The BBC license fee

[Hayek]

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?

Wow, I actually didn't know those were BBC shows. I thought I was at a disadvantage in this debate because I don't have a TV set, but those shows hardly compare to top-quality commercial TV shows.

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

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

I suppose North Koreans lived well under those merry days when they had to turn to the state for their entire ration, then? It is impied that had it not been for the reforms (if there were any reforms, it would certainly be unusual to hear anything about North Korea slowly abandoning communism), North Koreans would have had one problem (inflation), now they have two (starvation as well). Moreover, starvation has as far as I know been a great problem in North Korea for much longer than the past few years. You truly don't read it that way? Fine. But my way is certainly a fair way of reading it.

 

[brennan]

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

That's what I thought. C4 is a commercial attempt at emulating the BBC. The ratings show that it's nothing like as popular as ITV. I could make a similar point by pointing out that the 'arty' programmes on BB2 get lower ratings than those on BBC1: good quality programmes with educational or informative value like documentaries, the news and so forth are worth less to commercial interests, which can rake in money producing trash like Big Brother (a C4 programme). The BBC fulfils a need that commercial channels alone simply would not fill.

 

[Mise]

That's what I thought. C4 is a commercial attempt at emulating the BBC. The ratings show that it's nothing like as popular as ITV. I could make a similar point by pointing out that the 'arty' programmes on BB2 get lower ratings than those on BBC1: good quality programmes with educational or informative value like documentaries, the news and so forth are worth less to commercial interests, which can rake in money producing trash like Big Brother (a C4 programme). The BBC fulfils a need that commercial channels alone simply would not fill.

Yet C4 is still profitable and still exists. In my opinion, C4 fulfils the same needs that the BBC fulfils.

 

[brennan]

Wow, I actually didn't know those were BBC shows. I thought I was at a disadvantage in this debate because I don't have a TV set, but those shows hardly compare to top-quality commercial TV shows.

The problem is that the BBC is forced to wage in a ratings war to show it provides 'entertainment value' on top of all it's other requirements. This results in it having to waste money on a certain amount of dross as well. Eastenders and Top Gear are a couple of the most popular programmes on UK TV btw, I don't think you can accuse them of being low-quality.

I suppose North Koreans lived well under those merry days when they had to turn to the state for their entire ration, then? It is impied that had it not been for the reforms (if there were any reforms, it would certainly be unusual to hear anything about North Korea slowly abandoning communism), North Koreans would have had one problem (inflation), now they have two (starvation as well). Moreover, starvation has as far as I know been a great problem in North Korea for much longer than the past few years. You truly don't read it that way? Fine. But my way is certainly a fair way of reading it.

I think the bias is all yours, I don't think anyone is suggesting that North Koreas problems stem from the introduction of a market and I think that to read such into those few lines is exceptionally obtuse. The BBC has been reporting N.Korea as a repressive regime that indoctrinates and starves it's people for as long as I can remember and you are clutching at some rather pathetic straws.

 

[Hayek]

I think the bias is all yours, I don't think anyone is suggesting that North Koreas problems stem from the introduction of a market and I think that to read such into those few lines is exceptionally obtuse. The BBC has been reporting N.Korea as a repressive regime that indoctrinates and starves it's people for as long as I can remember and you are clutching at some rather pathetic straws.

Then why mention the market reform at all? And in a context which seems to lead up to the problems they have? '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.' This does not imply that people are worse off now? After North Korea supposedly moved a vanishingly small step away from totalitariansim?

We'll agree to disagree, I suppose. As I said myself, it is only one article which has no great bearing on the issue.

Anyway, I have made the points I wanted about private media bias and provided the logic behind why people will demand good TV (BBC or no BBC) and why TV in general actually gets better (BBC or no BBC) despite all the abominable programmes that are still around. I don't think I have anything else to add.

 

[GinandTonic]

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

Erm brow level wise, Big Brother and its spin-offs are the lowest brow programs on TV right now, and they are covered 24-7 by the assorted C4 family for three or four months a year.

Compared to BBC4 etc it is indefensible to claim C4 is higher brow.

 

[Brighteye]

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.

What about someone who's perfectly happy with the cost and quality of alternatives to the NHS? What about someone who's happy with using torches at night instead of street lighting? What about someone who likes dirty streets or doesn't throw litter on them? Should we cancel our street cleaning?

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 shouldn't be forced to pay taxes, because I don't believe in some of the many things the government is doing...

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.

I'm quite happy not throwing litter in the streets. If you want to make a mess then you can pay for it, but don't force me.
It's the same old thing. This is a public service. It is necessary for a large (more than a thousand or few thousand people) to have accurate and unbiased information distribution. The fact that you don't use it doesn't mean that you shouldn't pay, because the nation benefits from there being a permanent, reliable source of information for its citizens, just as I still see the need to pay for street cleaning even though I put my rubbish in bins.

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.

If all that matters is cost and quality, then we can safely say that we should keep the BBC because it gives high quality for relatively little budget.

With the BBC and its competitors, "fair and impartial" is such a subjective metric that comparing two different services is very difficult... 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.

Not at all. To mandate the NHS would be undemocratic by this argument, or even to mandate any tax. It is necessary to have a reliable service. If companies wish to imitate the service and make money, they can, just as with healthcare providers, but this does not make the BBC unnecessary.

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? ...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?

If the BBC has fulfilled the aim of informing people, I see no problem with further programmes to educate and interest them. Knowledge is a good thing, and to spread it to citizens of the country a public work. Hence public libraries (which I don't use either). I pay for libraries just the same. Eastenders is very valuable to a lot of people. I don't like soap operas myself, but I'm happy for the BBC to offer a wide (even eclectic) selection of programmes about anything and everything, just as it's nice that public libraries have fiction for borrowing and aren't solely reference libraries.

You should be grateful that there's the option to opt out of the BBC license at all, by not owning a television. I think that it should be provided as a public service from taxes.

 

[brennan]

Then why mention the market reform at all?

Maybe because it's relevant information? What are you saying, that capitalist terminology should not be used in conjunction with a negative report? And this would remove bias would it?

And in a context which seems to lead up to the problems they have? '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.' This does not imply that people are worse off now? After North Korea supposedly moved a vanishingly small step away from totalitariansim?

No more than it implies North Korea's government can't even feed it's own people(Go BBC, big it up for communism /sarcasm). Your own bias is evident from the fact that you squeeze this warped viewpoint out of two lines at the end of a 15 line report, and try to pass this off as the intent of the whole piece.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

@Mise

Have you stopped to think what would happen to British TV if the BBC was no longer funded in such a ‘unique way’?

There is only a certain amount of advertising revenue to go around and if the BBC took a large chunk of it (as they would) there would be considerably less left over for the likes of Ch4 and 5.

I put it to you – would those channels exist in their present format? The answer is a definite No – and I would wonder if they would even exist at all.

I put it to you that Ch4 news is a minority, liberal ‘indulgence’ that is only possible because of the existence of the BBC and its unique method of funding (UMF) - If the BBC took large wads of Ch4’s income, it would surely resort to a Ch5 type news, if it bothered with news at all.

I put it to you that Ch4 would have to resort to almost full time BB type programs in order to survive if the BBC was commercial.

I put it to you – You do not know how lucky you are as far as the relatively high quality of the TV and radio stations that you do watch and listen to as a result of the BBC and its UMF.

 

[brennan]

Here's some examples of the BBC biggin' it up for North Korea:

From the N.Korea factfile:

"Heavy industry exists across the country, but most plants are rundown and inefficient after years of underinvestment.

Maufacturing output is geared to the demands of the massive armed forces. Few factories produce consumer goods and those North Koreans who can afford them rely on imported second hand items from China and Japan." Sounds like a communist utopia to me.

"ife for North Korea's 23 million population is harsh, with most people experiencing daily shortages of food."

