The “ I’ve got something to say, but it doesn’t warrant its own thread “ thread.

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, tom27111 said:

 

It hasn't been for well over a decade, but you have no option. Which in this day and age, is absolutely outrageous.

 

 

Obviously one's mileage may vary, but I think that there should be one public broadcastable source of information and news that is sourced from obligatory taxed public payments in the same way other public services are and available for all to watch and listen to, for the reason that truthful information should be available whether people agree with it or not. In this day and age, people tend not to fund news outlets that don't satisfy their confirmation bias, after all - truth or falsehoods be damned.

 

Oh, and the Planet Earth series too.

[tom27111]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Obviously one's mileage may vary, but I think that there should be one public broadcastable source of information and news that is sourced from obligatory taxed public payments in the same way other public services are and available for all to watch and listen to, for the reason that truthful information should be available whether people agree with it or not. In this day and age, people tend not to fund news outlets that don't satisfy their confirmation bias, after all - truth or falsehoods be damned.

 

Oh, and the Planet Earth series too.

 

As someone who studied journalism at university, I agree that there should be an impartial and trustworthy news source.

 

If the BBC still meets that criteria is questionable. 

 

It's also draconian that if you own a television, you are forced to pay the licence fee.

[jgtuk]

Just now, tom27111 said:

 

As someone who studied journalism at university, I agree that there should be an impartial and trustworthy news source.

 

If the BBC still meets that criteria is questionable. 

 

It's also draconian that if you own a television, you are forced to pay the licence fee.

I think the requirement to have a licence is problematic, definitely needs rethinking but it’s good value for money in comparison to similar services. I think most people see it as another tax though. 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, tom27111 said:

 

As someone who studied journalism at university, I agree that there should be an impartial and trustworthy news source.

 

If the BBC still meets that criteria is questionable. 

 

It's also draconian that if you own a television, you are forced to pay the licence fee.

And a lot of people are asking that question.

 

But I'll be honest, outside of the press release agencies like Reuters and Associated Press, the Beeb is as close to impartial as exists right now. Every other outlet has a bigger overall bias in their reportage one way or another IMO.

 

If not the licence fee, there should be some other direct ring-fenced taxable income for such a news source.

[urban.spaceman]

"Michael you're hanging around with someone who uses the term convoy to describe a singular vehicle"

[urban.spaceman]

Should we have a thread for random film/tv quotes that just happen to pop into your head for no apparent reason?

[Trav Le Bleu]

58 minutes ago, tom27111 said:

 

It hasn't been for well over a decade, but you have no option. Which in this day and age, is absolutely outrageous.

 

 

Personally I find it weird that people happily pay Sky, BT, et al, 2 or 3 times more than the licence fee for inferior quality programs, stuffed with adverts, but moan about the licence fee that funds the ad-free Beeb.

 

Not to mention how much better BBC radio, both local and national, is than commercial radio. Again no annoying ads.

[Jon the Hat]

33 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Personally I find it weird that people happily pay Sky, BT, et al, 2 or 3 times more than the licence fee for inferior quality programs, stuffed with adverts, but moan about the licence fee that funds the ad-free Beeb.

 

Not to mention how much better BBC radio, both local and national, is than commercial radio. Again no annoying ads.

By any measure the BBC is good value, but people get to choose the others.  Choice is important, as is fairness.  You could argue the BBC holds back other providers with its blacked force funded coverage of everything.  No room for anyone else to blossom when the BBC is there and free at the point of use as it were.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

By any measure the BBC is good value, but people get to choose the others.  Choice is important, as is fairness.  You could argue the BBC holds back other providers with its blacked force funded coverage of everything.  No room for anyone else to blossom when the BBC is there and free at the point of use as it were.

Freedom of choice is of course damned important, but in this case it really doesn't address the issue of the human propensity to want to be told what they want to hear, not necessarily what is. Which isn't always a good thing.

[Jon the Hat]

57 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Freedom of choice is of course damned important, but in this case it really doesn't address the issue of the human propensity to want to be told what they want to hear, not necessarily what is. Which isn't always a good thing.

True, and this could be a case for BBC news, political affairs programming, and arguably the BBC news website and global network.  Doesn't really justify the rest of it, although I believe the rest of it is more self-funding due to global program sales.

[Daggers]

THIS is how you commute

 

 

[grobyfox1990]

43 minutes ago, Daggers said:

THIS is how you commute

 

 

It’s a Friday during Xmas party season dude….let’s see her do it on a Tuesday in January 

[UniFox21]

The way TV licence is currently operated and used is outdated.

