Reform or Abolish the BBC

The BBC mostly use our licence money to pay their executives vastly inflated salaries, to pay celebrities & presenters absurd amounts and to pay for the right to cover dull sports, such as snooker. Further, current entertainment programming is largely dumbed down and inane, whilst the coverage of science, arts, history is minimal. At one time the open university used to show programs on BBC 2, but now we have 4 BBC channels this is no longer the case.

I'd to see a BBC that provides high quality documentaries, drama and educational programs (why don't they have permanent science, art, history channels), but I don't see the point in having to pay a licence fee for dumbed down entertainment - you can get that on the other channels. I would suggest that the BBC should be reformed or else abolished.

I think the bbc is great. Have you seen the latest series of dr who. Excellent stuff. And you don't have to watch adverts which is a big plus.

QB

Don't abolish the BBC. Abolish the licence fee and let the BBC sink or swim.

N
Strongly disagree with you on this one. The license fee is the one tax I'm more than happy to pay, for the radio service alone. The news channels, I-player and internet service are a wonderful bonus. The only thing that lets them down is the need to compete for viewing figures with the mass of dumbed down TV programming but I don't blame them for that, that's society's fault ( ie all of us) for demanding drivel to distract us from the vagaries of life.

I agree too, and I also find a lot of the BBC's programming to be excellent. Top Gear is worth it alone.

MJ & Rab

OK, all those who think the BBC is value for money pay the licence fee. The rest, don't pay the licence fee and have the BBC removed from your choice of options.
Top Gear? You must be joking.

Rubbish, it costs about £3 a week for an endless stream of entertainment and education and stops our screens being filled with Fox News and X Factor.

The main objection I have of the BBC is that its news service acts as a mouthpiece for the left. That alone justifies the removal of the licence fee. The BBC has been acting as the fourth political party in Britain since the early eighties; I would love to see biased BBC reporters face prosecution for their grotesque behaviour, which has been, essentially, to subvert the democratic process in this country.

All it would take would be a Media Act passed by parliament, acting retrospectively, requiring public sector journalists to be neutral in their reporting - or else.

Someone has already said we ought to have had an 'evils of socialism' thread, but is the BBC socialist? Because it is publicly funded, it can decide what would be good for us in terms of viewing, and I've always liked that. It's like having a babysitter on tap, a paternalist and godlike figure available in the corner of your room. And it does balance the drivel you get on the other channels.

i think the bbc is absolutely brilliant,
i would gladly sell my house and all its contents for the licence fee.
the transmission test card is worth the price alone.

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Well - I do think the BBC should be reformed rather than abolished. They have a huge budget of over £3 billion; just to put that in perspective that should allow them to make a £10 million movie for every day of the year, but instead we mostly get mindless drivel and boring sports programs (get sky if you want sport) and personally I would put both top gear and Dr Who into that category. It's true that occasionally they do produce some good documentaries and they have made some good, even inspired drama series over the years (Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy!). I also think the BBC should take a much more major role in public education and should direct more of their enormous budget into making sicence, arts and history programs and should establish a realtionship with the open university and other such organisations. The ratings war with ITV is completely irrelevant and they should just fire all the high paid celebrities they use to further that.

I agree with you QG that we should definately have more education and science programmes. But lest we forget that Horizon was and still is perhaps the best science programme avaliable on terestial TV, and I'm a big fan.

However, I think the BBC in its current format is pretty decent, much better than most of the other channels, and better programmes, apart from C4 News which I think trumpe BBC news in every way. The BBC sports coverage of the Rugby for example is great, as is there coverage of major tornaments such as the World Cup (You may not like sports but many millions do so get over it I guess), and (personally for me) the Super bowl, which is always hilarious.

Yes Horizon is good, but occasional. I'm not averse to sport, but it's entertainment that appeals only to particular segments of the population and I don't see it as something we should be forced to pay for if we don't want it and it's covered just as well by optional services that you can pay for if you so choose. Having the BBC pay for sports coverage doesn't benefit sport as a whole, but just results in tax payers artificially inflating the salaries of the top clubs and their management. If the BBC had a sports channel that was an *optional* part of the licence fee, then they could compete with Sky and drive down the price for sports coverage and further one wouldn't be forced to watch endless snooker and darts on BBC2, which then could be used for what it was originally intended - more in depth and experimental programming.

