PDA

View Full Version : UK Government anti-BBC bias


KelvinD
31st Dec 2017, 07:23
Well, the bias is certainly showing now, isn't it? Following the BBC bashing by the government comes the latest fiasco.
The government is giving away £60M of licence fee revenue to fund kids TV programmes on the commercial channels.
Since Thatcher, we have been fed a diet of how fantastic privately owned organisations work, from steel to railways to telecomms etc. So why does this not work when it comes to TV? The likes of Chan 5 and ITV have shareholders who are no doubt prepared to gladly accept profits swelling their bank accounts but who seemingly are unable to divert a fraction of those profits to investment into their own product.
I pay for the independent channels every time I buy a packet of biscuits, a bottle of milk or whatever. I pay for the BBC via my annual licence fee. Why should a portion of that licence fee now go to lame independent producers?
Is this diversion of licence fee revenues to organisations other than the BBC perhaps misappropriation of funds?

cavortingcheetah
31st Dec 2017, 07:41
The BBC licence fee is a tax. Governments frequently apply tax money in a manner with which the taxpayer disagrees.
The BBC runs on biased, bigoted wheels oiled with self interest, mired in tax evasion and crowned by egomania. It is not fit for its purpose.
Funds will now be used for the advantage of children and administered by those who have greater accountability than the BBC itself. This is a good idea and should be warmly embraced by the tax payer who sees beyond the left wing propaganda machine that so much of the BBC has become.

wiggy
31st Dec 2017, 07:45
Since Thatcher, we have been fed a diet of how fantastic privately owned organisations work, from steel to railways to telecomms etc. So why does this not work when it comes to TV?

It doesn’t seem to work for the railways either, so it was a bit of a shame the headlines over Lord Adonis quitting his post concentrated on his Brexit comment, rather than the actual reason why he was standing down.

PDR1
31st Dec 2017, 07:54
which was...?

Fareastdriver
31st Dec 2017, 08:04
The BBC, an organisation that outnumbered the British Olympic team.

Krystal n chips
31st Dec 2017, 08:25
which was...?

This.....

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/29/east-coast-rail-franchise-terminated-three-years-early-virgin-trains

UniFoxOs
31st Dec 2017, 08:25
CC - couldn't have put it better myself, except perhaps to add that the BBC is also a means for the members of the upper circles of the literati to grab as much taxpayers money as they can into their own bank accounts.

ORAC
31st Dec 2017, 12:29
Well, the bias is certainly showing now, isn't it? Following the BBC bashing by the government comes the latest fiasco. The government is giving away £60M of licence fee revenue to fund kids TV programmes on the commercial channels. the BBC agreed to this back in 2010....

£60m fund to make more British kids' TV - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42513685)

“....The £60m pot will be spent over three years and will come from the 2010 licence fee settlement.....”


Behind the Headlines: BBC licence fee settlement (http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/behindtheheadlines/licence-fee)

“....As part of the settlement, the BBC has undertaken to provide funding for some new broadcasting activities. The settlement includes the funding of the BBC World Service and BBC Monitoring, and an expanded partnership and funding agreement with the Welsh language television service S4C. In addition, the BBC will play an active role in supporting new local television services through a partnership fund........”

Sallyann1234
31st Dec 2017, 14:03
Strange to see a thread about government anti-bbc bias.
Usually it's about BBC lefty anti-government bias.
Makes a change I suppose :ok:

Quake
31st Dec 2017, 15:14
Government Bias is to be expected isn't it?

meadowrun
31st Dec 2017, 15:29
Hey, it's a new age!


Remove all government funding for the BBC and have it full of commercials to pay its way.


You want commercial-free entertainment on the little box - there are new things like Netflix - you can pay for - or not.


Might end the never ending bitching about the holy mother bbc.

