I didn’t realise the corporation is elected!

Neither did I – that’s why I put the word ‘Government’ there.

This is the problem with striking a balance, it is a very subjective matter.

Please can you clarify this line:
“The BBC seems to have become a political football once more. As such, to preserve its funding, it will sway toward the probable government to be elected”

I didn’t realise the corporation is elected!

So the inference from your complaint is that either the BBC should drop it’s public service remit and be privatised or that the Empire should be reformed.

You saw a complaint and inference of renewed empire in my post?

I didn’t see that one coming – but, if I could explain? I was simply stating facts and that if the BBC can advertise in such a way – the argument that the BBC cannot advertise at home is not really an argument at all.

You see I like the BBC – I don’t like the drift to the right or any bias shown – I do believe the BBC, especially as it is publicly funded, should be all over whichever government re: Civil/human rights if that government isn’t doing its job in protecting them.

The BBC seems to have become a political football once more. As such, to preserve its funding, it will sway toward the probable government to be elected.

I do apologise if you see me as an imperialist – I can assure you I am not.

The problem you describe arises because the corporation products which benefit from overlapping coverage cannot be separated. However I don’t see that British license fee payers should subsidise viewers of foreign services which any services whether they are available to people in Britain or not, nor do I think that the British diplomatic service is influential enough to force all potential users of it’s services to pay a legally enforceable license fee.

So the inference from your complaint is that either the BBC should drop it’s public service remit and be privatised or that the Empire should be reformed.

I for one would be very unhappy with the consequences of either of those choices.

I am an ex-pat living in Canada, now I read the BBC website a lot, why am I subject to all the adverts now displayed all over the site? If I want to go to Monster.com to look for a job I will do so at my own volition.

Wherever you are in the world you are subject to commercial advertising on the BBC other than in the UK. So the BBC is being funded, in part, by advertising.

I may add that BBC America/Canada is also full of adverts. If this works so successfully in North America where people don’t pay the license fee – why not in the UK?

BBC World service is paid for by the Foreign office.

I think where people have a real problem with the fee is, basically, the cost – the fact that you have to pay it if you have a PC that can view “TV”, the inefficiency, the programming their money is used for [Eastenders for one], that today there is technology where you still have to pay the fee even though you don’t watch the BBC, and the fact it is a criminal offence if you don’t pay it.

Oh dear, oh dear, the troll can’t deal with the argument so has thrown a hissy fit. The only reason you think it is irrelevant is because it does not compute with your talking points that you get from right wing central.

Those on the Right always want to single out any tax that they have no choice in paying. Well, the same applies to the corporate world as well. It is full of ‘Free market taxes’ that people can’t avoid.

I will give you another example.

When you sell your house, and you pay your estate agent you are paying a percentage for all the people that put their houses on the market with that agent, but did not sell their house. You are subsidising the people who could not ,or would not move.

Well, it’s not, but if your best argument is to simply put aside such points as “leftie” because that’s the only answer you have left then fair enough.

“Lets be honest, I believe in freedom, choice, a small State, value for money and the right of self-determination, and you are errr, a socilaist.”

I’m not really socialist as such, but at least I recognise that in “choice” there are also things we have no choice about. You may overlook them because they are detrimental to your argument when you apply such thinking to one area and not to another, but I won’t.

I’ll also repeat, my license fee would pay about two days wages for the lowest paid member of staff on my favourite show. Seeming I watch more than one show on the BBC a year, I’m getting my value for money. Cheers.

It is impossible to satisfy everyone by transforming the media into a monolithic beast by forcing them all into being supported by a single business model based on one sort of funding stream or another: I am unhappy about the content provided by ITV and all commercial channels even though I have no choice but to pay for them through product surcharges resulting from advertising, just as I am unhappy about the content provided by the BBC which I am forced to pay for if I ever wish to watch TV. I would also be unhappy about the lack of variety in my media consumption if I was to be restricted to subscription packages (which I would also be paying for when I’m not watching) or if I only read voluntarily produced websites.

Your media is like your diet; just like unless you consume the full variety of carbohydrate, protein, fat, vitamins and fibre you will not have the intake to remain healthy; if you only consume one type of media you will not be able to form a properly balanced view.

So if you want a healthy media diet you must accept that each funding method has equal validity in contributing to the overall mix, that the public must choose between the methods by which we pay for the products on the market and that producers must seek ways to compete for market share according to the income which they are capable of deriving.

