from this, but attempts to offset this with shows that have a lot of episodes and plenty of replay value i.e. why they paid the earth for Friends and the (US) Office.
Yes, it's pathetic.
It probably isn't laziness (just bureaucratic inertia) but it sure as hell looks like it.
My understanding one issue is that actors don't sign exclusive contracts, so go off and do other things and the BBC fits around them e.g. Sherlock.
But I think there is a wider view outdated view i.e. We make the best telly, not like that fatty crap US shows that pump out a new episode every week with dodgy quality. The problem is that yes that does exist in the US, but there has also been a revolution driven by HBO and Netflix, where they make some shows that are basically movie quality, with a combination of big budget and also the fact the likes outstanding VFX are much more accessible e.g. Boardwalk Empire was incredible high quality cinematography.
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
Not sure about that. The licence fee days are coming to an end.
Many will back this from the young to the elderly who now have to pay
Ten or Twenty years ago I would have wholly disagreed with you.
In the digital age there are better sources of news and entertainment than the BBC. It's programming is depleted through budget constraints, it's news coverage is generally subservient to the government of the day (Boris and the Cenotaph for one). BBC News journalists recruited in the last decade or so seem to be wannabe Tory MPs. It is a hostage to impartiality. The main and regional news bulletins assume the viewer to be a moron and broadcast accordingly. Question Time for example has become a parody of itself.
It is way past its best.
Actually, 10 or 20 years ago we did not have the amount of choice or subscription tv and news streaming. To be honest I rarely watch BBC news or much else on the BBC
I have no problem with the BBC becoming a mainly subscription service but I think the Government should provide a subsidy from tax even if the licence fee is scrapped for key coverage of current affairs and sporting events, cultural and scientific programmes available to all the main broadcasters, ITV, C4, C5, Sky as well as the BBC.
The tax could be raised by a small levy on broadcasting advertisers on popular programmes
All that could and generally is handled better by ITV and C4.
ITV and C4 could also receive a public subsidy for showing non populist programmes of educational value or in the public interest
Should we be paying corporate entities from the public purse? Who decides what is in the public interest? Dom? Boris?
If the BBC had remained impeccably neutral, as they were until about 20 years ago, the licence fee would still be supported by 90% of people.
It started with Blair.
They went full NuLab within barely minutes of his election victory, and could scarcely conceal their delight.
If they wanted to retain the support of Conservatives then they shouldn't have ditched things like the Radio 4 UK theme and the playing of the national anthem at closedown.
The BBC is doomed. I wish that were not the case. But it is. No country on earth can continue to poll tax all citizens for a broadcasting service used by a minority. It is nuts.
Worse, the way the BBC is funded makes its drama and story productions uniquely mediocre, as it is so scared of offending anyone, lest they cut its cash flow. Cf the recent His Dark Materials, which was just..... cringe.
My daughter commented that I had a cheek moaning about Love Island and Orange is the New Black when I was watching a show with a talking polar bear!
I couldn't get through the first episode. I'm not a fan of the source material though.
If the BBC had remained impeccably neutral, as they were until about 20 years ago, the licence fee would still be supported by 90% of people.
It started with Blair.
They went full NuLab within barely minutes of his election victory, and could scarcely conceal their delight.
If they wanted to retain the support of Conservatives then they shouldn't have ditched things like the Radio 4 UK theme and the playing of the national anthem at closedown.
What is closedown?
They used to stop programming from about 1/2am to 5/6am. I think all you had was the test card after that.
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
Not sure about that. The licence fee days are coming to an end.
Many will back this from the young to the elderly who now have to pay
Ten or Twenty years ago I would have wholly disagreed with you.
In the digital age there are better sources of news and entertainment than the BBC. It's programming is depleted through budget constraints, it's news coverage is generally subservient to the government of the day (Boris and the Cenotaph for one). BBC News journalists recruited in the last decade or so seem to be wannabe Tory MPs. It is a hostage to impartiality. The main and regional news bulletins assume the viewer to be a moron and broadcast accordingly. Question Time for example has become a parody of itself.
