I think the true figure is closer to 75%. It's time to abolish the license fee.
It really isn't. 40p a day per household is cheaper than any other alternative. Private means poor/cheap/narrow programming and/or plus subs so as a nation, we are financially and culturally worse off.
Public services means quality available to all at an affordable cost to all. That ethos is important and must be held onto.
The problem with asking people these kinds of questions is that most people aren't knowledgable enough to be in a position to give an informed answer.
It's like if you look at the big issue in the US at the moment and that's cable channel packages. Most people will say they want a move to an ala carte setup because they feel they are paying for channels they don't watch so feel they are wasting money but if they looked at it in greater detail they would realise they would end up paying more than they pay for the pack just to get the channels they watch daily let alone those they watch more casually.
Like that people just don't realise what they actually get for their money. It's unlikely the fee would go away even if the BBC didn't get it after all (most countries that have scrapped a PSB broadcaster kept the fee) and we would lose the benefits the BBC brings (the programming that commercial networks wouldn't take a risk on or niche things they wouldn't even consider, the infrastructure they provide etc) without saving any money. Would most likely also be the perfect excuse for the likes of Sky to jack up their prices further
I pay my BBC tax - I hardly watch BBC - but they come in handy for Doctor Who and the odd excellent drama like The Syndicate! I don't know why people pay well over the odds on Sky etc - that must cost a fortune!! I am happy with FreeView with enough channels to keep me happy! Why pay More for Less? I had SKY many years ago - I only watched about 10 channels!
There are some programmes the BBC do excellently and make the licence fee worth it. I love Doctor Who too. The recent three part series on Japan was a joy to watch too. They also do excellent dramas, and without those irritating adverts every few minutes.
I believe the BBC IS value for money, but just like the 3 for 2 offer on the packet of biscuits on the shelf at the supermarket, you don't just buy into it for the sake of it being value for money.
Re poll sample sizes: you can actually get quite accurate results from a surprisingly small sample size, but only if that sample is representative of a decent range of demographics.
Asking for polls to talk to half of the population is stupid, and shows a very bad understanding of statistics.
As a 22 year old, The BBC hardly appeals to me. It's very middle aged and old in terms of it's programmes. Now with BBC 3 closing down, it:'s even worse. I'm much more loyal to digital channels like E4. If the BBC dissapeared tommorow, i'd only miss Eastenders and Dovtor Who.
As a 22 year old, The BBC hardly appeals to me. It's very middle aged and old in terms of it's programmes. Now with BBC 3 closing down, it:'s even worse. I'm much more loyal to digital channels like E4. If the BBC dissapeared tommorow, i'd only miss Eastenders and Dovtor Who.
90% think supermarkets are too expensive.
100% (Bar MPs) Think MPs are paid far too much.
100% of Turkeys do not like christmas.
PS Adverts do not work, If TV advertising is currently £14 billion, then with the BBC the total TV advertising budget will be £14 billion, notice something, it does not increase.
So BBC takes ads, ITV looses income.
ITV Cuts ad costs, to get ad income back and looses more income.
The same for CH 4 and 5. and Sky.
Sky increases its subscriptions again.
BBC Cant fund News, Sky under Murdoch runs TV news and Newspapers in the UK, do we want that?
CH4/5 get taken over by foreign TV channels.
Quality falls on every channel.
Beware what you wish for, because... we are going that way now its actually becoming far too late its already started.
As a 22 year old, The BBC hardly appeals to me. It's very middle aged and old in terms of it's programmes. Now with BBC 3 closing down, it:'s even worse. I'm much more loyal to digital channels like E4. If the BBC disappeared tomorrow, i'd only miss Eastenders and Doctor Who.
Who do you go for for news, when a major story breaks who do you trust? Murdoch???
Who do you go for for news, when a major story breaks who do you trust? Murdoch???
It's difficult to trust even BBC News these days considering their blatant leftist bias, they need to do a better job of remaining impartial to be considered fully trustworthy
Twitter. It is usually some time before the broadcasters pick up any breaking news.
No better than relying on rumours down the local pub. Twitter does get some things right but many wrong.
I remember some months ago there was a lot of chatter on Twitter about a big explosion in the centre of Manchester. I looked on news sources and there was nothing but the chatter continued on Twitter for some time afterwards. Eventually it all died down. It is faster than reputable news sources, like the BBC, because they check things first. I am sure there are now often malicious rumours started on Twitter because people know they will spread fast there.
It's difficult to trust even BBC News these days considering their blatant leftist bias, they need to do a better job of remaining impartial to be considered fully trustworthy
Bahaha, brilliant.
Everybody thinks they're biased. They were incredibly centre/centre-right a lot of the time during the election campaign. But they've probably had a leftist slant at other times. They're generally alright.
I believe the BBC IS value for money, but just like the 3 for 2 offer on the packet of biscuits on the shelf at the supermarket, you don't just buy into it for the sake of it being value for money.
Perhaps not a good analogy because 3 for 2 offers are often not what they seem.
My comment related to the statistical methodology used in audience measurement by BARB,
nothing whatsoever to do with 'opinion' polls.
Yes and its the same, Barb take a small amount of people and give them barb boxes and then using the same Mathematics as statistical polling they get the X amount of million viewers watched etc. Nothing to do with diversionary tactics, I was just pointing out that the same people who trust barb everyweek are doubting this poll.
PS Adverts do not work, If TV advertising is currently £14 billion, then with the BBC the total TV advertising budget will be £14 billion, notice something, it does not increase..
Advertisers go where ever the people go, if you can show you have millions of people viewing your website, your blog, your newspaper, TV channel or whatever it is. Advertisers will be interested and will pay for adverts.
Twitter? Even as a massive user of Twitter I would never use it as a credible or reliable source of news.
An example of Twitter's superiority to the legacy media is their coverage of the General Election. The BBC were massively behind and failed to report on many of the key seats, in some cases for several hours.
An example of Twitter's superiority to the legacy media is their coverage of the General Election. The BBC were massively behind and failed to report on many of the key seats, in some cases for several hours.
What key seats did they not report on until several hours later?
There were many seats where the BBC speculated about the results based on rumblings at the counts, as do all broadcasters, but of course did not 'officially' call them until the count had been declared. That is standard election broadcasting protocol is it not?
As a 22 year old, The BBC hardly appeals to me. It's very middle aged and old in terms of it's programmes. Now with BBC 3 closing down, it:'s even worse. I'm much more loyal to digital channels like E4. If the BBC dissapeared tommorow, i'd only miss Eastenders and Dovtor Who.
This might come as a surprise to you, but you will not be 22 your whole life. If you're lucky, one day you will be middle aged and realise Twitter is a terrible place to get "news". I hope the bbc survives long enough for you to appreciate it when you grow up.
What key seats did they not report on until several hours later?
There were many seats where the BBC speculated about the results based on rumblings at the counts, as do all broadcasters, but of course did not 'officially' call them until the count had been declared. That is standard election broadcasting protocol is it not?
I cannot remember the exact seats but they were very slow on some of the declarations in the early hours of the morning.
There were key swing seats which received no coverage at all.
The BBC were even incapable of reporting rumours such as Ed Balls losing in Morley and Outwood. The rumours were flying around for hours. Same with Thurrock a key UKIP target seat, rumours that they were 2nd/3rd for hours.
The coverage on Sky and Sky Arts was far far superior to the BBC's coverage.
An example of Twitter's superiority to the legacy media is their coverage of the General Election. The BBC were massively behind and failed to report on many of the key seats, in some cases for several hours.
Excuse me, but is twitter a channel that I can tune into and then sit down and watch, with people talking and showing actual events (like, in the case of an election, the count being declared)? Somehow, I don't think you are comparing like with like.
I cannot remember the exact seats but they were very slow on some of the declarations in the early hours of the morning.
There were key swing seats which received no coverage at all.
The BBC were even incapable of reporting rumours such as Ed Balls losing in Morley and Outwood. The rumours were flying around for hours. Same with Thurrock a key UKIP target seat, rumours that they were 2nd/3rd for hours.
The coverage on Sky and Sky Arts was far far superior to the BBC's coverage.
I'm rather thankful the BBC isn't basing its news reporting on rumours. The purpose of a journalist and by proxy, a broadcaster is to report the facts. The fact that you have journalists who take rumours at face value or spin their own slant because of political ideology on a story is partially the reason why people distrust the media. The BBC is not perfect, I have seen examples where political ideology has shaped its news agenda and decisions, but I don't want rumours, rash reporting ("Sky News - Never Wrong For Long") and ideology embedded within a public service broadcaster or even a commercial one.
Comments
It really isn't. 40p a day per household is cheaper than any other alternative. Private means poor/cheap/narrow programming and/or plus subs so as a nation, we are financially and culturally worse off.
Public services means quality available to all at an affordable cost to all. That ethos is important and must be held onto.
It's like if you look at the big issue in the US at the moment and that's cable channel packages. Most people will say they want a move to an ala carte setup because they feel they are paying for channels they don't watch so feel they are wasting money but if they looked at it in greater detail they would realise they would end up paying more than they pay for the pack just to get the channels they watch daily let alone those they watch more casually.
Like that people just don't realise what they actually get for their money. It's unlikely the fee would go away even if the BBC didn't get it after all (most countries that have scrapped a PSB broadcaster kept the fee) and we would lose the benefits the BBC brings (the programming that commercial networks wouldn't take a risk on or niche things they wouldn't even consider, the infrastructure they provide etc) without saving any money. Would most likely also be the perfect excuse for the likes of Sky to jack up their prices further
There are some programmes the BBC do excellently and make the licence fee worth it. I love Doctor Who too. The recent three part series on Japan was a joy to watch too. They also do excellent dramas, and without those irritating adverts every few minutes.
Asking for polls to talk to half of the population is stupid, and shows a very bad understanding of statistics.
deleted
90% think supermarkets are too expensive.
100% (Bar MPs) Think MPs are paid far too much.
100% of Turkeys do not like christmas.
PS Adverts do not work, If TV advertising is currently £14 billion, then with the BBC the total TV advertising budget will be £14 billion, notice something, it does not increase.
So BBC takes ads, ITV looses income.
ITV Cuts ad costs, to get ad income back and looses more income.
The same for CH 4 and 5. and Sky.
Sky increases its subscriptions again.
BBC Cant fund News, Sky under Murdoch runs TV news and Newspapers in the UK, do we want that?
CH4/5 get taken over by foreign TV channels.
Quality falls on every channel.
Beware what you wish for, because... we are going that way now its actually becoming far too late its already started.
Who do you go for for news, when a major story breaks who do you trust? Murdoch???
It's difficult to trust even BBC News these days considering their blatant leftist bias, they need to do a better job of remaining impartial to be considered fully trustworthy
No better than relying on rumours down the local pub. Twitter does get some things right but many wrong.
I remember some months ago there was a lot of chatter on Twitter about a big explosion in the centre of Manchester. I looked on news sources and there was nothing but the chatter continued on Twitter for some time afterwards. Eventually it all died down. It is faster than reputable news sources, like the BBC, because they check things first. I am sure there are now often malicious rumours started on Twitter because people know they will spread fast there.
Bahaha, brilliant.
Everybody thinks they're biased. They were incredibly centre/centre-right a lot of the time during the election campaign. But they've probably had a leftist slant at other times. They're generally alright.
Perhaps not a good analogy because 3 for 2 offers are often not what they seem.
My comment related to the statistical methodology used in audience measurement by BARB,
nothing whatsoever to do with 'opinion' polls.
Advertisers go where ever the people go, if you can show you have millions of people viewing your website, your blog, your newspaper, TV channel or whatever it is. Advertisers will be interested and will pay for adverts.
What key seats did they not report on until several hours later?
There were many seats where the BBC speculated about the results based on rumblings at the counts, as do all broadcasters, but of course did not 'officially' call them until the count had been declared. That is standard election broadcasting protocol is it not?
This might come as a surprise to you, but you will not be 22 your whole life. If you're lucky, one day you will be middle aged and realise Twitter is a terrible place to get "news". I hope the bbc survives long enough for you to appreciate it when you grow up.
There were key swing seats which received no coverage at all.
The BBC were even incapable of reporting rumours such as Ed Balls losing in Morley and Outwood. The rumours were flying around for hours. Same with Thurrock a key UKIP target seat, rumours that they were 2nd/3rd for hours.
The coverage on Sky and Sky Arts was far far superior to the BBC's coverage.
Excuse me, but is twitter a channel that I can tune into and then sit down and watch, with people talking and showing actual events (like, in the case of an election, the count being declared)? Somehow, I don't think you are comparing like with like.