2 ms·

You clearly have no freaking idea what the BBC does if you think it is 'a TV channel'.

by dotBen 15y ago

brador 15y ago
TV, net, radio. Those are the core areas. But can't the free market channels and services work just as well? How about a donation system for the BBC like the US has? If it is as valuable as people claim, surely they will be willing to donate to the cause? The comments on that article go to show there exist conflicting views on the BBC's usefulness, in which case, it is unethical to force the tax on practically everyone who lives there.
- 3am 15y ago
  The BBC is an enormous and success means for the UK to exert soft power globally via their native language affiliates around the world. edit: It seems gaius is correct below - the World Service funding doesn't come from the BBC TV surcharge.
  - gaius 15y ago
    That's the World Service, which is funded by the Foreign Office from general taxation.
    - jbooth 15y ago
      You can't have both?
    - dotBen 15y ago
      actually....... that just changed very recently. The World Service is now funded from the license fee combined with commercial revenues (eg selling World Service news to NPR). In some ways it is a good thing that the government is not funding BBC World Service as that removes an argument for bias (not that I ever saw any when I was seconded to work on World Service Russian and Spanish language sites).
- JanezStupar 15y ago
  > TV, net, radio That is as much of an understatement as if one said that Apple makes PCs, Media players and sells MP3s. BBC stuff is really, really, epically, majestically good. BBC is primarily a production company, producing really thought provoking, quality, expensive (!) and often ahead of its time content. In Slovenia we have the same scheme for financing our national media house. And we get a lot less bang for our buck.
  - brador 15y ago
    Absolutely, the BBCs output is frankly the best in the world. That's not being questioned here. What is being questioned is the cost that all must bear, whether they can afford to or not. Remember, this is not a proportional tax like income taxation which takes a %. This is an absolute tax of approx. $200. Not a small sum for the UK poor.
- cromulent 15y ago
  It's a broadcasting company, not a tv channel. Their charter "specifies that the mission of the Corporation is to inform, educate and entertain. It states that the Corporation exists to serve the public interest and to promote its public purposes: sustaining citizenship and civil society, promoting education and learning, stimulating creativity and cultural excellence", according to Wikipedia. A free market comparison might be BSkyB. They have about a 20% bigger revenue. I don't think they do work just as well. I think the BBC is a national treasure (and I don't live there, I just buy their DVDs such as "Planet Earth").
- dotBen 15y ago
  But can't the free market channels and services work just as well? Nope. I've also worked for Rupert Murdoch and other private media entities. Free market is what got as the phone hacking scandal to give one example (there are countless). The US is sorely lacking in high quality reportage through to certain areas of high-brow television programming due to market forces which are concentrating budgets towards maximum ROI media. The comments on that article go to show there exist conflicting views on the BBC's usefulness, in which case, it is unethical to force the tax on practically everyone who lives there. Hmm, well lets just look at tax itself (ie the %age you pay on your earnings). There's certainly an array of views on the usefulness/appropriateness of taxing people yet we have to have it for the greater good. When someone says that they never watch any BBC output whatsoever (which is highly unlikely but still) they are still benefiting from the BBC's presence in the media landscape and the emphasis it has on it's competition. For example, none of the other UK broadcasters had any plans on offering online TV on demand until the BBC launched iPlayer.

You clearly have no freaking idea what the BBC does if you think it is 'a TV channel'.

by dotBen 15y ago

You clearly have no freaking idea what the BBC does if you think it is 'a TV channel'.

TV, net, radio. Those are the core areas. But can't the free market channels and services work just as well? How about a donation system for the BBC like the US has? If it is as valuable as people claim, surely they will be willing to donate to the cause? The comments on that article go to show there exist conflicting views on the BBC's usefulness, in which case, it is unethical to force the tax on practically everyone who lives there.

3am 15y ago
The BBC is an enormous and success means for the UK to exert soft power globally via their native language affiliates around the world. edit: It seems gaius is correct below - the World Service funding doesn't come from the BBC TV surcharge.
- gaius 15y ago
  That's the World Service, which is funded by the Foreign Office from general taxation.
  - jbooth 15y ago
    You can't have both?
  - dotBen 15y ago
    actually....... that just changed very recently. The World Service is now funded from the license fee combined with commercial revenues (eg selling World Service news to NPR). In some ways it is a good thing that the government is not funding BBC World Service as that removes an argument for bias (not that I ever saw any when I was seconded to work on World Service Russian and Spanish language sites).
JanezStupar 15y ago
> TV, net, radio That is as much of an understatement as if one said that Apple makes PCs, Media players and sells MP3s. BBC stuff is really, really, epically, majestically good. BBC is primarily a production company, producing really thought provoking, quality, expensive (!) and often ahead of its time content. In Slovenia we have the same scheme for financing our national media house. And we get a lot less bang for our buck.
- brador 15y ago
  Absolutely, the BBCs output is frankly the best in the world. That's not being questioned here. What is being questioned is the cost that all must bear, whether they can afford to or not. Remember, this is not a proportional tax like income taxation which takes a %. This is an absolute tax of approx. $200. Not a small sum for the UK poor.
cromulent 15y ago
It's a broadcasting company, not a tv channel. Their charter "specifies that the mission of the Corporation is to inform, educate and entertain. It states that the Corporation exists to serve the public interest and to promote its public purposes: sustaining citizenship and civil society, promoting education and learning, stimulating creativity and cultural excellence", according to Wikipedia. A free market comparison might be BSkyB. They have about a 20% bigger revenue. I don't think they do work just as well. I think the BBC is a national treasure (and I don't live there, I just buy their DVDs such as "Planet Earth").
dotBen 15y ago
But can't the free market channels and services work just as well? Nope. I've also worked for Rupert Murdoch and other private media entities. Free market is what got as the phone hacking scandal to give one example (there are countless). The US is sorely lacking in high quality reportage through to certain areas of high-brow television programming due to market forces which are concentrating budgets towards maximum ROI media. The comments on that article go to show there exist conflicting views on the BBC's usefulness, in which case, it is unethical to force the tax on practically everyone who lives there. Hmm, well lets just look at tax itself (ie the %age you pay on your earnings). There's certainly an array of views on the usefulness/appropriateness of taxing people yet we have to have it for the greater good. When someone says that they never watch any BBC output whatsoever (which is highly unlikely but still) they are still benefiting from the BBC's presence in the media landscape and the emphasis it has on it's competition. For example, none of the other UK broadcasters had any plans on offering online TV on demand until the BBC launched iPlayer.