The Guardian advocates that nothing must ever be cut.
The BBC exist on a tax transfusion to keep it going, i think its fairly obvious that the beeb hate the tories and the right in general, for idealogical reasons of course!
No. For self defence. Of course when the BBC are under threat from right-wing nutjobs who only want all the press to be right wing so that the public can be brainwashed into letting that party stay in power, and those who believe the right-wing press start attacking the BBC, of course the BBC are going to go on the defensive by attacking the right.
That would be if the BBC did have a right-wing bias that is.
Mark Thompson's claim that the BBC were left-wing in the past is just his personal opinion stated as fact at a speech. It is an opinion that is, like the rest of us, formed by judging what the BBC say and comparing that to our own political views.
Most people here are dumb enough to claim what can only be an opinion as fact. How can an opinion be a fact?
A tad melodramatic, wouldn't you say? Next you'll be telling me Murdoch's planning world domination from a secret hollowed out volcano type lair:rolleyes:.
Why does it have to be two extremes? i.e Put up with the Beeb's bias or accept Murdoch as god emperor? Let's cut the drama and suggest that the Beeb should and could do more to enforce neutrality across their programming in accordance with their charter. I don't think that's too much to ask for.
As I said in an earlier post, television is actually pretty good by and large, but radio is a completely different ball game, sadly.
I have listened to many Radio 4 current affairs shows. Rarely have I ever heard bias on Today, for example.
No, that's not a tad melodramatic considering the size of his media empire. He wants to buy out the remaining stake in BSkyB. Why? Because the other people who hold a stake are going bankrupt or want to sell it but no-one else wants to buy it? No. Because of greed and a desire to control yet more powerful media just to keep himself loaded.
As I've said before, the BBC's view on impartiality or bias depends on your own political view and comparing what the BBC say to your opinion of whatever they are saying. That's not a left-wing bias or a right-wing bias. That's just your take on the facts that they report because you've been educated on that topic by skewed facts in politically free broadcasters or press.
I'm quite a "leftie" as some of you "righties" seem to call everyone who doesn't share the same political opinions as yourself. I've seen quite some right-wing bias coming from the BBC. Top Gear's various attacks on Labour for example. Mock the Week have attacked Labour more than Spitting Image attacked the Tories. Heaven forbid the BBC made quite a right-wing biased series of documentaries about the Thatcher years of Downing Street back in the early 90s.
Even Ian Hislop once persuaded viewers of Have I Got News for You in the last election campaign to "not vote Gordon back in".
No. For self defence. Of course when the BBC are under threat from right-wing nutjobs who only want all the press to be right wing so that the public can be brainwashed into letting that party stay in power, and those who believe the right-wing press start attacking the BBC, of course the BBC are going to go on the defensive by attacking the right.
That would be if the BBC did have a right-wing bias that is.
Mark Thompson's claim that the BBC were left-wing in the past is just his personal opinion stated as fact at a speech. It is an opinion that is, like the rest of us, formed by judging what the BBC say and comparing that to our own political views.
Most people here are dumb enough to claim what can only be an opinion as fact. How can an opinion be a fact?
You've made the classic mistake of judging others by your own poor standards.
You've also practically admitted that the BBC is institutionally left wing, yet think this is justified due to some over inflated, over hyped threat from evil right wingers. Laughable.
I can only speak for myself, but as an evil right winger (tm) I can honestly say that I have no interest in the Beeb being 'more right wing' ... I just want it more accountable and to display a greater degree of impartiality. Despite my political bias I still favour balanced news rather than one sided stories, clearly you don't, provided the side you're given, is the side you agree with, politically speaking.
I'm pretty sure there's been at least two reports in recent years conducted internally that concluded the BBC were highly biased in certain areas. I don't think these reports were ever published...I wonder why not?
Oh, and you also appear to be presenting your opinions as 'facts'...pot and kettle,etc.
The Guardian advocates that nothing must ever be cut.
Whoever told you this obviously has no understanding of newspaper production. Particularly for nationals, sub-editing is all about putting the words in to house style and cutting to fit the available space. A single news story often comes from several sources and these can be repetitive and too long.
