http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-10815162

Interested to know what people think of that.

Personally, I reckon the BBC would nosedive even further (Stictly Phone In, anything with Graham Norton etc) cos what they're talking about would make it more 'commercial' almost by default...

Bad idea if you ask me.

Is the money being well spent though? Jonathon Ross and his £6 million springs to mind.

I only watch a couple of shows on the beeb and never listen to BBC radio so if it did go public it wouldn't really affect my viewing.

I only care about one programme enough for this to bother me. That's not enough.
The sooner the better if you ask me.

Mark

I'm not in favour of the tax (or 'fee' as the insist on calling it.)
I've been proposing a system which is on a sliding scale for ages - the more TV you watch, the more you pay. Education and news items are free. Surely not a hard thing to achieve in this modern era of digital wizardry.
The BBC has long been a cumbersome, over bureaucratised designed to line the pockets of a few folk near the top, produce pamphlets teaching staff how to make tea and use a revolving door and produce 'Under The Hammer', 'Bargain Hunt' and 'Doctors'.
It also already has a nice line in merchandise and non-broadcast generated revenue as it is, so it's hardly the purest example of non-partisan state-sponsored media broadcast in the world any more.

Totally against it

Yes the BBC has increased its content re "reality shows etc" but it still forces the other broadcasters to at least try and raise thier game.

If anyone has been in the UISA for some time they will know what utter dross thier TV is and thanks to the BBC we at least get some good programs (Sherlock for e.g.)

Also I do listen to the radio, mainly Radio 4, that that is worth the licence fee almost on its own

Most of the TV series I've bothered with in the last few years have been US-generated - Firefly (</jonbwfc's law>), BattleStar Galactica, Fringe, Dollhouse, True Blood, Seth McFarlane's output, V, Caprica.
For the UK, there's been... uhm... Top Gear. Even that I've been catching up with online as I've been busy most sundays.
Even my guilty secret, Neighbours, is an import.

Is this BBC TV specifically, or just TV in general?

Mark

Doctor Who.
As I said above, that's not enough.
Commercial TV is just as well equipped to produce good shows as the BBC is.

Mark

I think it's fair that only applies to those channels who receive funding from the Licence fee.

Oh, I've thought of another couple of UK series I've enjoyed - The IT Crowd and The Inbetweeners, from Channel 4 (who also receive funding).

Good idea, but surely it will discriminate against people on a pension or benefits.

I remember my grandmother's TV, had a 50p meter box on the back, perfect.

Although Ross's salary was excessive, I think it's a bit of a red herring. £6m a year is 0.3% of the BBC's total budget, so it's not like anything else major would have got missed to fund Woss and his celebrity tat.

The fundamental question is this : Do we want a broadcaster in the UK that is not defined by commercial concerns? That makes programs which, to put it bluntly, not all that many people are going to like but still may be 'worth having' for more aesthetic reasons? If the answer is 'no' then the BBC shouldn't be there, we should leave the TV world to those who cater for popular entertainment. if the answer is 'yes' then we have to find a way to fund such an organisation and the license fee is as good a way as any - at least it's obvious how much you are playing, as oppose to just funding it out of the big pot of general taxation.

My opinion is as follows - We as a society fund all sort of things that aren't what you would call purely populist such as art galleries, museums, non-vocational education etc. and that I (or you) personally don't have a use for simply because we believe that's something a civilised society should do. I believe that also applies to having a well funded public service broadcaster and I don't see how that's changed recently. I think we need some part of the various media that is not dominated by one interest (*cough*news International*cough*) and not required to work under direct commercial influence.

The only other observation I'd make is this; 'Right-wing think tank claims something shoud be privatised ' shocker. And hasn't privatisation of public resources proved so successful in the past?

Jon

As a brief aside, wasn't Ross's aleged salary the fee the BBC paid to his production company (Baby Cow?) to produce the Jonathan Ross show (not sure about Film <insert year>). In which case it's not nearly as extravagant as it would appear.

Other than that I think jonbwfc is pretty much spot on.

I personally don't object to the licence fee. It's a unique way to fund an organisation that riases the bar for 'the media' pretty much around the world.

As for stuff I've watched and ejoyed:

Doctor Who
Wonders of the Solar System
Sherlock
Pretty much anything with David Attenborough
Mitchell & Webb

Is it? Really? The BBC has to work harder to fill a time slot because there are no adverts to take time from a programme. A one hour programme on a commercial channel occupies around 40-45 minutes. A one hour programme on the BBC occupies just under 60 minutes. Commercial TV has to build in mini cliff hangers, recaps (establishing shots, repeated dialogue, etc.) for the idiots who got distracted by the adverts.

Even the above list is not immune to such tactics, and for every Battlestar Galactica, we have a hundred episodes of the Simpsons, Police Chace Death, lard arses who can’t get into the wedding dresses the bought, etc..

Commercial TV is saturated far too much for it to be of any benefit. No wonder they are bleating that the BBC is stealing their advertising revenue - they just can’t be bothered to admit that, in fact, their output is so dross, people just won’t watch it.

Yes, it is.I don't get your point here. The commercial stations still have the ability to make shows that fill the required time, just like the BBC.
Unless you're saying that the current commercial stations aren't capable of that?No, it doesn't. The fact it does do is neither here nor there (and more a reflection of how the channels view their audiences) but commercial TV does not have to do this, it simply chooses to.

Mark