Question About The BBC?

[MrPresident]

As an Englishman you can't turn on a telly without paying the BBC a license fee. Now I am not saying that the BBC should not exist but recently I don't think I'm getting my license fee's worth. I began to wonder about this and this led me to thinking about the repuation of the BBC worldwide (don't ask me how I got there I just accept the way my mind works). So this is leds nicely into the poll which you have either just voted on or are about to vote on (thats assuming you will vote). What do foreigners think of the beloved British institution and how did you could to such a conclusion? How you seen any BBC programmes? Or are you a listener to BBC World Service, as a side point I was wondering how many countries recieve this service and is it easy to find?

 

[Heffalump]

I'm American and watch BBC world just about every night. Generally i find it quite good. (Much better than American broadcast news: commercials interspersed with quick news sound bites. So I'm starting at a fairly low level here.)

My chief complaint is some BBC reporters lack any pretense of objectivity. A lot of statements that sound more suited for editorial pages find their way into news stories. And the BBC is not above pandering to stereotypes, particularly about us Americans.

But I can't say i dislike it ... still watch it every night after all

 

[Simon Darkshade]

I like the BBC very much, and regard it with affection. I listen to the World Service, watch BBC programmes, and delve deep into their website on a regular basis. I look forward to further saturation when I move to England in a few years time.

 

[Padma]

Being 'smack dab in the middle' of the U.S., I don't get too much exposure to the BBC anymore. (Checks cable TV schedule - nope, not even an option.)

However, when I was stationed in Italy a few years ago, it was a 'must-see'. second only to the U.S. Armed Forces Network. And AFN was really just to get the popular programs from the U.S. If we wanted good, solid, international news reporting, we tuned to BBC.

Of course, like Heffalump said, you must remember the low level we start from here.

 

[Hamlet]

It's good, however the news does seem to suffer from the usual bias towards the status quo that is present in most news services. The idiotic reporting of every little scuffle that happens to the royal family pees me off greatly. it does seem to have more decent reporting, analysation etc then some, though - ITN's news seems to be particularly poor, and seems to try to pander to whatever the public want to hear moreso than The BBC. It's news will always be second to Channel 4's, but it's still good.

 

[Hitro]

I like the BBC, I won't say I love it. Well actually I guess I'd never say I love any TV station.
I'm quite regularly watching BBC World (News), one reason for that is that there are only two English speaking TV channels here (and it's usually the only way for me to listen to English on TV, practically everything on German stations is dubbed). The other one is CNN and compared to that the BBC is great
No news service is objective of course but the BBC expresses at least sometimes views that are neither popular nor politically correct.
Anyway it's quite hard for me to pick the right vote. Its reputation (in the sense of producing quality television) IS very high here in Germany, probably dating back to the war times, where it was the only (of course illegal) source to get more realistic reports about the situation. I can't say if it doesn't live up to it cause I don't see most of the programme they make in the UK on which probably most of their money is spent.
I won't say our state television service is better or worse, considering news it also has a quite good reputation, compared with the private stations.
Of course I also don't like to pay the fee (who does?) but I think it's good to have a state television service. I don't have the illusion that it is independant or completely fair, but it's still better than being owned by private interest.

P.S.: The BBC did broadcast Monty Python, right? Considering the time it was broadcasted that alone could be a reason to love it

 

[MrPresident]

Germany, probably dating back to the war times, where it was the only (of course illegal) source to get more realistic reports about the situation.

I am not sure the BBC provided realistic reports during WWII but you probably could have caught a secret message to French resistance.

My chief complaint is some BBC reporters lack any pretense of objectivity.

Remember John Simpson "liberating" Kabul, classic television.

I look forward to further saturation when I move to England in a few years time.

You can watch BBC News 24 for round-the-clock saturation.

 

[Jimcat]

Any network that gave us "Doctor Who", "Monty Python's Flying Circus", "Fawlty Towers", and "Absolutely Fabulous" is okay in my book.

They also, as other posters have pointed out, provide an English-language news source that's not beholden to American corporate control. For that alone they deserve to continue.

