BBC In Need of a Photographer?

simonbarker said:
Well the BBC is naturally going to be somewhat left of centre due to its nature but I often hear the complaint from the right wing that it's too left wing and from the left that it's too right wing (maybe establishment would be more accurate).

I'm critical of the BBC but the saying you can't please everyone springs to mind.
Click to expand...

I think you have it about right Simon. The BBC is a long way from perfect, but the idea of replacing it with a commercial operation is an awful prospect.

Some of the thread contributors have said that there are adverts on the BBC, that's true to some extent, but at least they are only for the BBC's output and not for any old product that an advertiser wants to promote and we don't have programmes interrupted every 15-20 minutes.

Anyway, about that picture, it's still there - nobody has offered a better one!

Chris
 
Simplythebeast said:
Timmy the BBC World service has been funded by license payers since 2014. Prior to that it was funded by the Foriegn and Commonwealth Office out of the overseas aid budget.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but BBC Canada is actually part of a JV with BBC Worldwide, not BBC World Service . . . completely separate company and not licence fee funded at all.

st599 said:
They don't. The cable provider pays BBC Worldwide for the channel.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
It's not "free" in Canada at all, but paid for within the cable package.
 
scottishguy said:
That's one of the many reasons I hate the licence fee, why should we be forced to pay for the BBC fee, when people all over the world get to watch it for free! Who cares if they are ex-pats. They left so should be forced to pay for it too.
Click to expand...
Advertisements and subscription (from users or foreign broadcast networks) pays for any BBC worldwide channel, and any profit made from these channels and BBC programming sold to foreign networks is rolled back into the BBC thus reducing/subsidising our licence fee.

It's a good thing, trust me.
 
scottishguy said:
That's one of the many reasons I hate the licence fee, why should we be forced to pay for the BBC fee, when people all over the world get to watch it for free! Who cares if they are ex-pats. They left so should be forced to pay for it too.

You say you watch Netflix, but because you have a tv you have to pay to watch something that has nothing what so ever to with the bbc.

The sooner the licence fee gets scrapped the better, the bbc is full of adverts for products, football and formula 1 being the biggest free advertising going!

No offence sunnyside
Click to expand...
Then one of the reasons you hate the licence fee is based on nonsense (foreign people don't get content for free paid for by the licence fee - in fact foreign sales of BBC content make hige profits for the BBC) , I wonder how much of the rest of your reasons are also based on propaganda or misunderstandings or just outright lies?

If Beth only watches Netflix, she doesn't have to pay a licence fee (which appears to be another of the lies you believe about the licence fee)
 
The tv licence fee is just over £12 a month, for that you get quite a few channels on TV (covering a wide variety of topics) which you can watch on as many devices as you have at once, lots of radio stations, not just r1-4 but loads of local stations too. Quite good value for money really.

Netflix is £6.99 a month if you want hd and £8.99 a month for up to 4 simultaneous devices.
When we tried Netflix a while ago all the films and series were quite old so didn't keep it up.

Sky is a lot more than both!
 
PaulF said:
The tv licence fee is just over £12 a month, for that you get quite a few channels on TV (covering a wide variety of topics) which you can watch on as many devices as you have at once, lots of radio stations, not just r1-4 but loads of local stations too. Quite good value for money really.

Netflix is £6.99 a month if you want hd and £8.99 a month for up to 4 simultaneous devices.
When we tried Netflix a while ago all the films and series were quite old so didn't keep it up.

Sky is a lot more than both!
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone would sensibly argue that the BBC doesn't produce relatively good content, the argument is it's offensive to be forced to pay for something you didn't choose.

Let's be honest too, if you took the £3.7 billion the license fee generates (which is the largest chunk of the BBC's £5.2 billion revenue) and gave it to Netflix (or anyone) I'm sure they'd be doing a better job too.
 
simonbarker said:
Let's be honest too, if you took the £3.7 billion the license fee generates (which is the largest chunk of the BBC's £5.2 billion revenue) and gave it to Netflix (or anyone) I'm sure they'd be doing a better job too.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure they would - profit would be the key driver, rather than quality of output.

I've not seen a lot of Sky's output, but I've spoken to people who pay £50 per month and still have to put up with incessant adverts. I can understand your view about being required to pay the licence, but I doubt there are many people who pay the fee could argue that they don't get good value for money.

Chris
 
simonbarker said:
I don't think anyone would sensibly argue that the BBC doesn't produce relatively good content, the argument is it's offensive to be forced to pay for something you didn't choose.
Click to expand...

But the point is also that that is not correct, don't watch live TV or listen to the radio and you aren't forced to pay the licence fee.

Chuck out the tv and stream everything over the Internet and your sorted.
I suspect most would find that, actually, watching the tv and paying the license fee is preferable.
 
