Support NeoGAF

[MayauMiao]

If you're pretty far to the right, I get that you won't like the BBC much because it might tell you things you don't want to hear. If it wasn't around, though, and all you had was GB News and whatever Murdoch wants to serve you, that would be a sad state of affairs.

Interesting thing from the Wikipedia:
Licence fee evasion makes up around one-tenth of all cases prosecuted in magistrates' courts and 0.3% of court time.

If it isn't a political decision and you're just too cheap to get a licence, apparently they still sell black and white licences for a third of the cost. And you get half off again if you claim you're blind.

You don't need to be far right to notice BBC insanity.

 

[IDKFA]

yeah I mean, sure... but basically every western country has publicly funded channels.

in some countries it's a separate charge you have to pay, in others like the US it's just passively payed for with tax money.

seems like there might be a reason basically every western country thinks it's a good idea to have these

I largely agree, but the point of the BBC is that it provides material that otherwise might not be made and to uphold British values. Not to mention the lack of brainrot that is advertising.

Now, they absolutely have lost their way by trying to appeal and serve everyone. It's a gross misconception by them.

Tbe BBC isn't directly funded by the state because it gives it impartiality. Or at least used to give that impression. It's probably something to give up on. Actions speak louder than words after all.

One reason the current funding model has stayed around, other than inertia, is that the EU kept on threatenjng to take legal action if we ever directly funded the BBC. Tbey even went after a plan to help Channel 4 with the digital switchover.

Lads, I'm pretty sure there are Western nations that don't criminalise their citizens for not funding state television.

Spain is one example. AFAIK, The spannish government fund RTVE via state subsidies and taxes on private broadcasters, not a direct TV tax on it's citizens. Other countries have also abolished the TV licence, including the Netherlands, Norway, France and Iceland.

Maybe the UK government could opt for the route. Maybe a combination of taxes on private broadcasters and general tax?

It's not so much paying for it in general. I agree that the BBC still produces some.grear content and is still globally respected.Having adverts may not be the best way to fund such a service. However, what I don't agree with is the forced upon TV licence criminalising people who don't pay, or constantly harassing people who don't pay.

The TV licence is an outdated model and other countries have shown there is another way.

 

[Nintendo's Witch]

the UK is such a joke. LMAO

 

[Mithos]

Italy simply incorporated the TV licence into electricity bills so it’s impossible not to pay it.

Sweden added it onto the tax** you pay, it used to be "voluntary" if you payed or not before.

** Currently a maximum of 1249 SEK/year or 1% of you income if its below 124903 SEK/year

 

[calistan]

I'm not sure what the Royal Family have to do with this? It's not comparable. The monarchy isn’t funded by a legally enforced charge that restricts people’s choices. The BBC is, and that’s the problem.

You say it’s "not about the individual," but that’s precisely why it should be a choice. Society is made up of individuals, and in a modern democracy, people should be free to decide whether they want to pay for a service. If the BBC is truly valuable, it will thrive in a model where people like yourself voluntarily support it—through subscriptions, donations, or advertising. Other broadcasters manage this without forcing payment.

The people should have the freedom to decide what media they support. If the BBC is as indispensable as you suggest, it should have no trouble surviving without forcing people to fund it.

The problem is that I don't think people would support it as it is now. They'd rather have an extra £14 per month in their pockets. If they had to compete to persuade people to pay, much of their current content would be replaced by things that are more commercially appealing, and if they were to move from a licence fee for TV-owning households to a general tax on everybody, that sounds even less fair.

I think the monarchy is a reasonable comparison, as that's 'for the greater good' and is also funded by the taxpayer. We don't get a say in whether we want to support it, because given the choice people would make a selfish decision.

There are plenty of things that are of value to society despite not being used by certain individuals. The NHS, for instance - the only thing I've used it for in the last 20 years is covid vaccinations, and I have private cover if anything was to happen to me, but I can't opt out.

 

[kevboard]

I can only go by Canada’s CBC and it’s trash. Hardly anyone watches it and needs $1B tax funds to keep afloat.

No point keeping it alive unless they show programs people watch like sports.

Whatever content they are making the general public doesn’t care about. They get all this money and their shows are consistently the cheesiest low production value shows ever.

in germany the ARD, ZDF and the regional channels have a pretty big market share.

 

[Dr. Suchong]

"Right vyv, eat the telly!"

 

[Jinzo Prime]

americans also pay for PBS btw... it's just less direct.

PBS is financed in part by donations, but also through tax money by the US government.

in germany it's now basically also just a tax, and it doesn't matter anymore if you own a TV or not like it was a few decades ago.

the thing is, a public TV service is usually a very good thing. the fact that they do not have to compete against other channels means there's less motivation to be overly sensationalist.

and while everything has its flaws, if run well, a public tax funded broadcaster is a good thing imo.