It is way past its best.
The fact that in the year 2020 BBC1 isn't even fully HD is a demonstration of just how shit and antiquated the BBC has become. Top listed channels on Sky's listings are all HD except for the BBC, scroll down and put BBC1 HD on and it won't be long before you get a message saying "programming is not available in your area".
The BBC simply isn't worth the licence fee. That's why its defenders are so terrified about it being a voluntary subscription - Netflix is considerably cheaper than the licence fee.
So long as we keep free to view terrestrial TV for the old and the less well off, I can't argue with you.
"Netflix is considerably cheaper than the licence fee."
It doesn't provided anything like the breadth of material. News, radio, music etc etc.
If you want to come home from work and just watch another box set then great.
I get Heart radio for free. I couldn't give a f**k about BBC radio in a TV conversation. If the BBC wants to fund radio good luck to it, but that's got nothing to do with TV licences.
Netflix produces far, far more content than the BBC does. Not news true, but good news content is found online not on TV anyway. And there are channels like Sky News - and the option for you to VOLUNTARILY pay the BBC if you want to do so.
Does this mean Who will get axed again? To be honest, I probably wouldn't miss it if it's more of Chibnall's drivel.
Doctor Who recently had an episode which was a 35 year low in viewership for that show.
Considering it was off air from 1989 to 2005, that isn't quite as bad it as it looks... though still not exactly great if it's dropping into Sylvester McCoy era viewing figures. How much money is it making these days? It was apparently a big cosh cow in the Tennant era, but it's undoubtedly not doing so well on that front now. If the licence fee does get scrapped, it wouldn't shock me if the BBC deemed it was luxury they couldn't afford, and then either axed it or even sold it off to Netflix or Amazon Prime.
It is also the trend for Doctor Who, it keeps shredding viewership.
Its not really my thing, and I know there is a lot of criticism of it going "woke", but I also wonder if the fact it has really shoddy VFX doesn't help. Compare it to the new Picard show on Amazon Prime or Mandalorin and it is chalk and cheese. That is what viewer expect these days and the BBC doesn't compete with that.
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
Not sure about that. The licence fee days are coming to an end.
Many will back this from the young to the elderly who now have to pay
Ten or Twenty years ago I would have wholly disagreed with you.
In the digital age there are better sources of news and entertainment than the BBC. It's programming is depleted through budget constraints, it's news coverage is generally subservient to the government of the day (Boris and the Cenotaph for one). BBC News journalists recruited in the last decade or so seem to be wannabe Tory MPs. It is a hostage to impartiality. The main and regional news bulletins assume the viewer to be a moron and broadcast accordingly. Question Time for example has become a parody of itself.
It is way past its best.
The fact that in the year 2020 BBC1 isn't even fully HD is a demonstration of just how shit and antiquated the BBC has become. Top listed channels on Sky's listings are all HD except for the BBC, scroll down and put BBC1 HD on and it won't be long before you get a message saying "programming is not available in your area".
The BBC simply isn't worth the licence fee. That's why its defenders are so terrified about it being a voluntary subscription - Netflix is considerably cheaper than the licence fee.
So long as we keep free to view terrestrial TV for the old and the less well off, I can't argue with you.
"Netflix is considerably cheaper than the licence fee."
It doesn't provided anything like the breadth of material. News, radio, music etc etc.
If you want to come home from work and just watch another box set then great.
I didn't ask to keep the license fee. BBC TV channels are gone in my scenario. Commercial terrestrial TV does the job for free.
The other big problem with the BBC is in the modern world they aren't anywhere near as nimble or dynamic when they do create a hit show.
If HBO or Netflix get a winner, you are going to get 12-24 episodes created every single year to fit a particular season. The BBC doesn't do "seasons", it makes them kinda of as and when, often only being 6-8 episodes long and can sometimes be 2 years between them.