KelvinD
31st Dec 2017, 16:16
So, the BBC undertook to provide funding for the World Service etc etc. Where does it say the BBC undertook to fund private, independent TV producers? None of the above comments answer my comment about how, if privatisation is so much better or more successful than State owned enterprises, why do these privately owned enterprises need State handouts?
CC: I haven't read such idiotic vitriol for some time! And the licence fee is considered a tax only by the National Audit Office. If it was a tax, it would probably be named "Licence Tax" or something similar.

Krystal n chips
31st Dec 2017, 16:28
So, the BBC undertook to provide funding for the World Service etc etc. Where does it say the BBC undertook to fund private, independent TV producers? None of the above comments answer my comment about how, if privatisation is so much better or more successful than State owned enterprises, why do these privately owned enterprises need State handouts?
CC: I haven't read such idiotic vitriol for some time! And the licence fee is considered a tax only by the National Audit Office. If it was a tax, it would probably be named "Licence Tax" or something similar.

Ah, well the answer to funding private independent producers could well be found on here, from one of our more modest contributors, one whose chequered life has, ostensibly, included amongst other things working for the BBC and RTE....

Back to why privatisation only works in one direction...for the benefit of shareholders.

And strangely enough, this is one "tax", even though it isn't and never was or will be, that I'm happy to pay.

MG23
31st Dec 2017, 16:59
The BBC is one of the biggest nests of SJWs in the West. The only shock is that no 'Conservative' government has had the balls to defund them.

ORAC
31st Dec 2017, 17:08
KelvinD, the sentence in my link above where they talk about a “partnership fund”.

Fuller details of the proposal were laid out in a White Paper in mid 2016.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2016/05/31/the-bbc-the-white-paper-and-the-future-of-uk-childrens-content/

Jet II
31st Dec 2017, 17:14
And strangely enough, this is one "tax", even though it isn't and never was or will be, that I'm happy to pay.

You should get out more.

In January 2006 the Office of National Statistics re-classified the
licence fee as a tax. Previously, this payment had been classified in the
National Accounts as a service charge. Explaining the change the Office of
National Statistics (ONS) says “in line with the definition of a tax, the
licence fee is a compulsory payment which is not paid solely for access to
BBC services… A licence is required to receive ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5,
satellite, cable”. (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldbbc/128/128i.pdf)

meadowrun
31st Dec 2017, 17:25
"When television broadcasts in the UK were resumed after a break due to the Second World War, it was decided to introduce a television licence fee in order to fund the service. When first introduced on 1 June 1946, the licence covering the monochrome-only single-channel BBC television service cost £2 (equivalent to £76.13 as of 2016). The licence was originally issued by the General Post Office (GPO), which was then the regulator of public communications within the UK. The GPO also issued licences for home radio receivers powered by mains electricity and was mandated by laws beginning with the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1904, to administer the licensing system. Households which bought a TV licence did not need to hold a separate radio licence as the TV licence covered both TV and radio reception.
The BBC started regular colour TV broadcasts in the summer of 1967. On 1 January 1968, a "colour supplement" of £5 was added to the existing £5 monochrome licence fee; the combined colour licence fee was therefore £10, the equivalent of £159.16 as of 2016. The current (2010–2016) cash cost is £145.50 for colour TV and £49 for monochrome TV, per household.
The radio-only licence was abolished on 1 February 1971, when it was £1.25 (actually £1-5s-0d in pre-decimal UK currency) or the equivalent of £19.89 in 2016 prices.
On 1 April 1991, the BBC took over the administration of television licensing in the UK, assuming the responsibility of licence fee collection and enforcement. Since this date, the BBC has been the statutory authority for issuing television licences (before April 1991, the statutory authority was the UK Home Office), although the UK Government retains certain powers and responsibilities with regards to TV licences. wiki


Archaic and way behind the times does come to mind. Think of how much money could be saved by removing that entire layer of bureaucracy.


No one owns the airwaves.

EGLD
31st Dec 2017, 18:27
Since Thatcher, we have been fed a diet of how fantastic privately owned organisations work, from steel to railways to telecomms etc. So why does this not work when it comes to TV?

