Are You Happy With The Way The BBC Spends Yiour Licence Fee?

[Jdsk]

I'm not "worried". You asked a question and I answered it.

Jonathan

[pwa]

I'm not "worried". You asked a question and I answered it.

Jonathan

You did. I think LK seems a bit to the right of you happen to be a bit to the left, or a bit to the left if you happen to be a bit to the right. I've seen her criticised from both sides. Her job is to probe all the main parties and see what comes from it, and I think she tends to get it about right, most of the time. She isn't like the lot from GB news who just seem to have an agenda they want to bolster.

[Mike Sales]

It's hardly expensive. Provides arguably the best TV channels and news service, excellent national radio stations, a myriad of local radio stations and the well respected World Service in many different languages. Yes I'm happy with what it does, all for less than two quid a week.

Hear hear.
I would be lost without Radio 4, and there quite a few TV shows I enjoy. Though much of their output is not to my taste, I understand the BBC has to cater for all.
It is one of those great British institutions which has come about through compromise and idealism.
Is there any broadcaster elsewhere like it?

[pwa]

If we didn't have the BBC, the other TV and radio outlets would not have to aim so high. And if you don't believe that, look at the dross that other developed countries have to put up with. Nothing is perfect and the BBC certainly isn't, but it is head and shoulders over any other content provider for news and current affairs, and up there with the best for history and other documentary stuff. I think we would miss it if it went.

And I worry that folk are increasingly getting their information from less reliable sources. The recent riots in Southport and elsewhere were allegedly sparked by false "news" from God knows where.

[PH]

You did. I think LK seems a bit to the right of you happen to be a bit to the left, or a bit to the left if you happen to be a bit to the right. I've seen her criticised from both sides.

You can't equate complaints from the right as balance when the ratio is about 50:1.
Did you hear her monologue at the end of the program before a Tory budget?* I'll see if I can find it for you if not, it was quite incredible, making excuses for what was to come, even before the chancellor had. Have you seen any discussion on the UK's economy where Brexit isn't ignored? I know some don't think Brexit had any economic effect, but they're all on the right and the vast majority of economists disagree with them.

* I think it was the last one but I'm not sure

[Nearholmer]

In an answer to the question posed: mostly, yes.

[TrevA]

I don’t think Lineker is worth what he is paid to present Match of the Day - well over a million a year, Shearer too. They are not that good. I would prefer to see someone who is a football fan presenting, someone like Colin Murray or Mark Chapman, who have both presented MOTD2. I know that other broadcasters such a Sky can pay a lot of money, so let Lineker and Co go to Sky or TNT Sports, and save a bit of money on sports presenters.

I like listening to News and Current Affairs on Radio 4 - particularly Today, The World at One and PM are excellent programmes and I’m happy to pay the licence fee to listen to them, even though it’s not necessary.

[tim-b]

No.

They make programmes that are very saleable to other networks; a plus

The minuses:
Standards of TV "news" investigative reporting are minimal. Hours of pointless speculation while standing in front of a length of crime scene tape, including "adding" Rwanda to the mix in Southport.
An occasional update on the largest land battle in Europe since WW2 would be helpful, the US elections, African nations struggling to repay loans, etc.

End-to-end sport through the summer at huge cost: Euros, Wimbledon, Olympics, Paralympics, etc. None in my household watch any of it

Sending a UK "name" to report on some far-off disaster... use local reporters, comms technology and fill your seat/baggage allowance with aid

Paying people an obscene amount of money to read the news and present sport (see above)

Internal "investigations" of "stars" that are shown to be ineffective, e.g. Savile, Harris, Edwards, etc.

[simonineaston]

The modern way is to gripe and grizzle about everything the BBC does. And while I disagree with the bulk of the mainly witless and simple minded criticisms, the idea of paying any individual hundreds of thousands of pounds every year to read off a teleprompter or to make vacuous remarks about the sight of twenty mostly poorly educated youngsters scamper about a field after a pig’s bladder seems preposterous to me!
On the other hand, my right to enjoy r3 all day as well as endless re-runs of comedy classics like Dad’s Army, Hancock's Half Hour, The Goons ect FOR FREE seems like rather good value!

[reohn2]

all for less than two quid a week.

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ2 ... concession.

Just shows the last time I looked at it. All for less than 4 quid a week - still a bargain.

And me,and yes still a bargain!

[simonineaston]

ps anyone really interested in the history of the corporation and the way it has changed might like these...
https://fivebooks.com/best-books/bbc-simon-j-potter/

[Tangled Metal]

If you are not happy with the BBC what would you replace it with and is there anything like that around now to see if it could be better? Say like commercial channels or pay monthly ones? Over the past few years we have subscribed to most of the streaming services to try them out and TBH they are not anywhere as near to BBC in quality over all the thing the BBC does. In fact not one channel or streaming service offers all of what the BBC offers. Not one!

Perhaps it is the reason why the BBC gets so much criticism. We hold the BBC to a level that we don't for the alternatives. I think that is a bit unfair really. It is like the BBC is so good that we have to have it better or we get all snarky about every little decision made by the higher ups or x,y or Z presenter.

It is good value and is very much soft power and influence for the UK around the world.

[Psamathe]

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ2 ... concession.

Just shows the last time I looked at it. All for less than 4 quid a week - still a bargain.

And me,and yes still a bargain!

Maybe it's a bargain because lots of people who don't want to watch it are still forced to subscribe/pay for it in effect subsidising your viewing.

If you were forced to pay for Sky (despite your not watching it) so my Sky subscription was lower would you find this acceptable?

Ian

[Psamathe]

If you are not happy with the BBC what would you replace it with and is there anything like that around now to see if it could be better? ...

some form of optional subscription - you watch you pay, you don't watch you don't pay. Sounds fairer to me.

...
It is good value and is very much soft power and influence for the UK around the world.

By good value you mean low price. But the price is low in part because people who don't watch are forced to pay anyway thereby subsidising your subscription.

Ian

[ed.lazda]

Out of curiosity, do you know whether VOA gets the same level of respect?

No, sorry, I've never thought to ask.