BBC Charter Review

[Hope]

If I understand this correctly, the argument is that the BBC shouldn't be doing anything that commercial organisations can or already do.  If this is the case, is there anything that a revamped BBC should be doing? 

[jeremyp]

If I understand this correctly, the argument is that the BBC shouldn't be doing anything that commercial organisations can or already do.  If this is the case, is there anything that a revamped BBC should be doing?

I don't accept it is the case. 

[Hope]

If I understand this correctly, the argument is that the BBC shouldn't be doing anything that commercial organisations can or already do.  If this is the case, is there anything that a revamped BBC should be doing?

I don't accept it is the case.

How do you understand the review as announced this morning - with all advisors involved being known to be anti-BBC.

[jeremyp]

How do you understand the review as announced this morning - with all advisors involved being known to be anti-BBC.

I understand it as a stitch up of the BBC because all the advisors are known to be anti-BBC.  That is why I do not accept it is the case that " the BBC shouldn't be doing anything that commercial organisations can or already do".

[floo]

I just hope they don't remove the licence fee and import ghastly ads!

[wigginhall]

Here come the vandals. 

[Nearly Sane]

I suspect that our methods of consuming such media in the future will change fast enough to make such decisions before the govt.

[Gordon]

I heard a radio interview recently, in the run up to this, in which a chap was bemoaning that the BBC web-site was 'too good' and was without adverts, and that this was 'unfair' - presumably he'd prefer it that we either pay for a news website or wade through those that have more adverts than articles.       

[Hope]

I suspect that most of us here would rather that the BBC remained more or less as it is at present.  What changes would we accept?

[ProfessorDavey]

I heard a radio interview recently, in the run up to this, in which a chap was bemoaning that the BBC web-site was 'too good' and was without adverts, and that this was 'unfair' - presumably he'd prefer it that we either pay for a news website or wade through those that have more adverts than articles.     

Yes and the commercial broadcasters - most notably Sky, cannot abide the funding model for the BBC. So they'd prefer an overall inferior offering to viewers, listeners and web users where quality is sacrificed on the alter of commercial free-marketism.

And Sky can decide to offer the best web-site around - sure it would cost and might mean that they have to give up their franchise for premier league football. But the flip side is that as a public service broadcaster funded largely through the licence fee the BBC cannot justify trying to compete with Sky on premier league football. Horses for courses.

[floo]

I suspect that most of us here would rather that the BBC remained more or less as it is at present.  What changes would we accept?

The commercial channels can have all the progs I have no wish to watch!

[Udayana]

Agree with no ads and independence of the BBC.

Don't see why BBC needs to provide "entertainment" (soaps, chat, sport, murder mysteries, mainstream movies etc ...) where this is perfectly well handled by commercial channels.

Funding could be mixed, why rely on license mechanism? (in fact it is already mixed).

Needs to move away from broadcasting to exploiting interactive media - why isn't it hosting the public debate on the charter review rather than twitter etc ? - because it has reduced it's forum/debate capability to mush.

The first point in the current charter's set of "public purposes" is "Sustaining citizenship and civil society"

[Nearly Sane]

If you get rid of entertainment surely the BBC is then surely just a news provider?


I am less and less bothered with the idea that it disappears, in part because I think funding it will become an impossibility.

[Hope]

Agree with no ads and independence of the BBC.

Don't see why BBC needs to provide "entertainment" (soaps, chat, sport, murder mysteries, mainstream movies etc ...) where this is perfectly well handled by commercial channels.

Funding could be mixed, why rely on license mechanism? (in fact it is already mixed).

The BBC provide funds for a number of small films that commercial groups have refused to support - and which often end up as successes.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Films

Needs to move away from broadcasting to exploiting interactive media - why isn't it hosting the public debate on the charter review rather than twitter etc ? - because it has reduced it's forum/debate capability to mush.

It is hosting a debate about it - today's Jeremy Vine's Radio 2 show for instance.  It couldn't stop any debte on any other form of social media.

[Aruntraveller]

Just as a general point - we pay an astonishingly extortionate* £2.79 per week per household for the BBC at the current licence fee cost.

You pay more than that through your weekly shop for the adverts that help to keep commercial TV going - and don't forget your SKY subscription too.