Because the BBC's funding model is anti-competitive

You're welcome :ok:

Cornish Jack
31st Dec 2017, 18:40
"Funds will now be used for the advantage of children and administered by those who have greater accountability than the BBC itself. This is a good idea and should be warmly embraced by the tax payer who sees beyond the left wing propaganda machine that so much of the BBC has become."

60 million to ensure that the kids of the future will be indoctrinated into the high intellectual and moral standards of the advertising industry as early as possible ... cheap at twice the price ... cheap (and nasty!) at ANY price:yuk:

tdracer
31st Dec 2017, 19:09
I get BBC America as part of my satellite service - supposedly providing the best of what the BBC has to offer.
About half the time BBCA is showing old reruns of AMERICAN shows or movies (I just checked, as I'm writing this BBCA is showing the 20 year old movie 'Titanic').
Doesn't exactly say much for the quality of current BBC products...

ORAC
31st Dec 2017, 19:35
But we pay for them from the small change from the stuff going the other way.

Home | Masterpiece | Official Site | PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/)

Not sure quite how America quite understands Doctor Who though....

Pontius Navigator
31st Dec 2017, 21:51
Netflix is half the price of my licence fee. My Amazon prime plus Netflix equals it but I also get a next day delivery service.

I get the news from RT, AJ, ITV, Sky for free.

Now I accept that the Government might want to tax usage of the airwaves, but handing that tax to the BBC abrogates that responsibility.

Why do I have to pay the BBC?

Anyway, come April I don't have to pay.

G-CPTN
31st Dec 2017, 21:57
Why do I have to pay the BBC?

I don't - and haven't for decades.

UniFoxOs
1st Jan 2018, 11:28
No one owns the airwaves.

Interesting point of view. You won't mind if I start a VHF broadcasting service on, for example, 121.5....

yellowtriumph
1st Jan 2018, 11:52
So, the BBC undertook to provide funding for the World Service etc etc. Where does it say the BBC undertook to fund private, independent TV producers? None of the above comments answer my comment about how, if privatisation is so much better or more successful than State owned enterprises, why do these privately owned enterprises need State handouts?
CC: I haven't read such idiotic vitriol for some time! And the licence fee is considered a tax only by the National Audit Office. If it was a tax, it would probably be named "Licence Tax" or something similar.

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘independent tv producers’? Is there any one particular example you’d like to give? Let us not forget the difference between a public service broadcaster and a purely commercial enterprise. ITV for example is a PSB that has to provide certain types of programming for a certain amount of minuteage. It plays strictly to the rules as set down by its regulator Ofcom, and neither is it a charity.

Sallyann1234
1st Jan 2018, 12:15
Where does it say the BBC undertook to fund private, independent TV producers?
The BBC does just that, because it commissions a large proportion of its programmes from independent programme makers. Its outside broadcast units were sold off. It hires in facilities and freelance staff as and when needed.

KelvinD
1st Jan 2018, 12:41
ITV is not what I would call a PSB. It is owned by a collection of interests, including Granada TV, Liberty Global and others. Of course it has to abide by Ofcom rules, so does any other company offering broadcast services.
The independent programme makers from whom the BBC commissions product were, until recently, largely ex BBC producers who found themselves out of a job when the BBC were told they had to source productions from outside the BBC. I believe the BBC still has their own Radio OB units.
Still no response though to my original question: "Why does the government mandated fee/tax subsidise privately owned companies"?

Jet II
1st Jan 2018, 13:00
Still no response though to my original question: "Why does the government mandated fee/tax subsidise privately owned companies"?

If you have 2 organisations with Public Service requirements in their Licence to broadcast why should you only give taxpayer support to one?.

Remember the Licence fee is a tax to use the airwaves, not simply to watch the BBC

radeng
1st Jan 2018, 13:06
You have a potential total available market of some 65 or so million people for domestic consumption. Once you start increasing the number of channels, the number of people viewing per channel will obviously fall, although some channels will remain much more popular than others. But for a given licence tax, amount available for programme making for each channel must fall as you increase the number of channels.

