Should the BBC be defunded?

Sadly I think there are people who would love to see the BBC go down and all the staff with it.
Scares me to think what we would be left with. Nothing good.
As the saying goes "you don't know what you've got till it's gone".

“Tighten things up reputations hang on it”

That’s what you said, isn’t it Wyllow?

Ooops. I accidentally cut two tapes and spliced them together.

Quite unintentional.

My mistake.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

If they do not apologise I think they are finished. Sadly. Wake up BBC !

^It wasn’t mistakes it was deliberate in all areas of where they got things done.Not just Trump and the two speeches but deliberate bias.
Am not sure the Beeb is all that brilliant but it did have a certain reputation and now not so much.
It doesn’t have to be defunded, tho that’s an option I suppose, it’s more that there has to be more fairness and even handedness in their reporting.
They also haven’t recovered yet from various mishandling of situations and people such as Savile and Huw Edwards.^

Absolutely.

They are not mistakes.

When everything is added up...

And you dont just go around messing with a speech of a Country's Leader.
And not apologise either.
Though I suspect an apology will be forthcoming. From someone.

No

I'm very upset and angry with them that they did this stupid edit about Trump.

But otherwise I'd be bereft if anything happened to change the BBC funding. I am a very happy to pay the TV fee for the BBC.

Wyllow3

Oreo

foxie48

I think what needs to be understood is that the BBC does not make most of it's own programmes now. The BBC commissions it's programmes from independent companies who use staff that have not been trained to BBC standards. This is a real problem in terms of monitoring quality. The Panorama programme, just like the Gaza programme was made by an independent company and bought in by the BBC.

They won’t just air any programme without oversight of it. So are we to believe the people responsible for that job just wave things through and are incompetent? Or that they don’t care? Or that they themselves are heavily biased? Because it must be one of those reasons.

Or simply, sometimes, in every single area of our life, mistakes get made, things get past oversight.

Tighten things up. ^Of course they care*

sigh

They know reputations hang on it. But with an output of thousands upon thousands of hours every year I don't expect any organisation to get it right ALL the time.

So its none of those so called reasons, Oreo.

*Just another chance on this thread to knock our brilliant Beeb specifically*

It wasn’t mistakes it was deliberate in all areas of where they got things done.Not just Trump and the two speeches but deliberate bias.
Am not sure the Beeb is all that brilliant but it did have a certain reputation and now not so much.
It doesn’t have to be defunded, tho that’s an option I suppose, it’s more that there has to be more fairness and even handedness in their reporting.
They also haven’t recovered yet from various mishandling of situations and people such as Savile and Huw Edwards.

No. I belive all democracies need a public funded national broadcaster. This has the best chance of providing high factual, unbiased news. This is not to say I am right/left or middle ground on my personal politics, merely that I believe it is a model that is in a democratic society's best interests.

The BBC as a broadcaster is unusually well respected globally and for the most provides reliable news. This has made it effective, thus far, in countering efforts to fragment, radicalise and reject it from the media information space.

If UK politics were to go further down the US path of extreme right wing polarisation, trending towards civil unrest, that would not be good for there UK in my view.

The BBC has apologised for this editing decision on the Trump programme it broadcasted. In the overall context of its proven high factual, low bias, well regarded and for the most part highly trusted global reputation, this editing decision does not render it corrupt and of no value. Thats is an irrational, over the top, throw the bay out of the bath water reaction in my view. It has been whipped up to such a storm as to now empower Trump and his fellow travellers in UK right wing politics to portray the BBC as irredeemably corrupt and sue for defamation. There is insufficient evidence to support this allegation.

The frenzy is out of proportion to the offence but consistent with the long standing vendetta against the BBC and the licence fee. The BBC is a target for rival news organisations that resent its unique status and privileged funding. The licence fee funded model is threatening to the radical right as an example of a mutually funded public good. Thy4 will pounce on every single mistake, to editorial standards they do not aspire to or achieve themselves.

The BBC's efforts to avoid political partisanship, imperfectly realised but sincere, ironically results in a vulnerability BBC's detractors exploit. It is impossible in such a global, huge organisation to get editorial decisions perfect all the time, only aspire to highest levels. Every time the BBC gets something wrong it beats itself up when exposed to a misdemeanour. Thus a trusted news source, more trusted that Trump, more trusted than other news outlets for the majority of the time, more trusted than political detractors currently wading in (e.g Boris, Farage et al) is forced to defend its trustworthiness.

