The BBC - a continued failure

[Iain]

I'm happy to discuss politics with anyone. I am a member of a political party and have spent much of the last couple of weekends campaigning locally. I've enjoyed healthy debate with members of different parties and shared conversations and experiences with members of my own party.

I love talking politics. I developed my passion for it early in life and enhanced it by taking A Level Politics and taking part of my degree in Politics. It's something that I enjoy and something that I'm reasonably well read in.

But not here :censored:. Here I talk about rugby with a Tigers bias. Keep politics off here.

[JackFlashJonny]

I'm happy to discuss politics with anyone. I am a member of a political party and have spent much of the last couple of weekends campaigning locally. I've enjoyed healthy debate with members of different parties and shared conversations and experiences with members of my own party.

I love talking politics. I developed my passion for it early in life and enhanced it by taking A Level Politics and taking part of my degree in Politics. It's something that I enjoy and something that I'm reasonably well read in.

But not here . Here I talk about rugby with a Tigers bias. Keep politics off here.

This explains a lot

I agree though there is enough politics elsewhere we don't need it here

[Latecomer]

I tried to check the score in the Top 14 final last night on the BBC website at about 8pm i.e. midway through the first half, but it just showed a kick off time of 7-45pm. BBC less than useless.

[Old Hob]

Why would/should the BBC give publicity to a sport that can only be watched on rival commercial channels? You don't find Sky publicising BBC programmes.

Rubbish comparison. You don't find Sky even giving a mention to anything that it does not broadcast itself. Rugby Tonight on BT Sport gives short updates on the Pro12 and Top14, neither of which it broadcasts.

Also, the BBC is completely different to any other UK broadcaster. It's remit is to be a general broadcaster, not a narrow one as per many satellite channels.

Rather than a "rubbish comparison" you seem to have reinforced my point. All broadcasters do little to publicise sports thay do not show and the BBC is always under pressure from its haters to be more commercial so that they can then say the licence is unnecessary (and attack it for being too commercial).

[chris111]

Rather than a "rubbish comparison" you seem to have reinforced my point. All broadcasters do little to publicise sports thay do not show and the BBC is always under pressure from its haters to be more commercial so that they can then say the licence is unnecessary (and attack it for being too commercial).

You'll never win an argument about the BBC with the Daily Mail brigade.....they have a visceral hatred of public service broadcasting and are incapable of rising above their "world gone to hell in a PC handcart" mindset. Yes, RU coverage on the BBC is rubbish, and you can say the same for all sport except for that protected 'Crown Jewels' such as the Olympics - but you can bet that the Beeb-bashers would be frothing at the mouth again about the waste of public money if they did try to compete with the commercial broadcasters.

I'll never pass up an opportunity to defend the BBC, however....at least not until I see Rupert Murdoch put his hands in his pocket to broadcast the likes of Radio 4, World Service, Springwatch - oh yes, and the fabulous concert from Manchester last night!

[Cagey Tiger]

Why would/should the BBC give publicity to a sport that can only be watched on rival commercial channels? You don't find Sky publicising BBC programmes.

Rubbish comparison. You don't find Sky even giving a mention to anything that it does not broadcast itself. Rugby Tonight on BT Sport gives short updates on the Pro12 and Top14, neither of which it broadcasts.

Also, the BBC is completely different to any other UK broadcaster. It's remit is to be a general broadcaster, not a narrow one as per many satellite channels.

Rather than a "rubbish comparison" you seem to have reinforced my point. All broadcasters do little to publicise sports thay do not show and the BBC is always under pressure from its haters to be more commercial so that they can then say the licence is unnecessary (and attack it for being too commercial).

Reinforced your point?

Firstly, I gave an example where a commercial channel gives updates on completions it doesn't broadcast.

Secondly, you seem not to have read my second paragraph.

[mol2]

Oh yes the World Service.
Just what the average UK licence player is paying for!
It can give its output free to the rest of the world but the UK is expected to pay! Those who chose not to are subject to criminal prosecution.

Not a Daily Mail reader and no political agenda - I just don't see then the BBC does enough to distinguish itself in terms of public service broadcasting from the other major channels to justify it's being funded by compulsion.

Encrypt it and charge. I might pay. However I don't think the law should come down on those who don't wish to watch it's output and quite reasonably are less than keen to pay a fee to the BBC when they don't watch it.

[chris111]

Oh yes the World Service.
Just what the average UK licence player is paying for!
It can give its output free to the rest of the world but the UK is expected to pay! Those who chose not to are subject to criminal prosecution.

Not a Daily Mail reader and no political agenda - I just don't see then the BBC does enough to distinguish itself in terms of public service broadcasting from the other major channels to justify it's being funded by compulsion.

Encrypt it and charge. I might pay. However I don't think the law should come down on those who don't wish to watch it's output and quite reasonably are less than keen to pay a fee to the BBC when they don't watch it.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here...but I'll have my final say in this debate first!

1. I think the BBC is a fantastic service, and whilst many UK citizens do not see it this way, try asking ex-pats living here what they think of it compared to broadcasting in their home countries.

2. Like you, I'd pay for the BBC if it were a subscription-only service - but that's not my point. Removing public funding would destroy the BBC - it's the very fact that it is funded through a taxation model (albeit a hypotheticated one) that allows it to operate in the distinctive way it does. I know you think it isn't distinctive enough, and I'd probably agree with you to an extent. I think that it could drop some of the more generic populist entertainment that just replicates commercial outputs elsewhere (but then again this would no doubt attract even more accusations of cultural elitism from those who will never be satisfied).

3. I will go to the barricades to defend the World Service*. This has long been accepted as the 'additional arm' of our diplomatic corps - there is universal agreement from governments across the political spectrum that it delivers an enormous 'soft power' benefit for a miniscule sum of money.
*I confess to a personal affection based on my past life as a truck driver when I spent many a long night learning about the world through the BBCWS...having left school with little in the way of qualifications, these learning experiences took me on a very different journey in life - that's just one tiny example of why the BBC is special. Much more important is to remember that all over the world the BBC is respected as the epitome of gravitas and impartiality in broadcasting; this is why it should not - cannot - be judged by the standards of other broadcasters.

[Cagey Tiger]

Oh yes the World Service.
Just what the average UK licence player is paying for!
It can give its output free to the rest of the world but the UK is expected to pay! Those who chose not to are subject to criminal prosecution.

Not a Daily Mail reader and no political agenda - I just don't see then the BBC does enough to distinguish itself in terms of public service broadcasting from the other major channels to justify it's being funded by compulsion.

Encrypt it and charge. I might pay. However I don't think the law should come down on those who don't wish to watch it's output and quite reasonably are less than keen to pay a fee to the BBC when they don't watch it.

Taking your last paragraph a step further, I rarely, if ever, watch ITV, but I and everyone generally pay for it (indirectly). ITV is part funded by advertising, the marketing budget for said advertising is effectively paid for by consumers of the products advertised. As I don't watch ITV or the adverts, why should I have to pay higher prices for the goods that I buy because of the cost of the adverts on ITV? Just an observation.

[G.K]

Oh yes the World Service.
Just what the average UK licence player is paying for!
It can give its output free to the rest of the world but the UK is expected to pay! Those who chose not to are subject to criminal prosecution.

Not a Daily Mail reader and no political agenda - I just don't see then the BBC does enough to distinguish itself in terms of public service broadcasting from the other major channels to justify it's being funded by compulsion.

Encrypt it and charge. I might pay. However I don't think the law should come down on those who don't wish to watch it's output and quite reasonably are less than keen to pay a fee to the BBC when they don't watch it.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here...but I'll have my final say in this debate first!

1. I think the BBC is a fantastic service, and whilst many UK citizens do not see it this way, try asking ex-pats living here what they think of it compared to broadcasting in their home countries.

2. Like you, I'd pay for the BBC if it were a subscription-only service - but that's not my point. Removing public funding would destroy the BBC - it's the very fact that it is funded through a taxation model (albeit a hypotheticated one) that allows it to operate in the distinctive way it does. I know you think it isn't distinctive enough, and I'd probably agree with you to an extent. I think that it could drop some of the more generic populist entertainment that just replicates commercial outputs elsewhere (but then again this would no doubt attract even more accusations of cultural elitism from those who will never be satisfied).

3. I will go to the barricades to defend the World Service*. This has long been accepted as the 'additional arm' of our diplomatic corps - there is universal agreement from governments across the political spectrum that it delivers an enormous 'soft power' benefit for a miniscule sum of money.
*I confess to a personal affection based on my past life as a truck driver when I spent many a long night learning about the world through the BBCWS...having left school with little in the way of qualifications, these learning experiences took me on a very different journey in life - that's just one tiny example of why the BBC is special. Much more important is to remember that all over the world the BBC is respected as the epitome of gravitas and impartiality in broadcasting; this is why it should not - cannot - be judged by the standards of other broadcasters.

I was an expat for many years but am now back in the land of the long grey cloud, unfortunately.

Anyway when abroard I almost never watched the BBC since, apart from the Six Nations, Wimbledon and The Open, watching TV in French or Dutch was far preferable to the sanctimious, patronising, left wing propaganda (quite subtle actually) dribble that emanates from the BBC. No surprise only the lefties watch it.

