amadeus
burning out his fuse out here alone
How is this really any different from PBS?
Atropos makes a very good point when answering those who tout the supposed superiority of the BBC: If the programmes really are that great, why would they not be made by private broadcasting companies? To think that Britons would abandon good quality TV shows as soon as they are not forced to pay the licence that funds them reeks of élitism.
An independent institution that has a legal sanction to extract money from people without asking them if they actually want their service or not sounds like something they had in the Mediaeval times. Most people like it? Well in that case, see my first paragraph.
The sooner the BBC is privaitized the better.
How is this really any different from PBS?
How is this really any different from PBS?
Love the 'supposed'.
Love the assumption behind the first question.
Look at the stuff privatised companies churn out and it is cheap crap.
Phone an expensive number game shows.
If discriminating against garbage is elitist, then let's have more elitism.
The sooner the BBC is privatised, the sooner TV plunges down the same free market toilet visible throughout the rest of the world.
Thank you for taking the time for informing me off all that.
I seems simple to me. Britons have made a choice that information/art is a essential commodity to their state in the same way that gas, telephone, post office, ect ect is. It seems that the BBC is regulated in the same ways as other utilities are. But TV can not be charged in the same way that gas and other can be (for obvious reasons).
This seems to be about the best system that i could see running. What else could you do?
You don't have to donate to PBS to have a TV...
If you pay federal income taxes, you basically do. Over 80% of the CPB (Corporation for Public Broadcasting) funds come from federal appropriations.Well, while I don't really care how they deal with the BBC across the pond, PBS has pledge drives. You could argue that the federal government funding is akin to what the BBC does, it is general fund monies and not a specific "PBS" tax that everyone with a TV pays for.
I haven't read the thread, but I don't particularly like the BBC, and hardly ever watch it. If you ask me, Channel 4 news is much better than the BBC, and offers a MUCH more diverse, sophisticated and entertaining programme. If I could get my £120-odd per year back and be denied the right to watch the BBC, I would.
In fact, the only channels I ever seem to watch are Channel 4, More 4, Film 4, and of course, E4.
I hope you Brits don't mind.. but I've been watching and listening to the BBC for free for the past two years. Does that make me a leech?
What is wrong with the assumption? You seem to contend that if humans are not treated like cattle and forced to do what you think is right, they will immediately turn into disgusting pigs.
Timeless classics like "Seinfeld" and "the Simpsons" were not made by privileged institutions which were legally permitted to extract money from people who may or may not approve of what said institution is doing.
"Toilet TV" is not on the rise, by the way. It is often said that people waste too much time in front of dumbed-down TV shows, and no doubt, there is a lot of "toilet TV" around. However, if private broadcasting companies want people to watch their shows, it pays to make them complicated and intellectually demanding. This will also make the viewers watch the re-runs. The top-quality TV shows today are probably far better than the top-quality TV shows of yesteryear, just like computer games (another supposed waste of time) are better today.
The simple contradiction underlying your (false) assumption that private tv stations make better programs is pretty stark and pretty glaring.
The presence of the BBC does not prevent private stations from making better tv.
So, if they were going to make better programs, they probably already would have done this.
And the glorious market would watch those programs, and not the BBCs, because they would be glaringly better.
And then , there would be no need t fund the BBC any more.
But, curiously this hasn't happened yet.
Care to hazard a guess why? Especially given your core beliefs?
What I am saying is that people know themselves what's best for them.
And they express it at the ballot box.
Nope. And speaking of the radio, you DON'T need a TV license to listen to the radio.But do you not listen to BBC Radio?
In my opinion, they do, which is why I almost never watch any of the 6 or 7 BBC channels on my FreeView box. But I guess my opinion doesn't matter.bathsheba666 said:So, if they were going to make better programs, they probably already would have done this.
I haven't lived all my life in the UK, but surely there has never been a plebiscite on whether the BBC should be privatized or not.
@GinandTonic: When was the last election you voted at that was decided by which of the various parties was going to abolish the TV licence fees?! I mean in one breath you say that by making them "license fees" rather than "taxes", it in some way distances the BBC from the government, yet now you're lauding the fact that the BBC's license fees and parliamentary elections are so closely intertwined that all one needs to do is get 50% of households to agree to receiving an extra £10 a month in their bank accounts and BOOM! no more TV license?