BBC & The Future | Page 11 | Vital Football

BBC & The Future

You're right. It should be brought into general taxation, like schools, hospitals, motorways, disability payments, and all that other stuff that not everyone uses.
This comment is a rerun of the last debate on the licences. At some point in your lifetime everyone will directly or indirectly use that which you mentioned.
 
I can't find it now, but I'm sure someone referenced BBC News being detrimental to other news providers.

A lot of BBC News money goes into supporting, giving leads, giving back up research and resources to independent media publishers around the country.

The rest of it, in many ways is a daft argument. Don't have a licence fee, the Gov should fund (it still comes from the taxpayer) and so on. Others channels fund by still ripping off taxpayers, just in another way.

The BBC is needed, but the BBC is also a commercial company, the commercial arm should pay properly to the taxpayer arm to reduce the commercial profits that come from having a grounded taxpayer base.

Does make that sense? lol

It should absolutely not be solely taxpayer funded now given their commercial arms and success, worldwide appeal and worldwide programme sell ons. Tally that to (I know I argued with either Platy or Pangy on this previously) that no major presenter should be on more than 90K a year (journo wise specifically) but I'd spread that to everyone BUT give all involved staff in 'entertainment' programmes a share of future sell on profit - and yes it means Lineker comes down massively, just like others.

It also doesn't mean I'd cap presenters (or any genre) at 90K if they commit and work multiple jobs - yes that would mean some gaming - but it'd still be far less than now with favouritism, and even the recent BBC news changes show presenter quality hasn't dropped, so those who want to chase the commercial can fuck off.

It also means the bosses should take a massive reduction in salary as well. You either work for the public good knowing the wage is low, or you chase reward and go private. Money does not dictate talent, anymore than a certificate with no job training does.

And the other change I'd make in this day and age, the BBC should no longer have a licence to cater for a minority when it comes to wider operations. Supposed minority interests should feature, but there shouldn't be dedicated channels to further reduce costs (other avenues more than play to their interests).

Do all the above, the licence fee should be halved in my mind - at the very least.
 
I note over the last week GBN are sending out headlines to news aggregators that in no way represent that news (bias) as they continue desperately trying to change the narrative from what a fuck unknown and unethical company they actually are.
 
Do all the above, the licence fee should be halved in my mind - at the very least.
Only just seen this. Do all the above, and that would be a miracle in itself, will never happen. Excellent rant but misses the point entirely. Growing numbers of people, especially young people don't watch tv. The licence is past it's sell by, and will go the way of the Berlin Wall. The BBC will continue too stick two fingers up to everyone, maybe over something like refusing to call Hamas terrorists, who knows, and it will happen overnight, cancelled and gone. The BBC goverernors and senior managers are all on the gravy train and won't give up their huge advantage that they enjoy over commercial outlets. If government won't sort out the BBC they will go the way of all dinosaurs and the sooner the better.
 
I think I've shifted my position a lot over the past couple of years from being generally for the licence fee (with some caveats such as the elderly not being charged) to being completely ambivalent.

A lot of this is driven by the fact that I do not really watch a huge amount of TV, let alone what's on the BBC.

I also think that at the end of the day, the BBC is a huge platform, with massive reach, so advertisers will flock to it regardless and this should make up the short fall.

As for 'impartiality', it's a total crock of shit, so the thought of advertisers influencing this is neither here nor there.
 
Only just seen this. Do all the above, and that would be a miracle in itself, will never happen. Excellent rant but misses the point entirely. Growing numbers of people, especially young people don't watch tv. The licence is past it's sell by, and will go the way of the Berlin Wall. The BBC will continue too stick two fingers up to everyone, maybe over something like refusing to call Hamas terrorists, who knows, and it will happen overnight, cancelled and gone. The BBC goverernors and senior managers are all on the gravy train and won't give up their huge advantage that they enjoy over commercial outlets. If government won't sort out the BBC they will go the way of all dinosaurs and the sooner the better.

I haven't missed the point, the BBC is still watched (maybe in different ways) and whilst a lot of fat needs to be cut, it still does a hell of a lot more than ever credited with across all media. It'll go eventually, but they are already making changes people were saying they'd never make 2 years back and for all their faults (even I list them) they are invaluable in this climate of biased bullshit in the press.

As for the bit in bold, yet over 24 hours later no moaning outlet or politician has been able to disprove Simpson or show they have ever acted in a differing manner, whether ISIS, IRA or the many other acronyms out there - I posted it in the other thread yesterday.

The BBC will go at some point and then God help us given the disinformation already out there.
 