Now that we can consume media on the go, people will eat up 6 episodes in a week on the way to work. For all the talk of the Body Guard or the Night Porter, most people will have consumed those 2 shows in a couple of weeks and then looking for something else, and told that perhaps we will make another season sometime in the future.
Netflix also suffers from this, but attempts to offset this with shows that have a lot of episodes and plenty of replay value i.e. why they paid the earth for Friends and the (US) Office.
Yes, it's pathetic.
It probably isn't laziness (just bureaucratic inertia) but it sure as hell looks like it.
My understanding one issue is that actors don't sign exclusive contracts, so go off and do other things and the BBC fits around them e.g. Sherlock.
But I think there is a wider view outdated view i.e. We make the best telly, not like that fatty crap US shows that pump out a new episode every week with dodgy quality. The problem is that yes that does exist in the US, but there has also been a revolution driven by HBO and Netflix, where they make some shows that are basically movie quality, with a combination of big budget and also the fact the likes outstanding VFX are much more accessible e.g. Boardwalk Empire was incredible high quality cinematography.
It's a UK telly thing. I remember when Cameron went to China and did a Q&A, one of the questions was 'Why do you make so few episodes of Downton Abbey?' We make what the US calls a mini series.
If the BBC had remained impeccably neutral, as they were until about 20 years ago, the licence fee would still be supported by 90% of people.
It started with Blair.
They went full NuLab within barely minutes of his election victory, and could scarcely conceal their delight.
If they wanted to retain the support of Conservatives then they shouldn't have ditched things like the Radio 4 UK theme and the playing of the national anthem at closedown.
What is closedown?
They used to stop programming from about 1/2am to 5/6am. I think all you had was the test card after that.
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
Not sure about that. The licence fee days are coming to an end.
Many will back this from the young to the elderly who now have to pay
Ten or Twenty years ago I would have wholly disagreed with you.
In the digital age there are better sources of news and entertainment than the BBC. It's programming is depleted through budget constraints, it's news coverage is generally subservient to the government of the day (Boris and the Cenotaph for one). BBC News journalists recruited in the last decade or so seem to be wannabe Tory MPs. It is a hostage to impartiality. The main and regional news bulletins assume the viewer to be a moron and broadcast accordingly. Question Time for example has become a parody of itself.
It is way past its best.
The fact that in the year 2020 BBC1 isn't even fully HD is a demonstration of just how shit and antiquated the BBC has become. Top listed channels on Sky's listings are all HD except for the BBC, scroll down and put BBC1 HD on and it won't be long before you get a message saying "programming is not available in your area".
The BBC simply isn't worth the licence fee. That's why its defenders are so terrified about it being a voluntary subscription - Netflix is considerably cheaper than the licence fee.
So long as we keep free to view terrestrial TV for the old and the less well off, I can't argue with you.
"Netflix is considerably cheaper than the licence fee."
It doesn't provided anything like the breadth of material. News, radio, music etc etc.
If you want to come home from work and just watch another box set then great.
I didn't ask to keep the license fee. BBC TV channels are gone in my scenario. Commercial terrestrial TV does the job for free.
You are unlikely to get BBC4 or Radio 3 intellectual quality on purely commercial subscription and advertising services, hence I personally still favour some public subsidy to ensure high brow programmes continue
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
Not sure about that. The licence fee days are coming to an end.
Many will back this from the young to the elderly who now have to pay
Ten or Twenty years ago I would have wholly disagreed with you.
In the digital age there are better sources of news and entertainment than the BBC. It's programming is depleted through budget constraints, it's news coverage is generally subservient to the government of the day (Boris and the Cenotaph for one). BBC News journalists recruited in the last decade or so seem to be wannabe Tory MPs. It is a hostage to impartiality. The main and regional news bulletins assume the viewer to be a moron and broadcast accordingly. Question Time for example has become a parody of itself.
It is way past its best.
