LL
Apologies for any potential ignorance in this post but if Channel 4 is self sufficient and receives no public money, would privatising it make any difference?
BR
It would just bring in a lump sum for the government.
Apologies for any potential ignorance in this post but if Channel 4 is self sufficient and receives no public money, would privatising it make any difference?
It would just bring in a lump sum for the government.
NE
In general I've always been against the principle of the BBC licence fee as I don't believe it is fair to force people who want to watch television to fund the BBC, particularly if they don't use BBC services.
I'm not completely against of a more general licence fee or media tax, but feel that it should be used to fund TV and Radio in general, and broadcasters such as ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, Sky News etc should have access to a relative proportion of funds, even if the BBC get a larger proportion due to their status as the national broadcaster and services that they contribute to this.
The BBC is a highly prestigious organisation both in the UK and around the world and I think they make some fantastic programmes. While this status should be retained, I believe that the BBC should take some steps to reinvent itself for today's world.
They should begin to show advertising on their programmes on TV and radio to help to generate funding that they would loose through them getting less through a licence fee.
I also think they should significantly reduce their number of regional radio stations (reduce it from 40 to 17) and get rid of Radio 1Xtra, Asian Network, Radio 4 Extra, Radio 5 Live Sports Extra and Radio 6 Music.
Television wise, I believe they should get rid of BBC Four and instead show these programmes on BBC Two, BBC One and online. I also believe that CBeebies should be merged with CBBC with the day split into two segments (e.g. 05:00-15:00 being the Cebebies slot on CBBC Channel and 05:00 - 08:30 CBBC slot on BBC Two and then from 15:00 - 21:00 on CBBC Channel). The idea behind these times is based on when children may be at school. There should be more investment on online content given all the evidence suggests this is the future and this should include Children's content.
Of course, some of this is quite radical and there would likely be significant backlash if they were to go down this route. I'm also not basing this on the level of data or information that the BBC would have but feel that something does need to be done to ensure that the BBC still exists in 20 years time.
I'm not completely against of a more general licence fee or media tax, but feel that it should be used to fund TV and Radio in general, and broadcasters such as ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, Sky News etc should have access to a relative proportion of funds, even if the BBC get a larger proportion due to their status as the national broadcaster and services that they contribute to this.
The BBC is a highly prestigious organisation both in the UK and around the world and I think they make some fantastic programmes. While this status should be retained, I believe that the BBC should take some steps to reinvent itself for today's world.
They should begin to show advertising on their programmes on TV and radio to help to generate funding that they would loose through them getting less through a licence fee.
I also think they should significantly reduce their number of regional radio stations (reduce it from 40 to 17) and get rid of Radio 1Xtra, Asian Network, Radio 4 Extra, Radio 5 Live Sports Extra and Radio 6 Music.
Television wise, I believe they should get rid of BBC Four and instead show these programmes on BBC Two, BBC One and online. I also believe that CBeebies should be merged with CBBC with the day split into two segments (e.g. 05:00-15:00 being the Cebebies slot on CBBC Channel and 05:00 - 08:30 CBBC slot on BBC Two and then from 15:00 - 21:00 on CBBC Channel). The idea behind these times is based on when children may be at school. There should be more investment on online content given all the evidence suggests this is the future and this should include Children's content.
Of course, some of this is quite radical and there would likely be significant backlash if they were to go down this route. I'm also not basing this on the level of data or information that the BBC would have but feel that something does need to be done to ensure that the BBC still exists in 20 years time.
JA
Tell me where the extra ad revenue to fund the BBC will come from then? Because there's only so much to go aorund and it's spread pretty thinly enough these days without adding the BBC to it as well.
NJ
Neil Jones
Founding member
I'd be inclined to argue that if the BBC takes advertising a lot of the smaller commercial channels would go out of business, since everybody would want to ensure their washing powder or their chocolate bars or Captain Birdseye is put in front of the eyes of BBC viewers, not in front of those who just happen to have got lost halfway up the EPG.
No I'm going to argue things are good as they are for a licence fee - because it helps to fund the sort of TV programming that commercial TV can't do as it doesn't attract enough viewers to make it viable. A portion of BBC Two and BBC Four content is effectively "niche" and if it hadn't been for the fee would never air. Probably safe to say the Proms wouldn't be on TV for a start.
Also local radio is probably better off with the BBC than what's happened in the commercial sector, which is effectively mass networked jukebox machines coming from anywhere in the country with a few 20 second insert at breakfast time telling you a hole opened up on the M6 and the police are looking into it. (
).
Not quite sure what the American equivalent would be, closest example probably PBS?
