The BBC Funded by Subscription or Advertising?

I happily pay a licence fee in order to have a national broadcaster that has some other agenda than selling air time to the lowest common denominator. Because we have BBC, we also have a higher level of competitive commercial broadcasters in UK.

Just take one look at the calibre of USA broadcasting. What an appalling prospect.

Absolutely agree with every word above from butterandjam.

The BBC is also an important source of 'soft power' for the UK. Particularly important as all our other sources of power are withering on the vine.

MayBee70

RSALLAN2002

BBC is not biased. People complain it is biased in opposing ways. They are all wrong. It is great value for money - less than 50p a day per licence holder, much less in terms of cost per head using it. Why do smaller channels rely on BBC programmes for much of their output (comedy, quiz, documentary). They'll be in trouble if their supply from BBC dries up.

Precisely. People used to moan about repeats when there were only a few channels but now seem quite happy to watch repeats of old BBC programmes on the numerous freeview channels. Which, as you pointed out, would close down without the drip feed of old BBC series. Take away everything that the BBC has provided us with over the decades and there wouldn’t be much left to watch.

People used to moan about repeats when there were only a few channels but now seem quite happy to watch repeats of old BBC programmes on the numerous freeview channels

And also constant repeats on the BBC channels too, as I listed above.

Can we inspect the BBC accounts to see if we are getting value for money or if a few are busy feathering their own nests at the expense of providing good programmes for licence fee payers?

Sueinkent

Just to ad, I am quite happy paying the license and regard as great value for money compared to Naflix, amazon and all the other below par simpleton-targeted dross.

Just watching Stone of Destiny on Prime rather than repeats on main channels.

#TheSimpletons

I’m just going to watch Free Solo on National Geographic.
The story of a ropeless climb on El Capitan in Yosemite national park.
#The Simpletons.

The story of a ropeless climb on El Capitan in Yosemite national park.
I won't join you, I'd be hiding behind the settee, a quivering heap.

I'm a wimp as well.

I watched it a few years ago and I’m terrified of heights. I’ve often found films disappointing but don’t think I’ve ever seen a bad documentary.

How come we have never had to pay to watch our national broadcaster but you have to ? Paying harks back to the middle of the twentieth century. It is an anachronism.

I’m more than happy to pay the license fee. I don’t have any channels that I pay for, but do watch certain programmes that aren’t on the BBC. Though I dislike adverts, when a programme that I’m enjoying is interrupted by them, ( especially the laundry and washing up detergent ones ), I remind myself that without the companies paying to advertise, I wouldn’t be getting the programme.

I think the loss of the BBC in its present form would be an absolute disaster.

The subscription channels will end up being more expensive, even with adverts. For those who want advert-free programmes, they will end up paying more and more. With a new TV we got a package deal including Netflix and NOW. There are occasionally some very good programmes but I think the drama series, on the whole, feel like they have come off a conveyer belt.

As to the question of bias, I do think the BBC can be biased at times - but on all sides of the political spectrum. The recent programme What is the Monarchy for demonstrated how the BBC, and presumably, to some extent, the other channels, dance to the tune of the monarchy. And GB News is most certainly biased. Additionlly, when the Falklands War was on - and the Iraq War - the presentation of the news was different -dramatic, militaristic music accompanying news broadcasts.

I’m a big fan of R4 too. Some of the content is just astonishing in its breath and depth. I have learned so much over the years, and it’s still a really important way for me to keep up with developments in business, science and tech, the arts etc etc. Accessible but not dumbed down. There is no way this content could exist without a public broadcaster. And there is still more good UK TV than I ever have time to watch!

My daughter works on content development for BBC Bitesize, which is widely used by teachers, parents and students all over the world to support learning as part of the BBC’s education mission. Lots of people don’t know about this part of the BBC’s work.

I’m fascinated by hearing people talking about recording TV and fast forwarding through the adverts. I haven’t recorded a TV programme in years and I didn’t know that it was even still possible. I wonder how people are doing this?

nanna8

How come we have never had to pay to watch our national broadcaster but you have to ? Paying harks back to the middle of the twentieth century. It is an anachronism.

You pay via tax.

Not directly we don’t . Through government grants which, of course, would be indirectly through our taxes seeing that the government has no money itself. Much better.

Lahlah65

I’m fascinated by hearing people talking about recording TV and fast forwarding through the adverts. I haven’t recorded a TV programme in years and I didn’t know that it was even still possible. I wonder how people are doing this?

Seriously? You just need a box such as a Humax or one from a broadband provider. Or some TVs have built-in recording facilities. It’s very easy. I don’t record anything like as much as I used to, as I mostly stream; but I sometimes record from smaller live channels that don’t have catch-up facilities.

nanna8

Not directly we don’t . Through government grants which, of course, would be indirectly through our taxes seeing that the government has no money itself. Much better.

