Murdoch and "state sponsored BBC" - sour grapes?

[chris watton]

Just read this article in the Telegraph;
“James Murdoch targets BBC 'land-grabbing'”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/6107233/James-M...

What it doesn’t mention is Murdoch called the BBC “state funded broadcasting”, and mentioned Orwell quite a few times.

A part of me thinks this is sour grapes, and another thinks he has a point. After all, how would the BBC cope if it wasn’t “state funded” and had a level playing field with other broadcasting companies? Perhaps the licence fee should be ‘shared out’, so that we’re not subjected, at times, bombarded with very bias political and ideological journalism (Moonbat is often wheeled on and cited as an ‘Environmental and climate change expert’)
I guess when you know you will get paid handsomely and have a great pension at the end, no matter what, as market forces do not apply, it is very easy to become very complacent.

[eldar]

And sky news output is fair, balanced and politically neutral. Great move, give that nice Murdoch dynasty even more control of the media.

[cs02rm0]

He might have a point, but I'm not sure why anyone would listen to him on it.

[Halb]

I saw him on Newsnight. It is sour grapes. He has announced the charges 6 months in advance so that everything one else will do the same. If he wants to offer premium and top end product like the FT then that's fine, but general news will always be free. I think he will he fail in forcing the Murdochs vision on the way things are.

[Fittster]

chris watton said:

Just read this article in the Telegraph;
“James Murdoch targets BBC 'land-grabbing'”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/6107233/James-M...

What it doesn’t mention is Murdoch called the BBC “state funded broadcasting”, and mentioned Orwell quite a few times.

A part of me thinks this is sour grapes, and another thinks he has a point. After all, how would the BBC cope if it wasn’t “state funded” and had a level playing field with other broadcasting companies? Perhaps the licence fee should be ‘shared out’, so that we’re not subjected, at times, bombarded with very bias political and ideological journalism (Moonbat is often wheeled on and cited as an ‘Environmental and climate change expert’)
I guess when you know you will get paid handsomely and have a great pension at the end, no matter what, as market forces do not apply, it is very easy to become very complacent.

The BBC is a disgrace. Why should it be compulsory to have to pay a tax for a TV station? If you don't like Sky you can simply not subscribe.

Why exactly do we need a state broadcaster?

Edited by Fittster on Saturday 29th August 10:13

[Fittster]

eldar said:

And sky news output is fair, balanced and politically neutral. Great move, give that nice Murdoch dynasty even more control of the media.

Why should Sky be impartial? You don't expect a newspaper to be impartial do you so why should a TV station have to be impartial.

[AndrewW-G]

Fittster said:

The BBC is a disgrace. Why should it be compulsory to have to pay a tax for a TV station? If you don't like Sky you can simply not subscribe.

Why exactly do we need a state broadcaster?

A few years ago I'd have said that we need one to give an unbiased opinion of important issues as well as quality programming including some specialised or none commercial subjects . . . . . . . . we've had an overcontroling manipulative government for almost 13 years since then

Now I'd agree that the BBC has breached it's mandate and should either be privatised (removing the TV tax) or broken up and dissolved

Edited by AndrewW-G on Saturday 29th August 10:44

[greygoose]

AndrewW-G said:

Now I'd agree that the BBC has breached it's mandate and should either be privatised (removing the TV tax) or broken up and dissolved

I agree parts of the BBC could easily make a substantial profit and it is unfair on other broadcasters that they continue to be subsidised by the taxpayer. If other companies charge for internet services whilst the BBC can provide them for free then it will mean news only comes from one biased source as the other companies go out of business.

[thinfourth2]

chris watton said:

how would the BBC cope if it wasn’t “state funded” and had a level playing field with other broadcasting companies?

By producing even more mind numbing garbage appeal to the lowest intelligence mouth breathing halfwits then it currently does like the rest of the media at least the BBC has small areas of intelligence and quality, they maybe hidden under celebrity dancing on ice factor but they are there.

[Fittster]

thinfourth2 said:

chris watton said:

how would the BBC cope if it wasn’t “state funded” and had a level playing field with other broadcasting companies?

By producing even more mind numbing garbage appeal to the lowest intelligence mouth breathing halfwits then it currently does like the rest of the media at least the BBC has small areas of intelligence and quality, they maybe hidden under celebrity dancing on ice factor but they are there.

So why shouldn't it be restricted to intelligent and quality programs. Explain to me why I have to pay a tax to fund total wipe out?

[Silver993tt]

thinfourth2 said:

at least the BBC has small areas of intelligence and quality

That's only a matter of opinion. TV License should be scrapped since so much of it is used to fund excessive expenses (especially travelling expenses) and huge final salary pensions. The BBC should charge a subscription fee for their services such as Sky and all the other media service providers. It's the only way that they will actually produce what people want to watch.