No I'm going to argue things are good as they are for a licence fee - because it helps to fund the sort of TV programming that commercial TV can't do as it doesn't attract enough viewers to make it viable. A portion of BBC Two and BBC Four content is effectively "niche" and if it hadn't been for the fee would never air. Probably safe to say the Proms wouldn't be on TV for a start.
Also local radio is probably better off with the BBC than what's happened in the commercial sector, which is effectively mass networked jukebox machines coming from anywhere in the country with a few 20 second insert at breakfast time telling you a hole opened up on the M6 and the police are looking into it. (
).
Not quite sure what the American equivalent would be, closest example probably PBS?
JK
Aren't most news articles nowadays?
The Sunday Times also on the attack of the BBC Scotland channel this weekend. Now I agree it's been a massive waste of cash and launched for political rather than practical purposes, where viewers would have benefitted more from more investment in content on BBC1/2 than launching a whole channel - but it's clearly this weeks bash the BBC article so I won't link to it.
As for C4 - surely it's the model the licence fee haters want the BBC to take. Maybe for that to happen C4 needs to be sold. It would be a shame for it to be taken out of public ownership, but given the government attitude to the PSBs in recent years I probably trust it more in the hands of a commercial enterprise than the Tories.
The key question here is who buys Channel 4 if it is sold - this is what is worrying. The likes of Murdoch having their grubby hands on a national broadcaster with a rich heritage such as Channel 4 is unthinkable, which is why the idea of selling the channel off has always been binned by successive governments.
Channel 4 is in fact a perfect model, with not one penny of public money used, financially independent, reasonably successful, provides an outlet for some minority programming and has a great pedigree in its archive to use for financial profit.
I do not see the government touching Channel 4 at all, as if they put it up for sale, and in comes some media baron from another country, it would be a very bitter pill for a Conservative government to swallow if the likes of Comcast who own Sky and are the owners of NBC in the states took it over - Comcast being very liberal, as they own MSNBC in the states, the centre left news channel - a very dangerous path to take.
Also reading that article again, it is empty of any content at all.
Aren't most news articles nowadays?
The Sunday Times also on the attack of the BBC Scotland channel this weekend. Now I agree it's been a massive waste of cash and launched for political rather than practical purposes, where viewers would have benefitted more from more investment in content on BBC1/2 than launching a whole channel - but it's clearly this weeks bash the BBC article so I won't link to it.
As for C4 - surely it's the model the licence fee haters want the BBC to take. Maybe for that to happen C4 needs to be sold. It would be a shame for it to be taken out of public ownership, but given the government attitude to the PSBs in recent years I probably trust it more in the hands of a commercial enterprise than the Tories.
The key question here is who buys Channel 4 if it is sold - this is what is worrying. The likes of Murdoch having their grubby hands on a national broadcaster with a rich heritage such as Channel 4 is unthinkable, which is why the idea of selling the channel off has always been binned by successive governments.
Channel 4 is in fact a perfect model, with not one penny of public money used, financially independent, reasonably successful, provides an outlet for some minority programming and has a great pedigree in its archive to use for financial profit.
I do not see the government touching Channel 4 at all, as if they put it up for sale, and in comes some media baron from another country, it would be a very bitter pill for a Conservative government to swallow if the likes of Comcast who own Sky and are the owners of NBC in the states took it over - Comcast being very liberal, as they own MSNBC in the states, the centre left news channel - a very dangerous path to take.
NE
To be fair, I don't think the BBC would struggle to get ad revenue with the type of viewing figures that they get. I do sort of get Neil's argument that the BBC making use of advertising would likely impact smaller TV channels, though I don't necessarily view this as being a major issue. It's a tough industry and if they aren't doing enough to attract viewers (and therefore advertisers) then it's like any other business, they should be allowed to fail.
Something has got to change though, various surveys have shown that the large proportions of the general public simply aren't happy with it at the moment. Prehaps they don't know how good they have got it (which is definitely a fair argument) but it's difficult for the issue to be ignored for much longer.
Tell me where the extra ad revenue to fund the BBC will come from then? Because there's only so much to go aorund and it's spread pretty thinly enough these days without adding the BBC to it as well.
To be fair, I don't think the BBC would struggle to get ad revenue with the type of viewing figures that they get. I do sort of get Neil's argument that the BBC making use of advertising would likely impact smaller TV channels, though I don't necessarily view this as being a major issue. It's a tough industry and if they aren't doing enough to attract viewers (and therefore advertisers) then it's like any other business, they should be allowed to fail.