Actually, 10 or 20 years ago we did not have the amount of choice or subscription tv and news streaming. To be honest I rarely watch BBC news or much else on the BBC
I have no problem with the BBC becoming a mainly subscription service but I think the Government should provide a subsidy from tax even if the licence fee is scrapped for key coverage of current affairs and sporting events, cultural and scientific programmes available to all the main broadcasters, ITV, C4, C5, Sky as well as the BBC.
The tax could be raised by a small levy on broadcasting advertisers on popular programmes
All that could and generally is handled better by ITV and C4.
ITV and C4 could also receive a public subsidy for showing non populist programmes of educational value or in the public interest
Should we be paying corporate entities from the public purse? Who decides what is in the public interest? Dom? Boris?
We do for the railways, to some extent in the NHS and education etc so I don't see why not.
The public interest should be set as highbrow, non populist, intellectual programmes and coverage of major national events like royal weddings, funerals and coronations, election night, the Olympics, Wimbledon and World Cup final etc
The biggest reason the tv licence fee has to go and be replaced by something else...it is totally unenforceable. And the BBC in a way have shot themselves in the foot, remember when we were all switching to digital / freeview, they demanded that the services couldn't have the sort of technology sky use in their boxes.
That and it would remove all the evasion cases (disproportionately targeting the poor) that presently clog up the Magistrates' Courts.
That was deliberately done - to prevent the possibility of making the license fee voluntary.
You are unlikely to get BBC4 or Radio 3 intellectual quality on purely commercial subscription and advertising services, hence I personally still favour some public subsidy to ensure high brow programmes continue
Perhaps...but again BBC way too slow to adapt. Numberphile / Computerphile, huge following on YouTube. There is clearly demand for some right geeky stuff. Those 2 channels have a combined 5 million "subscribers" and basically every video gets several 100k views (I bet that is more than most BBC4 shows).
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
Not sure about that. The licence fee days are coming to an end.
Many will back this from the young to the elderly who now have to pay
Ten or Twenty years ago I would have wholly disagreed with you.
In the digital age there are better sources of news and entertainment than the BBC. It's programming is depleted through budget constraints, it's news coverage is generally subservient to the government of the day (Boris and the Cenotaph for one). BBC News journalists recruited in the last decade or so seem to be wannabe Tory MPs. It is a hostage to impartiality. The main and regional news bulletins assume the viewer to be a moron and broadcast accordingly. Question Time for example has become a parody of itself.
It is way past its best.
The fact that in the year 2020 BBC1 isn't even fully HD is a demonstration of just how shit and antiquated the BBC has become. Top listed channels on Sky's listings are all HD except for the BBC, scroll down and put BBC1 HD on and it won't be long before you get a message saying "programming is not available in your area".
The BBC simply isn't worth the licence fee. That's why its defenders are so terrified about it being a voluntary subscription - Netflix is considerably cheaper than the licence fee.
So long as we keep free to view terrestrial TV for the old and the less well off, I can't argue with you.
"Netflix is considerably cheaper than the licence fee."
It doesn't provided anything like the breadth of material. News, radio, music etc etc.
If you want to come home from work and just watch another box set then great.
I didn't ask to keep the license fee. BBC TV channels are gone in my scenario. Commercial terrestrial TV does the job for free.
You are unlikely to get BBC4 or Radio 3 intellectual quality on purely commercial subscription and advertising services, hence I personally still favour some public subsidy to ensure high brow programmes continue
The other big problem with the BBC is in the modern world they aren't anywhere near as nimble or dynamic when they do create a hit show.
If HBO or Netflix get a winner, you are going to get 12-24 episodes created every single year to fit a particular season. The BBC doesn't do "seasons", it makes them kinda of as and when, often only being 6-8 episodes long and can sometimes be 2 years between them.
Now that we can consume media on the go, people will eat up 6 episodes in a week on the way to work. For all the talk of the Body Guard or the Night Porter, most people will have consumed those 2 shows in a couple of weeks and then looking for something else, and told that perhaps we will make another season sometime in the future.
Netflix also suffers from this, but attempts to offset this with shows that have a lot of episodes and plenty of replay value i.e. why they paid the earth for Friends and the (US) Office.