You've also practically admitted that the BBC is institutionally left wing, yet think this is justified due to some over inflated, over hyped threat from evil right wingers. Laughable.
No I didn't. I said "if the BBC had a right-wing bias, that is". That's not saying the BBC are left-wing because they're not right wing. That's saying that the BBC are politically neutral without mentioning the left because I felt that mentioning the left was irrelevant to my answer to your comment.
I can only speak for myself, but as an evil right winger (tm) I can honestly say that I have no interest in the Beeb being 'more right wing' ... I just want it more accountable and to display a greater degree of impartiality. Despite my political bias I still favour balanced news rather than one sided stories, clearly you don't, provided the side you're given, is the side you agree with, politically speaking.
I never said you're an evil right-winger. In fact no more so than I'm an evil left-winger. Just because I state that your political agenda is different to mine does not make you "evil" to me. Only political agendas where people have been killed for disagreeing with it would be considered "evil" by myself - Fascism and Communism, really, but especially Communism.
There's a difference between "right-wingers" and "right-wing nutjobs". A vast difference.
I'm pretty sure there's been at least two reports in recent years conducted internally that concluded the BBC were highly biased in certain areas. I don't think these reports were ever published...I wonder why not?
Well, were they ever really intended to be viewed in the public domain? Or did something come along that could potentially make people disagree with the points being made in the reports? The Sachsgate scandal, for example. That scandal would have been quite a bad time for the BBC to publish such reports, so maybe it's been shelved for a while and will be published at another point in the near future, albeit modified and updated to include changes to the BBC that have happened since the report was due to be originally published?
The BBC has other ways of advertising jobs than the Guardian. I am not saying they should advertise in right-wing media, there should be a balance. The BBC is riddled with left-wing and liberal staff, that is why it is quite right to accuse the BBC of left-wing/liberal bias.
The BBC has over the past 30 years been accused of being left wing by the Thatcher Government, then right wing by labour government. They cant win!
I have listened to many Radio 4 current affairs shows. Rarely have I ever heard bias on Today, for example.
No, that's not a tad melodramatic considering the size of his media empire. He wants to buy out the remaining stake in BSkyB. Why? Because the other people who hold a stake are going bankrupt or want to sell it but no-one else wants to buy it? No. Because of greed and a desire to control yet more powerful media just to keep himself loaded.
As I've said before, the BBC's view on impartiality or bias depends on your own political view and comparing what the BBC say to your opinion of whatever they are saying. That's not a left-wing bias or a right-wing bias. That's just your take on the facts that they report because you've been educated on that topic by skewed facts in politically free broadcasters or press.
I'm quite a "leftie" as some of you "righties" seem to call everyone who doesn't share the same political opinions as yourself. I've seen quite some right-wing bias coming from the BBC. Top Gear's various attacks on Labour for example. Mock the Week have attacked Labour more than Spitting Image attacked the Tories. Heaven forbid the BBC made quite a right-wing biased series of documentaries about the Thatcher years of Downing Street back in the early 90s.
Even Ian Hislop once persuaded viewers of Have I Got News for You in the last election campaign to "not vote Gordon back in".
Left-wing bias? I think not.
For someone who appears to be going after purely 'right leaning' comments I would suggest that you haven't yet grasped the concept of bias to deny it exists elsewhere.
Are you therefore the best person to deny any bias within the Beeb? Nope. Considering your strong views I'd suggest that bias is clouding a more accurate opinion on some of the BBC's output. Despite my bias I'm not damning them, merely pointing out that some areas could be improved. Quite reasonable I think.
Serious question for you Aidan:
If the Beeb was largely populated by Daily Mail readers, do you think their presumed political stance would be reflected to some degree in their programming? I think it would and I'm sure most would agree. Now replace the 'DM' with 'The Guardian'.