I happen to agree that parliament has a role in deciding whether the license fee would be better shared out between different channels (IMO the C4 trust deserves some support from the public purse) just as the Treasury income collected from taxes on advertising revenue, licenses and other assorted levies may be better redistributed to fund improvements in our public service broadcasting many people desire and perhaps ought to rise as a proportion to do so.

The herd mentality which makes people attack the BBC is an easily created campaigning bandwagon because it is (or is supposed to be) the most visibly accountable organisation (as a consequence of the direct funding mechanism and the corresponding level political control exerted over it for this type of funding to remain legitimate).

People complain about the license fee in order to line up an attack on the government of the day while the government of the day responds by critisising particular BBC decisions in order to preemptively defend themselves by putting distance between them and the corporation.

The BBC is easily turned into a political football BECAUSE of the directness of the funding mechanism – it requires a little more dexterity to attack the negative effects of indirect funding of commercial (unhealthy or anti-social advertising eg tobacco and alcohol) or subscription media companies (ie ‘immoral’ and illegal content) through Ofcom.

This is all just politics as usual!

True I don’t agree with a monopolistic broadcaster being a public body. Lets be honest, I believe in freedom, choice, a small State, value for money and the right of self-determination, and you are errr, a socilaist.

You can’t make the link so you want to call it a strawman?

Let me make it as clear as day, this applies only to those that are arguing that the BBC license fee is unjustified through the lack of choice to pay it…whenever you go in to a store like tesco you lack the choice to not contribute to their advertising budget. You lack the choice to not invest in their green initiatives, you lack the choice to not subsidise those that use free carrier bags. Yet we don’t hear the same sorts that argue against the BBC argue against the fact that when they go and buy some beans that they are also funding aspects of the business they may not wish to. It’s the same argument, yet it is somehow dropped for private business.

So essentially it’s not an argument about cost, nor about choice, it’s purely an argument about not liking a public body.

As for the politics of fear…interesting argument. However we need only look towards America to see where we could end up if we followed your argument, and that’s not a place that we should ever be aspiring to be.

Oranjepan #61 makes a good point about the state of television as a rapidly decreasing media outlet and the overdue need for rationalisation. This more than anything else applies to the BBC. It requires a complete overhaul. I suggest selling off the various parts and making the TV stations subscription based, along with some sensible regulation regarding ownership, perhaps with a licensing requirement for broadcasters. There will be a lot of whingeing from the Left and a knock-on effect on private broadcasters, but after a while the market will settle and we will gain from more choice, broadcasting free from State ownership and manipulation and above all the principle of freedom will be restored. The fact we are forced, by threat of imprisonment, to pay the State a tax to access television, is not in keeping with a free society. If some leftie luvvies lose their jobs then all the better.

Can you buy it from an outlet which doesn’t advertise?

The example of Tesco Value products fails to include the advertising budget for Tesco – it’s not like you can buy Tesco Value anywhere else.

the bbc’s idea of impartiality really seems to mean not having any kind of ethical position.

You do realise that products aren’t priced solely on a scale of “this is how much it has to cost”? Products are sold under priced to generate sales and footfall that are subsidised by other products you’re likely to buy. The comparison is a lot nearer than you think.

“If I want I can buy food that isn’t advertised. I can’t watch commercial tv without being forced to pay for the BBC.”

It doesn’t matter if you buy what’s advertised or not, as companies spend a percentage of their revenue on advertising themselves. In that sense if you do buy food that isn’t advertised you are almost certainly subsidising the costs of advertising the other products. Doesn’t that make you angry? Want to write to the tabloids and get 50,000 complaints against the supermarket’s evil internal financial redistribution methods?

I wonder what the advertising budget for Tesco Value Coffee is? (a bargain at 40p for 100 g, incidently). I hazard to guess it is zero.

Bully for you. But you miss the point , which is typical

Most people have not got the time to bother searching for food or any other products that aren’t advertised, so they buy what they want, and pay the free market tax of advertising and promotion.

Anyway, seeing as yesterday you were demanding the right to work a million hours a week you don’t have the time either.

hey

If I want I can buy food that isn’t advertised. I can’t watch commercial tv without being forced to pay for the BBC.

Such is hypocrisy.

Are you actually stupid, or is it just an act?