The BBC license fee

[EdwardTking]

the BCC is prepared to try to be impartial and critical about the government

whereas commercial private television companies are not prepared to be inpartial about their advertising sponsors or their owners

whatever the faults of the BBC are, and I have my own criticisms, its abolition would increase the control of the captalistic elite

 

[sanabas]

The license fee isn't the only way to publicly fund the BBC though. Australia's ABC is govt funded, but the funding comes directly from the govt, paid for by taxes, rather than from a set fee. Is the fee a better idea/better tolerated because it provides funding without giving the govt the opportunity to dramatically cut funding as part of its wider budget?

 

[Mise]

the BCC is prepared to try to be impartial and critical about the government

whereas commercial private television companies are not prepared to be inpartial about their advertising sponsors or their owners

whatever the faults of the BBC are, and I have my own criticisms, its abolition would increase the control of the captalistic elite

So, Channel 4 never speaks out against anyone? Ever watched Dispatches?

 

[bathsheba666]

So, Channel 4 never speaks out against anyone? Ever watched Dispatches?

Ever heard an american tv channel report how the intelligence dossier on Iraq was rewritten by the government, round about the time it was still current?

 

[Brighteye]

See my comments about the army and police. Everyone benefits more or less equally from street lighting. You can't choose not to use street lighting as you can choose not to use the BBC. Nor are there competing services for street lighting.

But I don't need street lighting. Mise mentions the NHS, and says that he can understand the argument for it, but then says that when privately owned companies are providing a service the state shouldn't force people to pay for its own version of the service.

If you can understand the NHS, why not the BBC? If we can have healthcare that's free at the moment of delivery, why not broadcasting? The BBC is a public service, and quite possibly more important than the NHS. If the public have no way of being informed impartially then it's very hard for them to make good decisions in national politics.
Since companies can't be trusted to be impartial, I find it very sensible that my country funds an impartial news service. The fact that it is used by people all over the world is gratifying, and demonstrates the importance other people place in having impartial news too.

 

[bhsup]

Well, while I may not agree, I'm always hearing arguments about health care being a "universal human right" (whatever that means and whoever makes them up). I seriously doubt that television has a leg to stand on if people tried to declare it to be one as well.

 

[brennan]

You don't think education is a basic right then? Providing educational content is part of the BBC's charter obligations, and it provides websites and programmes dedicated to this function: eg: the 'bitesize revision' material for GCSE's (14-16 education).

 

[Hayek]

There have been a sufficient number of allegations about partisanship against the BBC to suggest that not even their news necessarily satisfy the impartiality criterion. Moreover, private media can build a reputation for being truthful and balanced in their reporting and attract customers that way. Certainly, perfect impartiality is unachievable, but that is true for the BBC as well.

In the end, the BBC depends on its charter being renewed. Who seriously suggests that what they report be always unaffected by phone calls from influential politicians? It is probably not going to happen most of the time, but the risk is there that it might happen some of the time.

 

[brennan]

There have been a sufficient number of allegations about partisanship against the BBC to suggest that not even their news necessarily satisfy the impartiality criterion.

No number of allegations of impartiality actually imply impartiality. Name a political party the BBC doesn't criticise and you might have a point.

Me and my mates hereby allege you are a frog. There's a lot of us therefore you are a frog.

 

[bathsheba666]

There have been a sufficient number of allegations about partisanship against the BBC to suggest that not even their news necessarily satisfy the impartiality criterion. Moreover, private media can build a reputation for being truthful and balanced in their reporting and attract customers that way. Certainly, perfect impartiality is unachievable, but that is true for the BBC as well.

In the end, the BBC depends on its charter being renewed. Who seriously suggests that what they report be always unaffected by phone calls from influential politicians? It is probably not going to happen most of the time, but the risk is there that it might happen some of the time.

Meh, fair and balanced private media are so under the thumb of their commercial sponsors that we never begin to consider impartiality criterion.
If they 'can', why don't they start?

Obviously the BBC caves in to pressure at the end of the day, otherwise no-one would have resigned over the dossier affair.
But then, few are under any delusions as to what happened at that point, and it is pretty obvious.

It gets points for at least trying, although perhaps we should grieve for next time.