The only publicly funded channel that is of any use in the US is C-SPAN. PBS and NPR suck.

 

[kevboard]

The only publicly funded channel that is of any use in the US is C-SPAN. PBS and NPR suck.

I dunno, PBS has decent youtube channels.
I often watch PBS Space Time for example.

 

[Dithadder]

The only publicly funded channel that is of any use in the US is C-SPAN. PBS and NPR suck.

If im not mistaken, C-SPAN is a joint project of the cable companies and is not publically funded.

 

[Dirk Benedict]

I dunno, PBS has decent youtube channels.
I often watch PBS Space Time for example.

PBS used to be extremely watchable. I grew up with it and have positive memories.
NPR, same thing. I don't know when they got hijacked, but as it stands, right now... both are dead to me and the ashes were sent away from our orbit. IMO.

 

[nbcjr]

to be fair, BBC has several top notch programs, I hope they get the funding they need.

 

[Banjo64]

The BBC is a national embarrassment. Literally 99% of their modern programming is an absolute joke.

I don’t watch any live broadcasts or use BBC iPlayer, so I don’t pay.

Netflix costs me £4.99 a month and comes with complete box sets like Dexter, Breaking Bad, Better Call Saul, Death Note and new stuff like Dragonball Daima. Every episode of SmackDown and Raw, and WWE’s Pay Per Views. Not even touching a whole raft of quality shows, and the movies, and the children’s programming.

 

[CompleteGlobalSaturation]

The BBC is complete garbage and they have absolutely no right to call themselves impartial.

I stopped watching live TV 5 years ago and nothing of value has been missed. I had a cursory glance at iPlayer and it was the same old shite.

I'm not going to give a single penny to those pedophilic cunts.

Fuck the BBC.

 

[YCoCg]

BBC has several top notch programs

*Had

Looking back at the 80s and the 90s sure, you had:
- Blackadder
- The Young Ones
- Only Fools & Horses
- Red Dwarf
- Bottom
- Never Mind The Buzzcocks
- Have I Got News For You (best in the 90s)
- Harry Enfield & Chums
- The Fast Show
- Big Train
- The League of Gentlemen
- I'm Alan Partridge

and so much more

You hardly get anything like that these days

 

[calistan]

*Had

Looking back at the 80s and the 90s sure, you had:
- Blackadder
- The Young Ones
- Only Fools & Horses
- Red Dwarf
- Bottom
- Never Mind The Buzzcocks
- Have I Got News For You (best in the 90s)
- Harry Enfield & Chums
- The Fast Show
- Big Train
- The League of Gentlemen
- I'm Alan Partridge

and so much more

You hardly get anything like that these days

People in the 90s may well have been shaking their fists at the sky and complaining that the BBC no longer made things like Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Porridge, The Good Life, Dad's Army, etc.

I don't watch a huge amount of TV, but there are plenty of more recent (and darker) comedy series I'd say are the modern equals of the ones you mentioned. Not so much sketch shows, fart gags, and canned laughter, but times change.
- This Country
- Gavin and Stacey
- Fleabag
- People Just Do Nothing
- The Detectorists
- Am I Being Unreasonable
- Bad Education
- Psychoville
- Inside Number 9
- The Thick Of It

Also, in the time between your list and mine, there was The Office and The Royle Family. And if you're considering more than just comedy shows there are things like I May Destroy You, Line Of Duty, Luther, Peaky Blinders, Killing Eve, The Fall...

 

[Mistake]

PBS used to be extremely watchable. I grew up with it and have positive memories.
NPR, same thing. I don't know when they got hijacked, but as it stands, right now... both are dead to me and the ashes were sent away from our orbit. IMO.

My grandfather listened to NPR, and he was the biggest pussy I ever met. So who knows when the rot started there.
But yes, PBS was good

 

[diffusionx]

I largely agree, but the point of the BBC is that it provides material that otherwise might not be made and to uphold British values. Not to mention the lack of brainrot that is advertising.

Now, they absolutely have lost their way by trying to appeal and serve everyone. It's a gross misconception by them.

Tbe BBC isn't directly funded by the state because it gives it impartiality. Or at least used to give that impression. It's probably something to give up on. Actions speak louder than words after all.

One reason the current funding model has stayed around, other than inertia, is that the EU kept on threatenjng to take legal action if we ever directly funded the BBC. Tbey even went after a plan to help Channel 4 with the digital switchover.

Why is the BBC being funded by the US government through USAID then?

What does the US goveernment get for its money?

 

[calistan]

Why is the BBC being funded by the US government through USAID then?

What does the US goveernment get for its money?

