The BBC and the Licence Fee

Some time ago the Beeb in it's advertising used a young boy to explain the unique way that the corporation was funded. In other words how it spent licence payers money.

Now while I do not object to paying a licence fee, I do object to the enormous cost. The BBC try to justify this by telling us that they have to pay the going rate for the job.
It seems Wossie had been approached by ITV and offered the sum of 4.5 Million a year to move. The Beeb then offered him 6 Million to stay.
So first question:
Why offer him 25% more?
Second question:
Why not let him go?

Due to the bidding wars between television companies the price of entertainment has gone through the roof. How else could football clubs pay their players such extortionate amounts?

So in my opinion the Beeb is partly to blame for rising prices of entertainment.

Finally the job of the Beeb is to inform and entertain. They make some excellent programs which often make them a profit when sold to other networks.

But :
Do they really need to fight for ratings?
Do they need people like Wossie, overpaid and under talented?

So why not use the BBC as an X Factor channel?
The BBC could find promising unknown entertainers, news readers, producers, etc. and nurture them. If they are any good put them on a contract and if they wish to leave when they are famous, let them but do what football clubs do, sell them. :thumright:


Finally the Beeb was always the place to listen to English spoken correctly. I am pissed off with the number of presenters usually female (mainly weather girls) who seem to think it twee to pronounce the letter R as the letter W (like Wossie)
FFS its going to Rain not Wain. ukel:

Rant over.

Comments welcomed on how to reduce the licence fee while at the same time increasing program satisfaction :w00t:

 

I think a lot of the time the poor old Beeb is guaranteed to be upsetting some one whether they be people pissed of because they were caught not having a licence or because they are disgusted from sevenoaks or what ever. It is the fate of being a publicly owned organisation. No one ever complains about ITV in the same way or even comlains about the pretty crap programming that come out of ITV. Remeber ITV is not free, everything you buy has it's price inflated to cover advertising much of which is directed at ITV.

One of the problems with the Beeb is the great independance that it's senior staff have not just from the paymasters, but also from corporation management. Perhaps we do need more hands on management though not by any one who holds or has held any elected political position.

Whilst actually cutting the licence fee and thus the money the Beeb gets may be a trifle too draconian, freezing it for the forseeable future and obliging the Beeb to obtain greater revenues from the sale of it's programmes, and perhaps better control of their IP fron contacted out programming. For example why does the copyright for programmes made by contractors with Beeb and thus our cash stay with the programme maker.

 

why not introduce a pay-per-view style license fee. i only watch bbc for top gear on bbc2 (but even then i can watch repeats on 'dave' so i'd save loads!)

 

All good points Maxi, especially programs made by third parties but paid for by the BBC. Certainly the BBC should be awarded the copyright of such programs.

Is it time for the BBC to be made more accountable to the public it supposedly serves?

We are entering the age of digital television, in less than a decade analogue television will not exist. In light of this perhaps the time has come for programs to be encoded, if you don't pay a fee you don't get the program. That way no licence needed and the BBC would have to do far more to please Joe Public if it were to keep it's revenue.

 

As the licence is only required to watch live broadcasts then watch them streaming on the pc, no licence required.

 

I think if it is 'streamed' at the same time as it is broadcast then the streamed edition also requires a licence, though they will need a different sort of detector van to catch you out on that one.

 

I think Maxi that the licence is for a television receiver so as long as no receiving device (satellite receiver terrestrial tuner) is fitted to the computer a licence is not required.
Doesn't mean that the rules won't change soon though. Remember when satellite systems first came out no TV licence was needed to watch programs.

 

I think that 'public popularity' has always been the Beeb sword of Damocles's, if they get good rating they are offering pap to the masses and if they try for the high brow market they get poor ratings in popularity and get hung for that.

On of the areas the beeb has managed to shine in for many years despite it's present problems with Mr Woss is comedy. Would any purely commercial station have backed the Goons, Hancock, Monty Python, and many many others, I suspect not. Equally they have done pretty well in the drama stakes and especially well in many documentary series.

Wholly commercial TV and Radio is mainly based on a 'formula' and tends not to be innovative. Innovation will by it's nature produce broken eggs like Mr Woss, the Beeb should react more quickly to the eggs being broken so that the mess can be cleaned up before it spreads everywhere. I do hope they will have the courage to dispose of Mr Woss' services before he comes back on air as they should have done a week ago.

 

I rarely watch television these days preferring instead to listen to BBC Radios 3, 4 and World Service. I would prefer at least half my licence fee went to BBC Radio. That said I don't want Britain to end up with the US system where Fox News dominates the market and applies a conservative religious gloss to all news reports. That would result in the British masses ending up as lococentric and ignorant of the exterior as the US lumpenproletariat. The printed media (newspapers) are dominated by conservative opinion. Balance is needed - though perhaps more restrictive licencing should be in place to scupper market domination with uniform opinion. The BBC should ideally revert to its former neutrality.

Personally I think the BBC licence fee represents good value for money having seen much of public broadcasting in Europe & Scandinavia..... :yawn:

 

To be fair (mind you if it is the BBC we are talking about why be fair) I think on average the BBC is relatively neutral, yes on specific programmes and with specific personalities their particualr proclivities do show through but that is to a large extent natural. I think the areas they get into most trouble for bias on way or another is the half hour single subject current affairs programme where the editor's personal viewpoint and prejudice often is too obvious.

I think it is time for far more obvious and effective independant editorial supervision to help keep them on that middle path