I respect and accept those who are up in arms about this particular BBC editing decision. However if the UK currently public funded national broadcaster, the BBC, is not there a dangerous vacuum is created. I suggest that will be more politically biased, less factually correct, more corrupt and, as currently in the US.

If defunded, customers will still need to pay a connection fee. The loss and risks is too great in my view.

Allira

Whitewavemark2

nanna8

What they need to do is weed out the biased reporters , keep the rest and be very careful who they take on in the future. No members of any political party. The BBC has a long and illustrious history and to defund it would be quite dangerous,leaving the way open to even worse bias.

That’s wrong. Reporters report. Editors edit. Board members set the tone and bias. Some board members are political
appointees. Wrong imo.

There should be no political appointees anywhere near an organisation whose remit is unbiased broadcasting.

Well said.

www.bbc.co.uk/helpandfeedback/corrections_clarifications/

There may be more!

Whitewavemark2

nanna8

What they need to do is weed out the biased reporters , keep the rest and be very careful who they take on in the future. No members of any political party. The BBC has a long and illustrious history and to defund it would be quite dangerous,leaving the way open to even worse bias.

That’s wrong. Reporters report. Editors edit. Board members set the tone and bias. Some board members are political
appointees. Wrong imo.

There should be no political appointees anywhere near an organisation whose remit is unbiased broadcasting.

Well said.

Oreo

foxie48

I think what needs to be understood is that the BBC does not make most of it's own programmes now. The BBC commissions it's programmes from independent companies who use staff that have not been trained to BBC standards. This is a real problem in terms of monitoring quality. The Panorama programme, just like the Gaza programme was made by an independent company and bought in by the BBC.

They won’t just air any programme without oversight of it. So are we to believe the people responsible for that job just wave things through and are incompetent? Or that they don’t care? Or that they themselves are heavily biased? Because it must be one of those reasons.

Or simply, sometimes, in every single area of our life, mistakes get made, things get past oversight.

Tighten things up. ^Of course they care*

sigh

They know reputations hang on it. But with an output of thousands upon thousands of hours every year I don't expect any organisation to get it right ALL the time.

So its none of those so called reasons, Oreo.

Just another chance on this thread to knock our brilliant Beeb specifically

No.

And that’s what needs to change.

foxie48

I think what needs to be understood is that the BBC does not make most of it's own programmes now. The BBC commissions it's programmes from independent companies who use staff that have not been trained to BBC standards. This is a real problem in terms of monitoring quality. The Panorama programme, just like the Gaza programme was made by an independent company and bought in by the BBC.

They won’t just air any programme without oversight of it. So are we to believe the people responsible for that job just wave things through and are incompetent? Or that they don’t care? Or that they themselves are heavily biased? Because it must be one of those reasons.

No. It should be funded from general taxation.

nanna8

What they need to do is weed out the biased reporters , keep the rest and be very careful who they take on in the future. No members of any political party. The BBC has a long and illustrious history and to defund it would be quite dangerous,leaving the way open to even worse bias.

That’s wrong. Reporters report. Editors edit. Board members set the tone and bias. Some board members are political
appointees. Wrong imo.

There should be no political appointees anywhere near an organisation whose remit is unbiased broadcasting.

Sometimes people seem to know the price of everything and the value of absolutely nothing.

I think what needs to be understood is that the BBC does not make most of it's own programmes now. The BBC commissions it's programmes from independent companies who use staff that have not been trained to BBC standards. This is a real problem in terms of monitoring quality. The Panorama programme, just like the Gaza programme was made by an independent company and bought in by the BBC.

Allsorts

I love the BBC, long may it continue.

Yay and agree 💛

What they need to do is weed out the biased reporters , keep the rest and be very careful who they take on in the future. No members of any political party. The BBC has a long and illustrious history and to defund it would be quite dangerous,leaving the way open to even worse bias.

Surely being threatened by Trump you must be doing something right!?!

Absolutely notb

Absolutely not. It is admired worldwide - apart, of course, from Trump who would shut everything down that questions his behaviour.

I think it is very good value - and if the BBC is ever shut down, wait and see how quickly the cost of other services go up, and quality goes down. Much of the subscription channels consists or conveyor belt type series and films which are unoriginal and badly acted.

As Galaxy pointed out, the BBC can't be so biased if it has managed to enrage both left, middle and right with its coverage.

The thoughtof having nothing to watch but channels full of adverts is just depressing. I have to record a lot of stuff now so I can fast forward through them. If we had to subscribe to the BBC would it be more or less expensive than the current licence.

Certainly not - this country would be so much the poorer without the BBC.