View Full Version : Destroy the BBC!
The Anus Eater (Nadine Dorries, Culture Secretary) has revealed the usual method for destroying something the Conservatives do not like. Underfund it so it gives an inferior service then express surprise and say: "It needs to be changed".
We see it with the NHS and now the BBC is next in the firing line.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jan/16/bbc-licence-fee-to-be-abolished-in-2027-and-funding-frozen
Murdoch has been trying to get the BBC funding changed for years, looks like he'll get his way finally. I'll be sad to see it go. Dorries admires Netflix but I don't see how an over-the-air broadcaster can adopt that model unless it switches to on-line only. Paid advertising? I'd prefer it didn't go that way but options are limited. Then there's the radio channels...
So a privatised BBC because privatisation has worked so well in other areas. :rolleyes:
Perhaps they will adapt it more to the model of Channel 4, which personally i think is better.
Sure, i'm not a fan of adverts but if that means there's more cash flow from advertising to produce better programs then i'm all for it. And hopefully it removes the politicised links and allows it to be a platform which can produce/publish a program with balanced argument for/against the political powers. Without fear or wrath being used against it to reduce funding if they do not comply.
redtrummy
16-01-22, 03:00 PM
Not good, not good at all - Hopefully a change of Government could rescind her punitive measures.
NHS underfunded, Police underfunded, Town halls underfunded but the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
You can see where this is going, more cheap crap from America and the high quality programmes become a thing of the past.
welcome to BBC USA..... its been in the pipeline for a long time and even before the tories set a date.
lets face facts here, Amazon is £79, Netflix is £13.99 a month and Disney+ is £79. the BBC is £159 a year, for what.. some crap soaps and the occasional decent stuff. sell it to Amazon or Netflix. or even better make it a subscription based internet service that people dont have to pay for if they dont want it.
people getting threatened by the bailiffs for not having a licence is diabolical and just another tax raising fiasco.
i personally haven't watched terrestrial tv for about 5 years but i still pay a bbc licence to watch iplayer. i dont listen to the ****ty bbc radio either as the jockeys go on and a on and on and on without playing music.
ooohhh and all the BBC does is advertise themselves between programs or blast news at you....
I only pay £5.99 for Netflix and if you decide to watch "The Silent Sea" you could argue that is too much. I wouldn't touch Amazon with a barge pole, nor Disney (but my kids are grown anyway).
This is not so much about funding though, this is more about revenge. Dorries has expressed her distaste for the BBC several times because she considers it left wing and biased. She has stated all along that she wishes it to be controlled. The Conservatives do not take criticism well.
Naturally, I wrote to her :) to let her know my feelings (and my own MP, too).
... And hopefully it removes the politicised links and allows it to be a platform which can produce/publish a program with balanced argument for/against the political powers. Without fear or wrath being used against it to reduce funding if they do not comply.
Don't you think advertisers have the ability to leverage similar 'political' influence?
The licence fee is an inefficient, outdated way to bring in the revenue to fund the BBC.
If we value aspects of the BBC then forcing it to become just another competitive broadcaster is not the way forward IMHO. However, I have no problem with changing the funding mechanism.
The discussion about the 'correct' funding level will exist whether the licence fee exists or not. It would just affect charges to advertisers or subscribers instead.
If we think there's a place for a national service broadcaster then why not just pay for it out of general taxation like most other public sector entities and have Ofcom deal with regulating it according to a periodic settlement arrangement in line with a documented license, charter, service agreement or whatever you want to call it. That's an existing model used for railway and road infrastructure and is not too dissimilar to what happens in telecoms and energy sectors too.
I only pay £5.99 for Netflix and if you decide to watch "The Silent Sea" you could argue that is too much. I wouldn't touch Amazon with a barge pole, nor Disney (but my kids are grown anyway).
Amazon is great not only do you get a superb streaming service you also get a superb shopping experience (i dont care about their working environment or policy (my eldest son worked there and he said it was not that bad, just the lazy people that moaned)) and Disney+ is not just for kids.
Naturally, I wrote to her :) to let her know my feelings (and my own MP, too).
sometimes wish that there were more people like you but less biased.