No-one is forced to watch snooker and darts on the BBC. There's plenty I watch on it, and plenty I don't. It evens itself out.

Can Biasedbeeb offer any examples of a newspaper or broadcaster he/she regards as "neutral"? That would help the rest of us quite a lot.
.

queen's gambit,
i have to say i agree with you..however I dont think the bbc needs to be abolished.
that wont happen because too many people depend on it for their living.
But I agree that we should get more value in return for our money.
I mean with the license fee i dont think the bbc are short of money especially when they can afford to pay people huge salaries.
on christmas day i watched some vintage bbc continuity clips from the late 60s on youtube and i must say i really enjoyed them.
i am aware that alot of stuff was wiped to save money back in the day but what remains i think should be shown along with good quality stuff to justify the amount of money they take from us.
the bbc cause us alot of stress when we dont conform to their rules by paying the fee but when we pay and are not satisfied with what they give us it seems as if they don't really care.
i only recently started watching tv from christmas day after a six month break from all tv and so far the only thing i have enjoyed was the 3 part bbc production of upstairs downstairs although i think the acting was not convincing enough
particularly the mosley riots scenes.

again I agree with you queen's gambit
i can't express enough of how sick i am of top gear.
i know some people enjoy like my ex pam but i dont and never will even if they changed the presenters.
and 3 billion £ budget?
jeez that is plenty of money!

Thanks Man - nice to know some one does :).

To put it into perspective one might ask: "If the BBC didn't exist and you wished to make a case to the government and public for such a service, would you present the kind of programming and policies that they have now in return for a budget of over £3BN". I think not.

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Some people have no taste. Honestly how can anyone hate top gear and doctor who. Besides if you don't like it you don't have to watch it a huge number of people love both of those programs so I would say the bbc has a perfect justification for broadcasting them. I can't stand strictly come dancing but I would never say that the bbc shouldn't broadcast it, lots of other people do like it, what right do I have to say that the bbc should only broadcast things i enjoy. The bbc caters to a wide audience and there will inevitably be some programmes you don't like, the point is that other people like them. Just because you don't like them is not justification for depriving the people who do like it of something they enjoy.

You miss the point which is that we are forced to pay for the BBC by law. That gives it a special responsibility. What is the point of forcing everyone in the country to pay for entertainment and sport that they may or may not want. Any justification of the BBC shouldn't be in the form of "I like Dr Who so ya boo sucks to you if you don't", but some particular reason why the BBC should be singled out as a special organisation; and! are Doctor Who and Top Gear (if you like them) the only decent things one could do with a budget of £3BN? Can't you dream of something more?

P.S. Do you really imagine that people who like DR Who don't know that they don't have to watch it? Well they do know that, but they also know that they do have to pay for it.

The point being made is that the BBC produces a lot more than just Doctor Who and Top Gear. There are a lot of Classical Music programs, documentaries, and relgious programs that I have no interest in, but do I care that they broadcast them? Not a jot.

The BBC produces some quality programmes, mostly shown on BBC4. BBC3 is a waste of time imo, "dumbed down tv", there are plenty of channels that cater for whatever the age group BBC3 is catering for. Before digital, most of the documentaries and arts and culture programmes were shown on BBC2. BBC1 was the main entertainment channel. Now these quality and educational programmes are in the main, overlooked, by younger people, who don't then develop an interest in these important subjects. And if The Tudors is an example of their output of historical drama, dumbed down for the masses, god help us!

I became interested in many of the subjects you say you have no interest in when I was a teenager, (I did not go to University), so imo the BBC are not fulfilling their remit. People generally need to improve their minds, you never know if you tried to watch some of these programmes you say you are not interested in, you might actually find some of them of interest to you, Those who don't have the opportunity of going to University, gain by broadening their horizons and knowledge of the world.

Top Gear, Dr Who, Strictly etc. etc. do not, imo, belong on the BBC. I am forced to pay for these programmes, and if I don't pay I may go to Prison. Many of these type of programmes belong on subscription or freeview channels, perhaps, without the cost of them, who knows, the license fee might come down in cost?

Yes - it's a bit of an indictment not only of the BBC, but our educational system, that for many people the only things worth watching are Dr. Who and Top Gear...