Foxbat Flyer said:
I agree Chris, I don't begrudge the licence fee. The quality of the shark documentary last night was amazing, superb work, it's those sort of programmes that make the licence worthwhile.

It's a shame that someone in the news department was so lazy in this instance and decided it was ok to publish such a poor image.

Chris
Click to expand...

I'd rather pay a typical itunes fee for these good programmes. They are very few and far in between. I don't feel happy paying a blanket fee for everything including poor misery like East Enders or whatever and their constantly deteriorating journalism.
 
PaulF said:
But the point is also that that is not correct, don't watch live TV or listen to the radio and you aren't forced to pay the licence fee.
Click to expand...

How is it not correct? I said it's offensive to pay for something you didn't choose, if I choose to watch live TV why does that translate directly into funding for the BBC?

It's just weird when you look at other sectors, we're not supposed to subsidize things like the Royal Mail but somehow the BBC gets a free pass.
 
Foxbat Flyer said:
I'm not so sure they would - profit would be the key driver, rather than quality of output.
Click to expand...

We're getting into what-iffery territory here but I wouldn't use such noble terminology for any of these companies (i.e. I don't think quality of output is the key thing for any of them).

Foxbat Flyer said:
I've not seen a lot of Sky's output, but I've spoken to people who pay £50 per month and still have to put up with incessant adverts. I can understand your view about being required to pay the licence, but I doubt there are many people who pay the fee could argue that they don't get good value for money.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't compare output between the two, for most of its life Sky has simply taken in what others were creating but they are improving in that regard yet I doubt they'll ever manage half of what the BBC puts out. Which makes sense really, the BBC has been with us for nearly 100 years.

I'd agree that most people are getting good value for their license fee but it's still a massively unfair advantage. I'm personally looking forward to the day we have an a la carte approach to TV.
 
simonbarker said:
How is it not correct? I said it's offensive to pay for something you didn't choose, if I choose to watch live TV why does that translate directly into funding for the BBC?

It's just weird when you look at other sectors, we're not supposed to subsidize things like the Royal Mail but somehow the BBC gets a free pass.
Click to expand...
I don't have kids and haven't been to the doctors in 15 years. I happily pay for education, the NHS and the BBC as it's for the public good.

Is it perfect? No. But it's a lot better than the alternative.

Many European countries agree and have a licence fee.
 
st599 said:
I don't have kids and haven't been to the doctors in 15 years. I happily pay for education, the NHS and the BBC as it's for the public good.

Is it perfect? No. But it's a lot better than the alternative.

Many European countries agree and have a licence fee.
Click to expand...

The BBC is somewhat/considerably less important than our healthcare and education systems but if you truly feel that way why not call it the BBC tax and stand behind it rather than some mealy mouthed excuse about live TV and let's ignore any worries about fairness.
 
Read through this thread from start to finish. Amazing how a simple statement about the quality of an image led to talk about the BBC licence fee and thence onto politics and social issues ha ha. Love it ! My take (i) using the original image was poor judgement and reflects badly upon a business that prides itself on quality (ii) the BBC delivers a highly valued service but (iii) like all public sponsored organisations, could be made more efficient and less dependent on fees .... without resorting to advertising.
 
Foxbat Flyer said:
Stoke needs all the good publicity it can get
Click to expand...

You're not wrong there! In my eyes, any bit of culture they can inject into the city has got to be a good thing. I moved out of Stoke about 7 years ago, and although I still love the place, every time I go back it seems to have dropped a little bit more downhill with more and more shops boarded up. Having said that, I think all Stokies are born with an unconditional sense of pride for the city. Have you seen that 'Oatcakes!' documentary? You can find it on youtube. One guy sums up the Stokie mindset perfectly: "it might be a sh*thole, but it's OUR sh*thole" haha
 
Oatcake said:
You're not wrong there! In my eyes, any bit of culture they can inject into the city has got to be a good thing. I moved out of Stoke about 7 years ago, and although I still love the place, every time I go back it seems to have dropped a little bit more downhill with more and more shops boarded up. Having said that, I think all Stokies are born with an unconditional sense of pride for the city. Have you seen that 'Oatcakes!' documentary? You can find it on youtube. One guy sums up the Stokie mindset perfectly: "it might be a sh*thole, but it's OUR sh*thole" haha
Click to expand...

You've summed the place up nicely Matt. I rarely go "up 'anley Duck" these days, but when I do it has a downbeat feel to it. One of the best things about the north Staffordshire area is the superb countryside on our doorstep with the Staffordshire Moorlands and the Peak District all very close.

Chris
 
Foxbat Flyer said:
One of the best things about the north Staffordshire area is the superb countryside on our doorstep with the Staffordshire Moorlands and the Peak District all very close.
Click to expand...