As for your predictable examples of 'non-bias', Top Gear is only tolerated because of its global popularity, i.e a big money spinner. As for Ian Hislop, you must have missed the numerous times he's slagged of the Tories, Daily Mail, etc. Methinks Ian is just a plain cynic who hates most politicians from all parties, for their hypocrisy. Nothing more.
For someone who appears to be going after purely 'right leaning' comments I would suggest that you haven't yet grasped the concept of bias to deny it exists elsewhere.
Are you therefore the best person to deny any bias within the Beeb? Nope. Considering your strong views I'd suggest that bias is clouding a more accurate opinion on some of the BBC's output. Despite my bias I'm not damning them, merely pointing out that some areas could be improved. Quite reasonable I think.
Serious question for you Aidan:
If the Beeb was largely populated by Daily Mail readers, do you think their presumed political stance would be reflected to some degree in their programming? I think it would and I'm sure most would agree. Now replace the 'DM' with 'The Guardian'.
As for your predictable examples of 'non-bias', Top Gear is only tolerated because of its global popularity, i.e a big money spinner. As for Ian Hislop, you must have missed the numerous times he's slagged of the Tories, Daily Mail, etc. Methinks Ian is just a plain cynic who hates most politicians from all parties, for their hypocrisy. Nothing more.
Well, I must be like Ian then, as I slate all political parties, truth be told.
If I had an opinion of the BBC, I would not cloud it over with my recent statements. I never tell porkies. What's the point of lying if it's not the truth?
And i was pointing out that the BBC's political bias is completely dependent on the person using the BBC's services.
I already gave the left wing see it as right wing, right as left example above.
How can you call wiping out a different political agenda to yours "progress"? It's not even democratic.
Why shouldn't we have major liberal/left-ing outlets? (and no, the BBC is not biased for all the reasons given above). Your comment seemed to imply we shouldn't have a major left-wing/liberal media outlet.
Who is wiping out anything? - we have left-wing newspapers that survive quite well by subscription.
As I said before - the BBC's leftish bias would be perfectly OK in a free market. It only becomes an issue when people are forced to support it upon threat of imprisonment.
As usual, the right wingers show up their own selfish interests. Left-wingers are not selfish.
But you are the one trying to force people who do not agree with your views to support a media outlet that promotes your ideas - if you were not selfish surely you would pay for that promotion out of your own pocket.
But then we shouldn't be surprised as one of the key tennents of left-wing theory is to spend other peoples money.:D
I see that no UK-originated commercial channel is producing UK-originated children's content. The BBC is. Which is important unless you want the nation's children to be educated and entertained by some shyte from a country that is well-known to have a very sub-standard and ignorant education system.
If you want government funded childrens TV programing then you can commision that on any network - you dont need your own TV station.
On the contrary "high-brow programmes in years gone by have been a huge success ; The ascent of man, America, Civilisation for example all terrific programmes.
And the BBC has produced first class drama too over the years.
Success is relative. If they were great programmes which pulled in more viewers than others of their genre, that's a success. Obtaining the kind of reach that SCD and other such shows achieve is a problem of an altogether different order.
Success is relative. If they were great programmes which pulled in more viewers than others of their genre, that's a success. Obtaining the kind of reach that SCD and other such shows achieve is a problem of an altogether different order.
Of course LCD rubbish like Strictly Come Dancing will pull in larger audiences as most of the population operates at that level hence the reason ITV and Sky can adequately provide for them.
The BBC should increase its quality output (like programmes produced with the OU) and ditch the shit. It can do this because we pay a tax to enable it to do so and it therefore has no excuse.
Time for a radical rethink of what the BBC should be doing and to get rid of all the extraneous tv and radio channels that aren't required and leave commercial channels to fill that market.
Let's slim the Beeb down and reduce the licence fee.
Of course LCD rubbish like Strictly Come Dancing will pull in larger audiences as most of the population operates at that level hence the reason ITV and Sky can adequately provide for them.
The BBC should increase its quality output (like programmes produced with the OU) and ditch the shit. It can do this because we pay a tax to enable it to do so and it therefore has no excuse.