"In the mid-1990s, years of economic mismanagement and drought culminated in a severe famine in which the UN estimates between 500,000 and 2 million people may have died. "

"A detailed report based on eyewitness accounts compiled by the US Committee for Human Rights in North Korea suggests that about 200,000 political prisoners are incarcerated in gulags and labour camps."


From an article:

North Korea is a "brutal regime"

On Kim Jong-Il: "analysts are undecided whether his eccentricities mask the cunning mind of a master manipulator or betray an irrational madman."

"a mercurial fantasist"

"he has been linked by defectors to international terrorist activities"

Source.

 

[Hayek]

Is this just a pathetic attempt to pick on me? I certainly never suggested the BBC have a fondness for North Korea. I have never tried to make a big deal out of the article I linked to, just pointed out that the BBC is not without bias, though I understand not everyone reads the article that way.

What I don't understand is why defenders of the Beeb's present way of operating seem to believe that people would drift towards télé poubelle with only private broadcasting companies. In order to catch a viewer's interest, a TV station must make its shows complicated and intellectually demanding - otherwise who would watch them? BB and other poor-quality TV shows should be compared to the worst TV shows of yesteryear for perspective.

As far as the news is concerned, I have provided the logic behind why bias will be fairly low most of the time - because with weblogs, newspapers, radio and TV, everybody will keep a check on everybody else and if bias is revealed, it would make sponsors shy away.

 

[brennan]

Is this just a pathetic attempt to pick on me? I certainly never suggested the BBC have a fondness for North Korea. I have never tried to make a big deal out of the article I linked to, just pointed out that the BBC is not without bias, though I understand not everyone reads the article that way.

I think the article clearly has a lot less bias than yourself. None, in fact.

 

[Taliesin]

As far as the news is concerned, I have provided the logic behind why bias will be fairly low most of the time - because with weblogs, newspapers, radio and TV, everybody will keep a check on everybody else and if bias is revealed, it would make sponsors shy away.

Maybe... unless it's pro-sponsor bias, or bias that attracts a share of the market.

 

[GinandTonic]

Maybe... unless it's pro-sponsor bias, or bias that attracts a share of the market.

Bias that attracts market share is the kicker for me. The text book case would be the Sun, which at times has been around the 1/3 of the total newspaper market. Fox news seems to be doing OK despite suing employees on the basis they they refused to knowingly lie. The News at Ten is the most openly "editorial" and tabloid terrrestial uk news and has the highest viewing figures.

Basically the assertion that viewing figures/ readership will fall if a source is less than 100% unbiased is not the case whatsoever in the real world.

EDIT - In fact if anything it is inversely proportional. Playing to the galleries goes down well.

 

[brennan]

The News at Ten is the most openly "editorial" and tabloid terrrestial uk news and has the highest viewing figures.

The only reason ITV carry news at all is that they're legally obliged to.

 

[Mise]

What about someone who's perfectly happy with the cost and quality of alternatives to the NHS? What about someone who's happy with using torches at night instead of street lighting? What about someone who likes dirty streets or doesn't throw litter on them? Should we cancel our street cleaning?

You keep coming back to me with so-called analogies, but I've already explained why the analogies are flawed. I've played this game on both terms -- assuming that the BBC is worthy of comparison with other public services such as those that you mentioned, and from my own terms of commercial interests. Perhaps you can step out of your world for a minute and enter mine, and address those points under the assumption (which apparently is not a foregone conclusion as the rest of your post argues) that the BBC is a public entity engaged in commercial activities and (hence) should not be treated any differently from the commercial broadcasters.

Now, playing on your terms...

It is necessary for a large (more than a thousand or few thousand people) to have accurate and unbiased information distribution.

Prove that it is necessary, then prove why the government can't deliver this through Newspapers, or some other media. Surely, with all the crap that's printed in some of the more biased papers, there should be some sort of government funded, impartial newspaper that's paid for by... lets see... anyone who can read?