Something has got to change though, various surveys have shown that the large proportions of the general public simply aren't happy with it at the moment. Prehaps they don't know how good they have got it (which is definitely a fair argument) but it's difficult for the issue to be ignored for much longer.
FB
[/quote]
Something has got to change though, various surveys have shown that the large proportions of the general public simply aren't happy with it at the moment. Prehaps they don't know how good they have got it (which is definitely a fair argument) but it's difficult for the issue to be ignored for much longer.[/quote]
I'd like to know which surveys the 'general public' have answwered and not some Daily Mail / Express newspaper owner. Just remember what's their agenda in all this. Sure some elements on the BBC I never use - like local radio - but I would defend the BBC existance for the sake of it's other UK rivals.
Something has got to change though, various surveys have shown that the large proportions of the general public simply aren't happy with it at the moment. Prehaps they don't know how good they have got it (which is definitely a fair argument) but it's difficult for the issue to be ignored for much longer.[/quote]
I'd like to know which surveys the 'general public' have answwered and not some Daily Mail / Express newspaper owner. Just remember what's their agenda in all this. Sure some elements on the BBC I never use - like local radio - but I would defend the BBC existance for the sake of it's other UK rivals.
TI
I'd like to know which surveys the 'general public' have answwered and not some Daily Mail / Express newspaper owner. Just remember what's their agenda in all this. Sure some elements on the BBC I never use - like local radio - but I would defend the BBC existance for the sake of it's other UK rivals.
The storms over the last three weeks proved their worth.
I'd like to know which surveys the 'general public' have answwered and not some Daily Mail / Express newspaper owner. Just remember what's their agenda in all this. Sure some elements on the BBC I never use - like local radio - but I would defend the BBC existance for the sake of it's other UK rivals.
The storms over the last three weeks proved their worth.
NL
I'd like to know which surveys the 'general public' have answwered and not some Daily Mail / Express newspaper owner. Just remember what's their agenda in all this. Sure some elements on the BBC I never use - like local radio - but I would defend the BBC existance for the sake of it's other UK rivals.
The storms over the last three weeks proved their worth.
That is very true. I will admit I don't listen to local radio its at times like that where the floods have caused so much damage where they more than justify their existence.
I'd like to know which surveys the 'general public' have answwered and not some Daily Mail / Express newspaper owner. Just remember what's their agenda in all this. Sure some elements on the BBC I never use - like local radio - but I would defend the BBC existance for the sake of it's other UK rivals.
The storms over the last three weeks proved their worth.
That is very true. I will admit I don't listen to local radio its at times like that where the floods have caused so much damage where they more than justify their existence.
DO
To be fair, I don't think the BBC would struggle to get ad revenue with the type of viewing figures that they get. I do sort of get Neil's argument that the BBC making use of advertising would likely impact smaller TV channels, though I don't necessarily view this as being a major issue. It's a tough industry and if they aren't doing enough to attract viewers (and therefore advertisers) then it's like any other business, they should be allowed to fail.
Nobody in the government is currently briefing that the BBC should be made to become advertising funded, simply because they know that every time it's suggested, the entire rest of the broadcast industry comes out fighting for the BBC. They know the commercial advertising revenue is not going to increase by a significant amount if the BBC became funded from that pool, meaning it will not only affect the BBC's income. IIRC research ITV did a few years back suggested a loss of income of 33-50% - for some reason they then concluded that the BBC was better off staying with the licence fee.
They don't yet seem to have got involved in the subscription debate, but that's probably because if that happens, the BBC as is will be no more, and a consultation on closing the BBC will take decades.
Tell me where the extra ad revenue to fund the BBC will come from then? Because there's only so much to go aorund and it's spread pretty thinly enough these days without adding the BBC to it as well.
To be fair, I don't think the BBC would struggle to get ad revenue with the type of viewing figures that they get. I do sort of get Neil's argument that the BBC making use of advertising would likely impact smaller TV channels, though I don't necessarily view this as being a major issue. It's a tough industry and if they aren't doing enough to attract viewers (and therefore advertisers) then it's like any other business, they should be allowed to fail.
Nobody in the government is currently briefing that the BBC should be made to become advertising funded, simply because they know that every time it's suggested, the entire rest of the broadcast industry comes out fighting for the BBC. They know the commercial advertising revenue is not going to increase by a significant amount if the BBC became funded from that pool, meaning it will not only affect the BBC's income. IIRC research ITV did a few years back suggested a loss of income of 33-50% - for some reason they then concluded that the BBC was better off staying with the licence fee.
They don't yet seem to have got involved in the subscription debate, but that's probably because if that happens, the BBC as is will be no more, and a consultation on closing the BBC will take decades.