BBC Charter: Licence fee saved, Governers axed

Why can't ordinary viewers have more of a say in what the BBC does? It's not fair that we're paying for something in which we have an extremely limited say over what it does.

Well, the new 'BBC Trust' is supposed to be something to help remedy this.

Did anybody out there really think the charter would not be renewed?

EDIT:

One thing that strikes me is that they've said that the license fee is safe for 10 years, ok that's great! But after those 10 years are finished they will consider other ideas such as subscription. By then the BBC will be on Digital only, which puts it in a big bag of other Channels already. Scrapping the license fee though will just end up making it just another commercial broadcaster, and will probably eventually lose everything that the license fee gives it. And when the license fee is gone it will, like ITV, make all of it's programming decisions on ratings. Also to save pennies, we're sure to lose channels that aren't "cost-effective" i.e. BBC7 and BBC Four, some of the only decent stations in Britain.

I really do not hope the license fee is scrapped, it's the only thing that keeps at least SOME decent content in the Media.

I agree with the thoughts shared that the Fee is needed. When you look at the material broadcast on other channels the BBC still makes far more intelligent programming than most other channels. BBC Four - great channel, which goes largely unsung. The BBC has a diversity in its programming which is sadly lacking in most commercial tv stations. It's not perfect but is doing a good job. It's the Beeb who seem to tend to reintroduce an old format (eg cosume drama, docu-soap, makeover) and freshen it - then rivals seem to make copycat programmes. Having said that the BBC do flog some formats to death - eg Ground Force but I'm gald the fee is in place - intelligent radio safeguarded for another 10 years!

Well according to the report, shows like Ground Force and Fame Academy have to be stopped, or at least toned down to make way for more intelligent and less audience grabbing programming.

'It's not fair...' you sound remarkably like a whining six-year-old - that aside, ordinary viewers do get a say - through the ratings: on the whole, what they watch gets re-commissioned, what they don't, doesn't. The BBC also carries out a lot of other market research on its current and planned future programmes. There are also BBC Advisory Councils in all the nations and regions that represent viewers. It really wouldn't be practical for 'ordinary viewers' to commission programmes, by popular vote, or any other technique. In the end, qualified professionals have to make the decisions.

The programmes offered by stations such as BBC Four, BBC7, Radio 3 are often quoted as reasons for the licence fee - and while I agree they offer some programmes many other broadcasters wouldn't, why should we pay for the programmes offered by BBC1, BBC2, BBC3, BBC News 24, Radio 1, Radio 2 etc that are generally commercially available.

Just a few pounds of the licence fee go to funding BBC Four etc - maybe it could be stripped back to basics just to fund the programmes and channels that genuinely wouldn't be available commercially.


Another issue - independent production. The quota of BBC programmes not made by the BBC will rise from 25% to 40%, justified by saying the licence fee is being spread into the commercial sector.

However - is this in the interest of the viewers. The independent producers wull take their cut in making these programmes - so therefore theoretically at a greater cost to the BBC than making it themselves.

By the way, how do channels work out ratings? Do they just take their statistics from digital viewers?

See http://www.barb.co.uk/

There we go then. It's stupid saps like you then who gladly pay through the nose in various taxes and not give a toss where the money goes?