It's pretty obvious when you look at the main people calling for the bbc to be trimmed or chopped, whose commercial interests are being considered. And it's 'shareholder value', not broadcasting integrity that are driving these calls.

Let's keep the barbarians outside the dates.

 

[Hayek]

No number of allegations of impartiality actually imply impartiality. Name a political party the BBC doesn't criticise and you might have a point.

Here's a BBC article implying that market reforms caused starvation in North Korea: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4553695.stm .

It's possible that I am mistaken regarding the allegations of partiality, the above is after all just one instance. It's one of these things you hear a lot about in certain times and then may forget about. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned them since I lack the links to back me up - I was under the impression most people would remember more about them than I. I retract my statement to be on the safer side. However, my point about the charter having to be renewed is still valid.

Me and my mates hereby allege you are a frog. There's a lot of us therefore you are a frog.

So now you see what's wrong with the logic used by those who say the BBC deserves its special privileges because there are a lot of people who support it?

 

[GinandTonic]

We are the shareholders of the BBC. Why should we boost Murdoch's share price at the cost of our own?

 

[Hayek]

Meh, fair and balanced private media are so under the thumb of their commercial sponsors that we never begin to consider impartiality criterion.
If they 'can', why don't they start?

Weblogs, newspapers, television and radio all keep check of one another all the time. If compromising details about some TV station's reporting or whatever are revealed, said TV station's reputation will suffer, it will lose viewers and its sponsors will be upset.

 

[brennan]

Here's a BBC article implying that market reforms caused starvation in North Korea: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4553695.stm ...

I see a BBC article saying the UN are predicting famine in N Korea. There's a couple lines waaay down the bottom about market reforms being to blame. What's the bias here? That they included a brief explanation at the end of the report, or that you attempt to claim that's what the whole report is about, and presumably this shows the BBC are opposed to all market reforms everywhere? I can't believe people come up with this sort of trash to claim the BBC is biased.

So now you see what's wrong with the logic used by those who say the BBC deserves its special privileges because there are a lot of people who support it?

We are saying that a majority of people still support the BBC and the way it is funded, it's the same as any other law that a minority doesn't like, get over it, that's the way things work. No-one is saying it's perfect, neither is anyone saying it's even right, just that it works and the alternative is less desirable. That's different to the simple logical fallacy you made.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

Nope. And speaking of the radio, you DON'T need a TV license to listen to the radio.

What was your point again? That I'm not only paying for services I don't use, but that I'm paying for other people to use those services for free? Cos if that's your point then I entirely agree with you.

No you don’t need a licence to listen to BBC radio but the TV licence pays for radio.

You must be one of the tiny, tiny minority (and I mean tiny) who has a TV and genuinely does not watch or listen to the BBC. (ie pays and gets nothing out of it).

Many people maintain they don’t watch or listen to the BBC but are simply telling porkies IMO.

It is just tough on the likes of you. Why should the majority change for a small minority?

 

[Hayek]

I see a BBC article saying the UN are predicting famine in N Korea. There's a couple lines waaay down the bottom about market reforms being to blame. What's the bias here? That they included a brief explanation at the end of the report, or that you attempt to claim that's what the whole report is about, and presumably this shows the BBC are opposed to all market reforms everywhere? I can't believe people come up with this sort of trash to claim the BBC is biased.

Come on now, I conceded myself in that very same post that it was only one report and need not be pertinent at all to whther the BBC is biased or not. However, you cannot argue that there was not bias in that particular report. Apparently, some BBC reporter felt aggrieved about the market and needed to blame it for something and so included a little anti-capitalist rant at the end. Obviously, their failure to be more like their southern neighbour is to blame for starvation in North Korea.

We are saying that a majority of people still support the BBC and the way it is funded, it's the same as any other law that a minority doesn't like, get over it, that's the way things work. No-one is saying it's perfect, neither is anyone saying it's even right, just that it works and the alternative is less desirable. That's different to the simple logical fallacy you made.

And I'm saying the use of force and special privileges granted to this institution are unnecessary if so many people like it anyway. Would you stop appreciating whatever shows the BBC broadcasts just because they stopped being funded by the TV licence? A capitalist broadcaster would have an incentive to air quality TV if it can attract viewers.

