Watch it BBC - you're in the firing line

Would that be the same Grant Shapps who, as an MP, once masqueraded as 'Internet marketing guru, Michael Green'?

And he's now calling for the BBC to be 'transparent'.

Shapps, sigh. (The very same who had that strange episode of building up a somewhat questionable business while using the name Michael Green )
Floating the idea of this to see how it will play isn't he.
I think that we do still love our BBC and don't want to see politicians undermine it. Yes, the management have not covered themselves in glory but is that a reason to undermine this national treasure? We love our Strictly, or our Attenborough, or our Dr Who, or our Woman's Hour or our 2012 Olympics.

Part of the problem is that politicians set up the BBC Trust which is not a proper board of directors with control of the management team (if I understand correctly). Thus Patten and the rest of the crew were not able to take appropriate action over either pay deals or Saville. The idea of a board of directors sitting above the executive is a tried and tested one.
Nobody has come up with anything better. It is a darn site better than a Trust with a very woolly brief. See link:
www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/

Oh yes that's the one riverwalk Mr Transparency himself.

He told voters at one election that he had been born in London, whereas at another election he said he was born in Herts.

well come on gransnetters - do you think a cut in licence fee and consequent cut in funding for the BBC a good idea or a bad one?

As Greg Dyke said, classical political posturing ahead of an election. BBC makes a good Aunt Sally, but afterwards they back off.

I love the BBC. I'm either watching BBC4 or listening to BBC Radio 6. The S.O. listens to R5. I'm quite happy to pay for quality programmes. Although annoyed that they don't support racing any more .

I think the licence fee should be cut or removed. I struggle to understand why the BBC can still draw funding by licence now that there are hundreds of channels and many broadcasting companies. It's rather old-fashioned and reminiscent of the British empire. The more recent scandals and revelations of corruption only serve to reinforce the dysfunctionality of the BBC.

I don't know whether they are left or right wing, as it depends on what they're broadcasting. BBC News is inferior to some other news channels, and their reporting of certain high profile events is often abysmal.

I'm unhappy about the million pound paychecks that come from licence fees, the golden handshakes following poor performance, and the turnover of executives with daft new ideas.

Let the BBC stand on its own two feet, make good drama and entertainment shows, and sell them to the world to bring in revenue.

Your licence is to allow you to run a TV receiving station - not to allow you to watch BBC transmissions.

Well, that's gone a bit skew-whiff now so many people can watch TV programmes on demand and in so many different ways rather than on a TV, hasn't it feetlebaum? So many young people plan their own viewing and programme their computerised devices accordingly, so do not need to have a licence.

I don't think the BBC is impartial, it should be. I don't watch much television and I used to have Radio 4 on all day. I still listen to Woman's Hour, Poetry Please and others but the radio is not on in the background as it used to be. I think the BBC should be pay to view/listen.

The BBC is admired the world over, and thank goodness for some channels where programmes aren't continually interrupted by advertisements. I seem to recall that there was recently enormous criticism about the way in which adverts had cut into crucial moments during sporting events. And we're not just talking about the TV but also radio. The licence fee is approximately £12 a month, which I think is very good value.

An advertisement on a commercial channel, in prime time, can cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. If this very significant amount of money was not spent on advertising, the product need not be so expensive, so ultimately this hidden cost is paid by the consumer.

I'm not sure political neutrality has been achieved on any of the channels but this latest attempt to influence the BBC's news coverage is pretty blatant.

DD used to work for the BBC and now works for a privatised spin off from it. She is very critical of the BBC. She thinks that the problem is that because it is essentially a creative industry it attracts people who are creative and questioning, which tends to mean people with more liberal and subversive ideas. It leads to a culture of creative questioning people employing others like themselves and not realising that that is what they are doing. As she said if you have strong religious beliefs or a preference for more middle of the road or right wing views you are unlikely to get a job there. This leads to there being, not specifically party political, but certainly liberal and left wing views informing programming.