Yes, it's pathetic.
It probably isn't laziness (just bureaucratic inertia) but it sure as hell looks like it.
My understanding one issue is that actors don't sign exclusive contracts, so go off and do other things and the BBC fits around them e.g. Sherlock.
But I think there is a wider view outdated view i.e. We make the best telly, not like that fatty crap US shows that pump out a new episode every week with dodgy quality. The problem is that yes that does exist in the US, but there has also been a revolution driven by HBO and Netflix, where they make some shows that are basically movie quality, with a combination of big budget and also the fact the likes outstanding VFX are much more accessible e.g. Boardwalk Empire was incredible high quality cinematography.
It's a UK telly thing. I remember when Cameron went to China and did a Q&A, one of the questions was 'Why do you make so few episodes of Downton Abbey?' We make what the US calls a mini series.
Does this mean Who will get axed again? To be honest, I probably wouldn't miss it if it's more of Chibnall's drivel.
Season 12 is getting better, although if the rumours are true about Chibnall's backdoor reboot, I will be biting my lip. Google ohffschibnall for the rumour.
I'm pretty much of the view that the Doctor's origins and why he left Gallifrey should be things which are never answered in the show. I'd be uneasy if an actually talented showrunner wanted to dabble around with them, let alone Chris Chibnall.
The other thing the BBC love to do is reinvent the wheel. BBC Sounds App....why...it distributes podcasts. Every other media outlet use all the commercially available distribution platforms.
Does this mean Who will get axed again? To be honest, I probably wouldn't miss it if it's more of Chibnall's drivel.
Doctor Who recently had an episode which was a 35 year low in viewership for that show.
Considering it was off air from 1989 to 2005, that isn't quite as bad it as it looks... though still not exactly great if it's dropping into Sylvester McCoy era viewing figures. How much money is it making these days? It was apparently a big cosh cow in the Tennant era, but it's undoubtedly not doing so well on that front now. If the licence fee does get scrapped, it wouldn't shock me if the BBC deemed it was luxury they couldn't afford, and then either axed it or even sold it off to Netflix or Amazon Prime.
It is also the trend for Doctor Who, it keeps shredding viewership.
Its not really my thing, and I know there is a lot of criticism of it going "woke", but I also wonder if the fact it has really shoddy VFX doesn't help. Compare it to the new Picard show on Amazon Prime or Mandalorin and it is chalk and cheese. That is what viewer expect these days and the BBC doesn't compete with that.
Dr Who needs to die. Again. And then come back. Again.
In the US there are 2 BBC TV channels - BBC America, and BBC World News. Both are supported by advertising and look and feel just like any other commercial operation.
On the other side of the coin, we have CPB - the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. They run both NPR - National Public Radio, and PBS - the Public Broadcasting Service. They are both run on the honor system. Both are free to air, and people are encouraged to 'subscribe' - typically $10 to $20 a month, and in return get 'gifts' such as the ubiquitous tote bag or umbrella. For larger donations you can get dvd sets etc. and can apply for tickets to their shows. PBS also sells its own programming world wide, of which Sesame Street is the best known.
CPB also carries sponsorship ads on both radio and TV. "Local broadcast of Nova is made possible by Engulf and Devour Corporation".
PBS also makes money out of co-productions, such as Downton Abbey. Government money is drying up to public broadcasting, except for children's programming.
So free to air, subscription or commercial models are all feasible.
CPB also receives an annual subsidy direct from the US Congress
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
Not sure about that. The licence fee days are coming to an end.
Many will back this from the young to the elderly who now have to pay
Ten or Twenty years ago I would have wholly disagreed with you.
In the digital age there are better sources of news and entertainment than the BBC. It's programming is depleted through budget constraints, it's news coverage is generally subservient to the government of the day (Boris and the Cenotaph for one). BBC News journalists recruited in the last decade or so seem to be wannabe Tory MPs. It is a hostage to impartiality. The main and regional news bulletins assume the viewer to be a moron and broadcast accordingly. Question Time for example has become a parody of itself.
