7 ms·

I am not sure what this comment is meant to convey, but it sounds to me that you are alluding to BoJo gutting the BBC for his own political gain. I think the r

I am not sure what this comment is meant to convey, but it sounds to me that you are alluding to BoJo gutting the BBC for his own political gain. I think the reality is the license fee is overwhelmingly unpopular, has been for decades. The BBC has not evolved its business model to keep up with democratized broadcast and if BoJo is the one to do what is inevitable then who can blame him to use the opportunity to be the one to pull the trigger. The license fee is unfair, unsustainable, and in my opinion unenforceable given today's technology. It used to be that having a "TV" meant you implicitly watched the BBC. As the decades passed cable and satellite became popular and so people could own a TV and never watch the BBC, but the BBC would still insist you were watching their service and send inspectors to your house. They would threaten you (I've experienced this myself) and ask to come into your home as if they had the authority, which they did not. So many people let these assholes into their homes to "inspect" their viewing habits and issue a fine if they found a TV in your home, because obviously if you have a TV you MUST be watching the BBC. What's even more crazy is you get a discount for a B&W TV, that's just how stuck in the past this license thing is. Today you can legit have multiple TVs (now displays) and never watch the BBC. But the BBC thinks that because you have an internet connection you must be watching the BBC. It's just nuts, and as I said, unenforceable. So it must end. The BBC has had the opportunity to adapt over the last ~30 years as the internet and other entertainment sources came into people's homes, but they chose not to. I say let the BBC fade away or adapt on their own feet.

Traster 5y ago
It's a more general effect where conservatives will cut budgets and mismanage government services and then, having done that will turn around and go "See, look! I told you the public sector can't do this!". And in my opinion, you're kind of falling for it. Is it true that the BBC has not evolved its business model? Well yes and no. Yes it's true that the BBC has largely failed to find new forms of revenue. That's directly because the royal charter prevents it from doing so. Is it true that the license fee is a weird tax that is badly enforced. Absolutely, but again, it's not the BBC's choice how the license fee is set up. It's the governments choice, and rather than fix the problems, the government has made them worse (through stealth budget cuts including forcing the BBC to cover the cost of free licenses for the elderly). The government could scrap the license fee tomorrow and fund the BBC out of general taxation, or remove the restrictions on the BBC monetizing its content, or remove the BBC's obligation to do a whole swathe of programming that is unprofitable but required by the royal charter. All of that is in the government's power to do. It continually chooses not to fix the problem and instead continually just bash the BBC for things that aren't within it's control. If you look at the things that the BBC is actually in control of though - the content it produces - it does a fantastic job.
avianlyric 5y ago
The relationship between the licence fee and the BBC isn’t that simple. You must pay the TV licence fee if you receive any broadcast television generally available to the public, regardless of if it’s BBC content or not. If you only watch Channel Four, and never BBC, you must still pay the licence fee. Your viewing habits are completely irrelevant. The TV licence comes from law, and the government happens to delegate responsibility for collection to the BBC. But the BBC doesn’t get the money directly, it’s handed over to the government who then allocates to a number of different public broadcast functions. As it happens the majority of that money ends up back with the BBC, but not all of it. In short the TV licence fee is really a tax on receiving public broadcast. It just so happens that the majority of that tax is used to fund the BBC. Also the BBC isn’t a normal company. It can’t unilaterally change its funding model, only the government can do that. As the U.K. primary public broadcaster it can’t raise funds by charging a traditional subscription, or by advertising, the law prohibits it. Additionally the BBC is also bound to create radio broadcast, which is also funded by the licence fee. So the BBC hands are tied. It’s unfair to criticise an organisation for failing to change something it has no legal ability to change. I’m sure the BBC would love to explore other funding options, but politicians aren’t interested in playing ball. They would rather trade on peoples dislike of the licence fee for cheap political points, than engage in a proper conversation about how, or even if, we fund public broadcast in the UK. The BBC is held up as one of the best, if not the best, public broadcaster in the world. It would be a shame to see it die, or heavily diminished in its capabilities. The BBC provides far more public good than just news and TV. It produces incredible amounts of educational material for schools, and has provided an incredible venue for some of the UKs best journalists and documentarians like David Attenborough to truly hone their craft, and educate billions about the world we live in.
- anon1385 5y ago
  I would have agreed with you in the past. And I still do when it comes to defending a lot of the BBC content that doesn't come from the news department. But BBC News is just so bad and utterly corrosive that I'd abolish the entire institution just to get rid of it. Yes I know other UK media is all as bad or worse, but none of them have the public standing or institutional power that the BBC has. I don't think there's any way of reforming the news department at this point. It's not just a matter of a few bad shows or bad 'journalists'. The entire ethos/mission of BBC News is fundamentally broken. They don't know how to do journalism as a public broadcaster, and I don't think they could ever learn how. Certainly not within the current media culture in the UK. This incident isn't a one off. It's typical. The only unusual thing is the program got cancelled and they actually deleted the article - usually they double down for weeks and refuse to admit fault. I'm guessing that's only because crypto isn't (yet) a partisan culture war issue in the UK media.

