If you only want the BBC to make programmes you deem worthy rather than also invest in popular (and comparatively cheaper to make) shows you may find the number of people opting out and having no live broadcast receiving equipment but rather relying on streaming of non-BBC services would increase, which will mean the licence fee for everyone else increasing. Or the BBC being unable to fund the "worthy" programming.
I find a similar argument to the one @Makepeace makes in people who argue that public libraries should only hold highbrow "educational" material, and not popular novels.
And it's nonsense. Yes, of course libraries should hold classic literature and "worthy" books, but the public interest is also served by a public that reads - not just a public that reads Boethius or Balzac.
So let me nail my colours firmly to the mast. Libraries should hold trashy bodice-rippers, and similar popular works of little literary merit, because people will read them, and people reading is in the public good. And perhaps people who are familiar with the library because of this will also look for a more "worthy" book when necessity presents itself.
Think of it as a gateway drug for education and culture
I think you'd be better off arguing a strict classical-liberal position on the BBC, ie. the BBC should not exist as a government entity, because people have different ideas about what kinds of shows are worthwhile, and no one should be forced to pay for shows they don't like(*
That leaves you less open to charges of subjectivity than saying that the BBC shouldn't fund things that are "too dark and cynical", since one man's "excessively dark cynicism" is another man's "unflinching examination of the world as it is".
(*) And yes, I realize that a licensing fee is not a tax per se, but it's pretty close, in that anyone wishing to forego the fee is forced to give up television in general.
No You can watch Netflix and other pay channels without a licence. You cannot watch Broadcast TV without one. You cannot watch BBC iPlayer without a license. I am unsure about Brit Box. I would assume you can watch that without a licence. I find having a licence fee positive. It means we as viewers have more say. None of the none BBC channels have a viewers opinion programme like Points of View or the equivalent on BBC News.
The BBC has to be popular but it doesn’t have to chase ratings as hard as others so you get quirky programs like Only Connect. I would rather have the variety and pay for it,
Not quite. You pay a monthly rental fee for Netflix. Same with BritBox. You pay a subscription fee. And, in a sense, you are paying for commercial television through increased prices on products. There is nothing free on television.
I see what you mean but they are different. Yes you have to pay but you don’t pay a licence. You cannot pay for Netflix and watch Amazon Prime or Disney+. You need to pay for each.
I also think having the BBC means we don’t get adds as often as they do in the US. To me it is worth paying the licence so we have channels that don’t take adds
I also think having the BBC means we don’t get adds as often as they do in the US. To me it is worth paying the licence so we have channels that don’t take adds
I find US broadcast TV unwatchable because of the density and positioning of ads. This has made me always support the UK licence fee as a matter of pragmatism, regardless of any philosophical positions.
One other way the BBC makes money is the distribution of their excellent productions to worldwide networks and subscription services. Some will throw in commercials, others will be commercial-free.
I find US broadcast TV unwatchable because of the density and positioning of ads. This has made me always support the UK licence fee as a matter of pragmatism, regardless of any philosophical positions.
Oh, I quite agree. American Television's purpose is to hold the viewers' attention to the next commercial break. And then, the commercials have been shortened so that more can be shown within the 3 allotted minutes.
I may be mistaken, but I get the impression that Makepeace's basic quarrel is not so much with BBC reporting as with the licence fee.
A lot of right-wing opinion formers dislike it because it is a counterexample to the theory that publically funded services are always rubbish. In addition, nobody is making a profit off owning it.
My view is that anything publicly funded should meet a public interest test. I can't see any reason why Eastenders, Killing Eve and the like are in the public interest. They are darker and more cynical than many programmes on commercial channels- I actually think that they are damaging to the public interest. When the BBC produces good quality it is often superior (e.g Planet Earth, War and Peace), but they don't need 100% of the Licence fee to produce the small portion of good quality shows that we actually get from it. Like any organisation, regardless of how it is funded, the BBC is liable to hubris. It is almost inevitable that a large, unaccountable organisation that has an unjustified sense of entitlement is going to display a certain arrogance.
If you only want the BBC to make programmes you deem worthy rather than also invest in popular (and comparatively cheaper to make) shows you may find the number of people opting out and having no live broadcast receiving equipment but rather relying on streaming of non-BBC services would increase, which will mean the licence fee for everyone else increasing. Or the BBC being unable to fund the "worthy" programming.
It's commercial necessity. That the BBC is publicly funded does not exclude it from market forces.
I'm not suggesting that the BBC should only make programmes that I deem worthy. I'm suggesting that they should only have public funding available to the extent that it passes a public interest test. I'm not suggesting that it should be me who decides what that criteria is, only that there should be some.
With regard to your point about people abandoning a licence fee there are two points I would make:
1. I think it would be better to abolish the licence fee but to allocate funding on a tender basis through the tax system to any organisation that wishes to make a programme in the public interest.
2. There are many people who have abandoned the BBC on other grounds anyway. I do not have a TV licence because I do not wish to fund the BBC on moral grounds. I do not subscribe to Netflix for the same reason.
Whilst I am not claiming to know what criteria might be included in a public interest test I would be very surprised if a programme that glamorises and trivialises serial murder would pass any public interest criteria.
I see what you mean but they are different. Yes you have to pay but you don’t pay a licence. You cannot pay for Netflix and watch Amazon Prime or Disney+. You need to pay for each.
I also think having the BBC means we don’t get adds as often as they do in the US. To me it is worth paying the licence so we have channels that don’t take adds
There are similarities and differences between two things. Is this a difficult concept?
I'm not suggesting that the BBC should only make programmes that I deem worthy. I'm suggesting that they should only have public funding available to the extent that it passes a public interest test. I'm not suggesting that it should be me who decides what that criteria is, only that there should be some.
<snip>
Whilst I am not claiming to know what criteria might be included in a public interest test . . .
@Makepeace suggesting his personal standards be adopted by network censors.
My view is that anything publicly funded should meet a public interest test. I can't see any reason why Eastenders, Killing Eve and the like are in the public interest. They are darker and more cynical than many programmes on commercial channels- I actually think that they are damaging to the public interest.
I'd also argue that if you're against "dark" productions (and I assume you're not just talking about lighting quality) you'd have to cancel the news as well. This whole pandemic storyline they're doing is very dark, and the cynicism exhibited by these "Boris Johnson" and "Donald Trump" characters is truly shocking.
I'm not suggesting that the BBC should only make programmes that I deem worthy. I'm suggesting that they should only have public funding available to the extent that it passes a public interest test. I'm not suggesting that it should be me who decides what that criteria is, only that there should be some.
<snip>
Whilst I am not claiming to know what criteria might be included in a public interest test . . .
@Makepeace suggesting his personal standards be adopted by network censors.
My view is that anything publicly funded should meet a public interest test. I can't see any reason why Eastenders, Killing Eve and the like are in the public interest. They are darker and more cynical than many programmes on commercial channels- I actually think that they are damaging to the public interest.
I think it is axiomatic that Eastenders and killing Eve would not pass any public interest test, whatever that criteria might happen to be (just as, for example, it is axiomatic that McDonalds would not pass a public interest if fast food were publicly funded). The second post was simply clarifying that I would not expect them to fail such a test merely because they were contrary to my tastes. If you believe that there are criteria that is in the public interest, which these particular programmes would be likely to pass, it may help to say what they are?
I'm not suggesting that the BBC should only make programmes that I deem worthy. I'm suggesting that they should only have public funding available to the extent that it passes a public interest test. I'm not suggesting that it should be me who decides what that criteria is, only that there should be some.
<snip>
Whilst I am not claiming to know what criteria might be included in a public interest test . . .
@Makepeace suggesting his personal standards be adopted by network censors.
My view is that anything publicly funded should meet a public interest test. I can't see any reason why Eastenders, Killing Eve and the like are in the public interest. They are darker and more cynical than many programmes on commercial channels- I actually think that they are damaging to the public interest.
I think it is axiomatic that Eastenders and killing Eve would not pass any public interest test, whatever that criteria might happen to be (just as, for example, it is axiomatic that McDonalds would not pass a public interest if fast food were publicly funded). (...) If you believe that there are criteria that is in the public interest, which these particular programmes would be likely to pass, it may help to say what they are?
How was the current accountability framework developed?
21.The BBC’s first Charter (effective from January 1927) was simple: it tasked the BBC to entertain and educate by the means of broadcast. This work was to be overseen by a Board of Governors with the licence fee in place to provide funding. The next Charter added “inform” and this simple imperative—inform, educate and entertain—became the BBC’s mission. This system continued until the 2006 Charter, which suggested that “the objects, constitution and organisation of the BBC would be reformed so as to enable the BBC still better to serve the interests of Our People.”
(...)
23.The BBC’s 2006 Royal Charter and Agreement set out the six Public Purposes of the BBC (...). The Charter states that the BBC’s main object is the promotion of its Public Purposes. These outline the values the BBC holds when striving to achieve its mission to “inform, educate and entertain.” The Charter sets out the activities the BBC should undertake to deliver its Public Purposes in broad terms.
To spell it out, since their second charter (1936, if I have read Wikipedia correctly) the BBC has had the public interest test of producing material to inform, educate and entertain.
I would be very surprised if a programme that glamorises and trivialises serial murder would pass any public interest criteria.
There was a story on the BBC a few years back in which Benedict Cumberbatch played a prince who kept murdering people so that he could become King of England and it gave Cumberbatch's character, the murderer, all the best lines. Is that the kind of thing you're talking about?
They didn't put a fiction label on it either even though it was purportedly about historical members of the Royal Family.
The second post was simply clarifying that I would not expect them to fail such a test merely because they were contrary to my tastes. If you believe that there are criteria that is in the public interest, which these particular programmes would be likely to pass, it may help to say what they are?
Why? If you've established it as an axiom that those shows are not in the public interest, that places them beyond analysis or testing.
Ahem. The fact that there is a television licence fee means that there is a fee for televisions. Not for the BBC.
It’s a fairly fundamental element of tax law that there’s no direct link. You could just as easily have a television licence fee without the BBC existing and the money would be used to pay for something else. The NHS. Or Ministers’ salaries.
Conversely I live in a country with a BBC equivalent and no television licence fee.
Ahem. The fact that there is a television licence fee means that there is a fee for televisions. Not for the BBC.
It’s a fairly fundamental element of tax law that there’s no direct link. You could just as easily have a television licence fee without the BBC existing and the money would be used to pay for something else. The NHS. Or Ministers’ salaries.
Conversely I live in a country with a BBC equivalent and no television licence fee.
In other words the whole argument is nonsense.
That's not really fair as the licence fee money goes to the BBC. It's not part of general tax revenue.
Also, can we just pause to consider how this whole thread about seeing something bad on the BBC has been revealed to be about not actually watching the BBC?
Ahem. The fact that there is a television licence fee means that there is a fee for televisions. Not for the BBC.
It’s a fairly fundamental element of tax law that there’s no direct link. You could just as easily have a television licence fee without the BBC existing and the money would be used to pay for something else. The NHS. Or Ministers’ salaries.
Conversely I live in a country with a BBC equivalent and no television licence fee.
In other words the whole argument is nonsense.
That's not really fair as the licence fee money goes to the BBC. It's not part of general tax revenue.
My point is that there’s no particular need for that to be the way things are arranged.
We get people here from time to time arguing against the ABC as a government funded television network. They can’t link it to refusing to pay a television fee because we haven’t got one.
@Makepeace irrespective of whether the BBC is funded by the licence fee as at the moment, or by bidding for subsidised programmes that are suitably improving in either your eyes or those of some government supremo, has it occurred to you that if it only supplies what you or the government regards as 'in the public interest', why should any of us be expected to pay for it, whether through the licence fee or from taxation? If it doesn't provide a suitable mixture of what all different sorts of people want to watch and will enjoy watching, the rest of us, apart, presumably, from you, are not getting anything back from the money that the government is extracting from us.
The present system isn't perfect, but it delivers a much better all round service, and better value for money for us what pay than any of the alternatives.
Also, can we just pause to consider how this whole thread about seeing something bad on the BBC has been revealed to be about not actually watching the BBC?
Besides which, we also have the OPer announcing that they won't have a TV licence on principle just after having their example of What Is Wrong With The BBC blown to smithereens.
Besides which, we also have the OPer announcing that they won't have a TV licence on principle just after having their example of What Is Wrong With The BBC blown to smithereens.