Does the BBC make any money marketing itself in America? I don't have cable myself, so I have no idea if it's available as a pay channel, but I could imagine a good number of Americans would be interested in subscribing.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by MrPresident[/]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Germany, probably dating back to the war times, where it was the only (of course illegal) source to get more realistic reports about the situation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I am not sure the BBC provided realistic reports during WWII but you probably could have caught a secret message to French resistance.

Did you realise the word "more"?
I didn't say they were exactly realistic, I compared them to what was broadcasted by Germany itself.
And it's a fact that many Germans secretly listened to the BBC (also known as "enemy station") mainly because the German station(s) were still talking about the great victories of the army while the Soviets were already approaching Berlin.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I love the BBC, especially BBC2, which my brother is in fact watching now! And in about 20 minutes I will be to(ok...so i'll be watching Buffy, maybe not to all of your tastes but oh well)
The reason I do love the BBC so is that it shows a huge range of programmes which I enjoy, from football focus to Horizon to Star Trek. And hey, it's radio service is great to

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by ComradeDavo
ok...so i'll be watching Buffy, maybe not to all of your tastes but oh well
The reason I do love the BBC so is that it shows a huge range of programmes which I enjoy, from football focus to Horizon to Star Trek.

Buffy? Star Trek? The BBC makes those!?!?!

I listen to the BBC world service in bed because I can rarely listen for more than 5 minutes without falling asleep
I'd hate to be in Britian with the BBC monopoly on TV though... something creepy about having the government owned TV as the primary source of news.
And BBC's slant is waaaaay over there in the left field, by American standards anyway.

 

[Lt.Col. Kilgore]

I listen to the World Service when I get the chance. While I must say that I like MSNBC it still doesn't rival BCC. I just can't stomach the silly emotion and opinions that taint the way American News stations report. Its the listener's job to have an opinion and a news station is no place for silly reporters to put their opinions across. I don't pay for the BCC living in the U.S. since it comes free through the Public Broadcasting though I try to pledge as often as I can. Public stations don't have the money for any frills and in reporting thats only positive.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Greadius
I'd hate to be in Britian with the BBC monopoly on TV though...

Television is not a government monopoly here.

Originally posted by Greadius
something creepy about having the government owned TV as the primary source of news.

The BBC is legaly bound to be impartial. In fact, I think all television is. Political advertising on television is banned, too.

The BBC does enjoy substantial indepedance, also. it' not like if it's some sort of 'official government propoganda source' a la a third world dicatorship.

Originally posted by Greadius
And BBC's slant is waaaaay over there in the left field, by American standards anyway.

How?

 

[MrPresident]

Any network that gave us "Doctor Who", "Monty Python's Flying Circus", "Fawlty Towers", and "Absolutely Fabulous" is okay in my book.

You forgot "Only Fools And Horses". Althought at the moment the BBC (like most of British tv) is too domination by soaps.

And BBC's slant is waaaaay over there in the left field, by American standards anyway.

We don't play baseball in England so we don't have a left field. Anyway I didn't think America even had a left-wing let alone someone in a position to influence the media. Since the people elected a government which is left-wing (at least it claims it is) then maybe the public want news from the "left field".

Buffy? Star Trek? The BBC makes those!?!?!

The BBC broadcast them in England. Well after SKY have shown them. Also the original Star Trek is currently on E4 (digital verison of channel 4).

Television is not a government monopoly here.

Well not yet. If the BBC get the funding for another load of channel we just might. I mean who watches BBC4? 1,000 people? No worth taxpayers money especially since there are alright commerical arty channels.

I was watching FOX news recently I was amazed at the amount of adverts. They can't show that amount of adverts here so they put emails on the screen waiting for the news to begin again. And I can tell you I have enough time to not only correct the email's grammar but also think of the number of different ways to write that email with the same message (usually Fox good CNN bad).

 

[ainwood]

I agree completely. The one thing that annoys me about the Beeb is the compulsory fee, which is ostensibly to fund the programmes, but is in reality a compulsory tax if you own a TV (even if you have a cable service, and don't watch any bbc).

The BBC is a financially sound business, and they could probably scrap this fee and still make a profit, despite not selling any advertising - they get a lot of revenue selling documentaries etc overseas.