If channels for minorities are to survive, they aren't likely to do it on advertising alone, as few advertisers will want to spend money advertising to a minority audience. So IF you want to cater for the minority audience, it's at the expense of funding the majority audience to the same extent as previously.

Which is why so much of TV is the rubbish it is.

Sallyann1234
1st Jan 2018, 13:12
ITV is not what I would call a PSB....
You can define PSB however you wish.
But the government has placed Public Service requirements on the BBC, ITV, C4, S4C and to a lesser extent C5. They all operate under those ongoing commitments.

Andy_S
1st Jan 2018, 14:03
Still no response though to my original question: "Why does the government mandated fee/tax subsidise privately owned companies"?

Kelvin,

Perhaps you should be asking the BBC?

Don't some of the BBC's 'stars' actually set themselves up as private companies? The BEEB seem to have no issue subsidising them.........

Uplinker
1st Jan 2018, 15:21
My 2p......

My first job was with the BBC (as a broadcast engineer, not an airy fairy production type - so I had nothing to do with what was broadcast or which opinions were aired).

When I was doing my training we were told that we paid twice as much for ITV than the BBC through the cost of the advertising - 1p extra on a packet of biscuits, 5p on a box of soap powder etc.

I have watched TV all around the world apart from South America, South Africa and Russia, and I am sorry, but most of it is awful because of a) the advertising, and b) the lowest common denominator and sensationalist style employed to keep people watching, (so they will see the adverts). Trust me, if/when the licence fee goes, TV in the UK will become awful. Some of it is bad enough already.

So I for one am happy to pay to keep a couple of TV and radio channels in the UK advert free. I do not agree with the way the BBC (over) pays and discriminates between its presenters., and I am frequently aghast at some of the programs and all the hangers-on I see on the credits; Usually only about four engineers/craftsmen are mentioned and 15 “producers”, most of whom are mere ‘runners’ - school leavers who know nothing about how to produce a program.

I always find it odd that folk moan about the tiny licence fee - while also paying whatever SKY or Virgin cost and for the latest iPhone per month and driving round in expensive cars bought on the never-never.

BBC Outside Broadcasts was an incredible place to work - a boffin’s paradise. It sometimes felt like being ‘Q’ from James Bond; the stuff we were asked to do ! BBC OBs pioneered a lot of things, and we did a lot of stuff for other broadcasters too, such as cricket for Channel 4 and TFI Friday with Chris Evans.

Sallyann1234
1st Jan 2018, 15:33
You'd have been at Kendal Avenue then. Have you seen that site recently? :{

Gertrude the Wombat
1st Jan 2018, 16:25
I have watched TV all around the world apart from South America, South Africa and Russia, and I am sorry, but most of it is awful because of a) the advertising, and b) the lowest common denominator and sensationalist style employed to keep people watching, (so they will see the adverts). Trust me, if/when the licence fee goes, TV in the UK will become awful. Some of it is bad enough already.
It is already

Not having a telly licence I only watch telly in hotel bedrooms. Once Upon A Time

- foreign telly was hundreds of channels, all wall-to-wall crap
- UK telly was four channels, at least one of which was worth watching at any given time.

But I've noticed in the last few years

- foreign telly is still hundreds of channels, all wall-to-wall crap
- UK telly is now hundreds of channels, all wall-to-wall crap.

andytug
1st Jan 2018, 18:23
Still no response though to my original question: "Why does the government mandated fee/tax subsidise privately owned companies"?

Probably for the same reason that tax subsidises other private enterprises, such as G4S, Capital, etc etc. Privatisation in name only channelling public money into private offshore hands, facilitated by revolving doors for the top execs between "public" and "private". Shortly to be followed by the NHS, as there is nothing else left to "privatise" (the police being politically too hot as yet).

goudie
1st Jan 2018, 18:31
I very rarely watch any commercial channel live. If there is a particular programme I think is worth watching I record it and when played back I just fast forward the commercials.
I no longer pay a licence fee but with an aging population I wonder over the wisdom of not taxing the over 75s. Must be a fair chunk of lost revenue there.

