5punk

We've not had one for a while, so here goes.

Disband the BBC

The BBC lists trust as one of its core values: "Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest." Many people have questioned this over the years, citing numerous examples of alleged bias, be it political, racist or national. In doing so these opponents challenge whether the BBC is fulfilling its remit as set out in the Royal Charter by the BBC Trust (see this for more details.) Many arguments inevitably revolve around the license fee and whether we should be using public money to fund a corporation that is institutionally biased and little more than a propoganda tool of the government. The counter arguments point out the many benefits provided by the BBC, be they for the entertainment, culture and education of the UK or a valuable, highly respected international news resource. Keep it, kill it or privatise it. There are many differing opinions. What's yours?

The short answer, for me, is keep it. The principles behind the BBC are sound, and are what has made it one of the most respected media organisations in the world. The way the BBC is publicly funded means it doesn't have as much risk to its profits and so can go on more high-risk ventures than a commercial interest. Take Planet Earth for example, an astonishing set of documentaries that (I think) would never have been made by anyone else.

However, the way it handles reporting needs to be addressed. Once it was, at least on the surface, free to report what it wanted without pressure from owners to make profit or fit an agenda. Today, in a world where news services are more interested in a quick profit, no risk story, the BBC should be standing head and shoulders above them by continuing to uphold the principles of journalism that are ignored by almost every single other source. However, they seem to be doing the exact same thing. I've seen the BBC responsible for as much biased, inaccurate and editorialised reposrting as any newspaper or broadcaster. The only reason I can think of is that they are just as interested in profit as any other corporation, which considering we effectively pay a tax to them is, I think, very suspect. We pay them to provide a service, not make a profit.

Aside from the BBC addressing how it works, there is a problem with how the public perceive the relationship between them and the government. When Greg Dyke resigned after the Hutton enquiry it looked like the BBC were being heavily influenced by the government. Whether this was justified or not I don't know, having never read the report, but there needs to be enough transparency that the public can trust the BBC to have their interests and not that of the government, or else it just becomes a propaganda outlet.

As most of the TV I watch and enjoy is on the BBC I wouldn't want it to change. Apart from agreeing with what Dog Pants said about the news reporting, it's as shocking as all the other channels and needn't be.

I agree with Pants.

The BBC provides a great service and a non profit seeking organisation (although, it does make money iirc) it con and does provide programs that other channels would never produce.

It perhaps needs some managment trimming like the NHS and certainly needs it's newscasting sorting, but apart from that it's pretty excellent.

Considering how much you get for the licence fee (10 channels, 56 radio stations, IPlayer and no adverts), it's certainly value for money.

It's also a bastion of knowledge providing programs and it would be a sad sad day if it was turned into a boring commerical channel that has to put profit making and shareholders first.

.

Can't really add to this since all I get is BBC America, but I know a large majority of the good documentaries I watch were made by the BBC.

I like the BBC. I think it does a good job on the whole.

However, yes a lower licence fee per TV set may be fairer than a per property. Then again, i understand that there are more than just TVs now used to watch BBC content. Their (huge, lumbering) website and iplayer obviously open this out to many possibilities.

I think the method used to pay for the BBC must adapt. How, i dont know though.

In any case, i would prefer it if they scrapped half of the "reality" shit they do put on. We don't need 20 different versions of bargain hunt, cash in the attic, flog it, car booty, homes under the hammer, escape to the country, 60 minute makeover.. the list is endless, and all shit.

I know they need cheap daytime filler, but there has to be more originality out there than this?

I can't be bothered to enter into my usual monologue on this matter, but the short answer is: keep it, forever.

Unless the BBC improves radically, then it must be put down like a lame race horse or an elderly relative.

Remember, the BBC isn't just about the news - but let's address that first.

The Beeb has gone from being at the forefront of fair and balanced reporting (sorry Fox News, not even close), to churning out some thoroughly amateurish journalism. The vast majority of this is down to relying solely on the Associated Press for stories, rather than doing their own work. Funny thing is, BBC news on the internet is thoroughly different to BBC news on the TV and radio.

The BBC website is great. Other than the occasional spelling mistake and Have Your Say, it's generally top notch. TV and radio news, however, made me shudder - and I believe it is down to one thing:

"Personalities"

For some reason, the news presenters on the BBC seem to have come to the conclusion that not only are they important, but they are also somewhat akin to "celebrities". The very worst of the bunch for that was Natasha Kaplinksy - I have so much loathing for that woman I sometimes need to sub-contract it out.

The BBC should report neutrally no matter what the news story - even when the news is about the BBC itself. I saw the BBC coverage after the Hutton inquiry and was sickened. Whether it was right or wrong, the BBC should just have reported the facts. Unfortunately cretins like Kaplinksy spewed their vapid mongoloid brains on to the airwaves, throwing their toys out of the pram and calling "whitewash" (I particularly remember NK shrugging like a teenager whilst look at the front page of various papers and huffing "er, whitewash!". Fuck off and die).

Next point, general programming. Jesus Fucking Christ is all I can say. How much shit do they put on the TV these days? Eastbenders, talents shows, cookery shows, cash in the sun etc. This is ITV quality, not the BBC. Not the BBC that brought us Monty Python, Fawlty Towers and countless other gems that I can't remember right now.

There was a time when British television was the shining light in the cesspit of American dominated bilge. My oh my how the tables have turned. The thing is, we can't even blame the Yanks for the dip in quality (as we do with everything else) - the reality show format was more or less invented here! I still can't believe the BBC has stooped to those levels.

Now, look at where the BBC spends its money. Again it comes right back to "personalities". The Beeb is obsessed with throwing money at "cool" people to front their shows i.e. Jonathon Ross, Graham Norton and Chris Moyles. Now, did any of you manage to read those 3 names without wanting to break something? And these are the people who are made millions of pounds, via the TV license, to propagate their obnoxious smuggery through the TV and Radio.

Summary: sort it or fucking die.

I don't watch much TV, but what I do watch is mostly on the BBC. Doctor Who, F1, Modern Masters, Ashes to Ashes and Match of the Day are all I've recorded this week, with Gadget Show, FlashForward and Great British Machines from five. I don't watch ITV or C4 at all - actually they're broken - my aerial is pointing the wrong way and they don't work on the Virgin box for some reason. It's been like it for about nine months and I haven't missed them in the slightest.

With 999 channels with fuck all on, I've become used to the fact that there isn't much I like and that what I do like is in stark contrast to that which the vox populi demands (ie: more singing competitions). So the BBC with its mix of drama, documentaries and high-profile sport is doing pretty well by me.

I watch news 24 if I want to see the news and since it's mostly just headlines there's not much time for personalities. I doubt I could name any of the presenters.

Equally I find other stuff to do when there's crap on, record a week or three's stuff I do like and watch it when I want. Do the iPlayer series catchup thing on the Virgin box. I'm unlikely to swtich on in the middle of the day, or on a Saturday evening, so I don't really care if it's Bargain Hunt or Over The Rainbow on constantly at those times.

I know that me avoiding or ignoring the shit isn't the same as the BBC not making it, but somebody must like it - quite a lot of somebodies.

I've just had a thought, Kill the beeb's ability to license shows, make them make stuff themselves again, Licensed shows (like heroes) can go on ITV.

Give the money they save to channel 4 to pay for more proper comedy.