Since one should always think the best of people, that also obliges us to assume that he or she never watches either the BBC or any other broadcast channel, and therefore knows next to nothing about whether its programmes are any good, or whether his or her criticism is justified.
Ahem. The fact that there is a television licence fee means that there is a fee for televisions. Not for the BBC.
It’s a fairly fundamental element of tax law that there’s no direct link. You could just as easily have a television licence fee without the BBC existing and the money would be used to pay for something else. The NHS. Or Ministers’ salaries.
Conversely I live in a country with a BBC equivalent and no television licence fee.
In other words the whole argument is nonsense.
That's not really fair as the licence fee money goes to the BBC. It's not part of general tax revenue.
My point is that there’s no particular need for that to be the way things are arranged.
We get people here from time to time arguing against the ABC as a government funded television network. They can’t link it to refusing to pay a television fee because we haven’t got one.
My point was not that the fee is somehow a uniquely confiscatory act. I was arguing that it more or less amounts to mandatory support for the BBC, and was trying to pre-empt someone from arguing that it's not mandatory because you have a choice, by pointing out that you effectively suffer a penalty for not paying it.
And to be clear, I have no problem with public broadcasting being funded by fees or taxes. I was just giving an alternative anti-beeb argument to Makepeace, instead of his complaint that the network is bad because it shows stuff he personally finds too dark.
Ahem. The fact that there is a television licence fee means that there is a fee for televisions. Not for the BBC.
It’s a fairly fundamental element of tax law that there’s no direct link. You could just as easily have a television licence fee without the BBC existing and the money would be used to pay for something else. The NHS. Or Ministers’ salaries.
Conversely I live in a country with a BBC equivalent and no television licence fee.
In other words the whole argument is nonsense.
That's not really fair as the licence fee money goes to the BBC. It's not part of general tax revenue.
My point is that there’s no particular need for that to be the way things are arranged.
We get people here from time to time arguing against the ABC as a government funded television network. They can’t link it to refusing to pay a television fee because we haven’t got one.
My point was not that the fee is somehow a uniquely confiscatory act. I was arguing that it more or less amounts to mandatory support for the BBC, and was trying to pre-empt someone from arguing that it's not mandatory because you have a choice, by pointing out that you effectively suffer a penalty for not paying it.
And to be clear, I have no problem with public broadcasting being funded by fees or taxes. I was just giving an alternative anti-beeb argument to Makepeace, instead of his complaint that the network is bad because it shows stuff he personally finds too dark.
I wasn’t intending to critique your contributions personally. But I will observe that here in Australia we have mandatory support for the ABC. Without the television licence thing. Taxes are taxes.
Many years ago the ABC had an advertising campaign about how it cost each person 8 cents a day, telling you all the things you got for 8 cents. Which I’m sure was because it was a period where people were claiming it was a waste of taxpayers’ money.
Conversely I live in a country with a BBC equivalent and no television licence fee.
You are young, Orfeo. There used be a radio fee to support the ABC, and then a separate one for TV when that arrived. Stories abounded of vans driving slowly along suburban streets checking houses where TV was being watched with the records of licence fees. After a few years the fees were combined and not long after, dropped.
Also, can we just pause to consider how this whole thread about seeing something bad on the BBC has been revealed to be about not actually watching the BBC?
Besides which, we also have the OPer announcing that they won't have a TV licence on principle just after having their example of What Is Wrong With The BBC blown to smithereens.
But the OP claimed to be about media being unfair by questioning whether trump might not leave his tied accomodation if/when he lost.
It seemed odd so I asked why he mentioned the BBC specifically and he said ~"The reason that I've singled out the BBC is that they are the largest broadcaster in the world ". I didn't think that the real reason and it seems it was about the BBC so was his answer wasn't the truth.
His other thread 'Eton' wasn't about the high-profile school but about a teacher defying the school's policy and getting the boot for using their name to promote his own views when they told him not to. Misleading title/OP again.
I would guess the BBC is testing public interest for their programming. They are aware of public polling. They probably screen test their programs too. Then there is the viewership report of various agencies. If a program is not drawing public interest, it likely will be dropped.
Frankly, when I see someone complaining a show is not in the public interest, it generally means the person is saying the program is not representative of his/her political views,
I would guess the BBC is testing public interest for their programming. They are aware of public polling. They probably screen test their programs too. Then there is the viewership report of various agencies. If a program is not drawing public interest, it likely will be dropped.
