Dissolve the BBC?

[littlebabyjesus]

Like when we were growing up then (those of us of a certain age). I never saw Trumpton, ever, or Camberwick Green, cos they were always the things replaced by Welsh shows. Smurfs was always in Welsh as well.

Surely stripping it back like that just gets rid of all the advantages of the multi-platform possibilities.

 

[skyscraper101]

Like when we were growing up then (those of us of a certain age). I never saw Trumpton, ever, or Camberwick Green, cos they were always the things replaced by Welsh shows. Smurfs was always in Welsh as well.

Surely stripping it back like that just gets rid of all the advantages of the multi-platform possibilities.

But nowadays they can utilise iPlayer, and not even have superfluous linear channels and all the associated costs.

 

[campanula]

In truth, I don't really care. I don't watch TV (or indeed, any media broadcasting)...but a lot of people I know do. I do have an aversion to a totally privatised broadcast monopoly...although I am fairly sure the BBC operates precisely the same structural bias towards the hugely unfair and unequal power relations which pertain across society.

 

[maomao]

Maybe they should strip it back to two main TV channels. And BBC News. I could live without BBC3, BBC4 and CBeebies. Who even watches BBC Alba? Load of bollocks.

Oi! Leave Cbeebies alone. It's the only BBC channel that provides consistent quality original programming.

 

[Doodler]

Right-wingers know that a voluntary subscription service would reduce the BBC to a shadow of itself, their desired goal. Channel 4 model, government grants plus advertising, means advertisers have potential leverage over what sort of material gets broadcast. That could mean programs being made foremost to cater to the demographic profiles advertisers want, or else avoiding subjects the advertisers deem detrimental to their interests. Has this been an issue yet with Channel 4?

 

[skyscraper101]

Oi! Leave Cbeebies alone. It's the only BBC channel that provides consistent quality original programming.

Maybe they should just do reruns of old shows as if they're new. Kids that age don't know any different or care surely. We could have a whole new generation turned on to Button Moon and Rainbow

 

[maomao]

Maybe they should just do reruns of old shows as if they're new. Kids that age don't know any different or care surely. We could have a whole new generation turned on to Button Moon and Rainbow

They were CITV shows. BBC periodically relaunches old stuff anyway; the new Clangers is as good as the original though I'm not keen on the new Postman Pats.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

And no ads for the kids. That's kind of important.

 

[krtek a houby]

not to mention archivists and the people who phone round to find out how difficult words are pronounced...

Seem to remember a few pronunciation problems with Haughey and Drogheda, back in the 80s..?

 

[krtek a houby]

If you drop the BBC and replace it with a better, democratised cultural funding model then the infrastructure to support it would still be required. Except maybe the bars, can't trust any institution where people feel the need to get pissed on site and away from the stare of the lumpen proles beyond.

Possibly, but what would long term staff do in the meantime, while the new model takes shape?

As for the bars, as a guest, have to say don't remember seeing anyone in the public eye there. Maybe it was more of a thing in bygone days...

 

[skyscraper101]

And no ads for the kids. That's kind of important.

Yeah fine, but like just stick it on BBC One in the afternoon, and shove the rest on iplayer or something.

I don't actually think relegating specialist programming onto several channels serves the the overall output quality across all channels all that well because running costs, and space to fill inevitably bear down on quality - and that gets harder to justify with fragmented audience numbers. Plus now we're in the age of being able to stream stuff and watch content on demand, that should be a major consideration if they're to formulate a a convincing justification of the license fee.

 

[emanymton]

On the plus side, it has just put the whole of Battlestar Galactica on iplayer and I missed that the first time round so am enjoying watching it immensely. All hail the BBC

Wait untill you get to the end, you might change your mind.

 

[Lord Camomile]

that gets harder to justify with fragmented audience numbers.

To me, this is one of the major issues. In my eyes, the BBC are supposed to be the broadcaster who doesn't care too much about audience numbers.

 

[danny la rouge]

On the plus side, it has just put the whole of Battlestar Galactica on iplayer and I missed that the first time round so am enjoying watching it immensely. All hail the BBC

So say we all.

 

[krtek a houby]

Wait untill you get to the end, you might change your mind.

Ah, frak that. It's not as disappointing as some say.

BSG, that is, not BBC

 

[skyscraper101]

To me, this is one of the major issues. In my eyes, the BBC are supposed to be the broadcaster who doesn't care too much about audience numbers.

But those are the metrics by which you balance relevance and justify production/talent costs vs the 'other side'

Of course the BBC still has a remit to cater to minority audiences - which is entirely correct and one of the best arguments for the license fee - but they nonetheless still have to justify why they pay Lineker, Norton etc the salaries they do and command the budgets they do for Strictly, Eastenders, Top Gear etc. at the same time.

 

[Crispy]

CBeebies.

Is an essential public service.

 

[skyscraper101]

Perhaps I'm being harsh on CBeebies. It's CBBC who should be having a word with themselves.

via What do I need to know about the BBC?