The way people consume and digest media has changed in the time the license fee has been out, yet it's remained mostly the same same, with continual add-ons to encompass new things.

It needs redesigning. 

 

 

 

Whilst I agree an impartial as possible news source is required, I hugely disagree the BBC is that, especially with an ever increasing political oversight being brought in at the upper levels.

There's political implications and intent behind much of it, but that's a different conversation.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

The way TV licence is currently operated and used is outdated.

The way people consume and digest media has changed in the time the license fee has been out, yet it's remained mostly the same same, with continual add-ons to encompass new things.

It needs redesigning. 

 

 

 

Whilst I agree an impartial as possible news source is required, I hugely disagree the BBC is that, especially with an ever increasing political oversight being brought in at the upper levels.

There's political implications and intent behind much of it, but that's a different conversation.

I think it's fair to have that position and it's possible work needs to be done. However, I would contend that the BBC remains more impartial than any other outlet beyond press release agencies.

 

If anyone has an example of a better in that regard, I'd be happy to hear it.

[grobyfox1990]

8 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

The way TV licence is currently operated and used is outdated.

The way people consume and digest media has changed in the time the license fee has been out, yet it's remained mostly the same same, with continual add-ons to encompass new things.

It needs redesigning. 

 

 

 

Whilst I agree an impartial as possible news source is required, I hugely disagree the BBC is that, especially with an ever increasing political oversight being brought in at the upper levels.

There's political implications and intent behind much of it, but that's a different conversation.

Bbc, impartial? Dunno about that anymore. Their tv documentaries are great but their news is awful. The coverage of COP is school worthy. Ft is the most impartial news source imo. Well worth paying for 

[grobyfox1990]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think it's fair to have that position and it's possible work needs to be done. However, I would contend that the BBC remains more impartial than any other outlet beyond press release agencies.

 

If anyone has an example of a better in that regard, I'd be happy to hear it.

Lol snap. Ft.com is factual and for adults. Bbc news is insultingly rudimentary. ‘Man in france falls into a hole’ 

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Lol snap. Ft.com is factual and for adults. Bbc news is insultingly rudimentary. ‘Man in france falls into a hole’ 

I was thinking more in terms of the major print and TV outlets rather than something that's pretty much Web-only, but fair point.

[when_you're_smiling]

You don’t realise how great Leicestershire and its people are until you move away and then come back now and again.

 

You take it for granted when here. 💙

[Dunge]

The BBC is one of the best things going and the licence fee is fantastic value for money.

[when_you're_smiling]

14 minutes ago, Dunge said:

The BBC is one of the best things going and the licence fee is fantastic value for money.

Agreed. The BBC gets heavily criticised from both the left and the right, which probably means it’s doing a good and impartial job.

[MPH]

The BBC has made some fantastic documentaries over the years and their cinematography in nature shows can be breathtaking.

 

it makes  approximately £3.5bn from the license fee and a further 1.5bn from its commercial arm that sells its shows around the world. And I feel it puts that money to good use.

[Blarmy]

5 hours ago, UniFox21 said:

The way TV licence is currently operated and used is outdated.

The way people consume and digest media has changed in the time the license fee has been out, yet it's remained mostly the same same, with continual add-ons to encompass new things.

It needs redesigning. 

 

 

 

Whilst I agree an impartial as possible news source is required, I hugely disagree the BBC is that, especially with an ever increasing political oversight being brought in at the upper levels.

There's political implications and intent behind much of it, but that's a different conversation.

I don’t consume media, I watch the telly.

[UniFox21]

3 hours ago, MPH said:

The BBC has made some fantastic documentaries over the years and their cinematography in nature shows can be breathtaking.

 

it makes  approximately £3.5bn from the license fee and a further 1.5bn from its commercial arm that sells its shows around the world. And I feel it puts that money to good use.

They to make some brilliant shows, I just think the way the licence is currently done is not fit for purpose.

 

I don't understand why you're required to pay a fee to watch shows/sport I pay a subscription fee for

[Nalis]

These King Power 'Retro' emails make me feel about 200 years old.

[Daggers]

9 hours ago, when_you're_smiling said:

Agreed. The BBC gets heavily criticised from both the left and the right, which probably means it’s doing a good and impartial job.

Or it’s just pretty much shit. 
 

News has been dumbed down to a Gbeebies level and now they’re slashing the only investigative journalism programme. 
 

Considering news is a cornerstone of it, it’s been reduced to rubble. 
 

The licence needs to be optional.