Two seconds on a search engine would get you the answer. This is what USAID was funding - not the BBC itself, but a charity run by the BBC. You're welcome.

Meet the BBC's international charity

We are BBC Media Action - we believe in media and communication for good

www.bbc.co.uk

Actual statement about the funding, if you can't be bothered to scroll through the site:

Our statement on USAID funding

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[StreetsofBeige]

to be fair, BBC has several top notch programs, I hope they get the funding they need.

Was Benny Hill a BBC show?

Best show ever on Fox29 in the mid 80s when the channel was pure junk except for Yankees baseball and WWF wrestling

 

[diffusionx]

Two seconds on a search engine would get you the answer. This is what USAID was funding - not the BBC itself, but a charity run by the BBC. You're welcome.

Meet the BBC's international charity

We are BBC Media Action - we believe in media and communication for good

www.bbc.co.uk

Actual statement about the funding, if you can't be bothered to scroll through the site:

Our statement on USAID funding

www.bbc.co.uk

Why did the BBC need the USAID to fund its charity? What narratives was it serving?

 

[DownLikeBCPowder]

Why did the BBC need the USAID to fund its charity? What narratives was it serving?

Amazing that it's just openly stated. This rabbit hole seems gigantic.

Feel bad for those in the UK that could potentially be affected by an increase in Netflix or other streaming services in order to support legacy television programs or broadcast networks - the very thing they were attempting to get away from most likely by using services like Netflix.

 

[Horatius]

Two seconds on a search engine would get you the answer. This is what USAID was funding - not the BBC itself, but a charity run by the BBC. You're welcome.

Meet the BBC's international charity

We are BBC Media Action - we believe in media and communication for good

www.bbc.co.uk

Actual statement about the funding, if you can't be bothered to scroll through the site:

Our statement on USAID funding

www.bbc.co.uk

god if only all inspectors were like you, getting away with money laundering would be so easy

well it's already easy if you're a US democrat, but im just talking about for run of the mill criminals

 

[calistan]

Why did the BBC need the USAID to fund its charity? What narratives was it serving?

It didn't "need" USAID to "fund" its charity. It accepted a donation from USAID that amounted to about 8% of its budget. And the "narrative" it serves is simply the promotion of journalism and education in poor countries. Something the US government agreed was a worthy goal, until a few weeks ago.

god if only all inspectors were like you, getting away with money laundering would be so easy

well it's already easy if you're a US democrat, but im just talking about for run of the mill criminals

Oh, right. Elon clued you in to the truth. Well done.

Anyway, this is no longer anything to do with the topic of this thread, you can give it a rest now.

 

[diffusionx]

It didn't "need" USAID to "fund" its charity. It accepted a donation from USAID that amounted to about 8% of its budget. And the "narrative" it serves is simply the promotion of journalism and education in poor countries. Something the US government agreed was a worthy goal, until a few weeks ago.

You are hopelessly naive.

 

[YCoCg]

Why did the BBC need the USAID to fund its charity? What narratives was it serving?

Well the BBC was pro-Tory for over a decade as they were in power and that's our "right wing".

Edit: I'm talking news of course where this money would be going towards, not the entertainment department which is very woke infested. Funny really, the BBC balances itself out that way

 

[Banjo64]

Amazing that it's just openly stated. This rabbit hole seems gigantic.

Feel bad for those in the UK that could potentially be affected by an increase in Netflix or other streaming services in order to support legacy television programs or broadcast networks - the very thing they were attempting to get away from most likely by using services like Netflix.

This is the line I would draw and I wouldn’t pay the license fee even though I’d continue to use Netflix.

I’m sorry but changing the goal posts like this because they are bleeding subscribers is not fair.

Capita (TV license goons) have no right to enter your property or ask you any questions, so tell them to fuck off and shut the door in their face.

 

[RJMacready73]

The BBC can't enforce any of this shit, sure they can change the law and make anyone with a telly watching anything pay a license fee but until they also make it that the BBC can enter your house to check if you have a telly, they are hamstring and IF and I mean IF I ever got a visit (I stopped paying my license about 10yrs ago) he'll be told to get the fuck off my property I'm Amish and I don't have no telly and there's nothing they can do about it.

Just log on online, tell them you don't watch live TV and be done with them for 2yrs whereby you need to simply click on the webpage again, I'm not funding that shit show of waste and historical pedo hiding shower o bastards

 

[nush]

Was Benny Hill a BBC show?

No, ITV. That type of comedy didn't fly at the beeb.

 

[calistan]

No, ITV. That type of comedy didn't fly at the beeb.

It started on the BBC before moving to ITV.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

In Poland for many years the obligatory TV contribution was always linked to having a TV, doesn’t matter what you were watching on it. I guess laptops and tablets are a loophole nobody envisioned 30-40-50 years ago.