Frankly, when I see someone complaining a show is not in the public interest, it generally means the person is saying the program is not representative of his/her political views.
"The public interest" is a very slippery creature, and seems to be a very different entity than what the public is interested in.
Sir Terry Pratchett wrote: »
‘So . . . we have what the people are interested in, and human interest stories, which is what humans are interested in, and the public interest, which no one is interested in.’
‘Except the public, sir,’ said William, trying to keep up.
‘Which isn’t the same as people and humans?’
‘I think it’s more complicated than that, sir.’
‘Obviously. Do you mean that the public is a different thing from the people you just see walking about the place? The public thinks big, sensible, measured thoughts while people run around doing silly things?’
‘I think so. I may have to work on that idea too, I admit.’
‘Hmm. Interesting. I have certainly noticed that groups of clever and intelligent people are capable of really stupid ideas,’ said Lord Vetinari.
Yes public interest is slippery. Fortunately the BBC has to educate and entertain as has been mentioned. So he whole argument of public interest is a bit of a red herring. Remember the licence fee also covers the national and local radio stations. You don’t need a licence to listen to those. It also make programmes for the likes of S4C here in Wales. Poble Cwm is a popular soap made by the BBC for S4C. There are also regional programs and news. Much more than TV
Conversely I live in a country with a BBC equivalent and no television licence fee.
You are young, Orfeo. There used be a radio fee to support the ABC, and then a separate one for TV when that arrived. Stories abounded of vans driving slowly along suburban streets checking houses where TV was being watched with the records of licence fees. After a few years the fees were combined and not long after, dropped.
I don't particularly mind paying my licence fee. I still think the BBC - bad as it might be at times - is still good enough to justify it.
However. If I thought that by scrapping the license it would also get rid of Eastenders? Seriously tempted. The actors are great and once in a blue moon important issues are addressed in useful dramatic ways. I still remember the Dot and Ethel storyline, with some admiration.
But so far as I can tell, by catching up with it whenever my mother visits, it generally sits like a huge, poisonous, farting toad on the TV schedules providing little else but an endless stream of murderers, adulterers, disastrously young mums and dads, every kind of criminal, rapist, arsonist; numerous random children, wives and husbands circulating round numerous other families and partners, creating mayhem, divorce and every kind of domestic abuse. Every cruel, wrong, malicious, nasty quality is indulged; nobody ever makes a good decision, speaks the truth or acts unselfishly (hardly). And it's to be hoped that anyone growing up watching it, or taking it even half-seriously as how 'ordinary' people live, has enough reality around them to nullify the unedifying sludge of terminal misery that is the typical Eastenders plot-line.
I avoid it. But I was interested to hear a person on the radio suggest that many plot lines were derived from Greek theatre, with the one exception of Medea. Even without her, there seems to be adequate supply of adultery, incest, murder and so on.
Well, many, many Americans and our public broadcasting stations are deeply grateful that stations can buy/rent/lease (however it works) wonderful programs to be viewed/heard here.
That's a page of thumbnail pics for each show. If you skim through, you'll see lots of UK shows. We're especially fond of mysteries and dramas (especially from "Masterpiece Theater") and of "Britcoms". Then there's the "Great British Baking Show", travel, science, history, news, etc. (Yes, we do make lots of our own PBS shows here, too! ) Mousing over a thumbnail pic gives you basic info. Clicking on one takes you to a page for it, where you can watch videos.
If you use the "Filter by genre" setting on the left and choose "Drama", you'll get a better idea. Tons of shows; and AFAICS all from the UK. For some reason, there isn't a "Comedy" setting, but Britcoms are much beloved.
Conversely I live in a country with a BBC equivalent and no television licence fee.
You are young, Orfeo. There used be a radio fee to support the ABC, and then a separate one for TV when that arrived. Stories abounded of vans driving slowly along suburban streets checking houses where TV was being watched with the records of licence fees. After a few years the fees were combined and not long after, dropped.
I avoid it. But I was interested to hear a person on the radio suggest that many plot lines were derived from Greek theatre, with the one exception of Medea. Even without her, there seems to be adequate supply of adultery, incest, murder and so on.