Rosevidney1
1st Jan 2018, 21:34
The BBC is wasteful, most of the programs are repeats, or dreary rubbish meant to tick every box (but failing dismally) and I'm sick and tired of their adverts, which is what you get for up to 5 minutes at a time. Don't do adverts, you say? Certainly, they are advertising their tawdry 'un-missable','uplifting' forthcoming rubbish. In the opinion of many the BBC at the least needs a root and branch pruning.

Jet II
1st Jan 2018, 21:49
I very rarely watch any commercial channel live. If there is a particular programme I think is worth watching I record it and when played back I just fast forward the commercials.
I no longer pay a licence fee but with an aging population I wonder over the wisdom of not taxing the over 75s. Must be a fair chunk of lost revenue there.

With the increase in technology I wonder why they bother trying to enforce a TV Licence at all. A TV Licence made sense in 1920 - however 2020 is a totally different ballgame.

Sallyann1234
1st Jan 2018, 21:56
A TV Licence made sense in 1920

Did it really?

Jet II
1st Jan 2018, 22:38
Did it really?

Well it was a way of funding the roll out of the system - made sense that the users should pay rather than everyone else. The technology wasn't available to introduce a subscription based service to fund the BBC so it was either the Licence Fee or General taxation.

Why, what system would you have chosen?

Krystal n chips
2nd Jan 2018, 06:45
With the increase in technology I wonder why they bother trying to enforce a TV Licence at all. A TV Licence made sense in 1920 - however 2020 is a totally different ballgame.

Alas, it seems that since basking in the glory of having made one factual post in 2017, and on the last day of the year at that ( this being your link to my error about the fee not being a tax, albeit semantics are involved here ) it's nice to see you have commenced 2018 in the same way as before.

When first introduced on 1 June 1946, the licence covering the monochrome-only single-channel BBC television service cost £2 (equivalent to £76.13 as of 2016). The licence was originally issued by the General Post Office (GPO), which was then the regulator of public communications within the UK

Only a small difference in years.....how do you get on with fuel discrepancy calculations if you don't mind me asking ?

KelvinD
2nd Jan 2018, 07:34
Speaking of BBC Outside Broadcasts; I worked at the 1994 Winter Olympics in Lillehammer (providing comms). One day I was on the "inside" of the bobsled track, watching the now famous Jamaican team. In the area I was in was a BBC O.B. van and I got talking to one of the engineers. I asked him how it was that the BBC were doing all the live broadcasting, rather than the local Norwegian TV. His response was "because we are very good at it and many non-UK broadcasters use our services".
What a shame that had to be thrown away, sold off to an organisation that ultimately failed and flogged off all the kit.
As for those who mistakenly think the BBC is some sort of left wing trumpet, try listening to the resident arch Conservative, Nick Robinson, on the today programme! Somewhere to the right of Thatcher!
Having spent most of my working life as an expat here and there, pre internet etc, I found most expats would agree that the only way to get reliable news was to listen to the BBC, then listen to Radio Moscow and somewhere between the 2 would be the actuality. And this applied to non-British as well as British expats.

Sallyann1234
2nd Jan 2018, 08:14
Well it was a way of funding the roll out of the system - made sense that the users should pay rather than everyone else. The technology wasn't available to introduce a subscription based service to fund the BBC so it was either the Licence Fee or General taxation.

Why, what system would you have chosen?
Personally I would have waited until television had been invented before issuing licences in 1920.

But that's just me. I don't have your ability to look that far into the future. How are you doing with the lottery numbers?

Gertrude the Wombat
2nd Jan 2018, 08:30
As for those who mistakenly think the BBC is some sort of left wing trumpet, try listening to the resident arch Conservative, Nick Robinson, on the today programme! Somewhere to the right of Thatcher!
He's even worse on Twitter.

ORAC
2nd Jan 2018, 08:44
Prior to 1946 there were no such things as wireless or television licences, there were only “broadcast receiving licences”, introduced to fund the BBC, type of transmission unspecified.