 

[Mise]

But I don't need street lighting. Mise mentions the NHS, and says that he can understand the argument for it, but then says that when privately owned companies are providing a service the state shouldn't force people to pay for its own version of the service.

If you can understand the NHS, why not the BBC? If we can have healthcare that's free at the moment of delivery, why not broadcasting? The BBC is a public service, and quite possibly more important than the NHS. If the public have no way of being informed impartially then it's very hard for them to make good decisions in national politics.
Since companies can't be trusted to be impartial, I find it very sensible that my country funds an impartial news service. The fact that it is used by people all over the world is gratifying, and demonstrates the importance other people place in having impartial news too.

Okay, lets not get sidetracked here. I'm not saying that the BBC should not exist, I'm saying that there should be a choice of whether or not you subscribe to it. If you want a fair and impartial broadcasting service, then you can pay for it, but since I am perfectly happy with the level of fairness and impartiality provided by the alternatives, I shouldn't be forced to pay for the BBC.

There is no point in listing what and what the BBC provides, because I know that already, and have decided that I don't want it. Nor is there any point in telling me that it's the best thing eva and that I should watch it because it's so damn cool, because that is your opinion and there's no reason why I should be forced to accept your opinion, nor should I pay for it.

I'm quite happy with you watching the BBC and if you wish to continue to do so then who the hell am I to tell you that it shouldn't exist? But if YOU want to watch it then YOU can pay for it.

To compare the BBC and its competitors to the NHS and its alternatives just doesn't cut it. The first problem is the metric of comparison. The cost and quality of provision of a health service is rather easy to quantify and compare with its alternatives (i.e. private healthcare). We can look at private alternatives within our own country, or in other countries, and compare the cost and quality of service. The conclusion is clear -- the efficacy of a Nationalised Health Service with the option to go private is far greater than an entirely private system.

With the BBC and its competitors, "fair and impartial" is such a subjective metric that comparing two different services is very difficult, especially when the level of fairness and impartiality are only slightly different. I honestly cannot say that BBC News is any more fair and impartial than Channel Four News, for example. At such a close call, it all comes down to personal preference. It becomes clear that, both judging two services on personal preference, and mandating that judgement by law, are the antithesis of your original goal of making the nation in some way more democratic.

The second problem is your assertion that the services provided by the BBC is as much a fundamental human right as the services provided by the NHS. Well, if it's just "fair and impartial" that you want, then why not just have BBC News and documentaries, airing of the Queen's Speech, etc, and cut all the "cultural" stuff that it does? Eastenders? The Weakest Link? Casualty? Cooking programmes? Two pints of lager and a packet of crisps? Top Gear? Are you trying to tell me that access to these programmes is a fundamental human right? Is that anywhere near as important as free universal healthcare?

You don't think education is a basic right then? Providing educational content is part of the BBC's charter obligations, and it provides websites and programmes dedicated to this function: eg: the 'bitesize revision' material for GCSE's (14-16 education).

Without even getting into the details of your statement, it is clearly illogical to conclude that the provision of 1 service justifies everything else that the BBC does.

 

[brennan]

However, you cannot argue that there was not bias in that particular report. Apparently, some BBC reporter felt aggrieved about the market and needed to blame it for something and so included a little anti-capitalist rant at the end. Obviously, their failure to be more like their southern neighbour is to blame for starvation in North Korea.

anti capitalist rant?

Market reforms introduced in North Korea in recent years mean most people only get about half the food they need through the state and have to buy the rest themselves.

Statement of fact perhaps? State provides half the food, people must rely on the market for the rest? Any bias here?

But rampant inflation inside North Korea is making it increasingly difficult for people to make up that shortfall.

Looks like they're placing the blame on inflation to me, not on the market system.

 

[brennan]

Without even getting into the details of your statement, it is clearly illogical to conclude that the provision of 1 service justifies everything else that the BBC does.

I think you're taking me a little out of context there.

Btw you say you watch channel 4 mostly, what's wrong with ITV?

 

[Mise]

I think you're taking me a little out of context there.

Only a little . That was my interpretation at least.

Btw you say you watch channel 4 mostly, what's wrong with ITV?

I don't like it. Don't know what else to say really, it's just not as entertaining as C4, and the news and documentaries are too low brow for my sophisticated pallet