Edited by Silver993tt on Saturday 29th August 12:47

[collateral]

thinfourth2 said:

chris watton said:

how would the BBC cope if it wasn’t “state funded” and had a level playing field with other broadcasting companies?

By producing even more mind numbing garbage appeal to the lowest intelligence mouth breathing halfwits then it currently does like the rest of the media at least the BBC has small areas of intelligence and quality, they maybe hidden under celebrity dancing on ice factor but they are there.

True enough. I'm not sure how the Sky fees are broken up, but last time I looked every home-grown BskyB program was utter, utter ste. Compare how much Sky costs for a year compared to the BBC...

[EDLT]

I think the BBC is quite cheap, I get four TV channels with programs that aren't interupted every fifteen minutes to fact me about meerkats and stting in Paul's house. Ok some of the programs aren't to my taste but the ones that are are far better than anything similar found on the commercial channels.

[Silver993tt]

collateral said:

I'm not sure how the Sky fees are broken up, but last time I looked every home-grown BskyB program was utter, utter ste. Compare how much Sky costs for a year compared to the BBC...

That might be your opinion and I'm sure you've taken the choice not to have a Sky subscription based on your experiences. However, many, many others have the same opinion about the BBC and yet cannot make a choice and are still forced to pay for the BBC TV Licence whether they agree with the quality of the BBC programmes or not and never even watch the BBC.

You've highlighted the exact reason why the BBC TV License should be scrapped.

Edited by Silver993tt on Saturday 29th August 14:58

[thinfourth2]

Silver993tt said:

thinfourth2 said:

at least the BBC has small areas of intelligence and quality

That's only a matter of opinion. TV License should be scrapped since so much of it is used to fund excessive expenses (especially travelling expenses) and huge final salary pensions. The BBC should charge a subscription fee for their services such as Sky and all the other media service providers. It's the only way that they will actually produce what people want to watch.

Edited by Silver993tt on Saturday 29th August 12:47

[/quote


10 million folk want to watch eastenders only a few folk want to watch something decent. While the been is dreadful value for money at least there is some quality not just quanatity

[chris watton]

EDLT said:

I think the BBC is quite cheap...

I disagree, especially when you consider that most households in the UK pay for it - perhaps more people pay for the TV licence than income tax.
There are some excellent programs made by the BBC (and a lot of dross, it has to be said), my issue is with the journalistic side.

[Silver993tt]

thinfourth2 said:

10 million folk want to watch eastenders only a few folk want to watch something decent. While the been is dreadful value for money at least there is some quality not just quanatity

Again, that's your opinion and you're quite welcome to it but don't make me pay for it.

Choice is quite a simple concept really. It's a shame it doesn't apply to the BBC TV charges.

Edited by Silver993tt on Saturday 29th August 15:13

[unrepentant]

thinfourth2 said:

chris watton said:

how would the BBC cope if it wasn’t “state funded” and had a level playing field with other broadcasting companies?

By producing even more mind numbing garbage appeal to the lowest intelligence mouth breathing halfwits then it currently does like the rest of the media at least the BBC has small areas of intelligence and quality, they maybe hidden under celebrity dancing on ice factor but they are there.

Not at all. BBC1,3,4,ceebeebeeste etc.. plus Radios 1, 2 and 5 live and local radio could all be sold off. BBC sport could be disbanded as it doesn't any longer have anything worthwhile and when it does cover a sport it covers it less well than other broadcasters. Whole layers of management and other hangers on could be cut or sold off with the surplus channels.

BBC News 24 could also be ditched as it's unneccessary and Channel 4 and SKY news are in any event infinitely better and are delivered without the built in left wing bias.

The BBC could be reduced drastically to a single channel public service broadcaster (which is what it is any event supposed to be) plus Radios 3, 4 and World Service. Their remit should explicitly prevent them from producing any celebrity based or any other kind of reality ste, soap operas, bargain hunt style crap etc.. They could concentrate exclusively on producing quality documentaries and the odd quality drama that could be sold worldwide. The cost of the BBC could be reduced dramatically and paid for from general taxation.

[B Oeuf]

Unrep, surely you must concede the coverage of F1 has improved since the BBC took over. I'm another who thinks it time we were not held to ransom over this bloody licence however

[thinfourth2]

Silver993tt said:

thinfourth2 said:

10 million folk want to watch eastenders only a few folk want to watch something decent. While the been is dreadful value for money at least there is some quality not just quanatity

Again, that's your opinion and you're quite welcome to it but don't make me pay for it.

Choice is quite a simple concept really. It's a shame it doesn't apply to the BBC TV charges.

Edited by Silver993tt on Saturday 29th August 15:13

you don't have to pay for it you can survive without the idiot box

As to the beeb if it had to survive without the license fee it would produce total crap. If there was a Market for a quality channel then it would excist but there isn't one so I am quite happy to pay the license fee if only for the occasional gems you get.