Don't you think advertisers have the ability to leverage similar 'political' influence?
To what extent?
Amazon is great not only do you get a superb streaming service you also get a superb shopping experience (i dont care about their working environment or policy (my eldest son worked there and he said it was not that bad, just the lazy people that moaned)) and Disney+ is not just for kids.
I agree regarding Amazon for shopping & streaming. Some shows/movies do have adverts if funded/supplied by IMDB though (only very few of what i have found so far).
If the shops were any good at stocking the things i want, and at the price i'm happy to pay - i'll go there. But very few shops do, without travelling miles & miles adding in the cost of time and travel expenses. But that's not going to be less than the £8 a month Amazon costs me really.
I too have Disney+, although mainly for me to watch the National Geographic documentaries and other interesting programs. My kids rarely use it to watch Disney movies.
sometimes wish that there were more people like you but less biased.
:) I am biased. I am biased against hypocritical politicians who set rules and consider themselves above following them. Politicians that give jobs to their friends and try and hide it. Politicians that allow 150,000 people to die because they were slow in locking down a pandemic (twice or three times?) and then blame the public. Politician(s) that can't be bothered to show up at the COBRA meetings. Politicians that put profit before people. Yes, I admit to that bias. :D
Is it a cognitive bias? Don't think so - I follow left and right wing media outlets and weigh the likely veracity of the stories.
Back to the Beeb - this government loves slogans, "Levelling Up", "Build, Back, Better" and "Global Britain". The BBC is one of the best examples of the UK's "soft power" which Global Britain desperately needs. It is respected worldwide for its news and its programs. We are currently breaking our own negotiated treaties with the EU and threatening to break more - we are becoming untrustworthy as a nation and are running out of feet to shoot. Take away the UK's "face" to the world, the BBC, and what do we have left to show?
This is Conservative Party vengeance on the BBC and nothing more. They weren't happy with the 2019 election coverage and they are not happy with the focus on Boris' parties (and the subsequent coverage of calls for his resignation).
Don't fix the problem (of lying and rule breaking), shoot the messenger is Dorries solution. She knew that announcing this would draw attention away from her leader's woes.
To what extent?
To use your words: using fear and wrath to reduce funding if they do not comply.
With many consmer goods advertisers being rather large commercial conglomerates, I'm sure there is sufficient money at stake for one of them to be able to have significant leverage from the threat of cancelling (or just reducing) advertising bookings if messages are not presented in the way they would like.
... The BBC is one of the best examples of the UK's "soft power" which Global Britain desperately needs. It is respected worldwide for its news and its programs. We are currently breaking our own negotiated treaties with the EU and threatening to break more - we are becoming untrustworthy as a nation and are running out of feet to shoot. Take away the UK's "face" to the world, the BBC, and what do we have left to show?
This is Conservative Party vengeance on the BBC and nothing more. They weren't happy with the 2019 election coverage and they are not happy with the focus on Boris' parties (and the subsequent coverage of calls for his resignation).
...
I agree about the historical high eputation (that is definitely very much at risk, if not already somewhat sullied).
Ironically there are many who think that the presentation of actions by current Government that could be interpreted as abuses of power are being woefully under reported on the BBC and that the messages being put out are very much toe-ing the line rather than being unbiased as they're supposed to be. That would make it strange for the Conservatives to think it was their 'enemy' (though of course one can see why the examples you cite would induce angst, annoyance or anger amongst them).
To use your words: using fear and wrath to reduce funding if they do not comply.
With many consmer goods advertisers being rather large commercial conglomerates, I'm sure there is sufficient money at stake for one of them to be able to have significant leverage from the threat of cancelling (or just reducing) advertising bookings if messages are not presented in the way they would like.
I can't see that being an issue, advertisements are all done through contracts and have guidelines to abide by.
The program content/producers is potentially where the allegiance lies.
redtrummy
17-01-22, 01:59 PM
I much prefer watching programmes without commercial breaks and at present the licence fee equates to 43p a day. That seems pretty good value. Whether I feel the same when David Attenborough finally retires I know not.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.