For instance, the website costs over £70 million a year to maintain.
What's wrong with that?
A huge proportion of the population use it!
Much of the content is already available elsewhere anyway.
That may well be true, but it's very difficult to find and it's not all presented in the same user-friendly way. The BBC site is hugely valuable to schools (and I'd know - it's basically the only online resource my school uses - and they do so a lot) - there isn't anything else like the vast Schools section around (that's accessible to everyone).
What about their collection of digital radio stations for blacks and gays with only a few hundred listeners?
What about BBC4 and BBC3? Why can't the material for these be put onto BBC 1 and 2? There's plenty of room if they got rid of all their crappy imports.
What about their collection of digital radio stations for blacks and gays with only a few hundred listeners?
What about BBC4 and BBC3? Why can't the material for these be put onto BBC 1 and 2? There's plenty of room if they got rid of all their crappy imports.
I partly agree with you on that one. However, because of the BBC's public service remit, it's their obligation to cater for everyone who pays for the licence fee, including asians, blacks etc. (sorry if I'm stating the obvious!). I wonder if the BBC has done any research into who actually listens to stations like 1extra and Asian Network, though - would be interesting to find out.
I'm not so against BBC three and four - I know a lot of people who watch both and enjoy both, which has influenced my views obviously. I do think the launch of them was too rushed, though, and maybe came a few years too early. Although I'm sure a large part of that was due to the BBC's campaign for digital take-up, also wanted by the government. So it's actually been very difficult for the BBC to please everyone - I think they've handled it well myself.
This is a rather pathetic attempt by the Tories to crawl up Rupert Murdoch's @rse - they've never quite got over the fact that the sun and the times now support T. Blair - and they want them back supporting them.
The fact that the sun now supports blair leaves me wondering which of the two it says more about.
What about their collection of digital radio stations for blacks and gays with only a few hundred listeners?
Come on - would you rather the BBC was populist or served a public service?
And one rather large point here: 1xtra has not had a Rajar sweep yet, so neither you nor me knows how many listeners the station has. Until we do, I suggest you stop spreading inaccuracies like "stations for blacks and gays with only a few hundred listeners"
By the way, the BBC does not run a gay radio station either. I presume you were attempting to be sarcastic. Better luck next time.
If you want to argue that the BBC should be providing services for the minority, then why do they insist on ruining the schedules with sports, when there is a minority of people who don't want to watch it?
Yes - Oxford v Swindon was a big ratings hitter, wasn't it? Or perhaps the fact that this game actually saved Swindon from extinction isn't public service enough for you???
How much do all these pointless radio stations cost the TV Licence Tax Payer, anyway?
Pointless to you, maybe ... I personally find the fact the 6 Music champions new artists quite helpful, myself. Can't see Capital doing that ... and Virgin only do it when it suits them - usually when they need a press release about something.
I will however be very suprised if the BBC's collection of radio stations for blacks and gays do indeed pull more than a few thousand listeners a day. Very supised if the number is more than 4000.
You missed one critical issue, though....
Should the BBC be prevented from buying imports and instead invest in homegrown original programming and films etc?
My answer to this is a resounding YES. All the most popular imports, such as The Simpsons and 24 etc would be snapped up other commercial channels anyway, so this is an example of the BBC being very populist at incredible expense.
This is an example of License payers money being spent very badly, since the tab could very easily be picked up by a commercial broadcaster.
For the BBC to be a successful PSB it needs to have popular programming aswell as those that commercial channels would not show. Shows like The Blue Planet would not have been a success if they were part of a schedule that full of shows for minorities.
The issue is really blanace, and thats sometime where the BBC goes wrong. Too many shows that chase ratings and not enough that you would no find elsewhere.
I would say that BBC One has gotten a lot better in this respect recently. Programmes such as Rolf on Art have managed to appeal to a wide audience and to people who would not normally watch an arts show. Now those that do watch art shows may find RoA dumbed down but that really doesn't matter, the fact is, because its part of a mixed schedule its brought art to a new audience and that is what the BBC should be doing.
For what its worth I don't know why the Tories keep banging on about doing things with the BBC, why can't they talk about the NHS and health, things that really do need changing and saving and stop trying to damage the great British institution that is the BBC.
I'm sure with £70 million extra the BBC could set up another digital radio station for Asians living in Bradford with errection problems or something equally useful.
Persons of Asian ethnicity have to follow the requirements of obtaining planning permission from the local municipality and have to follow building construction codes, irrespective of whether they live in Bradford or not, your know!
Should the BBC be prevented from buying imports and instead invest in homegrown original programming and films etc?
Do you not agree?
I agree with this.
The CBC (in Canada) doesn't have any foreign content in prime time (save the very occasional feature movie). And the CBC's ratings aren't that bad when you compare them with the private Canadian channels.
I really do object to the idea that somehow the BBC is providing a public service when they charge you the licence fee for the privilege of watching Star Trek on BBC2 instead of an American channel or ITV (who would provide it for free).
Any special funding should be put to a special purpose that appeals to the broadest possible group of people. Spending money excessively on minority services will only make the BBC a fat target. And sooner or later some Chancellor will choose to take a shot at them. ... just like what happened to the CBC in the early 1990s when its budget was cut by one-third (it was a complete bloodbath).
If the BBC were smart, they'd be very careful about what they spent money on. The notion that you can have a giant, bloated mega-BBC that does everything under the sun in terms of broadcasting is not feasible.
What about their collection of digital radio stations for blacks and gays with only a few hundred listeners?
Setting aside your appaulingly bigoted mindset for a moment, don't "blacks and gays" pay their licence fee too? White bread all round is it? Shame on you Wellington.
Phileas Fogg posted:
I really do object to the idea that somehow the BBC is providing a public service when they charge you the licence fee for the privilege of watching Star Trek on BBC2 instead of an American channel or ITV (who would provide it for free).
Hardly "free". This is a common misconception. ITV, or any other commercial broadcaster for that matter, is funded by adverts naturally. These adverts are paid for by the consumer every single time we pop down the shops. I can assure you that I pay more per year to commercial stations through hidden payments than I do with my one hundered and something pounds licence to the beeb.