Time for a radical rethink of what the BBC should be doing and to get rid of all the extraneous tv and radio channels that aren't required and leave commercial channels to fill that market.
Let's slim the Beeb down and reduce the licence fee.
We're going around in circles. You said it yourself: most of the population operates at that level. Remove the LCD content altogether and you dilute the universality of the BBC's output - and weaken the justification for having a licence fee at all. The BBC can only continue to exist as it does so long as (almost) everyone listens to or watches it at least some of the time.
We're going around in circles. You said it yourself: most of the population operates at that level. Remove the LCD content altogether and you dilute the universality of the BBC's output - and weaken the justification for having a licence fee at all. The BBC can only continue to exist as it does so long as (almost) everyone listens to or watches it at least some of the time.
You ignore the option of slimming down of the BBC and the reduction in the TVL and concentrate on it continuing as it is.
You ignore the option of slimming down of the BBC and the reduction in the TVL and concentrate on it continuing as it is.
I think you have the wrong end of the stick. I'm responding directly to a specific proposal. I'm restricting my response, quite sensibly, to that specific proposal. As such, to say that I'm "ignoring" any options is to misunderstand the nature of the conversation.
I think you have the wrong end of the stick. I'm responding directly to a specific proposal. I'm restricting my response, quite sensibly, to that specific proposal. As such, to say that I'm "ignoring" any options is to misunderstand the nature of the conversation.
Sorry but the post you replied proposed slimming down the BBC and reducing the TVL, your response was about the BBC continuing to exist as it currently does.
Sorry but the post you replied proposed slimming down the BBC and reducing the TVL, your response was about the BBC continuing to exist as it currently does.
The proposal specifically suggested (colourfully) "ditching the shit" - in other words, removing lowest-common denominator content such as Strictly Come Dancing and other shows of its ilk. My response was in respect of that specific suggestion, and I maintain that the BBC's overall reach would suffer if such a proposal were implemented. I also maintain that the smaller the overall reach of the BBC, the more difficult it becomes to justify a system of mandatory payments (basically a tax) in order to maintain it.
We're going around in circles. You said it yourself: most of the population operates at that level. Remove the LCD content altogether and you dilute the universality of the BBC's output - and weaken the justification for having a licence fee at all. The BBC can only continue to exist as it does so long as (almost) everyone listens to or watches it at least some of the time.
You may be going round in circles I am not. I said remove the LCD content and reduce the licence fee.
But just as with the arts we do need to fund the more high quality programming content that the vast majority of the moronic British population don't aspire to being happy with chat shows and "X factor" type rubbish.
Reducing crap output will slash costs as we won't need to pay celebs. millions and also will obviate any need for BBC 3 or 4, for example.
As for BBC radio, channels like Radio 1 for example, well any fool can play pop pap all day long so why should the taxpayer fund it when we have commercial channels doing exactly the same thing?
The proposal specifically suggested (colourfully) "ditching the shit" - in other words, removing lowest-common denominator content such as Strictly Come Dancing and other shows of its ilk. My response was in respect of that specific suggestion, and I maintain that the BBC's overall reach would suffer if such a proposal were implemented. I also maintain that the smaller the overall reach of the BBC, the more difficult it becomes to justify a system of mandatory payments (basically a tax) in order to maintain it.
Which is basically an argument to keep it as is while ignoring a slimmed down BBC with a significant reduction in the TVL would negate much of what you maintain.
No it's not. I don't know where you get that idea. It's simply an expression of opinion that the specific proposal is flawed. I make no comment on any other specific proposals. I'm not obliged to cater to each and every one that might exist.
while ignoring a slimmed down BBC with a significant reduction in the TVL would negate much of what you maintain.
It's not in the scope of the discussion I was having. Again, you're misunderstanding the nature of it. But for what it is worth, I don't accept your assertion. If you reduce the BBC's reach, it doesn't matter how much or how little the TVL is - it would still be wrong to levy it against (almost) every household.
