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?
brennan said:
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.