Traster 5y ago

It's a more general effect where conservatives will cut budgets and mismanage government services and then, having done that will turn around and go "See, look! I told you the public sector can't do this!". And in my opinion, you're kind of falling for it. Is it true that the BBC has not evolved its business model? Well yes and no. Yes it's true that the BBC has largely failed to find new forms of revenue. That's directly because the royal charter prevents it from doing so. Is it true that the license fee is a weird tax that is badly enforced. Absolutely, but again, it's not the BBC's choice how the license fee is set up. It's the governments choice, and rather than fix the problems, the government has made them worse (through stealth budget cuts including forcing the BBC to cover the cost of free licenses for the elderly). The government could scrap the license fee tomorrow and fund the BBC out of general taxation, or remove the restrictions on the BBC monetizing its content, or remove the BBC's obligation to do a whole swathe of programming that is unprofitable but required by the royal charter. All of that is in the government's power to do. It continually chooses not to fix the problem and instead continually just bash the BBC for things that aren't within it's control. If you look at the things that the BBC is actually in control of though - the content it produces - it does a fantastic job.

avianlyric 5y ago

The relationship between the licence fee and the BBC isn’t that simple. You must pay the TV licence fee if you receive any broadcast television generally available to the public, regardless of if it’s BBC content or not. If you only watch Channel Four, and never BBC, you must still pay the licence fee. Your viewing habits are completely irrelevant. The TV licence comes from law, and the government happens to delegate responsibility for collection to the BBC. But the BBC doesn’t get the money directly, it’s handed over to the government who then allocates to a number of different public broadcast functions. As it happens the majority of that money ends up back with the BBC, but not all of it. In short the TV licence fee is really a tax on receiving public broadcast. It just so happens that the majority of that tax is used to fund the BBC. Also the BBC isn’t a normal company. It can’t unilaterally change its funding model, only the government can do that. As the U.K. primary public broadcaster it can’t raise funds by charging a traditional subscription, or by advertising, the law prohibits it. Additionally the BBC is also bound to create radio broadcast, which is also funded by the licence fee. So the BBC hands are tied. It’s unfair to criticise an organisation for failing to change something it has no legal ability to change. I’m sure the BBC would love to explore other funding options, but politicians aren’t interested in playing ball. They would rather trade on peoples dislike of the licence fee for cheap political points, than engage in a proper conversation about how, or even if, we fund public broadcast in the UK. The BBC is held up as one of the best, if not the best, public broadcaster in the world. It would be a shame to see it die, or heavily diminished in its capabilities. The BBC provides far more public good than just news and TV. It produces incredible amounts of educational material for schools, and has provided an incredible venue for some of the UKs best journalists and documentarians like David Attenborough to truly hone their craft, and educate billions about the world we live in.

anon1385 5y ago
I would have agreed with you in the past. And I still do when it comes to defending a lot of the BBC content that doesn't come from the news department. But BBC News is just so bad and utterly corrosive that I'd abolish the entire institution just to get rid of it. Yes I know other UK media is all as bad or worse, but none of them have the public standing or institutional power that the BBC has. I don't think there's any way of reforming the news department at this point. It's not just a matter of a few bad shows or bad 'journalists'. The entire ethos/mission of BBC News is fundamentally broken. They don't know how to do journalism as a public broadcaster, and I don't think they could ever learn how. Certainly not within the current media culture in the UK. This incident isn't a one off. It's typical. The only unusual thing is the program got cancelled and they actually deleted the article - usually they double down for weeks and refuse to admit fault. I'm guessing that's only because crypto isn't (yet) a partisan culture war issue in the UK media.