It is way past its best.
The fact that in the year 2020 BBC1 isn't even fully HD is a demonstration of just how shit and antiquated the BBC has become. Top listed channels on Sky's listings are all HD except for the BBC, scroll down and put BBC1 HD on and it won't be long before you get a message saying "programming is not available in your area".
The BBC simply isn't worth the licence fee. That's why its defenders are so terrified about it being a voluntary subscription - Netflix is considerably cheaper than the licence fee.
So long as we keep free to view terrestrial TV for the old and the less well off, I can't argue with you.
"Netflix is considerably cheaper than the licence fee."
It doesn't provided anything like the breadth of material. News, radio, music etc etc.
If you want to come home from work and just watch another box set then great.
I didn't ask to keep the license fee. BBC TV channels are gone in my scenario. Commercial terrestrial TV does the job for free.
You are unlikely to get BBC4 or Radio 3 intellectual quality on purely commercial subscription and advertising services, hence I personally still favour some public subsidy to ensure high brow programmes continue
I would miss BBC Radio in all its forms. It is generally still excellent. I would miss BBC4 which is also excellent. BBC4 is for Left-leaning Guardianista types like you and me, not Red Wall White Van Man. We will just have to learn to live without or pay for the privilege.
You are unlikely to get BBC4 or Radio 3 intellectual quality on purely commercial subscription and advertising services, hence I personally still favour some public subsidy to ensure high brow programmes continue
Perhaps...but again BBC way too slow to adapt. Numberphile / Computerphile, huge following on YouTube. There is clearly demand for some right geeky stuff. Those 2 channels have a combined 5 million "subscribers" and basically every video gets several 100k views (I bet that is more than most BBC4 shows).
Rather sadly, I agree with this. When I look at the media I consume these days, scripted television drama rarely gets a look in: it's all YouTube talking heads and online print. I think my point about BBC political documentaries being important - @AndyJS 's YouTube channel would be nonexistent without it - but I suspect the drama argument has already been lost...
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
Not sure about that. The licence fee days are coming to an end.
Many will back this from the young to the elderly who now have to pay
Ten or Twenty years ago I would have wholly disagreed with you.
It is way past its best.
The fact that in the year 2020 BBC1 isn't even fully HD is a demonstration of just how shit and antiquated the BBC has become. Top listed channels on Sky's listings are all HD except for the BBC, scroll down and put BBC1 HD on and it won't be long before you get a message saying "programming is not available in your area".
The BBC simply isn't worth the licence fee. That's why its defenders are so terrified about it being a voluntary subscription - Netflix is considerably cheaper than the licence fee.
So long as we keep free to view terrestrial TV for the old and the less well off, I can't argue with you.
"Netflix is considerably cheaper than the licence fee."
It doesn't provided anything like the breadth of material. News, radio, music etc etc.
If you want to come home from work and just watch another box set then great.
I didn't ask to keep the license fee. BBC TV channels are gone in my scenario. Commercial terrestrial TV does the job for free.
You are unlikely to get BBC4 or Radio 3 intellectual quality on purely commercial subscription and advertising services, hence I personally still favour some public subsidy to ensure high brow programmes continue
PBS was called the Petroleum Broadcasting Service for years as most of their 'high brow' drama and music was funded by oil companies. For many years "Live from The Met" a 3 to 4 hour live opera from NYC every Saturday afternoon was sponsored by Texaco. Also Masterpiece Theatre was for years sponsored by Exxon Mobil. That's just 2 examples and there are many.
When I was a boy there was Light Programme, Third Programme, Home Service and BBC TV. No BBC 2, no Radio 1. No local radio.No web site. Looking at the beb today, it is unrecognisable from that base. to put it politely the BBC has suffered from Mission creep.
Comments
In the digital age there are better sources of news and entertainment than the BBC. It's programming is depleted through budget constraints, it's news coverage is generally subservient to the government of the day (Boris and the Cenotaph for one). BBC News journalists recruited in the last decade or so seem to be wannabe Tory MPs. It is a hostage to impartiality. The main and regional news bulletins assume the viewer to be a moron and broadcast accordingly. Question Time for example has become a parody of itself.