They also use Shakespeare and what might be described as classic literature. I don’t watch it, I saw a documentary on the use of literary sources in TV
I avoid it. But I was interested to hear a person on the radio suggest that many plot lines were derived from Greek theatre, with the one exception of Medea. Even without her, there seems to be adequate supply of adultery, incest, murder and so on.
They also use Shakespeare and what might be described as classic literature. I don’t watch it, I saw a documentary on the use of literary sources in TV.
I hope they don't include Titus Andronicus in their approved sources.
I avoid it. But I was interested to hear a person on the radio suggest that many plot lines were derived from Greek theatre, with the one exception of Medea. Even without her, there seems to be adequate supply of adultery, incest, murder and so on.
They also use Shakespeare and what might be described as classic literature. I don’t watch it, I saw a documentary on the use of literary sources in TV
People get uncomfortable when things like that get put in a contemporary setting. Verdi ran into the same problem when he tried to produce an opera about the assassination of Gustav III of Sweden, which had happened recently enough (65 years before Verdi started writing his opera about it) that censors found it intolerable. Apparently it's okay to produce something about the assassination of Julius Cæsar, but doing so about a semi-contemporary monarch might give people ideas. Verdi eventually re-set the production, placing it in colonial-era Boston and changing the king to the royal governor.
I was in the habit of watching Corry (yes, I know that it's ITV) while I prepared dinner. Mike Baldwin, who owned Underworld, was suffering from dementia, and wanders Weatherfield in a torrential storm - pure Lear on the heath. My jaw dropped.
... People get uncomfortable when things like that get put in a contemporary setting. Verdi ran into the same problem when he tried to produce an opera about the assassination of Gustav III of Sweden, which had happened recently enough (65 years before Verdi started writing his opera about it) that censors found it intolerable. Apparently it's okay to produce something about the assassination of Julius Cæsar, but doing so about a semi-contemporary monarch might give people ideas. Verdi eventually re-set the production, placing it in colonial-era Boston and changing the king to the royal governor/.
This is causing a problem here with a dramatic series Netflix is running called "The Crown" on the recent lives of members of the royal family. Parts of it traduce what actually happened for the sake of dramatic thrill. Because most of the people represented are still alive and publicly relevant and because a lot of more ignorant viewers can't tell the difference between a documentary and a stage play, there have been calls that Netflix should be required to put a warning on each episode that 'this is drama and not everything you're going to see is true', which they have declined to do.
I think there are problems with dramatized fictional versions of real life contemporary people and events that go beyond some viewers not understanding that it's fictional.
I think if I made a fictional story featuring you as a main character, and you were portrayed unkindly, you might feel a bit upset to have it televised.
I think there are problems with dramatized fictional versions of real life contemporary people and events that go beyond some viewers not understanding that it's fictional.
How contemporary is "contemporary"? And how far should writers go to spare the feelings of . . . let's say Lavrenti Beria?
I think there are problems with dramatised fictional versions of real life contemporary people and events that go beyond some viewers not understanding that it's fictional.
that I thought you were referencing this time, and which I was.
A lovely secondary school history teacher I know tells me that when he comes to teaching about the first World War he had to, first, get his pupils past all their 'Blackadder goes Forth' preconceptions. As he himself has no sense of humour and hadn't (then) watched the series he found this bemusing!
If it can happen with an overt absurd comedy, it can obviously be a problem with a pseudo 'docudrama' like The Crown.
I wonder if how a modern young English students responds to Shakespeare will be shaped by the wonderful 'Upstart Crow'.
Comments
I find a similar argument to the one @Makepeace makes in people who argue that public libraries should only hold highbrow "educational" material, and not popular novels.
And it's nonsense. Yes, of course libraries should hold classic literature and "worthy" books, but the public interest is also served by a public that reads - not just a public that reads Boethius or Balzac.
So let me nail my colours firmly to the mast. Libraries should hold trashy bodice-rippers, and similar popular works of little literary merit, because people will read them, and people reading is in the public good. And perhaps people who are familiar with the library because of this will also look for a more "worthy" book when necessity presents itself.
Think of it as a gateway drug for education and culture
Not quite. You pay a monthly rental fee for Netflix. Same with BritBox. You pay a subscription fee. And, in a sense, you are paying for commercial television through increased prices on products. There is nothing free on television.
