If I understand this correctly, the argument is that the BBC shouldn't be doing anything that commercial organisations can or already do. If this is the case, is there anything that a revamped BBC should be doing?
How do you understand the review as announced this morning - with all advisors involved being known to be anti-BBC.If I understand this correctly, the argument is that the BBC shouldn't be doing anything that commercial organisations can or already do. If this is the case, is there anything that a revamped BBC should be doing?
I don't accept it is the case.
How do you understand the review as announced this morning - with all advisors involved being known to be anti-BBC.
I heard a radio interview recently, in the run up to this, in which a chap was bemoaning that the BBC web-site was 'too good' and was without adverts, and that this was 'unfair' - presumably he'd prefer it that we either pay for a news website or wade through those that have more adverts than articles.Yes and the commercial broadcasters - most notably Sky, cannot abide the funding model for the BBC. So they'd prefer an overall inferior offering to viewers, listeners and web users where quality is sacrificed on the alter of commercial free-marketism.
I suspect that most of us here would rather that the BBC remained more or less as it is at present. What changes would we accept?
Agree with no ads and independence of the BBC.The BBC provide funds for a number of small films that commercial groups have refused to support - and which often end up as successes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Films
Don't see why BBC needs to provide "entertainment" (soaps, chat, sport, murder mysteries, mainstream movies etc ...) where this is perfectly well handled by commercial channels.
Funding could be mixed, why rely on license mechanism? (in fact it is already mixed).
Needs to move away from broadcasting to exploiting interactive media - why isn't it hosting the public debate on the charter review rather than twitter etc ? - because it has reduced it's forum/debate capability to mush.It is hosting a debate about it - today's Jeremy Vine's Radio 2 show for instance. It couldn't stop any debte on any other form of social media.
Just as a general point - we pay an astonishingly extortionate* £2.79 per week per household for the BBC at the current licence fee cost.Apparently, the existing commercial/advertising pot barely suffices for the existing needs oif ITV, Sky, Channels 4 & 5, etc.
You pay more than that through your weekly shop for the adverts that help to keep commercial TV going - and don't forget your SKY subscription too.
...
It is hosting a debate about it - today's Jeremy Vine's Radio 2 show for instance. It couldn't stop any debte on any other form of social media.
Surely debates are all about people sharing their opinions, Ud. Whether it's in 142 characters or over a minute or so via the telephone, being broadcast to the nation, aren't they debates? Aren't we having one here?...
It is hosting a debate about it - today's Jeremy Vine's Radio 2 show for instance. It couldn't stop any debte on any other form of social media.
In this day and age with the web etc I really can't regard a Jeremy Vines phone in as a "debate"... or even the phone in programmes on Radio 5.
Just as a general point - we pay an astonishingly extortionate* £2.79 per week per household for the BBC at the current licence fee cost.
You pay more than that through your weekly shop for the adverts that help to keep commercial TV going - and don't forget your SKY subscription too.
As someone once sang:"Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got till it's gone."*Heavy sarcasm alert
If I understand this correctly, the argument is that the BBC shouldn't be doing anything that commercial organisations can or already do. If this is the case, is there anything that a revamped BBC should be doing?
Surely debates are all about people sharing their opinions, Ud. Whether it's in 142 characters or over a minute or so via the telephone, being broadcast to the nation, aren't they debates? Aren't we having one here?...
It is hosting a debate about it - today's Jeremy Vine's Radio 2 show for instance. It couldn't stop any debte on any other form of social media.
In this day and age with the web etc I really can't regard a Jeremy Vines phone in as a "debate"... or even the phone in programmes on Radio 5.
There is still plenty of non-news that needs public support: Art, culture, science, education, history, children's programs, documentaries, comedy ... many areas where commercial services don't or couldn't do a good job.
It could still make ... Eastenders, Strictly, Master chef etc and sell for broadcast on commercial channels (as it already does with many repeat programs) and/or allow download/streaming on an ad-free subscription basis.
The BBC should resurrect its message board capability and allow discussion of programmes, politics etc ("Sustaining citizenship and civil society") and engage with the public - eg by using volunteer/elected moderators rather than try to control everything itself.IIRC, they cut these facilities because of reduced funding as a result of the last charter review.
I heard a radio interview recently, in the run up to this, in which a chap was bemoaning that the BBC web-site was 'too good' and was without adverts, and that this was 'unfair'
...
It is hosting a debate about it - today's Jeremy Vine's Radio 2 show for instance. It couldn't stop any debte on any other form of social media.
In this day and age with the web etc I really can't regard a Jeremy Vines phone in as a "debate"... or even the phone in programmes on Radio 5.
We have a government system that believes that the highest artistic, cultural and intellectual achievement of human kind has been the invention of cost accounting.I thought it thought that the 'highest artistic, cultural and intellectual achievement of human kind has been the invention of' creative accounting ;)
And we have a prime minister who barely adequate to the task of governing, who is more concerned with the state of his party than of the nation. He is constantly looking over his shoulder - in fear of the paeliolithic throwbacks his party always attracts.So, no different to any of the Prime Ministers who have held the post since Harold Wilson!!
There is still plenty of non-news that needs public support: Art, culture, science, education, history, children's programs, documentaries, comedy ... many areas where commercial services don't or couldn't do a good job.
It could still make ... Eastenders, Strictly, Master chef etc and sell for broadcast on commercial channels (as it already does with many repeat programs) and/or allow download/streaming on an ad-free subscription basis.
This just feels like subsidising your taste.
The BBC should resurrect its message board capability and allow discussion of programmes, politics etc ("Sustaining citizenship and civil society") and engage with the public - eg by using volunteer/elected moderators rather than try to control everything itself.IIRC, they cut these facilities because of reduced funding as a result of the last charter review.
...
It is hosting a debate about it - today's Jeremy Vine's Radio 2 show for instance. It couldn't stop any debte on any other form of social media.
In this day and age with the web etc I really can't regard a Jeremy Vines phone in as a "debate"... or even the phone in programmes on Radio 5.
But in comparison with Twitter...