 

[mauvais]

If you drop the BBC and replace it with a better, democratised cultural funding model then the infrastructure to support it would still be required. Except maybe the bars, can't trust any institution where people feel the need to get pissed on site and away from the stare of the lumpen proles beyond.

This whole thread is an example of it, but this post in particular - I don't think (any of) you have any idea about what the BBC is actually like.

I'm not even sure it has a bar, FWIW.

 

[danny la rouge]

- I don't think (any of) you have any idea about what the BBC is actually like.

We do. It’s staffed by Hugh Bonnevilles and narrated by David Tennant.

 

[YouSir]

This whole thread is an example of it, but this post in particular - I don't think (any of) you have any idea about what the BBC is actually like.

I'm not even sure it has a bar, FWIW.

Krtek mentioned bar staff and then said they'd been there. I didn't raise them as a serious point.

 

[skyscraper101]

I’ve been to the bar. Well the one near New Broadcasting House anyway. It’s not all that tbh. It’s more reminiscent of a Student Union bar than anything fancy.

 

[Lord Camomile]

Bush House also had a bar, so I was told. Didn't get to go there because I was late

 

[mauvais]

Krtek mentioned bar staff and then said they'd been there. I didn't raise them as a serious point.

My point remains. What would be different about a democratised cultural funding model? What would it have, for example, 4000 engineers do? What would it do with sports broadcasting, or music radio, or Bitesize, or all the other non-news stuff you aren't likely to have an opinion about? Other than fuck them about whenever the politics of the day demanded it?

 

[YouSir]

My point remains. What would be different about a democratised cultural funding model? What would it have, for example, 4000 engineers do? What would it do with sports broadcasting, or music radio, or Bitesize, or all the other non-news stuff you aren't likely to have an opinion about? Other than fuck them about whenever the politics of the day demanded it?

What do 4,000 engineers do now? They produce cultural and educational content, same as they would continue to only without the institution of the BBC and it's resident gate keepers being the ones who dictate what that content is. And my having an opinion on any given piece of content is irrelevant, other people do and in a democratic, crowd commissioning setup they'd be able to push for it to be continued/made. If anything making it'd be vastly more immune to the politics of the day given that it'd neither be a managerial class nor attempted government influence dictating the process any more.

And my main focus is the non-news stuff.

 

[mauvais]

What do 4,000 engineers do now? They produce cultural and educational content, same as they would continue to only without the institution of the BBC and it's resident gate keepers being the ones who dictate what that content is. And my having an opinion on any given piece of content is irrelevant, other people do and in a democratic, crowd commissioning setup they'd be able to push for it to be continued/made. If anything making it'd be vastly more immune to the politics of the day given that it'd neither be a managerial class nor attempted government influence dictating the process any more.

And my main focus is the non-news stuff.

Engineers (D+E) don't produce content. They produce infrastructure, products and means of delivering content to serve the needs of the BBC and in short order the public. For a lot less and doing a lot better a job than the commercial equivalent, FWIW. It's unclear to me how this is affected by gatekeepers in a way that would be different if controlled democratically, or what that would even mean, like democratically trying to drive a car.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Oi! Leave Cbeebies alone. It's the only BBC channel that provides consistent quality original programming.

Not been any good since they done away with Space Pirates.

 

[YouSir]

Engineers (D+E) don't produce content. They produce infrastructure, products and means of delivering content to serve the needs of the BBC and in short order the public. For a lot less and doing a lot better a job than the commercial equivalent, FWIW. It's unclear to me how this is affected by gatekeepers in a way that would be different if controlled democratically, or what that would even mean, like democratically trying to drive a car.

At no point have I advocated any commercial equivalent, everything I've said relates to a state funded model. And infrastructure is required either way so again - they'd keep on doing what they're doing. I'm not suggesting that infrastructure management should be directly voted on. And FWIW I struggle to see how a more democratic process around programme commissioning would relate to the work of engineers, who presumably don't care who's choosing what gets made.

e2a: As jobs seems to be your concern - I also think culture and media should be funded by taxation, not a license fee and that there should be a lot more funding for it. Especially for enabling access to the skills and tools necessary to create content, including the infrastructure side of things.

 

[krtek a houby]

This whole thread is an example of it, but this post in particular - I don't think (any of) you have any idea about what the BBC is actually like.

I'm not even sure it has a bar, FWIW.

May well not have, any longer but back in the day it had in Bush House, Telly Centre, White City, Woodlands and possibly a few more.

To drink there, you had to be a guest or a BBC club member but think the latter was not always rigourously enforced.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

May well not have, any longer but back in the day it had in Bush House, Telly Centre, White City, Woodlands and possibly a few more.

To drink there, you had to be a guest or a BBC club member but think the latter was not always rigourously enforced.

What's wrong with the beeb having a bar? All relatively large workplaces should have a bar, imo. And a subsidised, or at least nice and cheap, one at that.