Are you a friend of the BBC?

[cloughie]

... and the BBCSO, the BBCPO, the BBCNOW, the BBCScotSO, the BBC Singers, David Hockney, Art Nouveau, William Golding, Prof Mary Beard, Coast, Niall Ferguson, Dr Alice Roberts, Shakespeare ...

AND ALL FOR (just slightly less than) 40p PER DAY.

That's 1/3 of a bag of chips, 1/4 a pint of beer, 11/14 of a pint of milk, 1/3 of a loaf of bread, 1/3 of a small portion of Popcorn or 5mins of a film in a Multiplex (AND you don't have to queue, or spend money getting there!)

AND it's 40p per day PER HOUSEHOLD, so the two of you, teamy, get it all for 20p!

AND, if you can't stand the Telly, you get all the Radio Stations FOR NOTHING!!! Not a penny! Not even a meagre 40 (or 20) p PER DAY!

AND, once you're over 70, you get EVERYTHING FREE. Try going to your local, showing them your birth certificate and asking for whatever they've got all day FOR FREE!!!





... and, by the way; who is Terry Wogan??

75! and 40p is also 4/5 of the proposed vat on a warmer than ambient temp pasty!

BUT whether it's 40p or £40 could the beeb spend it more wisely and cut the dross not the good stuff?

[teamsaint]

The BBC is involved in much that is good. I have agreed about that. But I agree with Cloughie,that the money may often be spent badly.For every one of Ferney's things to love, I am sure we could produce several that would be at the other end of the spectrum.(I won't bore you with a list, but Jeremy Vine would be near the top for me ! )

As for it being free if you are over 70, very laudable maybe. pity the BBC is so aggressive with non license holders like students, who choose not to have a license , and who do not legally need one because they don't watch telly live. Very threatening and very unpleasant they can be .

£3.6 Billion is a vast amount of money, and needs to be spent with very great care.
Not everybody would agree that the BBC orchestras are money well spent.......although of course most of us here would be very unhappy if they were scrapped.
MrGG often says about things being "scripts". In my opinion, the BBC being great value is a script.We need a mix of private and public broadcasting, for all kinds of reasons, but the money we pay to the BBC really has to be well spent. Like the NHS there is always room for improvement.....bound to be in such a big organisation.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

BUT whether it's 40p or £40 could the beeb spend it more wisely and cut the dross not the good stuff?

Abso-ruddy-lutely!
BUT my splenetic outburst was a response to teamy's claim that, for all that the Beeb offered at less than the price of a Mars bar per household perday, s/he/they (I suspect "he" on this occasion!) "remain[ed] unconvinced" that it wasn't excellent "value for money".

[aeolium]

I'd rather consider myself a supporter of public service broadcasting than of the BBC - there's no need to equate the two even though the BBC has been for the most part this country's outlet for PSB. And despite the enumeration of all the good things about the BBC I think it has seriously lost its way in the last two decades especially, with an emphasis on risk-free, unchallenging, unadventurous, inoffensive programming at all costs. This has been brought about by the move away from producer-led programming towards that determined by and monitored by managers and executives, the number of the latter ballooning first under Birt and then even more under the current D-G Thompson. The result, imo, has been at least on TV a desert of mediocre, bland output punctuated by oases of worthwhile material. There are acres of lifestyle programmes, ritual humiliation gameshows and talent shows, magazine programmes and documentaries where the emphasis is always on the presenter (who bestrides the screen) and the presenter's reactions rather than on the ostensible content. Arts programming is very thin and again presenter-focussed. The ambitious programming of, for instance, War and Peace or I Claudius or the complete Shakespeare plays, the Play for Today, drama where you could see plays by Pinter, Beckett, Stoppard (virtually unthinkable today) as well as the Sophoclean trilogy - all this has been abandoned in favour of largely formulaic, emotion-driven drama or period nostalgia. There are almost no good current affairs documentaries on BBC TV today. Despite our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the defining conflict of our generation, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, people here know as little about those countries, their history and culture, as they ever did. Yet surely that kind of information is an obligation of a PSB organisation? The truth is that two fears govern the BBC's output these days - the fear of offending and the fear of being too inaccessible, resulting in a stupefying blandness. The insecurity is betrayed by the increasingly shrill advertising of its own products, on all stations and channels, and the hype accompanying that advertising.