I also think that governments are themselves confused about what they want the BBC to do. On one side governments accuse the BBC of being populist and dumbing down to get good viewing figures so they can be seen to getting plenty of viewers to justify the licence fee. Next they are being accused of chasing viewers and straying from an aim to provide programmes for minorities and to aim to inform through entertainment and support culture, which means lower viewer numbers.

The time when the BBC was the envy of the world has passed. I don't particularly worry about whether it is politically biased as I watch, listen and read news from a variety of places. However, it is now very rare that I find a programme that either I haven't seen before or which is of interest to me (sorry I don't do soaps or reality programmes). Now I accept that I will not find all the programmes of interest but I don't think it is unreasonable to expect to see something I would find of interest.

Maybe a cut in the licence fee would stop the BBC sending reporters to stand knee deep in water to show us what a flood looks like, or to stand outside an empty building at 6am because something might happen there later in the day.

I agree with sunseeker I take in the news from a variety of sources too. I read The Mail and The Guardian online and I have The Telegraph delivered to the door. Reading all of them you often find the truth of a story falls somewhere in the middle of all the left/right wing rhetoric.
I'm not into BBC bashing just because.
But I don't watch any of the BBC flagship programmes and as I watch so little television, we only have Sky as OH is a big sports fan, I resent paying the license fee. So much of the money from the license fee is wasted. If the BBC is still wonderful surely making it pay to view would still leave them with a large amount of money? The crazy amount they receive at the moment has, I think, led to their downfall. I would happily pay to view a series such as Bleak House or Michael Wood's Story of England and perhaps sometime in the future the BBC should be a mix of BBC 2 and BBC 4?

Sky News had an 'expert' on yesterday who cautioned against walking along a cliff top at midnight while the storm lasts. Really!

Whilst I appreciate that everyone has different ideas as to what represents good value television, I do think the BBC needs to take a long hard look at the ridiculous salaries and fees paid to some of their so called "celebrities". It is reported that for example Jeremy Clarkson is earning receiving just under £1 million per year from the BBC and there are many more like him. I wonder is this a fair way to spend what is essentially a viewing tax?

www.standard.co.uk/news/celebritynews/bbc-accounts-show-top-gears-jeremy-clarkson-is-their-highest-paid-presenter-8711345.html

Rights and wrongs of how it is run - I have never seen any other country offer TV that is remotely as good as the BBC. USA, NZ and AUS all utterly dreadful. Exception is that US studios produce the occasional high class TV drama that is sold to world wide market (Northern Exposure, West Wing, Numbers, The Good Wife) I suspect that they are very expensive to make.
Agree their news can be a bit tedious. Al Jezeerah news is better if you want a world-wide bulletin.

It's worth the licence fee just to be able to watch drama without comercial breaks. I have to buy box sets of programmes from other channels as I can't face having an advert every 10 minutes [gave up watching Downton Abbey for that reason although think I would have stoped watching it anyway]. The Michael Portillo progamme last night was wonderful. Maybe people who knock the Beeb should make a note over a week of the programmes they do actually watch [and enjoy] without adverts.

When I do finally sit down in the evening to watch TV I invariably put on a DVD - have looked through tonight's offerings and probably the only thing that interests me is Panarama - so 30 mins out of an whole evening.

I'll be flitting between BBC2 AND BBC4 all evening; a lot of programmes are repeats but repeats that I missed first time round. And remember our grandchildren watch CBB's; it's not as if we're paying for just one channel.And Radio 6 is playing a concert by Lou Reed late tonight so I'll probably be watching tv and having the radio on. Am currently listening to a replay of R6 from Sunday [when the news broke that Lou Reed had died].

For those that love their BBC programmes I agree your license fee is fantastic value.
I only have a TV license so my OH can watch Sky sports.

Favourite NZ TV moment: On one of the main channels, at 8pm, they are transmitting the weather map. No sound.
Often the Maori channel is the best option despite the fact it is in Maori.