It is way past its best.
[1] Or whatever the word is about documentaries made 6-24 months after an event.
Attenborough is superb. It's news website is useful. And radio 4 can be interesting when it checks its bias.
Most of the rest of it is dross, I'm afraid. I can't remember the last time I watched any prime time BBC1 or BBC2 output. And the TVLA are nasty bullies.
It needs to do fewer things far better.
The reason? If all TVs could support encrypted content, then the logical step would move to encrypt BBC - pay your license fee, get a key - which would mean the call to make the "TV tax" voluntary would be irresistible.
The sad, stupid fact is that the BBC had a massive chance to move its model to online, worldwide subscriptions. One study suggested that revenue from the US alone would be more than the current license fee. Think of that as a sales pitch "The BBC - free for you. Paid for by foreigners"....
The problem was that many of the companies that make BBC content are owned by errrr... people not exactly a million miles from the BBC, in a number of cases. In quite a few cases across the breakfast table....
The price for the buying in the content is the production costs + a nice profit. For that the BBC gets the UK broadcast rights. The production company owners get a program paid for - and a free run at the world wide rights. A product that literally costs them nothing.....
It's time has come.
The tax could be raised by a small levy on broadcasting advertisers on popular programmes
The BBC simply isn't worth the licence fee. That's why its defenders are so terrified about it being a voluntary subscription - Netflix is considerably cheaper than the licence fee.
If Bloomberg is the nominee how many Bernie supporters will refuse to support him on election day?
Hilariously, the drug de-criminalisation types are against this - but most of the people that end up in court about TV licenses are poor, often single mums. Is there no compassion among progressives?
Holby City. Top Gear. Call the Midwife. Mock the Week comedians doing second rate travel shows.
Utter utter wank.
Why should I be forced to pay for it?
All of literature, journalism, music, public performance, publishing and broadcasting since the dawn of time has worked on a free market model (with a few special add ons to protect IP) whereby if people like stuff they pay for it and if not, not. Why is the BBC uniquely exempt from this model?
The BBC is not.
Should have worked out it'd catch up with them eventually.
There's no such thing as a friendly reminder from the TVLA. They go straight in with "six days left before we smash your kneecaps".
That's how long epic fantasy series' are these days.
Its the Conservatives old voters (literally) who most enjoy the BBC. There's no great North/South divide but there is a massive young/old divide as the young have gotten used to superior mechanisms of broadcast.
Monty Python would not have existed without the BBC.
The list is endless.
I hate Top Gear, but would another broadcaster have nurtured into a world talent?
I could go on.
There is also a problem of over-reach with the BBC. Remember they decided to get involved with a project to compete with Raspberry Pi, their news site has a "magazine" element, which is clearly trying to compete with the newspapers.
Nowadays a new Monty Python is more likely to be found on Netflix than the BBC. And Netflix is more likely to create new Top Gear etc not the BBC.
The BBC is a dead parrot!
I love (and still love) Not the Nine O'Clock News and Yes Minister. They are still fresh but were both made in the 80s.
That is now a very long time ago.
They cancelled Garrows Law (which I loved) for that.
And then agree that US content giants are so good there is no point us making our own original content.
On the other side of the coin, we have CPB - the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. They run both NPR - National Public Radio, and PBS - the Public Broadcasting Service. They are both run on the honor system. Both are free to air, and people are encouraged to 'subscribe' - typically $10 to $20 a month, and in return get 'gifts' such as the ubiquitous tote bag or umbrella. For larger donations you can get dvd sets etc. and can apply for tickets to their shows. PBS also sells its own programming world wide, of which Sesame Street is the best known.
CPB also carries sponsorship ads on both radio and TV. "Local broadcast of Nova is made possible by Engulf and Devour Corporation".