The fact that you don't use it doesn't mean that you shouldn't pay, because the nation benefits from there being a permanent, reliable source of information for its citizens

Prove that the nation benefits from the BBC any more than from Tesco's or ADSA, and then explain to me why there shouldn't be a government-owned supermarket, paid for by a license fee levied on anyone who buys food.

If all that matters is cost and quality, then we can safely say that we should keep the BBC because it gives high quality for relatively little budget.

The BBC's internal budget is not at question, it is HOW it receives its budget. The cost to ME is a lot greater than the other stations that provide pretty much the same quality of content.

And yes, quantitative analysis on cost and quality is all that matters. Or do you have some strange subjective notion on what we all "should" be concerned with? I'd love to hear it...

(Incidentally, I don't believe for one second that there is some magical right of ours to enjoy impartial news and documentaries. The only thing that matters is delivering services that people want, and with so much competition in television nowadays, people can simply flick to a channel that DOES deliver those services.)

Not at all. To mandate the NHS would be undemocratic by this argument, or even to mandate any tax.

I've gone to great lengths to explain why the NHS and the BBC aren't comparable and all you have to say is "not at all"? At least tell me where I'm going wrong, rather than throw more analogies at me...

Maybe you misread me, but my point was that the BBC and its competitors deliver pretty much the same level of impartiality and fairness. Any further judgement would be subjective, without a proper metric for comparison. If you can quantify "fairness" or "impartiality", and perhaps give me a score out of 100 for Channel 4 and BBC News, I'd be very interested.

It is necessary to have a reliable service. If companies wish to imitate the service and make money, they can, just as with healthcare providers, but this does not make the BBC unnecessary.

I didn't say it was unnecessary; again I'm not saying that the BBC shouldn't exist, I'm simply saying that it should not be funded through "taxation". Why can't it be funded by adverts?

If the BBC has fulfilled the aim of informing people, I see no problem with further programmes to educate and interest them. Knowledge is a good thing, and to spread it to citizens of the country a public work. Hence public libraries (which I don't use either). I pay for libraries just the same. Eastenders is very valuable to a lot of people. I don't like soap operas myself, but I'm happy for the BBC to offer a wide (even eclectic) selection of programmes about anything and everything, just as it's nice that public libraries have fiction for borrowing and aren't solely reference libraries.

I'm glad that you're happy about it but you're completely missing the point. As I said earlier, there's no point in telling me what and what the BBC does... It's exactly like telling me what and what Tesco does. You do agree that there is a necessity for cheap and healthy food don't you...?

Here's a list of things that one can deem a "necessity":

- House/Flat
- Food
- Clothes
- Electricity
- Central Heating
- Water
- Car
- Computer
- Broadband internet access
- Landline + Mobile phone

You seem good at analogies so I'm sure you can think of more. Tell me why the government shouldn't be providing all of these via taxation.

You should be grateful that there's the option to opt out of the BBC license at all, by not owning a television. I think that it should be provided as a public service from taxes.

Yes I am indeed grateful of the patriarchal benevolence of the government that hasn't gone so far as to tax the poorest of society for something that they can't afford to use... You do realise that some people simply can't afford a TV license, and are thus denied the supercoolness of not only the BBC, but the lesser, lower-brow channels too? If it's such a necessity then why hasn't the government provided free TV's for every household in the country?

@Mise

Have you stopped to think what would happen to British TV if the BBC was no longer funded in such a ‘unique way’?

There is only a certain amount of advertising revenue to go around and if the BBC took a large chunk of it (as they would) there would be considerably less left over for the likes of Ch4 and 5.

I put it to you – would those channels exist in their present format? The answer is a definite No – and I would wonder if they would even exist at all.

I put it to you that Ch4 news is a minority, liberal ‘indulgence’ that is only possible because of the existence of the BBC and its unique method of funding (UMF) - If the BBC took large wads of Ch4’s income, it would surely resort to a Ch5 type news, if it bothered with news at all.

I put it to you that Ch4 would have to resort to almost full time BB type programs in order to survive if the BBC was commercial.