It's not in the scope of the discussion I was having. Again, you're misunderstanding the nature of it. But for what it is worth, I don't accept your assertion. If you reduce the BBC's reach, it doesn't matter how much or how little the TVL is - it would still be wrong to levy it against (almost) every household.
Apologies I hadn't realised there was a TOR for it.
If its reach increased no doubt you will say the same thing which is what has happened anyway as the BBC's reach has increased. I don't accept your assertion that a slimmed down BBC with a significantly reduce TVL would make it wrong to levy it against every household any more than it currently is.
Apologies I hadn't realised there was a TOR for it.
If its reach increased no doubt you will say the same thing which is what has happened anyway as the BBC's reach has increased.
Perhaps you should let me be the judge of what I might or might not say, instead of trying to guess. You're really not very good at it.
I don't accept your assertion that a slimmed down BBC with a significantly reduce TVL would make it wrong to levy it against every household any more than it currently is.
No? So you simply do not recognise any validity in the argument that a BBC that is watched/listened to by 50% of the population is harder to justify funding by TVL than one that is watched/listened to by 95% of the population?
Perhaps you should let me be the judge of what I might or might not say, instead of trying to guess. You're really not very good at it.
Feel free, am I wrong?
No? So you simply do not recognise any validity in the argument that a BBC that is watched/listened to by 50% of the population is harder to justify funding by TVL than one that is watched/listened to by 95% of the population?
If you reduce the BBC's reach, it doesn't matter how much or how little the TVL is - it would still be wrong to levy it against (almost) every household.
You replied:
If its reach increased no doubt you will say the same thing
So let's try that. Would I say "If you increase the BBC's reach, it doesn't matter how much or how little the TVL is - it would still be wrong to levy it against (almost) every household"?
Nope. So yeah, you're wrong.
That rather depends on how much the TVL is.
I disagree. If I were one of the 50% of people who didn't watch/listen to the BBC, I'd resent paying a single penny in TVL. It's the universality of the BBC that makes the TVL justifiable - if it's unjustified, tinkering with the amount people pay won't make a blind bit of difference to that basic principle.
Comments
No. For self defence. Of course when the BBC are under threat from right-wing nutjobs who only want all the press to be right wing so that the public can be brainwashed into letting that party stay in power, and those who believe the right-wing press start attacking the BBC, of course the BBC are going to go on the defensive by attacking the right.
That would be if the BBC did have a right-wing bias that is.
Mark Thompson's claim that the BBC were left-wing in the past is just his personal opinion stated as fact at a speech. It is an opinion that is, like the rest of us, formed by judging what the BBC say and comparing that to our own political views.
Most people here are dumb enough to claim what can only be an opinion as fact. How can an opinion be a fact?
I have listened to many Radio 4 current affairs shows. Rarely have I ever heard bias on Today, for example.
No, that's not a tad melodramatic considering the size of his media empire. He wants to buy out the remaining stake in BSkyB. Why? Because the other people who hold a stake are going bankrupt or want to sell it but no-one else wants to buy it? No. Because of greed and a desire to control yet more powerful media just to keep himself loaded.
As I've said before, the BBC's view on impartiality or bias depends on your own political view and comparing what the BBC say to your opinion of whatever they are saying. That's not a left-wing bias or a right-wing bias. That's just your take on the facts that they report because you've been educated on that topic by skewed facts in politically free broadcasters or press.
I'm quite a "leftie" as some of you "righties" seem to call everyone who doesn't share the same political opinions as yourself. I've seen quite some right-wing bias coming from the BBC. Top Gear's various attacks on Labour for example. Mock the Week have attacked Labour more than Spitting Image attacked the Tories. Heaven forbid the BBC made quite a right-wing biased series of documentaries about the Thatcher years of Downing Street back in the early 90s.
Even Ian Hislop once persuaded viewers of Have I Got News for You in the last election campaign to "not vote Gordon back in".
Left-wing bias? I think not.
You've made the classic mistake of judging others by your own poor standards.
You've also practically admitted that the BBC is institutionally left wing, yet think this is justified due to some over inflated, over hyped threat from evil right wingers. Laughable.