It is, but it's also a member of the set of payments which fund and allow access to TV services.
So is and isn't.
I also think having the BBC means we don’t get adds as often as they do in the US. To me it is worth paying the licence so we have channels that don’t take adds
I find US broadcast TV unwatchable because of the density and positioning of ads. This has made me always support the UK licence fee as a matter of pragmatism, regardless of any philosophical positions.
Oh, I quite agree. American Television's purpose is to hold the viewers' attention to the next commercial break. And then, the commercials have been shortened so that more can be shown within the 3 allotted minutes.
I'm not suggesting that the BBC should only make programmes that I deem worthy. I'm suggesting that they should only have public funding available to the extent that it passes a public interest test. I'm not suggesting that it should be me who decides what that criteria is, only that there should be some.
With regard to your point about people abandoning a licence fee there are two points I would make:
1. I think it would be better to abolish the licence fee but to allocate funding on a tender basis through the tax system to any organisation that wishes to make a programme in the public interest.
2. There are many people who have abandoned the BBC on other grounds anyway. I do not have a TV licence because I do not wish to fund the BBC on moral grounds. I do not subscribe to Netflix for the same reason.
Whilst I am not claiming to know what criteria might be included in a public interest test I would be very surprised if a programme that glamorises and trivialises serial murder would pass any public interest criteria.
There are similarities and differences between two things. Is this a difficult concept?
@Makepeace suggesting his personal standards be adopted by network censors.
I'd also argue that if you're against "dark" productions (and I assume you're not just talking about lighting quality) you'd have to cancel the news as well. This whole pandemic storyline they're doing is very dark, and the cynicism exhibited by these "Boris Johnson" and "Donald Trump" characters is truly shocking.
I think it is axiomatic that Eastenders and killing Eve would not pass any public interest test, whatever that criteria might happen to be (just as, for example, it is axiomatic that McDonalds would not pass a public interest if fast food were publicly funded). The second post was simply clarifying that I would not expect them to fail such a test merely because they were contrary to my tastes. If you believe that there are criteria that is in the public interest, which these particular programmes would be likely to pass, it may help to say what they are?
You may have overlooked the quote I took earlier from a 2016House of Lords report (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/ldcomuni/96/9606.htm)
To spell it out, since their second charter (1936, if I have read Wikipedia correctly) the BBC has had the public interest test of producing material to inform, educate and entertain.
They didn't put a fiction label on it either even though it was purportedly about historical members of the Royal Family.
So it's something that's assumed rather than based on evidence and analysis?
I disagree with you here. McDonald's food is not a priori assumed to be a health hazard, that's a conclusion based on nutritional analysis and data.
Why? If you've established it as an axiom that those shows are not in the public interest, that places them beyond analysis or testing.
It’s a fairly fundamental element of tax law that there’s no direct link. You could just as easily have a television licence fee without the BBC existing and the money would be used to pay for something else. The NHS. Or Ministers’ salaries.
Conversely I live in a country with a BBC equivalent and no television licence fee.
In other words the whole argument is nonsense.
That's not really fair as the licence fee money goes to the BBC. It's not part of general tax revenue.
My point is that there’s no particular need for that to be the way things are arranged.
We get people here from time to time arguing against the ABC as a government funded television network. They can’t link it to refusing to pay a television fee because we haven’t got one.
The present system isn't perfect, but it delivers a much better all round service, and better value for money for us what pay than any of the alternatives.
Besides which, we also have the OPer announcing that they won't have a TV licence on principle just after having their example of What Is Wrong With The BBC blown to smithereens.
My point was not that the fee is somehow a uniquely confiscatory act. I was arguing that it more or less amounts to mandatory support for the BBC, and was trying to pre-empt someone from arguing that it's not mandatory because you have a choice, by pointing out that you effectively suffer a penalty for not paying it.
And to be clear, I have no problem with public broadcasting being funded by fees or taxes. I was just giving an alternative anti-beeb argument to Makepeace, instead of his complaint that the network is bad because it shows stuff he personally finds too dark.
I wasn’t intending to critique your contributions personally. But I will observe that here in Australia we have mandatory support for the ABC. Without the television licence thing. Taxes are taxes.
