http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8541748.stm

Bradshaw's long been a Yes man and it's no coincidence Sky News got the story - Murdoch now has two bitches in Labour and the Tories

There's no doubt the licence fee needs to be looked at for all sorts of reasons, but I'd sooner it was done by a cross-panel of MPs at the very least, rather than some individual stooge from either of the two main parties

Better yet, let the Lords take a look at it, at least more of them seem capable of independent thought...

I get quite wound up by the BBC, being forced to pay for Chris Moyles, biased news, Strictly Come Dancing, Eastenders, the Breakfast Show, the self-promotion etc so I can get a TV. Then I look at the output of News International and realise it isn't so bad after all.

I agree with everything there bar the biased news and the Breakfast show - the only bias I've ever thought I saw, was from Jeremy Bowen when discussing Israel and the Middle East in general, but then he's an arse anyway.

I think the Breakfast show's quite good, especially compared to GMTV, and it's got some top MILFs

The breakfast show is dreadful, I don't see why they can't just use BBC news 24 for some proper news and leave the human interest stuff to BBC1.

As for the bias, the BBC tends to be rather liberal and oddly very pro-monarchy. Examples of bias include the reporter breaking down on camera at the death of Arafat, the pro-Obama election support in the US presidential elections, or recently headlining their news with the GDP "increase" in the past couple of days which was actually caused by the months before being worse than the initial estimates.

I'm guessing that there is a possibility the Murdoch clan might just be republican supporters so I'm not terribly surprised that the BBC looks more pro-monarchy compared to New International output.
Alternatively being pro-monarchy is the price the BBC pays in order to have a decent level of access to the Royals in the first place.

GMTV might be crap competition, but it's about the only real competition, and BBC News 24 is like the back of a hearse sometimes... Anyway, dunno about during the week, but even News 24 gets pepped up at the weekends with human interest stuff



I've never seen the BBC as liberal, just impartial for the most part

Even with something like the US elections I thought they were pretty good, comparatively.

Taking the upcoming UK election for example, it almost looks like the Tories are the only party on the planet, but that's because they keep coming out with headline-grabbers, which is what the BBC and others are gonna report on

This bit applies to all media outlets however - I agree with Charlie Brooker that the media is far too interested in 'narrative' rather than simply reporting...

I find the BBC very balanced. Their coverage of elections is excellent. During the last election I was at the local constituency election HQ and it was the BBC all night. We did switch over to see the odd result on ITV. Overall the BBC excel at election coverage and royal events. I do not watch Breakfast TV that often but again BBC trumps anything by ITV or Sky News.

While its funding might be an issue the role of the BBC is not at stake. Unless the Tories decide that they can sell large chunks of it off. The BBC should not be growing to fill ever more roles, it should refund any surplus to the government and freeze the license fee.

Why? Before 1997 the BBC did not have an official web presence, personally I'm glad they expanded into this area. Similarly I'm glad the iPlayer was developed. Certainly I believe the BBC should be allowed to grow and expand into new areas.

I was thinking about the BBC today, and I have figured out that I am pretty much in favour of it.

• No adverts - when a programme that fits a 30 minute slot has to give up time in that slot for adverts, the 30 minutes rapidly becomes 20. An hour length programme is in reality around 40 minutes. With breaks and “recaps” after the break, you lose a lot. Viewer momentum being key here.

• In the case of Murdoch’s channels output, can you name any programmes which have the longevity and following that those output by the BBC have? Forget Battlestar Galactica for a moment - what about home grown TV? Does Sky have a Dr Who? And EastEnders? A Torchwood? Anything worth watching that isn’t American advert fodder?

I think not. I truly believe that the BBC NEEDS a license fee. If not, it will lose the remit to produce its own material. It will lose the necessity to be a TV channel for this country, and will fall back on cheap imports and low budget tat to fill the gaps. Right now, like it or not, the BBC gives the best output we have. There is a lot on the BBC that I don’t like, and I don’t watch, but there is a lot there which I do like and watch.

If you're going to talk about timeless BBC programming, how could you forget comedy gems such as One Foot in the Grave, Yes Minister, The Good Life, Keeping Up Appearances, The Vicar of Dibley etc etc.

I agree about the web presence. I use it a hell of a lot. Though why should the BBC get into holiday publishing? Things which are of social benefit yes.

I might only differ on how the BBC is funded. The License fee is a tax and a very regressive one. It is the same for everyone. I would rather see the government give the BBC the same net amount, and then reduce the personal tax allowances by say £100. That way the average person will only be £20 a year worse off rather than more. Businesses could pay the same license fee but per telly. At the moment a hotel with 200 rooms and 200 TVs pays the same amount as a granny on her on with one telly. hardly fair.

No - not true.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-y ... tes-aud13/

A hotel with 200 TVs will pay substantially more than someone with one TV. £5415 I make it.

I stand corrected. If so then the only change could be for individuals.

I agree - it should be changing to fill different roles, adopting new ones, re-invigorating old ones and getting rid of tired ones. It should concentrate on what makes it unique.

The BBC is supposed to be a public service broadcaster. It should not be being structured to compete with commercial broadcasters that need to compete for ratings.

For instance:

• The whole branding and on-screen decals are loud and terrible. Go away and try again
• BBC.co.uk really needs a revamp - there are too many images and the low graphics version is terrible
• Their servers are terribly slow
• BBC2 should be much more a documentary, educational and factual programming channel
• The history programmes are great - more please.
• The "reality" TV needs to disappear
• The celebrity items need to disappear
• The Home & Holiday porn need to go
• The sports coverage needs to improve - there are sports other than men's football and snooker
• BBC2 shouldn't be cordoned off every time something sporty happens - maybe a dedicated channel?
• More political programming please - especially during prime time
• Question Time needs to be longer and speakers need to be made to answer the question
• Most films shown should not be mainstream but rather fringe or foreign-language. Shorts should feature as well
• Shoot Andrew Marr
• A bit of theatre would be nice
• Stop showing soaps. No seriously, stop it. That's what ITV is for.
• Sack the expensive names - they only ever detract from the content.
• Hire some decent engineers. It's really galling that I (an electronics engineer) can't get a job when I see some of the atrocious mixing on the Beeb
• Auntie really needs to consider whether having big centres in the middle of big cities actually provides any benefit. There must be better, cheaper, more spacious buildings in the suburbs
• Their science and technology reporting is terrible. Either do it right or don't do it at all
• BBC HD is great - more please
• BBC Parliament is superb

There shouldn't ever be any surplus - any unspent money should be spent on buildings and equipment. God knows they have to drop their TV bandwidth often enough and the website could do with a speed boost