I feel that they overpay their staff, and the consumer has to foot the bill. Do the presenters really EARN their salaries? E.G. I heard that Sara Cox gets £750,000, and she only works around 20 hours a week (can anyone confirm this?)

Scrap the Fee! The UK is way overtaxed anyway.


Oh - by the way, the content on TV is quite good. The radio services are a bit limited in scope, especially radio 1 - unless you want a diet of ONLY top 40 songs repeated ad infinitum.

 

[MrPresident]

I heard that Sara Cox gets £750,000, and she only works around 20 hours a week (can anyone confirm this?)

Forget about the Beeb, Channel 4 are paying that historian something like 2 million a year. A historian!! What is the world coming too?

especially radio 1 - unless you want a diet of ONLY top 40 songs repeated ad infinitum.

I thought that was the point in having a radio station dedeciated to a specific audience. e.g. Radio 2 for older music, Radio 4 for very old people (I forget whats on radio 3.....or even if there is one) and Radio 5 live for news and sport. If you don't like top 40 songs then tune into a different radio station, assuming that you are capable of this.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Hamlet
The BBC is legaly bound to be impartial. In fact, I think all television is. Political advertising on television is banned, too.

The BBC does enjoy substantial indepedance, also. it' not like if it's some sort of 'official government propoganda source' a la a third world dicatorship.

No, its not as bad as third world dictatorships, not at all. I quite enjoy the radio services actually. However, the BBC is no more impartial than any other media service.

I can't imagine TV without political opinions though... the most interesting political shows on American TV and radio all take a strong stand on something and then making asses out of themselves trying to prove it right. Takes away from the medium in my opinion.

And how are they left wing? By listening to the 'specials' on the overnight news service where they 'dig into' a story, it usually follows the same pattern. For example, I've heard dozens of stories about the plight of the Palestenians, but the only feature I ever heard on Isreal was about the reservists who refused to participate. They had a story on Brazil a few weeks ago about squatters who sit on people's land so they can't use it with the political goal of gaining land redistribution. The whole process seemed illegal and ignorant of property rights to me, but the impartial BBC reporter was genuinely admirable of these people, going on and on about their bravery and determination. Bravey and determination in their attempts to steal land perhaps. I kept waiting for the other side of the story but it never came.

 

[Corinthian]

As a graduate screen designer, I'm a little dissapointed with the direction that the BBC (The Big Brother Corporation, according to the Goons (may they rest in peace)) seems to be taking. I suppose it is sour grapes on my part, but in the recent past it seems that the Beeb was a good place to start out in order to get a foot in the door in making television - now all the work placement and training schemes seem to have been downsized into the BBC Talent and BBC Vision competitions (seemingly following the 'public access' and 'reality awareness trends'). Much of this is because of the money swallowed up by the beuracracy of the corporation, and the changing face of television.

Does anyone out there agree with me that the Beeb, as a public institution should not just make mindless derivative TV that is purely for ratings (this is the job of commercial television), but ialso make challenging, high quality television, acting as a showcase for new practitioners - isn't this part of being a public service?

By the way, I'm not asking for all that cheap public access crud. I'm just talking about letting film and television graduates like myself make a REAL go of it.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I agree - the Beeb dosn't have to pander to the ratings figures like commercial stations, so it should focus on quality output.
The only problem the BBC have is that as the licence fee has to be changed by Parliament, (and the DG is seemingly nominated by the Gov) they are likely to be biased towards the current UK Government, whoever they are.
As for the cost of a licence, it's still better value than Sky

 

[MrPresident]

The only problem the BBC have is that as the licence fee has to be changed by Parliament, (and the DG is seemingly nominated by the Gov) they are likely to be biased towards the current UK Government, whoever they are. As for the cost of a licence, it's still better value than Sky

Actually the license fee comes up for renewal in about 2007 (I think) so it may not be this government they have to be biased towards. The political problem with the Beeb is that New Labour had appointed many of their followers to it so that may be why it is slightly biased. As for the value of the license compared to sky, well I think that 60 live Premiership games a year makes SKY worth it. Also first showings of Buffy, Star Trek, X-Files, The Simpsons, The West Wing, E.R., Friends, Scrubs, etc also sweeten the deal.