As for the bit in bold, yet
Not sure what you mean by that. Can't see anything in bold in your post or mine. Other channels rip off tax payers, how? I'm forced by law to pay for something I never watch. Those that want too watch it can pay for it. BBC are not impartial. I posted a while back a huge list of apologies they have had to make and I think, sorry if I'm, wrong that your response was at least they apologized. They may well have done, but they should research it better before putting it out there, and the fact is that millions see the original, but few ever see the correction. If, as you conceded it will eventually go, that can only be because it isn't doing it's job properly, if it was people wouldn't object to paying for it. They pay for loads of media stuff, because they see relevance in it. ITN news is free, and is excellent, and their programming is free at the point of viewing. Fact is you come at this from a professional background, so you see it through a different spectrum. If you put your every day punters hat on it's not worth £14 a month.
Oh, by the way good morning. 🤣
 
I'm not a fan of either.

But I do love how Trump and GBN live rent free in people's heads. So funny.

Come on. Were meant to be intelligent (ish) people?
 
Not sure what you mean by that. Can't see anything in bold in your post or mine. Other channels rip off tax payers, how? I'm forced by law to pay for something I never watch. Those that want too watch it can pay for it. BBC are not impartial. I posted a while back a huge list of apologies they have had to make and I think, sorry if I'm, wrong that your response was at least they apologized. They may well have done, but they should research it better before putting it out there, and the fact is that millions see the original, but few ever see the correction. If, as you conceded it will eventually go, that can only be because it isn't doing it's job properly, if it was people wouldn't object to paying for it. They pay for loads of media stuff, because they see relevance in it. ITN news is free, and is excellent, and their programming is free at the point of viewing. Fact is you come at this from a professional background, so you see it through a different spectrum. If you put your every day punters hat on it's not worth £14 a month.
Oh, by the way good morning. 🤣

I bolded a part in your response to me mate, it's showing for - for ease it was 'something like refusing to call Hamas terrorists,'. Might make my reply make a bit more sense if you know what I'm on about.

I've still seen nothing that contradicts Simpson or my own memory of the BBC calling ISIS militants etc. They have the archives, yet they rely on Twitter posts that don't disprove a long held neutrality approach?

Sounds a bit convenient.

As for other channels and, commercial radio, print newspapers etc, the BBC have a generous fund that is rarely spoken about and almost anyone who is accredited within the media can apply for grants for anything ranging from training subsidies for newbies, inter BBC funded work experience placements, funds and extra staff support for investigative stories that continue in effect to remain the copyright of the applicant outlet and even though the BBC would fund/share the workload - more often than not the BBC still report on it as a third party rather than co-party investigation.

There's loads more that they do for the wider press in general that I've long forgot, but no, our taxpayer money just doesn't go to the BBC body, millions go wider than that, and not always with thanks or accreditation.

That was point, many would still understandably disagree it's a good use of money, but that's a separate debate.

Again difference between impartial and a fuck up. They make plenty of fuck ups, I call them out as well as you know, but in terms of a lack of true bias they are closer than anyone else. It's why they are favourite Government whipping boys because apart from the truly woeful they have employed over the years, the good never bow or favour.

But no wasn't arguing at least they apologise, media apologies count for crap but their mistakes are usually more genuine, and not driven by a pure motive is my point. Don't forget I've made press complaints in the past, dug in, and won against legal departments. The article changed - people only read an article once, they don't look for a correction 6 months later.

My argument was an obvious point of law that they had mis-explained, and they still tried to out argue me lol

I agree on better research, you know I moan when they only use one source as opposed to two independent and so on. But at least they don't use social media as truth, like others.

Which also addresses Col's response. Big difference between knowingly misrepresenting and then unknowingly believing a misrepresentation.

But no, it'll go because the world is getting dumber. It's easier to believe those who shout loudest or get their tits out and dismiss all experts because chancers who call themselves experts actually have no knowledge of what they claim to be experts on. People will pay is also a misnomer, the growth in privacy, IPTV, music sharing, have much of an issue have Netflix made over sharing passwords - the next generation will be more entitled on that front, as each generation has slowly become.

And as said, the world will be poorer for it. Doesn't make them perfect or above criticism, and I'm no licence fee fan either, but they have still made major changes people believed they wouldn't 24 months ago.

It's a start, it can't be the finish.

ITV is basic, C4 is actually my next go to for the record, but yes fair point, I do have a hat in the ring so to speak, which is why I look at outlets with the prism I do - truth and accuracy over sensationalism, and commercial enterprise. You aren't wrong to raise it mate :thumbup:

Evening lol.

And as for your last point Col, Trump, GBN and that ilk - it's the flat out lies that irk people who pay attention. GB News that promotes itself as not being a news broadcaster to avoid scrutiny - you know who owns it?
 
Last edited: