Dissolve the BBC?

[Saul Goodman]

I’m struggling to see why anyone would want to abolish a publicly owned, and nominally democratically controlled, organisation.

Because it's full of paedophiles, and nobody should be forced to pay a license fee to keep paedophiles in an overpaid job?

 

[Crispy]

Well, the important thing is always to limit our thinking to the current government and culture.

Thinking has no limits, but action often finds itself constrained

 

[danny la rouge]

Broadcasting can’t be “fixed” independently of capitalism being overthrown. Whether through commerce or quango, broadcasting will be controlled by the interests of those in power.

In the meantime, and purely as a consumer rather than activist, I definitely don’t want a model where we end up with a smorgasbord of subscription services. That’s a dystopian nightmare.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I agree broadly with Smokeandsteam. In principle, the BBC's remit is to provide programming for everybody. That does have a democratic element to it. In practice, the BBC is nowhere near as good as it could be, but that doesn't mean getting rid of it will improve anything. Wiser perhaps to demand better of the BBC, somehow.

 

[kabbes]

Thinking has no limits, but action often finds itself constrained

In a thread about what theoretically would be best?

if we’re going to stick with the immediately possible, the whole discussion is pointless since actually none of us have the ability to influence it anyway. The government will do what it will do, end of debate. That’s the reality of what is possible with this government and culture. I thought we were discussing what we would ideally prefer if we didn’t have this government.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Broadcasting can’t be “fixed” independently of capitalism being overthrown. Whether through commerce or quango, broadcasting will be controlled by the interests of those in power.

In the meantime, and purely as a consumer rather than activist, I definitely don’t want a model where we end up with a smorgasbord of subscription services. That’s a dystopian nightmare.

Strong words. 123movies doesn't require a subscription.

 

[Flavour]

Because it's full of paedophiles, and nobody should be forced to pay a license fee to keep paedophiles in an overpaid job?

you're getting a bit qanony

 

[littlebabyjesus]

In a thread about what theoretically would be best?

if we’re going to stick with the immediately possible, the whole discussion is pointless since actually none of us have the ability to influence it anyway. The government will do what it will do, end of debate. That’s the reality of what is possible with this government and culture. I thought we were discussing what we would ideally prefer if we didn’t have this government.

In that case, I would say theoretically that some form of a state broadcaster, despite all of the obvious flaws of such an idea, is a positive thing to have in existence. And from what I know of other state broadcasters, the BBC is far from the worst one.

 

[danny la rouge]

I agree broadly with Smokeandsteam. In principle, the BBC's remit is to provide programming for everybody. That does have a democratic element to it. In practice, the BBC is nowhere near as good as it could be, but that doesn't mean getting rid of it will improve anything. Wiser perhaps to demand better of the BBC, somehow.

I disagree with Smokeandsteam to the extent that the model of public ownership and control is not really democratic in any meaningful way. It’s a sinecure for public school bureaucrats. But I agree in that I fail to see how commercialisation could be an improvement from an end user point of view.

 

[danny la rouge]

Strong words. 123movies doesn't require a subscription.

I don’t know what that is. Basically if it’s not something your granny would use, it’s not something I would either. To be upfront and realistic.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don’t know what that is. Basically if it’s not something your granny would use, it’s not something I would either. To be upfront and realistic.

It's illegal streaming. No, not granny-friendly. You often have to click through porn.

 

[danny la rouge]

It's illegal streaming. No, not granny-friendly. You often have to click through porn.

Yeah, that sounds minging.

 

[bellaozzydog]

It’s entire morning, day time output seems designed to outrage viewers, vilify the poor and foreigners and drive the fantasy buy to let market

that and shonky political coverage

fuck em, so what if Attenburgh occasionally voice overs some top end digital Natural world wank fest

pile of pooh

 

[NoXion]

It's illegal streaming. No, not granny-friendly. You often have to click through porn.

Not if you install uBlock. Which is easy enough to do for granny.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

I disagree with Smokeandsteam to the extent that the model of public ownership and control is not really democratic in any meaningful way. It’s a sinecure for public school bureaucrats. But I agree in that I fail to see how commercialisation could be an improvement from an end user point of view.

I don’t disagree on the limitations of the model. But the point is one exists and, theoretically, could be changed/improved/radically reimagined via an elected Government. The same cannot be said of Sky (for example).

 

[weltweit]

I think the licence fee unfair and would prefer funding from general taxation. I do listen to BBC radio and I watch some TV, much more than I watch and listen to private broadcasters but still a tiny amount.

As I posted in a recent thread, kids today (and not just kids), basically don't watch TV. So what is the future for the BBC when the demographic changes and no one is watching at all?

 

[danny la rouge]

I don’t disagree on the limitations of the model. But the point is one exists and, theoretically, could be changed/improved/radically reimagined via an elected Government. The same cannot be said of Sky (for example).

Indeed. Although this side of the revolution, it’ll always serve the interests of power.

 

[Pickman's model]

I think the licence fee unfair and would prefer funding from general taxation. I do listen to BBC radio and I watch some TV, much more than I watch and listen to private broadcasters but still a tiny amount.

As I posted in a recent thread, kids today (and not just kids), basically don't watch TV. So what is the future for the BBC when the demographic changes and no one is watching at all?

rosy

 

[Pickman's model]

It's illegal streaming. No, not granny-friendly. You often have to click through porn.

you've a very narrow view of what middle aged and aulder women are interested in

 

[JimW]

It's wet enough already that if you wait a bit it will dissolve anyway.

 

[krtek a houby]

I've lived in America and seen what it's like without the BBC. And it was unbearable.

Be happy to support alternative means of funding - and an almighty kick up the arse at the BBC - but I remain happy to pay for something that doesn't bombard me with fucking shit adverts. And how much I'm prepared to pay is based on the quality of the output.

Am thinking of the thousands of people in the BBC who aren't in the public eye. Drivers, porters, cleaning staff, electricians, IT support, mailroom staff, librarians, canteen staff, security, floor staff, runners, camera crews, researchers, bar staff, shop staff, broadcasting assistants, etc.

That's a lot of job losses.

 

[skyscraper101]

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.

 

[YouSir]

What other models do you have in mind?

As an ideal? Something that makes use of the online/digital potential to democratise our cultural platforms. Crowd commissioning maybe, with a central tax/license fee based pot and the staff and infrastructure for people to access when it comes to stuff like production. An open pitching system with approval coming from votes/signatures of support, that way you're rid of gatekeepers, have a more proportionally representative output and give access to creative tools to people who may have the creative ability to do good stuff but not the connections/time/educational access to go through the whole process of appealing to a sealed circle of commissioning editors and management. Ime there's a massive untapped well of artistic and cultural skill emerging from the internet and that's where the focus of our cultural funding should be. Not that everything that'd come from that would be good, willing to bet the first things people would rally behind would be Strictly, BGT and Top Gear but the potential for supporting interesting stuff lower down could be huge if people were willing to mobilise a fairly negligible amount of effort for it.

 

[YouSir]

Am thinking of the thousands of people in the BBC who aren't in the public eye. Drivers, porters, cleaning staff, electricians, IT support, mailroom staff, librarians, canteen staff, security, floor staff, runners, camera crews, researchers, bar staff, shop staff, broadcasting assistants, etc.

That's a lot of job losses.

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.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

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.

See, that's kind of an illustration of exactly the value that only something like the BBC can provide. Not many people may watch BBC Alba, but those that do will really value it, and it wouldn't exist without the BBC to provide it. Same argument goes for lots of the BBC's output.

We could all live without lots of the BBC, but each of us has a different bit of it that we value. That's kind of the point. You're not supposed to like all of it.

 

[Pickman's model]

Am thinking of the thousands of people in the BBC who aren't in the public eye. Drivers, porters, cleaning staff, electricians, IT support, mailroom staff, librarians, canteen staff, security, floor staff, runners, camera crews, researchers, bar staff, shop staff, broadcasting assistants, etc.

That's a lot of job losses.

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

 

[littlebabyjesus]

As an ideal? Something that makes use of the online/digital potential to democratise our cultural platforms. Crowd commissioning maybe, with a central tax/license fee based pot and the staff and infrastructure for people to access when it comes to stuff like production. An open pitching system with approval coming from votes/signatures of support, that way you're rid of gatekeepers, have a more proportionally representative output and give access to creative tools to people who may have the creative ability to do good stuff but not the connections/time/educational access to go through the whole process of appealing to a sealed circle of commissioning editors and management. Ime there's a massive untapped well of artistic and cultural skill emerging from the internet and that's where the focus of our cultural funding should be. Not that everything that'd come from that would be good, willing to bet the first things people would rally behind would be Strictly, BGT and Top Gear but the potential for supporting interesting stuff lower down could be huge if people were willing to mobilise a fairly negligible amount of effort for it.

Whenever In Our Time has a listener's choice week, they always choose a really shit topic.

 

[danny la rouge]

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.

I like BBC4, but not only could I live without any of the BBC’s news or current affairs output, I do.

 

[skyscraper101]

See, that's kind of an illustration of exactly the value that only something like the BBC can provide. Not many people may watch BBC Alba, but those that do will really value it, and it wouldn't exist without the BBC to provide it. Same argument goes for lots of the BBC's output.

We could all live without lots of the BBC, but each of us has a different bit of it that we value. That's kind of the point. You're not supposed to like all of it.

But why not instead of having 10 different channels, just strip it back to two channels, and a rolling news channel. They can then feature the best stuff from these other channels on the main two channels, save on the cost of running them, and get rid of all the guff. This way all that specialist programming is not only better curated, it has a broader audience.

E.g. kids telly was way better when it had a dedicated time slot on BBC1 approx 3:30-5:30 every week day and a live studio show on Saturdays. Now they just fill the space with shows about antiques or live cooking on Saturday. It's bullshit. As for BBC Alba, Just put select stuff on BBC Scotland and stick the rest on iPlayer. Pretty much nobody outside of Scotland watches it.

 

[YouSir]

Whenever In Our Time has a listener's choice week, they always choose a really shit topic.

Only time will take care of the Radio 4 hardcore I'm afraid, no matter how good the system.