3 ms·

>Even if you don’t engage with Newsnight’s coverage of the Namibian Presidential Election6, or you don’t tune in to hear what the fishing conditions are like in

by glugc 5y ago

>Even if you don’t engage with Newsnight’s coverage of the Namibian Presidential Election6, or you don’t tune in to hear what the fishing conditions are like in the North Sea, it’s good that at least someone, somewhere is being paid to care about these things. Why?

wyager 5y ago
You’re being downvoted but I think this is a fair question. I don’t accept this assertion as true at face value. Presumably the BBC, as with any other government-controlled revenue source, acts as some sort of patronage mechanism, and a lot of these roles exist as a jobs program rather than something the taxpayers actually extract a benefit from.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  > The BBC, as with any other government-controlled revenue source Point of fact, the BBC was not intended to be "government-controlled", and it is not a "revenue source" for the UK government. https://www.quora.com/Is-the-BBC-the-state-owned-and-state-controlled-TV-operator-in-the-UK https://www.quora.com/Is-the-BBC-the-state-owned-and-state-c... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#
  - msla 5y ago
    The BBC is government-controlled in that its money is collected by the government, which can punish people for not paying, and organizations know where their funds are coming from and attempt to prevent those funds from being stopped.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
      Reread. I used the word "intended" deliberately. There are many indirect mechanisms, that are open to abuse. You described one. It's not the same though as direct control.
    - M2Ys4U 5y ago
      >The BBC is government-controlled in that its money is collected by the government No, the licence fee is collected by the BBC, by law. Section 365(2) of the Communications Act 2003: >Sums which a person is liable to pay by virtue of regulations under subsection (1) must be paid to the BBC and are to be recoverable by them accordingly.
      - msla 5y ago
        > No, the licence fee is collected by the BBC, by law. And the government punishes you if you don't pay. I declined to make a distinction without a difference.
  - wyager 5y ago
    “Revenue source” meaning “source of revenue for patronage programs”, not that it makes money for the UK Govt.
jay_kyburz 5y ago
Because we need to know what is going on in the world, whether its profitable or not. News should not be entertainment. News should not be for profit.
- bob229 5y ago
  It’s biased tripe that makes you more stupid. Time to defund it
- gamacodre 5y ago
  > News should not be entertainment. News should not be for profit. But why? If "news" isn't profitable or entertaining (and FWIW I agree those shouldn't be preconditions for quality news), then it will have to be subsidized by someone. Who will do that? What is their reason for putting up that money? And - most importantly - who decides whether the end product is "good enough", and what changes can they demand for the subsidy to continue?
  - caoilte 5y ago
    > Democracy should not be entertainment. Democracy should not be for profit. But why? If "democracy" isn't profitable or entertaining (and FWIW I agree those shouldn't be preconditions for quality democracy), then it will have to be subsidized by someone. Who will do that? What is their reason for putting up that money? And - most importantly - who decides whether the end product is "good enough", and what changes can they demand for the subsidy to continue?
  - jay_kyburz 5y ago
    I think its a fair question and wanted to respond. I don't think people should just downvote. There are a lot of things that we as a society have decided we need, and that everybody should contribute to paying for whether we like it or not. We pay police salaries to try and prevent crime. We all pay to have waste collected regularly. But lets be clear, we are not talking all that much money. Australia's ABC runs on about 7c a day per taxpayer. I would happily pay 10 times that. I think the question of what is "good enough" and how the organization should be run, and how independent it is, are all good questions and something we should all have a say in.

by glugc 5y ago

wyager 5y ago

You’re being downvoted but I think this is a fair question. I don’t accept this assertion as true at face value. Presumably the BBC, as with any other government-controlled revenue source, acts as some sort of patronage mechanism, and a lot of these roles exist as a jobs program rather than something the taxpayers actually extract a benefit from.

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
> The BBC, as with any other government-controlled revenue source Point of fact, the BBC was not intended to be "government-controlled", and it is not a "revenue source" for the UK government. https://www.quora.com/Is-the-BBC-the-state-owned-and-state-controlled-TV-operator-in-the-UK https://www.quora.com/Is-the-BBC-the-state-owned-and-state-c... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#
- msla 5y ago
  The BBC is government-controlled in that its money is collected by the government, which can punish people for not paying, and organizations know where their funds are coming from and attempt to prevent those funds from being stopped.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    Reread. I used the word "intended" deliberately. There are many indirect mechanisms, that are open to abuse. You described one. It's not the same though as direct control.
  - M2Ys4U 5y ago
    >The BBC is government-controlled in that its money is collected by the government No, the licence fee is collected by the BBC, by law. Section 365(2) of the Communications Act 2003: >Sums which a person is liable to pay by virtue of regulations under subsection (1) must be paid to the BBC and are to be recoverable by them accordingly.
    - msla 5y ago
      > No, the licence fee is collected by the BBC, by law. And the government punishes you if you don't pay. I declined to make a distinction without a difference.
- wyager 5y ago
  “Revenue source” meaning “source of revenue for patronage programs”, not that it makes money for the UK Govt.

jay_kyburz 5y ago

Because we need to know what is going on in the world, whether its profitable or not. News should not be entertainment. News should not be for profit.

bob229 5y ago
It’s biased tripe that makes you more stupid. Time to defund it
gamacodre 5y ago
> News should not be entertainment. News should not be for profit. But why? If "news" isn't profitable or entertaining (and FWIW I agree those shouldn't be preconditions for quality news), then it will have to be subsidized by someone. Who will do that? What is their reason for putting up that money? And - most importantly - who decides whether the end product is "good enough", and what changes can they demand for the subsidy to continue?
- caoilte 5y ago
  > Democracy should not be entertainment. Democracy should not be for profit. But why? If "democracy" isn't profitable or entertaining (and FWIW I agree those shouldn't be preconditions for quality democracy), then it will have to be subsidized by someone. Who will do that? What is their reason for putting up that money? And - most importantly - who decides whether the end product is "good enough", and what changes can they demand for the subsidy to continue?
- jay_kyburz 5y ago
  I think its a fair question and wanted to respond. I don't think people should just downvote. There are a lot of things that we as a society have decided we need, and that everybody should contribute to paying for whether we like it or not. We pay police salaries to try and prevent crime. We all pay to have waste collected regularly. But lets be clear, we are not talking all that much money. Australia's ABC runs on about 7c a day per taxpayer. I would happily pay 10 times that. I think the question of what is "good enough" and how the organization should be run, and how independent it is, are all good questions and something we should all have a say in.