I do miss the peak district and the moors (I spent most of my childhood getting up to no good on Wetley Moor Common). I live in Chester now and I miss having that so close. Having said that, Snowdonia, the Berwyn mountains, and the seaside are all within easy reach from Chester.
 
Oatcake said:
I spent most of my childhood getting up to no good on Wetley Moor Common.
Click to expand...

Me too, I lived in Werrington, just 5 mins walk from Wetley Moor and spend lots of time exploring - happy days.

Chris
 
simonbarker said:
Let's be honest too, if you took the £3.7 billion the license fee generates (which is the largest chunk of the BBC's £5.2 billion revenue) and gave it to Netflix (or anyone) I'm sure they'd be doing a better job too.
Click to expand...

Would they? Would they invest in series like Storyville? Would they take a risk on unknown independent producers? Would they bring things like Spiral or The Killing to the screen rather than just jump on a eurocrime bandwagon? And I've yet to hear a single second of commercial radio that comes anywhere near things like From Our Own Correspondent.
 
narbs said:
Would they? Would they invest in series like Storyville? Would they take a risk on unknown independent producers? Would they bring things like Spiral or The Killing to the screen rather than just jump on a eurocrime bandwagon? And I've yet to hear a single second of commercial radio that comes anywhere near things like From Our Own Correspondent.
Click to expand...

In the terms you're asking no absolutely not and I can't imagine a situation where another broadcaster would as readily convert money into content but I don't agree company x would just absorb the money without any benefit to the end user, eventually they'd seek more profit which means more infrastructure, content etc.

So I wasn't suggesting we can (or should) just give that money to someone else and reap the reward but more that it's a colossal advantage that seems unfair in a way many people wouldn't tolerate if we were talking about another industry (outside of the stuff we consider fundamental like healthcare).

I keep thinking of this thread every time I see an advert for the license fee on the BBC. :)
 
sunnyside_up said:
Bet you a tenner it was an amateur photographer's photo that they submitted to the BBC for 'sharing' and they used it because 1. they didn't have to pay for it, because 2. The photographer was just happy to have his photo used. :)
Click to expand...


This ^^^

The BBC haven't employed or hired anyone to take this. In fact, it's credited to Stoke City Council... they've just used it.
 
Chr1stof said:
Just to play devils advocate, I love the BBC :)
The thought of nothing but Sky-esque programming is depressing. By and large the BEEB website is excellent with some amazing resources. I certainly dont mind paying my fee.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more - it's a small price to pay for what is a pretty good service (it was even better when sky didn't charge a fortune, just to push the price of sporting events through the roof! - rant over):banana:
 
simonbarker said:
In the terms you're asking no absolutely not and I can't imagine a situation where another broadcaster would as readily convert money into content but I don't agree company x would just absorb the money without any benefit to the end user, eventually they'd seek more profit which means more infrastructure, content etc.

So I wasn't suggesting we can (or should) just give that money to someone else and reap the reward but more that it's a colossal advantage that seems unfair in a way many people wouldn't tolerate if we were talking about another industry (outside of the stuff we consider fundamental like healthcare).

I keep thinking of this thread every time I see an advert for the license fee on the BBC. :)
Click to expand...
Like farming or the arms industry you mean?

Which both cost us more per job than any of the other industries we simply 'can't afford to subsidise with taxpayers money'.

Or do you mean like the hundreds of thousands of slave labour jobs we really do 'subsidise' in the form of tax credits and housing benefit because cheap employers choose to not pay their workers enough.
 
Phil V said:
Like farming or the arms industry you mean?

Which both cost us more per job than any of the other industries we simply 'can't afford to subsidise with taxpayers money'.

Or do you mean like the hundreds of thousands of slave labour jobs we really do 'subsidise' in the form of tax credits and housing benefit because cheap employers choose to not pay their workers enough.
Click to expand...

No I meant the BBC falls squarely into the non-essential basket, I would put agriculture and the military into the things which are probably important enough to us we want to ensure a certain level by funding them basket.

I'm not getting your point about cheap labour though, in regards to the license fee are you suggesting they'd be better off without another burden or something else?
 
simonbarker said:
No I meant the BBC falls squarely into the non-essential basket, I would put agriculture and the military into the things which are probably important enough to us we want to ensure a certain level by funding them basket.

I'm not getting your point about cheap labour though, in regards to the license fee are you suggesting they'd be better off without another burden or something else?
Click to expand...
The licence fee is an imperfect system, but on balance I think we get great value from it.

But for clarity - the arms industry doesn't equate to 'the military', having an arms industry is something we keep because it helps us to believe we deserve a seat at the top table. Whereas I'm closer to believing that subsidising that industry that means we pay to help foreign powers buy cheap weapons with which they can perform barbarous acts. That isn't really something we ought to be proud of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top