I put it to you – You do not know how lucky you are as far as the relatively high quality of the TV and radio stations that you do watch and listen to as a result of the BBC and its UMF.

If Ch4 magically disappeared tomorrow, the most popular shows will be bought by the most popular channels -- Sky One, BBC, ITV -- and the less popular ones by less popular channels, like UKTV. If BBC News replaced Ch4 News I wouldn't shed a tear, because BBC News is pretty much the same as Ch4 News, except it doesn't have Jon Snow. In addition, the TV license fees go straight into our pockets....... and then straight into the high street shops and other private companies that pay for TV advertising.

You are right that the channels probably wouldn't exist in the same format, but you are absolutely wrong that the overall quality of British television would degrade significantly, if at all.

Erm brow level wise, Big Brother and its spin-offs are the lowest brow programs on TV right now, and they are covered 24-7 by the assorted C4 family for three or four months a year.

Compared to BBC4 etc it is indefensible to claim C4 is higher brow.

You were probably being facetious, but C4 doesn't cover it 24/7; as you well know it carries many more sophisticated shows. And there are 4 channels operated by Ch4. Have you ever watched More4? It's pretty much the same as BBC4.

Not that there's anything wrong with low brow TV.

 

[GinandTonic]

Prove that it is necessary, then prove why the government can't deliver this through Newspapers, or some other media. Surely, with all the crap that's printed in some of the more biased papers, there should be some sort of government funded, impartial newspaper that's paid for by... lets see... anyone who can read?

An informed citizenry is the foundation stone of democracy. Direct gov funding is antithetical to an unbiased media of any kind. This is precisely why the beeb is so valuable.

Prove that the nation benefits from the BBC any more than from Tesco's or ADSA, and then explain to me why there shouldn't be a government-owned supermarket, paid for by a license fee levied on anyone who buys food.

Impartial supermarkets are not a foundation stone of democracy.

You were probably being facetious, but C4 doesn't cover it 24/7; as you well know it carries many more sophisticated shows. And there are 4 channels operated by Ch4. Have you ever watched More4? It's pretty much the same as BBC4.

Not that there's anything wrong with low brow TV.

I said the C4 family. Since the C4 spin-off channels show them sleeping all night I assumed they showed them talking during the day. If not my bad.

You brought up "high-brow", not me. You said the beeb wasnt high brow enough for you, my only point is that 4 cant claim any high-brow high ground.

 

[Oruc]

You brought up "high-brow", not me. You said the beeb wasnt high brow enough for you, my only point is that 4 cant claim any high-brow high ground.

He said ITV wasn't high-brow enough.

 

[Mise]

An informed citizenry is the foundation stone of democracy. Direct gov funding is antithetical to an unbiased media of any kind. This is precisely why the beeb is so valuable.

So why no such newspapers?

Impartial supermarkets are not a foundation stone of democracy.

The comparison was made between the NHS and the BBC. AFAIK, the NHS isn't a foundation stone of democracy either. And I don't think that the BBC was around when our democracy was founded (or evolved, w/e).

I said the C4 family. Since the C4 spin-off channels show them sleeping all night I assumed they showed them talking during the day. If not my bad.

You brought up "high-brow", not me. You said the beeb wasnt high brow enough for you, my only point is that 4 cant claim any high-brow high ground.

I said that ITV wasn't high brow enough for me. And I was being facetious, hence the

 

[EdwardTking]

Incidentally, I don't believe for one second that there is some magical right of ours to enjoy impartial news and documentaries.

Democratic rights mean nothing if you don't know what is going on.

Here's a list of things that one can deem a "necessity":

- House/Flat
- Food
- Clothes
- Electricity
- Central Heating
- Water
- Car
- Computer
- Broadband internet access
- Landline + Mobile phone

You seem good at analogies so I'm sure you can think of more. Tell me why the government shouldn't be providing all of these via taxation.

OF THOSE ONLY:

- House/Flat
- Food
- Clothes
- Electricity
- Water

are a necessity.

And if you can not earn, the government does provide them by taxation.