When regular BBC TV broadcasts commenced in the 1936 the licence covered both. When TV transmission recommended in 1946 it was still a generic broadcast receiving licence - merely a two level licence either including or excluding TV broadcasts.

http://www.radiolicence.org.uk/resources/1940sfront.jpg

http://www.radiolicence.org.uk/resources/RL1953radonly.jpg

http://www.nickelinthemachine.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Licence-issued-1960.jpg

Sallyann1234
2nd Jan 2018, 08:53
For many years there was also a separate licence required for use of a car radio.

meadowrun
2nd Jan 2018, 09:28
"Plus Duty"


Gotta laugh.

G-CPTN
2nd Jan 2018, 10:07
"Plus Duty"


Gotta laugh.

and VAT? - or would that have been Purchase Tax?

ORAC
2nd Jan 2018, 10:13
And, of course, it has effectively reverted to being a receiving licence, covering TVs, desktop computers, laptops, mobile phones, tablets, games consoles, digital boxes, DVD, Blu-ray and VHS recorders, or anything else used to receive TV programmes. The government can’t see the future any more now than in 1922, but its trying to keep its options open. See para 368. (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/part/4)

Please also note that the government site now makes it explicitely clear that it is not a BBC fee* - a licence is needed to watch any TV programme service broadcast from anywhere in the world, not just those on BBC channels. The BBC is not, therefore, giving its money away to anyone else, part of the 2010 and later settlements with the BBC has been, effectively, a payment to the BBC to manage the collection and allocation of the licence to both its own elements along with any other broadcaster which is deemed suitable to receive some of the taxpayers money.

*”A TV Licence is a legal permission to install or use television receiving equipment to watch or record television programmes as they are being shown on TV. The licence fee is not a payment for BBC services (or any other television service), although licence fee revenue is used to fund the BBC.”....

Jet II
2nd Jan 2018, 11:24
Alas, it seems that since basking in the glory of having made one factual post in 2017, and on the last day of the year at that ( this being your link to my error about the fee not being a tax, albeit semantics are involved here ) it's nice to see you have commenced 2018 in the same way as before.

When first introduced on 1 June 1946, the licence covering the monochrome-only single-channel BBC television service cost £2 (equivalent to £76.13 as of 2016). The licence was originally issued by the General Post Office (GPO), which was then the regulator of public communications within the UK

Only a small difference in years.....how do you get on with fuel discrepancy calculations if you don't mind me asking ?

The TV Licence was an extension of the Broadcast Receiving Licence introduced in 1922 - you really need to get out more.

Jet II
2nd Jan 2018, 11:27
Personally I would have waited until television had been invented before issuing licences in 1920.

But that's just me. I don't have your ability to look that far into the future. How are you doing with the lottery numbers?

As has been pointed out - the TV Licence was simply an extension of the radio licence which was introduced to finance the BBC.

So can you answer the question, if you dont like Licence fees how would you have financed the roll out of the BBC.

Sallyann1234
2nd Jan 2018, 11:48
As has been pointed out - the TV Licence was simply an extension of the radio licence which was introduced to finance the BBC.

You specifically referred to
A TV Licence made sense in 1920So why do you think a TV licence made sense in 1920 ?

So can you answer the question, if you dont like Licence fees how would you have financed the roll out of the BBC.I haven't said that I don't like licence fees to fund the BBC. Perhaps you should ask someone who does think that.

Still waiting for your answer about 1920...

Jet II
2nd Jan 2018, 11:55
You specifically referred to
So why do you think a TV licence made sense in 1920 ?

I haven't said that I don't like licence fees to fund the BBC. Perhaps you should ask someone who does think that.

Still waiting for your answer about 1920...

Sorry - not interested in playing silly games. If you dont wantto try to have an adult discussion then thats fine.

Sallyann1234
2nd Jan 2018, 11:58
Such a pity Jet2. If you could simply have admitted you made a mistake I would have respected you for it.