Oh and before you start - I don't read the Mail, nor do I watch ITV nor Sky (apart from Rugby, Cricket, Tennis and Golf) but at least I can chose whether I pay and without having the TV Gestap knocking at my door!

[Roly]

watching TV in French or Dutch was far preferable to the sanctimious, patronising, left wing propaganda (quite subtle actually) dribble that emanates from the BBC. No surprise only the lefties watch it.

If you actually believe that, I suppose we ought to feel sorry for you.

[Iain]

The whole point of the BBC is that it provides things that are of niche interest or national interest regardless of whether they would be commercially profitable.

For instance:

Most of us wouldn't choose to watch BBC Parliament out of choice. But it's important that it's there so that we have the ability to scrutinise politicians and so nothing they say in Parliament is hidden.

I can't stand Songs of Praise. But it's important that there is religious programming for Christians to enjoy.

I'm not a sailor, nor do I enjoy many maritime pastimes. But it's pretty useful that Radio 4 do the shipping forecast for those that do.

Not many of us speak celtic languages. But it's good that BBC provide programming for those that do.

I'm no farmer or horticultarlist, but programmes like Countryfile are pretty good for those that do.

The BBC does far more than show :censored: sitcom like Mrs Brown's Boys or Miranda. These are important for attracting viewers (incredibly, many enjoy them).
None of the above programmes would be commercially successful, thus none of them would exist. THAT'S why you pay your licence fee.

And in all seriousness, if you can't find anything on the BBC that fits any of your interests across any of their media platforms you're either not looking hard enough or an incredibly dull person.

Bringing this back to sport, of course I'd like them to show more rugby. It's my favourite sport. They cover the Six Nations closely because they have the rights for it - it's considered of national interest to have it. Anything beyond that though comes at a price. They have to balance what people want them to show to licence payer value for money.

And as such, of course their sports news is going to prioritise sports and competitions they actually have the rights for. Added to that, domestic rugby is of limited interest. We like it, but very few beyond us.

[jgriffin]

watching TV in French or Dutch was far preferable to the sanctimious, patronising, left wing propaganda (quite subtle actually) dribble that emanates from the BBC. No surprise only the lefties watch it.

If you actually believe that, I suppose we ought to feel sorry for you.

I am incling to Iain's point of view on political opinion on here. There is a huge range, all with rugby as a common love. However i will point out that this is probably the first post of roly's I agree with

[Roly]

The whole point of the BBC is that it provides things that are of niche interest or national interest regardless of whether they would be commercially profitable.

For instance:

Most of us wouldn't choose to watch BBC Parliament out of choice. But it's important that it's there so that we have the ability to scrutinise politicians and so nothing they say in Parliament is hidden.

I can't stand Songs of Praise. But it's important that there is religious programming for Christians to enjoy.

I'm not a sailor, nor do I enjoy many maritime pastimes. But it's pretty useful that Radio 4 do the shipping forecast for those that do.

Not many of us speak celtic languages. But it's good that BBC provide programming for those that do.

I'm no farmer or horticultarlist, but programmes like Countryfile are pretty good for those that do.

The BBC does far more than show sitcom like Mrs Brown's Boys or Miranda. These are important for attracting viewers (incredibly, many enjoy them).
None of the above programmes would be commercially successful, thus none of them would exist. THAT'S why you pay your licence fee.

And in all seriousness, if you can't find anything on the BBC that fits any of your interests across any of their media platforms you're either not looking hard enough or an incredibly dull person.

Bringing this back to sport, of course I'd like them to show more rugby. It's my favourite sport. They cover the Six Nations closely because they have the rights for it - it's considered of national interest to have it. Anything beyond that though comes at a price. They have to balance what people want them to show to licence payer value for money.

And as such, of course their sports news is going to prioritise sports and competitions they actually have the rights for. Added to that, domestic rugby is of limited interest. We like it, but very few beyond us.

Countryfile is more than just a niche TV journal for farmers these days. It is more of a 'magazine' programme covering a wide variety of interest and its move to prime time Sunday evening and (reportedly) large TV audiences are testament to its wide ranging appeal.

Mrs Brown's Boys might not be your cup of tea, but again, you can't argue with success - wasn't it voted best comedy show recently?

We can't all have the same interests or share the same sense of humour (I agree with you on Miranda BTW) - but that's why the BBC gives such good value for money.

[strawclearer]

Iain's right! The BBC is for art, for culture. It is not to be given to what the people want! It is for what the people don't want but ought to have! Is that clear, Bernard???