I can only speak for myself, but as an evil right winger (tm) I can honestly say that I have no interest in the Beeb being 'more right wing' ... I just want it more accountable and to display a greater degree of impartiality. Despite my political bias I still favour balanced news rather than one sided stories, clearly you don't, provided the side you're given, is the side you agree with, politically speaking.
I'm pretty sure there's been at least two reports in recent years conducted internally that concluded the BBC were highly biased in certain areas. I don't think these reports were ever published...I wonder why not?
Oh, and you also appear to be presenting your opinions as 'facts'...pot and kettle,etc.
Whoever told you this obviously has no understanding of newspaper production. Particularly for nationals, sub-editing is all about putting the words in to house style and cutting to fit the available space. A single news story often comes from several sources and these can be repetitive and too long.
So have you, so I don't see how you can complain.
No I didn't. I said "if the BBC had a right-wing bias, that is". That's not saying the BBC are left-wing because they're not right wing. That's saying that the BBC are politically neutral without mentioning the left because I felt that mentioning the left was irrelevant to my answer to your comment.
I never said you're an evil right-winger. In fact no more so than I'm an evil left-winger. Just because I state that your political agenda is different to mine does not make you "evil" to me. Only political agendas where people have been killed for disagreeing with it would be considered "evil" by myself - Fascism and Communism, really, but especially Communism.
There's a difference between "right-wingers" and "right-wing nutjobs". A vast difference.
Well, were they ever really intended to be viewed in the public domain? Or did something come along that could potentially make people disagree with the points being made in the reports? The Sachsgate scandal, for example. That scandal would have been quite a bad time for the BBC to publish such reports, so maybe it's been shelved for a while and will be published at another point in the near future, albeit modified and updated to include changes to the BBC that have happened since the report was due to be originally published?
I say again, so do you.
The BBC has over the past 30 years been accused of being left wing by the Thatcher Government, then right wing by labour government. They cant win!
For someone who appears to be going after purely 'right leaning' comments I would suggest that you haven't yet grasped the concept of bias to deny it exists elsewhere.
Are you therefore the best person to deny any bias within the Beeb? Nope. Considering your strong views I'd suggest that bias is clouding a more accurate opinion on some of the BBC's output. Despite my bias I'm not damning them, merely pointing out that some areas could be improved. Quite reasonable I think.
Serious question for you Aidan:
If the Beeb was largely populated by Daily Mail readers, do you think their presumed political stance would be reflected to some degree in their programming? I think it would and I'm sure most would agree. Now replace the 'DM' with 'The Guardian'.
As for your predictable examples of 'non-bias', Top Gear is only tolerated because of its global popularity, i.e a big money spinner. As for Ian Hislop, you must have missed the numerous times he's slagged of the Tories, Daily Mail, etc. Methinks Ian is just a plain cynic who hates most politicians from all parties, for their hypocrisy. Nothing more.
Well, I must be like Ian then, as I slate all political parties, truth be told.
If I had an opinion of the BBC, I would not cloud it over with my recent statements. I never tell porkies. What's the point of lying if it's not the truth?
And i was pointing out that the BBC's political bias is completely dependent on the person using the BBC's services.
I already gave the left wing see it as right wing, right as left example above.
Who is wiping out anything? - we have left-wing newspapers that survive quite well by subscription.
As I said before - the BBC's leftish bias would be perfectly OK in a free market. It only becomes an issue when people are forced to support it upon threat of imprisonment.
But you are the one trying to force people who do not agree with your views to support a media outlet that promotes your ideas - if you were not selfish surely you would pay for that promotion out of your own pocket.
But then we shouldn't be surprised as one of the key tennents of left-wing theory is to spend other peoples money.:D
If you want government funded childrens TV programing then you can commision that on any network - you dont need your own TV station.
Success is relative. If they were great programmes which pulled in more viewers than others of their genre, that's a success. Obtaining the kind of reach that SCD and other such shows achieve is a problem of an altogether different order.
how can it be cheaper if he government is paying for them?
