3 ms·

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

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 8mo 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.

nephihaha 8mo 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.