Should the BBC licence fee be scrapped

General Zod said:
Being able to watch tv is not a matter of life & death and the nhs isnt funded by a flat fee by everyone that uses it, regardless of their income. There are no other affordable alternatives than the nhs so its not the best of analogies mate. A basic netflix package works out at about half the cost of the annual fee for the license, what's wrong with giving people a choice instead of forcing them to pay for stuff they're not that bothered about watching?
Click to expand...

Would you not accept the argument that the BBC provides a vital public service, as a non-partisan, non-commercial media entity?

Name me a more trustworthy news source than the BBC. Public broadcasters (in westernised, liberal democracies) are the most trustworthy news sources because they're not sensationalising for views, they're not beholden to advertisers or commercial interests, their content isn't able to be determined by political ideology and ultimately they are accountable to elected representatives of the state and by association, the public.
 


Frijj said:
Would you not accept the argument that the BBC provides a vital public service, as a non-partisan, non-commercial media entity?

Name me a more trustworthy news source than the BBC. Public broadcasters (in westernised, liberal democracies) are the most trustworthy news sources because they're not sensationalising for views, they're not beholden to advertisers or commercial interests, their content isn't able to be determined by political ideology and ultimately they are accountable to elected representatives of the state and by association, the public.
Click to expand...
Channel 4 news blows BBC news out of the water.
 
The BBC produces its share of rubbish but at least you also get BBC4 docmentaries on music and history and nature and so on rather than the endless parade of mindless crap on ITV, not to mention the radio stations. It's a total bargain and we are lucky to have it.

Frijj said:
Who funds Channel 4?
Click to expand...
They are mainly self-funding through adverts but they struggle, they had to ask the govt for money a few years ago.
 
Last edited:
Frijj said:
No, I don't think it should be.

The BBC gets a disproportionately high level of grief for it's alleged biases - but these biases tend to come from across the political and social spectrum and are often unfounded, suggesting that the BBC is doing a decent job.

I think it has a vital role to play as a non-commercial broadcaster that is ultimately responsible to the licence-payers and the state, rather than a single commercial entity who may seek to use it's autonomous control of a broadcaster to further the political ideology of it's owner or board.

On those grounds, I think it is crucial that the BBC continues in its existence in its current format. This is all without adding that it produces a wide range of high-quality content across several mediums and has a stellar international reputation for reliable, trustworthy journalism.
Click to expand...

Excellent post.
 
Frijj said:
Who funds Channel 4? Commercially funded but publicly owned aren't they? Not that trustworthy if their funding is dependent on business interests.
Click to expand...
They are a mixture of private and publicly funded and in my opinion are way in front of the BBC.
 
Frijj said:
Would you not accept the argument that the BBC provides a vital public service, as a non-partisan, non-commercial media entity?

Name me a more trustworthy news source than the BBC. Public broadcasters (in westernised, liberal democracies) are the most trustworthy news sources because they're not sensationalising for views, they're not beholden to advertisers or commercial interests, their content isn't able to be determined by political ideology and ultimately they are accountable to elected representatives of the state and by association, the public.
Click to expand...

It has been accused of bias in the past but you have a point - I'll acknowledge its probably the least biased (if not one of the least biased) out there & I agree it is important to have an unbiased news service. That being the case why not fund the cost of the unbiased news service with general taxation and make everything else subscription based? If everything else really is great value for money they should have no problem raising the necessary funds via subscription as people who want it will pay for it?
 
Frijj said:
Perfect example of why referendums don't work. The public would be convinced to give up the BBC in it's current form to get a few quid back a week which would undoubtedly go on an extra pint or a takeaway.

I know I'm an elitist dickhead but there is a majority of people out there too thick to realise the good that the BBC does.
Click to expand...

:lol::lol: It’s funny how you see yourself as so much more intelligent than the majority of the public.
 
General Zod said:
Are saying its worth every penny for you and a few others only or are you saying its worth every penny for everyone? If the latter & it really is great value for money then why not put it that to the test and make it a subscription service?
Click to expand...

Unless you live in a cave in the uk it's great value for anyone.
 

Back
Top