|
Do you agree with Michael Grade?:
"The BBC has to contract. It's just too big. It's almost unmanageable."
"Does it need all those digital channels, does it need all those radio stations, does it need to occupy all the territory that it does?".
Mr Grade, who has served as BBC chairman, BBC1 controller and boss of Channel 4, said both channels should compete for a share of the licence fee. He said: "That would sharpen up the BBC's value for money instincts and secure Channel 4 and would create a measure of competition in the public service broadcasting sector."
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20100829/tuk-grade-bbc-has-to-contract-dba1618.html
Edit: Or Does anyone agree with The BBC's Mark Thompson?:
The BBC had never been more popular, he insisted, despite the daily dose of opprobrium that is poured over the corporation in the press. "Sixty-two per cent of a sample of British adults who had watched TV abroad as well as in the UK said they thought television was better here. Only 8% took the opposite view," he said.
The world-beating reputation of British television was under threat, he claimed, because of under-investment in original UK content. Only the BBC could meet that need, in an era when commercial rivals such as ITV were struggling in the face of greater competition and dwindling advertising revenues.
BSkyB, he said, could fix that at a stroke, but chose not to. The Murdochs would rather attack the concept of public service broadcasting because they feared it would threaten their own business interests.
according to Thompson, it is BSkyB that is the problem. It is set to become the biggest force in television, with total subscription revenues of £4.8bn, yet it fails to invest enough cash in its home market at a time when it is cash-rich but other players funded wholly by advertising – namely ITV and Channel 4 – are struggling to make ends meet.
Thompson even came up with a way to rectify this problem: make Sky pay ITV, Channel 4 and Channel Five tens of millions pounds a year for the right to carry those channels on the Sky platform.
The terrestrial channels would then spend that money on original content, plugging a £300m investment gap Thompson argued has opened up since 2006, as advertising revenues have collapsed.
"It is not Armageddon, but … it would be tragic if we just stood around
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/27/mark-thompson-bbc-mactaggart-edinburgh
|
|
I personally would scrap the licence fee. I just think the quality of programming has diminished and hardly ever watch TV.
As a subscriber to Sky I feel that I am paying twice for the priviledge to watch the box as I can't watch sky without a TV licence. I would be happy if you didn't pay the licence fee that all BBC was blocked from my TV then anyone who wishes to watch can pay to view
|
|
They need to pull their horns in over salaries/travel etc and then maybe we could rely on Auntie Beeb again for decent entertainment. Used to be one was reluctant to go out on a Saturday because viewing was so good - that was the old days!!
|
|
Doesn't the licence fee also cover the various radio stations? If it were scrapped, we would end up with all TV channels showing/being funded by adverts, as well as ads on the radio stations.
BBC news reporting is trusted worldwide. It would be a shame if that was cut drastically, although the numbers of staff going to international events could surely be reduced/amalgamated with other BBC branches. Eg for international sporting events, you have the sports commentators and supporting crew, as well as human interest reporters, possibly with a different crew!
|
|
I've added a different opinion from the BBC.
Personally I love the BBC. I watch very little television but what I do watch tends to BBC "home grown" programmes.
I also think iplayer and the BBC news channels are fantastic.
|
|
For those interested:
This is Stephen Fry's thoughts on the future of the BBC from 2008.
http://www.stephenfry.com/2008/06/18/the-bbc-and-the-future-of-broadcasting/
|
|
Here we go with my thoughts:
The BBC does many wonderful things. Some of the best dramas, a news channel which is truly world class, and - for example - the Today programme, which is the best news and current affairs forum there is.
But we live in a rapidly changing world. For example, the BBC needs to give up the battle on sport. Sky does it better, and people are clearly prepared to pay for live sport. Me included.
I suggest that the BBC shrinks back to what it's best at, and that it remains totally funded by the licence fee. It should concentrate on quality broadcasting - which the commercial world will never pay for
Sue x
|
|
Just read Stephen Fry.
I'm a radio 4 addict. I would hate for that to disappear, or for wonderful plays/stories to be interrupted by adverts.
Many of our best TV programmes were launched on Radio 4.
Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, Ab Fab, Goodness Gracious me, to name but a few.
However, there hasn't been anything so worthy lately.
The BBC should stop paying TV presenters/interviewers outrageous sums (eg Jonathan Ross) and try to find some decent writers and producers.
Unfortunately, the death of Geoffrey Perkins, has left a huge gap in the quality and inventiveness of the BBC.
Wikipedia entry for Geoffrey:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Perkins
|
|
I can't comment on what the BBC is like today, having left the UK over 40 years ago.
I can say that we watch BBC Overseas News, and feel that it provides a very even handed reporting of news from all over the world ...... much better than any of the vaunted US stations, even CNN which has the least biased (or slanted) reporting of any of the US ones.
sylvia
|