That 40p per day figure is regularly trotted out by the BBC's supporters. Yet that 40p per day is paid alike by billionaires and benefit claimants. The flat charge license fee is disgracefully inequitable. The £3 a week it represents is fully 5% of the income of someone claiming JSA and it doesn't need much imagination to realise how much more difficult that makes that person's ability to survive on that income (in fact it is probably more than £3, as you often have to pay more if you are paying weekly). Public service broadcasting should be paid for like any other public service - through taxation, so that the poorest do not have to pay.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

For every one of Ferney's things to love, I am sure we could produce several that would be at the other end of the spectrum.(I won't bore you with a list, but Jeremy Vine would be near the top for me ! )

That's a different point from the "value for money" claim you made earlier, teamy. I have no argument with this, and share your opinion of Mr Vine; but to suggest that anybody could get the quality programmes that the Beeb does offer for less money than the Beeb charges (which is what you implied by your "I remain unconvinced" comment) is ridiculous. There is ample room for criticism and improvement (Ozzy frequently calls me "one of the moaners" because I so often raise my concerns on these Boards!) but the BBC is "great value for money": NOT a "script" - a demonstrable fact, as you sort-of acknowledge by not offering any other educational/entertaining sources that are cheaper.

[teamsaint]

That's a different point from the "value for money" claim you made earlier, teamy. I have no argument with this, and share your opinion of Mr Vine; but to suggest that anybody could get the quality programmes that the Beeb does offer for less money than the Beeb charges (which is what you implied by your "I remain unconvinced" comment) is ridiculous. There is ample room for criticism and improvement (Ozzy frequently calls me "one of the moaners" because I so often raise my concerns on these Boards!) but the BBC is "great value for money": NOT a "script" - a demonstrable fact, as you sort-of acknowledge by not offering any other educational/entertaining sources that are cheaper.

But nobody else gets £3.6 bn to play with !!
As I have said,I am not convinced, not that I am certain, that its not great value. figures are dangerous and hard to come by. It would be interesting to know what Sky arts costs to run. I am sure Mr Pee can help out.

The things that you approve of, and broadly I agree that they are good things, can cost only a very small part of the fee to run.

When i say about "value for money, its a simple thing . Does the £3.6 bn actually give us what £3.6 bn should?
As Aeolium suggests,important things like drama, sport, documentaries are desert on the BBC.
I am also strongly in favour of services like broadcasting, or at least a section of them, being paid for collectively. As a society that is important.Some elements of BBC output probably do represent value for money. But certainly not all.

[amateur51]

But nobody else gets £3.6 bn to play with !!
As I have said,I am not convinced, not that I am certain, that its not great value. figures are dangerous and hard to come by. It would be interesting to know what Sky arts costs to run. I am sure Mr Pee can help out.

The things that you approve of, and broadly I agree that they are good things, can cost only a very small part of the fee to run.

When i say about "value for money, its a simple thing . Does the £3.6 bn actually give us what £3.6 bn should?
As Aeolium suggests,important things like drama, sport, documentaries are desert on the BBC.
I am also strongly in favour of services like broadcasting, or at least a section of them, being paid for collectively. As a society that is important.Some elements of BBC output probably do represent value for money. But certainly not all.

To put these huge sums into human perspective, the current £145 would get me into good seats in the theatre in London 3 times a year, 4/5 music concerts, 15-17 cinema visits, 9 gallery shows etc. My preferred newspaper costs £1.20/day and it's just shrunk alarmingly

The BBC's a bloomin' marvel

[VodkaDilc]

My preferred newspaper costs £1.20/day and it's just shrunk alarmingly

:

Is that The Guardian (which I have complained about since its drastic reduction in size) or are other papers doing the same?

[amateur51]

Is that The Guardian (which I have complained about since its drastic reduction in size) or are other papers doing the same?