PBS also makes money out of co-productions, such as Downton Abbey. Government money is drying up to public broadcasting, except for children's programming.
So free to air, subscription or commercial models are all feasible.
If HBO or Netflix get a winner, you are going to get 12-24 episodes created every single year to fit a particular season e.g. you know it July / August, you get Ozark. The BBC doesn't do "seasons", it makes them kinda of as and when, often only being 6-8 episodes long and can sometimes be 2 years between them.
Now that we can consume media on the go, people will eat up 6 episodes in a week on the way to work. For all the talk of the Body Guard or the Night Porter, most people will have consumed those 2 shows in a couple of weeks and then looking for something else, and told that perhaps we will make another season sometime in the future.
Netflix also suffers from this, but attempts to offset this with shows that have a lot of episodes and plenty of replay value i.e. why they paid the earth for Friends and the (US) Office.
They went full NuLab within barely minutes of his election victory, and could scarcely conceal their delight.
If they wanted to retain the support of Conservatives then they shouldn't have ditched things like the Radio 4 UK theme and the playing of the national anthem at closedown.
It is not on values. Look at its website any day of the week and its diversity this and trans that. Veganism woah etc etc.
It is mildly monarchist (with a postmodern bent) which is possibly the only vaguely institutionally conservative thing you can say about it.
The problem the BBC has is not so much that it is biased, but that it is just rather shit and not great value for money.
People are used to choices now.
It probably isn't laziness (just bureaucratic inertia) but it sure as hell looks like it.
It is all crap.
Except the bits I watch.
Paragraph 2. So what?
Paragraph 3. Witchell amongst others comes across as a monarchist sychophant.
The fact you still cling to 50 year old programming rather than name modern global British programming like The Crown or Game of Thrones etc speaks wonders.
It doesn't provided anything like the breadth of material. News, radio, music etc etc.
If you want to come home from work and just watch another box set then great.
But I think there is a wider view outdated view i.e. We make the best telly, not like that fatty crap US shows that pump out a new episode every week with dodgy quality. The problem is that yes that does exist in the US, but there has also been a revolution driven by HBO and Netflix, where they make some shows that are basically movie quality, with a combination of big budget and also the fact the likes outstanding VFX are much more accessible e.g. Boardwalk Empire was incredible high quality cinematography.
Netflix produces far, far more content than the BBC does. Not news true, but good news content is found online not on TV anyway. And there are channels like Sky News - and the option for you to VOLUNTARILY pay the BBC if you want to do so.
Its not really my thing, and I know there is a lot of criticism of it going "woke", but I also wonder if the fact it has really shoddy VFX doesn't help. Compare it to the new Picard show on Amazon Prime or Mandalorin and it is chalk and cheese. That is what viewer expect these days and the BBC doesn't compete with that.
RCS did ask to discuss something other than Brexit!!!!!!!
https://twitter.com/MoS_Politics/status/1228802882612363266
The public interest should be set as highbrow, non populist, intellectual programmes and coverage of major national events like royal weddings, funerals and coronations, election night, the Olympics, Wimbledon and World Cup final etc
Radio 6 as well I suspect.
LORD ASHCROFT: If Trump's opponents don't learn from Jeremy Corbyn's catastrophe, The Donald's guaranteed four more years!
I would miss BBC Radio in all its forms. It is generally still excellent. I would miss BBC4 which is also excellent. BBC4 is for Left-leaning Guardianista types like you and me, not Red Wall White Van Man. We will just have to learn to live without or pay for the privilege.
Anyhoo, here's some stuff:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0003wxb/the-brexit-storm-laura-kuenssbergs-inside-story
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000cf6v/the-brexit-storm-continues-laura-kuenssbergs-inside-story
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m0006y2p/reflections-when-parties-split
https://www.youtube.com/user/steverichards14/videos
When I was a boy there was Light Programme, Third Programme, Home Service and BBC TV. No BBC 2, no Radio 1. No local radio.No web site. Looking at the beb today, it is unrecognisable from that base. to put it politely the BBC has suffered from Mission creep.