This complete fallacy rears its head everywhere.

Of course the government has ‘money of itself’. Who do you think issues it into the economy?

Lahlah65

I’m fascinated by hearing people talking about recording TV and fast forwarding through the adverts. I haven’t recorded a TV programme in years and I didn’t know that it was even still possible. I wonder how people are doing this?

Your post implies recording is an old fashioned concept. All SMART tv’s will have this facility built in.
I can’t remember the last time I recorded anything but it’s there if I want it.

Allira

^The story of a ropeless climb on El Capitan in Yosemite national park.^
I won't join you, I'd be hiding behind the settee, a quivering heap.

I'm a wimp as well.

I don’t know why I do because I’m terrified of heights.
I’ve been in a couple of situations where I was paralysed with fear. One was up a mast 😱
Watching these documentaries I’m forever screaming, no, dont, oh my god covering my eyes.
The odd part of my fear of heights is that I love bridges 🤷‍♀️

I have been known to get the wobbles just cleaning an upstairs window ( from the inside, that is). I can only assume that before I watched the film I googled it to find out what happened.

I think a smaller BBC, with only two television channels and a streaming service, would be better, as they could devote their resources into making better progtammes. The BBC tries to do too much and channels like BBC Three are barely watched. Also copying commercial channels with dross like Honeymoon Island isn't what the BBC should be doing.
While I think the modern BBC has plenty of faults, it's still better than ITV, which is aimed at the lowest common denominator and shows the same old rubbish every day.

ITV is aimed at whomever will buy the advertised products, which vary across programmes. BBC has to make shows for all parts of its demographic too. It’s a fallacy that the ‘standard’ is higher - the difference is that the BBC doesn’t have to keep on the right side of conglomerates, so still has more intellectual freedom than commercial channels.

Cumbrianmale56

I think a smaller BBC, with only two television channels and a streaming service, would be better, as they could devote their resources into making better progtammes. The BBC tries to do too much and channels like BBC Three are barely watched. Also copying commercial channels with dross like Honeymoon Island isn't what the BBC should be doing.
While I think the modern BBC has plenty of faults, it's still better than ITV, which is aimed at the lowest common denominator and shows the same old rubbish every day.

But the radio? We have superb radio.

I doubt that BBC 4 costs much more than the bandwidth charge, as it screens programmes that have already been paid for. I think iplayer is great value and welcome the different channels that mean regular content isn’t dropped for sport on as regular a basis as it is on ITV.

Doodledog

ITV is aimed at whomever will buy the advertised products, which vary across programmes. BBC has to make shows for all parts of its demographic too. It’s a fallacy that the ‘standard’ is higher - the difference is that the BBC doesn’t have to keep on the right side of conglomerates, so still has more intellectual freedom than commercial channels.

ITV's main advertisers seem to be online bingos. I wonder if a large part of their audience are sedentary women who sit in front of tat like Deal Or No Deal, and click away on their bingo games during the breaks.

For sf101, just HOW are the news shows "so biased"? NB -- EVERYONE with a liking for a given political party thinks this daft 'argument' is valid, and research has shown that people see and hear JUST WHAT they WANT TO! The BBC is admired the world over -- not all Americans think like the Orange Chumpestapo -- and a huge number of countries rely on it for accurate news coverage!

A subscription model would NOT work for the BBC, and multiple surveys have shown that a huge number of viewers (& listeners) DO NOT want adverts!

See ChocolateLoving & Magenta for accurate points.

In particular, BBC puts out a vast amount of radio, national and local, perhaps critics could tell us how that would survive with a subscription model? Oh, and bear in mind the BBC's wonderful, ads-FREE website, a great source for a wide variety of info.

Oh, and for mum2three, if you think that music drowns everything out, maybe get your ears checked out? Given the millions who watch telly (& BBC has always had by FAR the highest viewing numbers), could be just YOUR issue?!

Cumbrianmale56

Doodledog

ITV is aimed at whomever will buy the advertised products, which vary across programmes. BBC has to make shows for all parts of its demographic too. It’s a fallacy that the ‘standard’ is higher - the difference is that the BBC doesn’t have to keep on the right side of conglomerates, so still has more intellectual freedom than commercial channels.

ITV's main advertisers seem to be online bingos. I wonder if a large part of their audience are sedentary women who sit in front of tat like Deal Or No Deal, and click away on their bingo games during the breaks.

A very quick Google suggests that online gambling is not the main source of advertising revenue for ITV. I think more men than women gamble, though. Sedentary or otherwise. I don't know whether 'tat like Deal or No Deal' is watched by more men than women, but rude comments about women are hardly appropriate on a predominantly female site.