4 ms·

Easy fix: make the BBC a paid subscription and let people choose.

by xvxvx 7mo ago

PaulDavisThe1st 7mo ago
That is not part of the conception of the BBC as a social good, a non-commercial institution that provides value to the UK (and the world). You can argue that this conception has to change, and that's fine. But the BBC was established by the UK government, with stated intentions and goals, and it currently isn't and never has been seen as a "pay-to-watch" sort of thing.
- nephihaha 7mo ago
  It may not be seen as "pay to watch", but that is effectively what it always has been. Back in the early days, that idea could be excused — because TV was basically them and ITV, and Channel 4 in the early eighties — since there was a good chance you'd be watching their content. Back in my childhood there were so few channels you could often guess what someone had watched the night before, and you would chat about it. Not anymore. Since the emergence of VHS/DVDs, satellite television and the internet, their viewing share has reduced considerably. They've gone from being 2/3 of the available channels to 1/2, to about a dozen out of hundreds of channels. Right now, more British under-30s are watching YouTube than the BBC, which has undermined their stranglehold on TV. Many people simply aren't watching the BBC at all. BBC3 is an attempt to appeal to the young, which has had mixed results. Many children simply don't watch BBC content anymore.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 7mo ago
    By "pay to watch" I was referring to "pay <X> to be able to watch <Y>". I was not describing "you must pay something to watch anything". The whole idea of the BBC was a cultural force that wasn't subject to commercial considerations. I'm not going to die on that hill, but we need to recognize that it is a very different idea to e.g. how many viewers are. If the decision is to change that fundamental conception of the BBC, so be it, but don't try to sneak it in the backdoor. That said, some might argue that the bulk of contemporary BBC-produced content has already eroded it so much that the distinction is moot.
    - nephihaha 7mo ago
      Lord Reith did envision the BBC as a cultural force for sure. I would certainly argue that they aren't producing enough highbrow content. The BBC has shown some commercial considerations. For example, some of its documentaries and dramas are aimed for resale in foreign markets. In the past, the BBC has made money off magazines and books, DVDs/videos, music (including live concerts) and so on. Their scientific and nature programming is decent, but very much aimed for sale to the American market, with the possible exception of the "Sky at Night" (which is only monthly). Their music programming is alright — some decent classical and jazz. Their sports coverage, again, tends to be very anglocentric (so if you're Scottish, Welsh or (Northern) Irish, don't expect much UK-wide coverage of your teams), but is better than ITV's. Their drama has been going downhill for some years now (and is dominated by soap operas and crime dramas), and their historical/political content is often tendentious and anglocentric (not even that — Londoncentric). The BBC has traditionally best period dramas but is failing in that sphere now. They are moving to a stricter pay to watch system. iPlayer for example asks you if you have a TV licence if you watch it.

Easy fix: make the BBC a paid subscription and let people choose.

by xvxvx 7mo ago

Easy fix: make the BBC a paid subscription and let people choose.

That is not part of the conception of the BBC as a social good, a non-commercial institution that provides value to the UK (and the world). You can argue that this conception has to change, and that's fine. But the BBC was established by the UK government, with stated intentions and goals, and it currently isn't and never has been seen as a "pay-to-watch" sort of thing.

nephihaha 7mo ago
It may not be seen as "pay to watch", but that is effectively what it always has been. Back in the early days, that idea could be excused — because TV was basically them and ITV, and Channel 4 in the early eighties — since there was a good chance you'd be watching their content. Back in my childhood there were so few channels you could often guess what someone had watched the night before, and you would chat about it. Not anymore. Since the emergence of VHS/DVDs, satellite television and the internet, their viewing share has reduced considerably. They've gone from being 2/3 of the available channels to 1/2, to about a dozen out of hundreds of channels. Right now, more British under-30s are watching YouTube than the BBC, which has undermined their stranglehold on TV. Many people simply aren't watching the BBC at all. BBC3 is an attempt to appeal to the young, which has had mixed results. Many children simply don't watch BBC content anymore.
- PaulDavisThe1st 7mo ago
  By "pay to watch" I was referring to "pay <X> to be able to watch <Y>". I was not describing "you must pay something to watch anything". The whole idea of the BBC was a cultural force that wasn't subject to commercial considerations. I'm not going to die on that hill, but we need to recognize that it is a very different idea to e.g. how many viewers are. If the decision is to change that fundamental conception of the BBC, so be it, but don't try to sneak it in the backdoor. That said, some might argue that the bulk of contemporary BBC-produced content has already eroded it so much that the distinction is moot.
  - nephihaha 7mo ago
    Lord Reith did envision the BBC as a cultural force for sure. I would certainly argue that they aren't producing enough highbrow content. The BBC has shown some commercial considerations. For example, some of its documentaries and dramas are aimed for resale in foreign markets. In the past, the BBC has made money off magazines and books, DVDs/videos, music (including live concerts) and so on. Their scientific and nature programming is decent, but very much aimed for sale to the American market, with the possible exception of the "Sky at Night" (which is only monthly). Their music programming is alright — some decent classical and jazz. Their sports coverage, again, tends to be very anglocentric (so if you're Scottish, Welsh or (Northern) Irish, don't expect much UK-wide coverage of your teams), but is better than ITV's. Their drama has been going downhill for some years now (and is dominated by soap operas and crime dramas), and their historical/political content is often tendentious and anglocentric (not even that — Londoncentric). The BBC has traditionally best period dramas but is failing in that sphere now. They are moving to a stricter pay to watch system. iPlayer for example asks you if you have a TV licence if you watch it.