Of course LCD rubbish like Strictly Come Dancing will pull in larger audiences as most of the population operates at that level hence the reason ITV and Sky can adequately provide for them.
The BBC should increase its quality output (like programmes produced with the OU) and ditch the shit. It can do this because we pay a tax to enable it to do so and it therefore has no excuse.
Time for a radical rethink of what the BBC should be doing and to get rid of all the extraneous tv and radio channels that aren't required and leave commercial channels to fill that market.
Let's slim the Beeb down and reduce the licence fee.
We're going around in circles. You said it yourself: most of the population operates at that level. Remove the LCD content altogether and you dilute the universality of the BBC's output - and weaken the justification for having a licence fee at all. The BBC can only continue to exist as it does so long as (almost) everyone listens to or watches it at least some of the time.
You ignore the option of slimming down of the BBC and the reduction in the TVL and concentrate on it continuing as it is.
I think you have the wrong end of the stick. I'm responding directly to a specific proposal. I'm restricting my response, quite sensibly, to that specific proposal. As such, to say that I'm "ignoring" any options is to misunderstand the nature of the conversation.
Sorry but the post you replied proposed slimming down the BBC and reducing the TVL, your response was about the BBC continuing to exist as it currently does.
The proposal specifically suggested (colourfully) "ditching the shit" - in other words, removing lowest-common denominator content such as Strictly Come Dancing and other shows of its ilk. My response was in respect of that specific suggestion, and I maintain that the BBC's overall reach would suffer if such a proposal were implemented. I also maintain that the smaller the overall reach of the BBC, the more difficult it becomes to justify a system of mandatory payments (basically a tax) in order to maintain it.
You may be going round in circles I am not. I said remove the LCD content and reduce the licence fee.
But just as with the arts we do need to fund the more high quality programming content that the vast majority of the moronic British population don't aspire to being happy with chat shows and "X factor" type rubbish.
Reducing crap output will slash costs as we won't need to pay celebs. millions and also will obviate any need for BBC 3 or 4, for example.
As for BBC radio, channels like Radio 1 for example, well any fool can play pop pap all day long so why should the taxpayer fund it when we have commercial channels doing exactly the same thing?
Which is basically an argument to keep it as is while ignoring a slimmed down BBC with a significant reduction in the TVL would negate much of what you maintain.
No it's not. I don't know where you get that idea. It's simply an expression of opinion that the specific proposal is flawed. I make no comment on any other specific proposals. I'm not obliged to cater to each and every one that might exist.
It's not in the scope of the discussion I was having. Again, you're misunderstanding the nature of it. But for what it is worth, I don't accept your assertion. If you reduce the BBC's reach, it doesn't matter how much or how little the TVL is - it would still be wrong to levy it against (almost) every household.
Apologies I hadn't realised there was a TOR for it.
If its reach increased no doubt you will say the same thing which is what has happened anyway as the BBC's reach has increased. I don't accept your assertion that a slimmed down BBC with a significantly reduce TVL would make it wrong to levy it against every household any more than it currently is.
Perhaps you should let me be the judge of what I might or might not say, instead of trying to guess. You're really not very good at it.
No? So you simply do not recognise any validity in the argument that a BBC that is watched/listened to by 50% of the population is harder to justify funding by TVL than one that is watched/listened to by 95% of the population?
Feel free, am I wrong?
That rather depends on how much the TVL is.
Well, let's see. I said:
If you reduce the BBC's reach, it doesn't matter how much or how little the TVL is - it would still be wrong to levy it against (almost) every household.
You replied:
If its reach increased no doubt you will say the same thing
So let's try that. Would I say "If you increase the BBC's reach, it doesn't matter how much or how little the TVL is - it would still be wrong to levy it against (almost) every household"?
Nope. So yeah, you're wrong.
I disagree. If I were one of the 50% of people who didn't watch/listen to the BBC, I'd resent paying a single penny in TVL. It's the universality of the BBC that makes the TVL justifiable - if it's unjustified, tinkering with the amount people pay won't make a blind bit of difference to that basic principle.