Watch it BBC - you're in the firing line

I spent some time in NZ. They love Corrie.

I enjoy BBC radio more than any of the commercial stations. There is much more variety, and Radio 4 news is almost always excellent. The Archers, the afternoon plays, and Victoria Derbyshire at 10 am on five live. An interesting backdrop to my day. I don't watch much tv, though I enjoy Newsnight and Question Time. I do believe the Saville saga was damaging to the BBC. I find it impossible to believe the senior managers who denied any knowledge of the rumours about him. I don't mind continuing to pay a licence fee, providing things improve.

No one does quality radio like the BBC. That also goes for a lot of their other programs. The BBC are not answerable to advertisers.
They do need to get their house in order re their finances though.

Does anyone know how much each household pays each year for the cost of the television advertising for products they buy? There really is no free service.

I'm not sure "how much each household pays each year for the cost of the television advertising for products they buy" but I would assume it is a substancial sum. Many years ago I was told that around £1300 of an average family car price was marketing costs. That is a multi million if not billion pound business considering the number of cars sold assuming there was some truth in the claim (it was from a main dealership in Newbury).

I have always called it the 'Big Bloated Corporation' and it is.

The wages are ridiculous. The redundancy packages are ridiculous. It is bias in it's reporting!!!!!. I do not want favouritism toward any political party, I do however expect balanced reporting and debate as the fee is paid for by all of us for goodness sake, left/right/centre.

They take the mick out of us by having 2 presenters at a time. They send reporters to stupid locations for non stories at a huge expense. The interviewing techniques used by a hell of a lot of them is just dire, awful, cocky and nasty.

The BBC is not the best news reporter anymore. Aljazeera has trumped it for World News. Sky, which is free, has better interviewers and news readers, far nicer and they get more out of the person being interviewed because of it.

It is still however good not to have adverts. It is good at making programs and the variation of style, comedy, period drama, thrillers etc. etc.

What I hate most is the subliminal messaging that bias news and reporting does to a viewer. Yes 'Aunty' is loved but there is a justification in bringing acknowledgement to the fact the BBC is overtly left wing, it even stands out in it's comedy shows these days.

As I have said, I do not want it to be right wing nor expect it to be right wing. I want and expect the BBC to be impartial as it is paid for by us all and it should reflect that in it's reporting and debate. It is not for the BBC to be the arbiter of political policies but it is for the BBC to give us the right to look and listen to reasoned argument and factual knowledge.

Comedy is inherently subversive, POGS, which doesn't necessarily mean it's left wing. They are as likely to take the mick out of left wing as right wing politicians. For example, HIGNFY has at different times featured Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone - even Nigel Farrage, hardly an icon of the left.

The S.O. might be able to tell me how much an advert during prime time television costs [he did tell me once but I've forgotten]. And, just remember how awful F1 was when there were commercial breaks every few minutes. And, just imagine watching The Killing with adverts all the time. Not only would it be annoying but it would last for 3 hours instead of two and I struggled to read two hours worth of subtitles as it is [especially when it was on way past my bedtime!]. Y'know I think the Beeb should give me a licence reduction for being so loyal .

The BBC is notoriously biased towards the left. Why on earth is everyone denying it?

As for adverts, the BBC advertises its own programmes more and more these days.

I don't know about other lefties, but I have often thought – such as during the invasion of Iraq – that it was quite extraordinarily right wing in its attitude.

There simply isn't enough advertising revenue to make it possible for the BBC to be funded by advertising, even if it was desirable.

I agree that BBC news is a poor thing. Channel 4 news is much better.

As for the BBC being left wing. That is risible unless your pivotal point is so far to the right that any vaguely liberal or compassionate viewpoint is seen as being of the left.

And never a hint of criticism of the royals is there absent - positively obsequious. And I was lucky enough to be out of the country during the deadthatcherfest but were there many voices transmitted saying "Why this waste of money for a Tory party bunfight?".
I find they disappear up their own fundaments in an attempt to be "balanced" at times. If the Today programme has an item on say the damage that smoking inflicts on the health of the children of smokers they'll dredge up someone from the pro smoking to give the opposing view.
More political satire would be an improvement. But you do always have to mainly target the people in power to make it funny.
There are many things that could change for the better but overall I'd say its an 8/10
We also get a free "newspaper" for the fee as the BBC website is pretty good.

I also find the tenor of the current BBC political commentators to be pretty right wing. I think news programmes are generally poor and Channel 4 news is much better.
I think the BBC has a lot of faults and I regret the dumbing down of BBC1 and even BBC2. I am very grateful for BBC4 and for Radio 3 and 4.
Living in France has made me appreciate how good the BBC is in comparison though. Quite often we watch documentaries on French Channel 5 and they are often dubbed BBC programmes. Apart from that it is shouty talking heads and third-rate American series. Arte is good though.

I don't go with this overtly left wing thing. It seems to depend which government is in power. If its the Tories in power the complaints are that thee Beeb is left wing. When its labour in power the complaints are that Beeb is right wing.
Which, given that current affairs presenters are there to challenge the position and actions of our politicians, sounds about right.

The interviewers on the in depth news programs should challenge their subjects about the views and policies they are inflicting on their country.
Never think for a minute that our poor politicians and other spokes people are being bullied by the interviewers. They are trained up to defend themselves in front of these skilled interviewers.
What is needed is an interviewer who can stop them from resorting to the usual meaningless cliches and "hard working families" soundbites.

What sort of salaries do the BEEB'S commercial TV equivalents get? It's hard to make sound financial comparisons without this information.

Would anyone like our media to be controlled or managed by the Murdoch empire? Which I think happens in OZ. That is political control. They are out to promote their own agendas.

Favourite Italian sports coverage: It's the Olympics (a while ago not 2012) The Italians have won a silver for shooting. Coverage consists of studio discussion of this momentous fact. Not much else at all.
There was no coverage of the paralympics in Spain last year that we could track down - other than a few seconds on the news if there was a Spanish medal.

thanks for that Nelliemoser, sums it up better than I can. I agree with those who say Channel 4 at 7pm is the best news programme. I find BBC24 news so repetitive and they just don't analyse or challenge in the way Channel 4 news does.

Perhaps it would be better if they said that the licence fee should be scrapped altogether, and the BBC would have to find sponsor's like all the other channels do. After all we pay twice to watch the t.v, the licence , and then the company that delivers the other channels , They should have to do the same as all the other competitors of TV programme delivery, and work for it, we may even get better programmes 'and it would help a lot of people on low incomes, or would it be that the government would loose out to the money from the fines, of people who have nothing left but the t.v.in their life but cant afford the fee, like some grandparent's who are struggling with the bills etc.

If that happens just watch the standard of programmes drop dramatically. One of the best things about this country is the standard of our television/radio programmes. I fear that it's something we just take for granted. Be careful what you wish for .

Oh, and commercial channels just have to fund one channel, not 4+ channels and 6 radio channels.

Tegan we seem to have similar viewing interests. I am looking forward to Montalbano tonight, sadly the highlight of my day.
It is probably worth us noting that the BBC, for all its faults serves a vast part of the globe and in addittion to the TV we see. It also produces radio services for all expatriated Brit's, the armed forces, Schools, Open University and all manner of programmes both for radio and TV. BBC Worldwide (the commercial side) thrives profitably and where would resistance fighters accross Europe and Scandanavia have been without the services of the BBC during WW2. Agreed it needs a stronger head perhaps board, does not arguably need the board of tustees and board of govenors all in addition to the board itself but it must remain accountable. I don't know anyone else who gives a free shipping forcast, invaluable for mariners at sea.