As someone once sang:

"Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got till it's gone."*Heavy sarcasm alert

[Udayana]

There is still plenty of non-news that needs public support: Art, culture, science, education, history, children's programs, documentaries, comedy ... many areas where commercial services don't or couldn't do a good job.

It could still make ... Eastenders, Strictly, Master chef etc and sell for broadcast on commercial channels (as it already does with many repeat programs) and/or allow download/streaming on an ad-free subscription basis.

[Hope]

Just as a general point - we pay an astonishingly extortionate* £2.79 per week per household for the BBC at the current licence fee cost.

You pay more than that through your weekly shop for the adverts that help to keep commercial TV going - and don't forget your SKY subscription too.

Apparently, the existing commercial/advertising pot barely suffices for the existing needs oif ITV, Sky, Channels 4 & 5, etc.

[Udayana]

...
It is hosting a debate about it - today's Jeremy Vine's Radio 2 show for instance.  It couldn't stop any debte on any other form of social media.

In this day and age with the web etc I really can't regard a Jeremy Vines phone in as a "debate"... or even the phone in programmes on Radio 5.

[Hope]

...
It is hosting a debate about it - today's Jeremy Vine's Radio 2 show for instance.  It couldn't stop any debte on any other form of social media.

In this day and age with the web etc I really can't regard a Jeremy Vines phone in as a "debate"... or even the phone in programmes on Radio 5.

Surely debates are all about people sharing their opinions, Ud.  Whether it's in 142 characters or over a minute or so via the telephone, being broadcast to the nation, aren't they debates?  Aren't we having one here?

[Udayana]

Just as a general point - we pay an astonishingly extortionate* £2.79 per week per household for the BBC at the current licence fee cost.

You pay more than that through your weekly shop for the adverts that help to keep commercial TV going - and don't forget your SKY subscription too.

As someone once sang:

"Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got till it's gone."*Heavy sarcasm alert

I wouldn't want it slashed to make way for Sky etc but only for it to improve output, provide what is needed and move on. What's the point of repeating Dads Army forever when you could screen it on Dave or Gold, or just allow downloads for those that want keep viewing it?

[L.A.]

If I understand this correctly, the argument is that the BBC shouldn't be doing anything that commercial organisations can or already do.  If this is the case, is there anything that a revamped BBC should be doing?

The BEEB has undergone a tremendous expansion in recent years, spending huge amounts on prestigious productions and it's website, so I think it is quite reasonable to question whether this should all be paid for by what is essentially a tax.

Personally, I would like to see the BEEB cut-down somewhat. Maybe sell-off Radio One and some of their 'blockbuster' TV productions and concentrate on nurturing new talent and material.

[Udayana]

...
It is hosting a debate about it - today's Jeremy Vine's Radio 2 show for instance.  It couldn't stop any debte on any other form of social media.

In this day and age with the web etc I really can't regard a Jeremy Vines phone in as a "debate"... or even the phone in programmes on Radio 5.

Surely debates are all about people sharing their opinions, Ud.  Whether it's in 142 characters or over a minute or so via the telephone, being broadcast to the nation, aren't they debates?  Aren't we having one here?

Yes, this is more of a debate - because it's possible to follow arguments, rather than being a series of sound bites. QT, for example, is good, but still does not get down to the details of any issue - because it can't in that format.

But can we regard a discussion here as a "public" debate? - a platform of national scope is needed.

The BBC should resurrect its message board capability and allow discussion of programmes, politics etc ("Sustaining citizenship and civil society") and engage with the public - eg by using volunteer/elected moderators rather than try to control everything itself.

[ippy]

I'd like to see Ofcom take over from the present cosy in house BBC trust arrangement.

ippy

   

[Nearly Sane]

There is still plenty of non-news that needs public support: Art, culture, science, education, history, children's programs, documentaries, comedy ... many areas where commercial services don't or couldn't do a good job.

It could still make ... Eastenders, Strictly, Master chef etc and sell for broadcast on commercial channels (as it already does with many repeat programs) and/or allow download/streaming on an ad-free subscription basis.

This just feels like subsidising your taste.

[Hope]

The BBC should resurrect its message board capability and allow discussion of programmes, politics etc ("Sustaining citizenship and civil society") and engage with the public - eg by using volunteer/elected moderators rather than try to control everything itself.

IIRC, they cut these facilities because of reduced funding as a result of the last charter review.