NG
This is highly debateable. Bear in mind that BBC radio and website are available to use by those who don't pay for a TV licence, but are funded by those who do pay for a TV licence.
Yes - that's why a move away from a licence fee to another arms length funding system works, and is being used in other countries. The era of basing the funding on ownership of a specific piece of receiving equipment for just one of the forms of service that the BBC provides is going to be difficult to justify in the future.
However the benefits of a popular public service broadcast service are very easy to argue. BBC One is the most popular TV channel in the UK and also has the most watched news output of any broadcaster in the UK. Those two things are linked - and that is a public service.
Therefore it's possible to make certain popular entertainment TV channels subscription whilst most PSB material is on a channel that's 'free' to watch.
If you remove the popular stuff from the PSB channel, you ghetto-ise the PSB.
That's why other European countries have specifically NOT gone to a mixed subscription/taxation model - they know any PSB that only shows what is tightly defined as 'PSB' content (whatever that is) is not a good idea for ensuring widespread audiences of public service content...
Popular shows on public service channels keep public service viewing at a decent level (which is the point of them being public service).
noggin
Founding member
The BBC under threat from the government
I think that's a route to PSB ghetto, which would potentially mean the public services provided were only those the market did not. That would be a recipe for disaster, and the public - and then politicians - would probably question the value of the core public service.
If you only did Newsnight and didn't do Top Gear, only did Sunday Politics and didn't do Strictly - you'd have a lot of people asking questions...
If you only did Newsnight and didn't do Top Gear, only did Sunday Politics and didn't do Strictly - you'd have a lot of people asking questions...
This is highly debateable. Bear in mind that BBC radio and website are available to use by those who don't pay for a TV licence, but are funded by those who do pay for a TV licence.
Yes - that's why a move away from a licence fee to another arms length funding system works, and is being used in other countries. The era of basing the funding on ownership of a specific piece of receiving equipment for just one of the forms of service that the BBC provides is going to be difficult to justify in the future.
However the benefits of a popular public service broadcast service are very easy to argue. BBC One is the most popular TV channel in the UK and also has the most watched news output of any broadcaster in the UK. Those two things are linked - and that is a public service.
Quote:
Therefore it's possible to make certain popular entertainment TV channels subscription whilst most PSB material is on a channel that's 'free' to watch.
If you remove the popular stuff from the PSB channel, you ghetto-ise the PSB.
That's why other European countries have specifically NOT gone to a mixed subscription/taxation model - they know any PSB that only shows what is tightly defined as 'PSB' content (whatever that is) is not a good idea for ensuring widespread audiences of public service content...
Popular shows on public service channels keep public service viewing at a decent level (which is the point of them being public service).
Last edited by noggin on 15 March 2020 11:16pm