Jet II
2nd Jan 2018, 12:16
Do you understand that the TV Licence was part of the Broadcast Receiving Licence?

Just asking?

Sallyann1234
2nd Jan 2018, 13:04
Do you understand that the TV Licence was part of the Broadcast Receiving Licence?

Just asking?
From 1936, yes.

Not from 1920 as you stated, when TV broadcasting did not exist.

Last comment from me.

pax britanica
2nd Jan 2018, 13:19
While the BBC and pretty much all entertainment media overpay their stars grossly (what else would these people do anyway) it is worth having as a bulwark against Murdoch world which is positively evil and iPlayer is very good anyway.

Of course the beeb is only leftist pinko gay propaganda if you read the Daily Mail , if you read the Guardian it is a government lackey and tame mouthpiece.

As has been pointed out here the proliferation of channels fragments investment meaning there is much more cheap rubbish on the TV , a device which is disappearing inside itself anyway as non broadcast media dominates. And as for non UK and non US TV there are some excellent dramas on C4s 'Walter Presents' site if you are not subtitlephobic

Jet II
2nd Jan 2018, 13:24
While the BBC and pretty much all entertainment media overpay their stars grossly (what else would these people do anyway) it is worth having as a bulwark against Murdoch world which is positively evil and iPlayer is very good anyway.

I dont understand this anti-murdoch shtick. Sky doesnt actually produce much content and what it does it tends to buy in from the same independent producers that the BBC use. The only thing 'unique' about Sky is the football coverage.

KenV
2nd Jan 2018, 14:34
Why in the world does the UK even have a government funded television/radio network? Are you folks in the UK helping to pay for BBC broadcasting here in the USA? If yes, what kind of lunacy is that? If no, why can't BBC support itself in the UK the way it supports itself in the USA?

Krystal n chips
2nd Jan 2018, 16:12
Why in the world does the UK even have a government funded television/radio network? Are you folks in the UK helping to pay for BBC broadcasting here in the USA? If yes, what kind of lunacy is that? If no, why can't BBC support itself in the UK the way it supports itself in the USA?

Possibly because several other nations ( there are other countries in the world besides America ) also have state funded broadcasters.....and have done for many years.

This being JB, the BBC is generally held in disdain by those, who, whilst pining for the nostalgia of previous era's in the UK and thus would love to return to the days of the BBC Home Saarvis, and the Light Programme, along with one black and white television channel, now find the diversity of the BBC quite bewildering.

The BBC is also a global broadcaster which again may confuse you.

And, as you are fortunate enough to be able to receive the BBC in America, albeit I understand the schedule contents have to be adapted to suit the target audience, then at least there is some hope for erudite and cultural development in contrast to some of the ( rude word ) I've witnessed over there and which makes its way to our shores. I did like "Hill Street Blues " though.

There's also another useful aspect.

You won't be subjected to "Fake News ! " when viewing the news and I do recommend the much respected "World Service " radio broadcasts.

The BBC don't always get it right, and, like the former BR sandwich, attract criticism from the UK population and mockery, but, overall, the BBC is well worth the licence fee ( tax for those obsessed with the semantics of the English language ) along with being devoid of those immortal words " stay toooned, now, a word from our sponsor "....followed by 5minutes of wholesome American advertising.

pax britanica
2nd Jan 2018, 16:25
Well Murdoch owns Fox (Faux/fake) news and that provides content for Sky news which i agree is generally very good. The problem with Murdoch is that he is a megalomaniac and wants to control everything and he already controls far too much of the UK media and has far too much influence on UK politicians. In fact 'taking back control' from the Eu really means giving control to Murdoch because the Sun has such huge influence .

The Eu dislike Murdoch because of the way he operates and therefore he dislikes them-he puts out mountains of anti BBC crap because he wants to be where they are and thats a very unhealthy situation and thats why many people are opposed to the man

cavortingcheetah
3rd Jan 2018, 08:01
And there was I thinking that his enemies abounded on account of the fact that he speaks the truth. Mind you, if the EU dislikes him, no matter the reason, then he probably does!