Got it in one, Voddy - initially I was sceptical about the change but now I think it's piss-poor

Mind you I can't afford £1.20/day so it's the on-line version for me most days

[handsomefortune]

I'd rather consider myself a supporter of public service broadcasting than of the BBC - there's no need to equate the two even though the BBC has been for the most part this country's outlet for PSB. And despite the enumeration of all the good things about the BBC I think it has seriously lost its way in the last two decades especially, with an emphasis on risk-free, unchallenging, unadventurous, inoffensive programming at all costs. This has been brought about by the move away from producer-led programming towards that determined by and monitored by managers and executives, the number of the latter ballooning first under Birt and then even more under the current D-G Thompson. The result, imo, has been at least on TV a desert of mediocre, bland output punctuated by oases of worthwhile material. There are acres of lifestyle programmes, ritual humiliation gameshows and talent shows, magazine programmes and documentaries where the emphasis is always on the presenter (who bestrides the screen) and the presenter's reactions rather than on the ostensible content. Arts programming is very thin and again presenter-focussed. The ambitious programming of, for instance, War and Peace or I Claudius or the complete Shakespeare plays, the Play for Today, drama where you could see plays by Pinter, Beckett, Stoppard (virtually unthinkable today) as well as the Sophoclean trilogy - all this has been abandoned in favour of largely formulaic, emotion-driven drama or period nostalgia. There are almost no good current affairs documentaries on BBC TV today. Despite our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the defining conflict of our generation, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, people here know as little about those countries, their history and culture, as they ever did. Yet surely that kind of information is an obligation of a PSB organisation? The truth is that two fears govern the BBC's output these days - the fear of offending and the fear of being too inaccessible, resulting in a stupefying blandness. The insecurity is betrayed by the increasingly shrill advertising of its own products, on all stations and channels, and the hype accompanying that advertising.

That 40p per day figure is regularly trotted out by the BBC's supporters. Yet that 40p per day is paid alike by billionaires and benefit claimants. The flat charge license fee is disgracefully inequitable. The £3 a week it represents is fully 5% of the income of someone claiming JSA and it doesn't need much imagination to realise how much more difficult that makes that person's ability to survive on that income (in fact it is probably more than £3, as you often have to pay more if you are paying weekly). Public service broadcasting should be paid for like any other public service - through taxation, so that the poorest do not have to pay.

beautifully condensed aeolium!

i agree with every point you make. so do a minority of particularly bold arts orgs, in relation to the arts criticism you cite, as well as broader points about media and 'entertainment'. refreshingly, they advise tuneing OUT not in!! advice i have followed to a large degree. consequently, the very next time a listener hears a typically introverted, self congratulatory, repetitve trail from the beeb, we are reminded of just what an expensive, pointless disaster the beeb had mutated into. the last decade has been a sick joke imo, though years ago the beeb was a pioneer, a serious contender, commanding global respect.

relatives abroad laugh cynically at what passes for 'world service' output, and tbh it gives totally the wrong impression of what brits are actually like in real life. we are certainly not all bland and patronising. seemingly, the only solution i can muster might be for psb to have serious competition in order for it to stop emulating the lowest commercial common denominator, infuriatingly in exchange for a 'professional' wage....ie well above average, though not quite in bankers' league.

reframing context for criticism, as a 'supporter of the idea of psb' is precisely the new start point for debate so desperately needed, (in order to not hold onto the couple of progs that we dread the demise of on beeb radio, or tv).

[VodkaDilc]

Got it in one, Voddy - initially I was sceptical about the change but now I think it's piss-poor

Mind you I can't afford £1.20/day so it's the on-line version for me most days

The Saturday one is still untouched, but I expect that's next for the chop. I still wonder if I should change to The Telegraph (despite obvious problems with its reactionary attitudes and, I imagine, support of the current idiots in government), which still seems to value its print-buyers. (I wonder how long it will be before The Guardian goes to the next step and gives up the "print edition"!)

[mangerton]

...... 1/4 a pint of beer,.........

Where do you buy your beer?

[cloughie]

Where do you buy your beer?

I wondered that 2/15 of a pint is nearer the mark!

[3rd Viennese School]

I prefer Channel 4.

3VS

[VodkaDilc]

I prefer Channel 4.

3VS

It definitely has the best news programme (even more so since some of the better Newsnight people moved over to Ch4.)