Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Hotzenplotz wrote:IMHO the BBC does its job much better.

I should hope so, since 1922 the BBC has had 90 uninterrupted years of practice to get it right.

In my lifetime there have been more than a few attempts to come up with ways of funding the BBC that don’t include the levy of an annual licence fee. However, the exercise always falls flat on its face when the question gets asked; do you – the British TV viewing and radio listening public – want the BBC to seek commercial funding in the form of advertising. The answer always comes back NO, NO and NO.

As I say, the BBC has been advertising free for 90 uninterrupted years and counting. Here in the UK we’ve already got three distinct commercially funded TV stations in competition with the BBC … ITV, C4 and C5. Watch any of these three channels for an hour and 12 minutes [20%] of that time is taken up with advertising breaks.

We (the British) will invariably always say no when we get asked the follow up question; should the BBC be subsidised out of state funds.

Both inside and outside the UK, the BBC has built up a hard-earned reputation for not taking political sides. While on occasions the BBC gets taken to task for being too Anglo-Saxon biased, it does however go to great lengths to appear neutral and balanced with its news reporting. For the BBC to be seen to be dependant for funding on whatever political party happened to be in power is at odds with its founding principles as laid down in the BBC Charter - the centre piece being “to always represent the best interests of the British public”.

Therefore, the argument follows that by accepting funding from the state the BBC would, in effect become a de facto state-sponsored broadcaster. By way of illustration, supporters of the case against accepting any form of government money always quote the example of the state funded Voice of America in defence of their argument.

No commercials? I wouldn't mind paying for that.

Hotzenplotz wrote:Then compare the world wide net of journalists the BBC runs to our small net of correspondents.
In relation the result and quality is way less here.

Well, I still disagree... Just look at how much money is wasted at the BBC! They do make great documentaries or have them made, but that doesn't mean general content is of high quality. Quantity (to cater for each and everyone's taste) doesn't mean quality.

I have no tv, and I really don't miss it. If I want to see a documentary I can have a friend or family member tape it (or rather, DVD-RW it). In general tv is extremely boring, it kills the mind.