Many years ago the ABC had an advertising campaign about how it cost each person 8 cents a day, telling you all the things you got for 8 cents. Which I’m sure was because it was a period where people were claiming it was a waste of taxpayers’ money.
You are young, Orfeo. There used be a radio fee to support the ABC, and then a separate one for TV when that arrived. Stories abounded of vans driving slowly along suburban streets checking houses where TV was being watched with the records of licence fees. After a few years the fees were combined and not long after, dropped.
But the OP claimed to be about media being unfair by questioning whether trump might not leave his tied accomodation if/when he lost.
It seemed odd so I asked why he mentioned the BBC specifically and he said ~"The reason that I've singled out the BBC is that they are the largest broadcaster in the world ". I didn't think that the real reason and it seems it was about the BBC so was his answer wasn't the truth.
His other thread 'Eton' wasn't about the high-profile school but about a teacher defying the school's policy and getting the boot for using their name to promote his own views when they told him not to. Misleading title/OP again.
Frankly, when I see someone complaining a show is not in the public interest, it generally means the person is saying the program is not representative of his/her political views,
"The public interest" is a very slippery creature, and seems to be a very different entity than what the public is interested in.
You do realise this just proves my point?
However. If I thought that by scrapping the license it would also get rid of Eastenders? Seriously tempted. The actors are great and once in a blue moon important issues are addressed in useful dramatic ways. I still remember the Dot and Ethel storyline, with some admiration.
But so far as I can tell, by catching up with it whenever my mother visits, it generally sits like a huge, poisonous, farting toad on the TV schedules providing little else but an endless stream of murderers, adulterers, disastrously young mums and dads, every kind of criminal, rapist, arsonist; numerous random children, wives and husbands circulating round numerous other families and partners, creating mayhem, divorce and every kind of domestic abuse. Every cruel, wrong, malicious, nasty quality is indulged; nobody ever makes a good decision, speaks the truth or acts unselfishly (hardly). And it's to be hoped that anyone growing up watching it, or taking it even half-seriously as how 'ordinary' people live, has enough reality around them to nullify the unedifying sludge of terminal misery that is the typical Eastenders plot-line.
(Did I mention how much I didn't like it?)
It's a well-kept secret. Don't tell anyone.
Well, many, many Americans and our public broadcasting stations are deeply grateful that stations can buy/rent/lease (however it works) wonderful programs to be viewed/heard here.
Just to give you an idea:
PBS--All Shows.
That's a page of thumbnail pics for each show. If you skim through, you'll see lots of UK shows. We're especially fond of mysteries and dramas (especially from "Masterpiece Theater") and of "Britcoms". Then there's the "Great British Baking Show", travel, science, history, news, etc. (Yes, we do make lots of our own PBS shows here, too!
If you use the "Filter by genre" setting on the left and choose "Drama", you'll get a better idea. Tons of shows; and AFAICS all from the UK. For some reason, there isn't a "Comedy" setting, but Britcoms are much beloved.
NPR radio also includes some things from the BBC.
So thank you very much! (A la "Oliver".)
It gives a bit of history to your post.
They also use Shakespeare and what might be described as classic literature. I don’t watch it, I saw a documentary on the use of literary sources in TV
People get uncomfortable when things like that get put in a contemporary setting. Verdi ran into the same problem when he tried to produce an opera about the assassination of Gustav III of Sweden, which had happened recently enough (65 years before Verdi started writing his opera about it) that censors found it intolerable. Apparently it's okay to produce something about the assassination of Julius Cæsar, but doing so about a semi-contemporary monarch might give people ideas. Verdi eventually re-set the production, placing it in colonial-era Boston and changing the king to the royal governor.
I think if I made a fictional story featuring you as a main character, and you were portrayed unkindly, you might feel a bit upset to have it televised.
How contemporary is "contemporary"? And how far should writers go to spare the feelings of . . . let's say Lavrenti Beria?
(The film you link to is fantastic, in my view, if that matters to anyone).
So, about the same amount of time as between the previously mentioned assassination of Gustav III and Verdi's opera about it.
If it can happen with an overt absurd comedy, it can obviously be a problem with a pseudo 'docudrama' like The Crown.
I wonder if how a modern young English students responds to Shakespeare will be shaped by the wonderful 'Upstart Crow'.