Is the BBC making the right decisions?
The BBC's Annual Report and Accounts has been published, while the BBC Trust has rejected the corporation's initial plans to close 6 Music as part of its wide-ranging strategic review. Are the right decisions being made at the BBC?
Trust Chairman Sir Michael Lyons says that the Trust would only consider closing the station as part of a wider strategy on the future of digital radio. However, it has accepted plans to close the Asian Network, cut 25 percent of the online budget and close Blast!
The annual report follows recent comments from Sir Terry Wogan who said that highly-paid BBC stars could afford to take a 15% pay cut. However, the corporation's director general, Mark Thompson, has warned that revealing the salaries of its top stars would be "damaging and destructive".
Do you agree with the Trust's verdict on 6 Music? Do BBC channels and programmes provide good value for money? How should the Corporation be spending its money, and how open should it be in doing so?
This debate is now closed. Thank you for your comments.
© MMX
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~59~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Quite right about 6 Music, it's comfortably BBC's best popular music station.
Complain about this comment
GOOD! 6 Music is a merciful relief from the inane mush of radio1.
Why would revealing the salaries of top stars be "damaging and destructive"?
Complain about this comment
Certainly not. BBC1 and 2 programming is just dreadful and completely out of touch with the viewers. BBC news is grossly overstaffed, why two presenters, why so many sports presenters, usually not very good, but good looking. The list is endless. What is required is massive cuts in salaries, pensions, expenses and more money spent on quality programming that viewers can look forward to.
Complain about this comment
The problem with the BBC and its decision making is that it has retained a collegiate style for far too long. Like an Oxbridge university it has allowed many old Dons (Wogan, Dimbleby etc.) whilst lavishing expensive contracts to the new kids on the block (Ross, Norton etc.). Latterly the trust is making noises over minor isses of day to day operational aspects such as 6 music. Surely the roles of the trust and management have become a little clouded and disfunctional.
In these times of budget constraint maybe the BBC needs to look at its total organisational effectiveness and not just worry about the topline "stars" T&Cs as that is the simple part to sort out. I'm sure that in the depths of the BBC there are a multitude of bad practises by managers who believe they have a right to be there and run their little areas without regard to the corporation.
The bottom line is that if they don't do it to the satisfaction of the license payers, Rupert Murdoch will convince this government to act and that is one thing I would not like to see.
Complain about this comment
No.
A public body that can start an overtly racist radio station simply to pander to minorities has got it all wrong. Trying too hard to be PC to please their former masters I think, but sadly that is only the tip of the iceberg.
You only need to look at the 'cast of thousands' sent to South Africa to see how out of touch the BBC is, I can see the point of match commentators having to be at the games but do we really need news reporters or talking heads like Linneker out there? Much cheaper to talk nonsense from a studio in London surely.
As for revealing salaries they must have something to hide or it would have been done by now. Be curious to see how much Alistair (i'm never off the BBC) Campbell is getting paid........
Complain about this comment
I have just watched and listened to your interview with Sir Michael Lyons on the BBC News Channel. I would like to say that I disagree with him totally. Certainly none of the current BBC controllers of BBC Television would received the same salaries and pensions in the private sector for very long as their performance would not be deemed satisfactory. Like many of our public services jobs and their conditions are for life whether they do a good or a bad job. I believe the Prime Minister's salary to be a fair benchmark to work to. I would certainly support a reduction in the licence fee by 50% to force the BBC Trust and management to start doing their jobs properly and providing licence payers with programmes they want to watch or listen to. Finally perhaps the top person at the BBC should be elected to the post then perhaps we might get some decent programmes on both TV and Radio.
Complain about this comment
PeterTigerman wrote:
BBC1 and 2 programming is just dreadful and completely out of touch with the viewers.
I couldn't disagree more.
BBC1 and BBC2 are fantastic and the only channels that get close to their level of quality programming are Chanel 4, E4, More4 and the other BBC channels.
ITV is nothing but mindless dross, Chanel 5 is laughable, the only thing worth watching on SKY 1 is The Simpsons and almost every other channel is constant repeats. SKY sports can be painful to watch due to the constant over-hyping of every event that they televise, SKY movies repeats the same two dozen films over and over again until you know the script better than the actors and while the documentary channels are good, most of the best documentaries they show were made by the BBC.
There are obviously some programs that the BBC show that I don't like (Eastenders, Cash in the Attic and other such rubbish) but my TiVo is, more often than not, filled with BBC programs and I spend more time watching shows on the iPlayer than I do on the other networks websites.
The BBC show the widest range of programming of any network out there and other than Chanel 4 they're the only company who regularly commission British made programs.
Complain about this comment
6 music is exactly what the the BBC should be doing - providing a service thats not commercially viable.
Its content such as Eastenders, The Apprentice and Strictly Come Dancing, which, no matter what you think of them personally are exactly the kind of run-of-mill fare you find on commercial stations.
Perhaps the BBC as a public broadcaster should move away from the ratings war and concentrate on quality.
PS looking forwards to reding the most outlandish BBC conspiracy theories...
Complain about this comment
The BBC needs to rethink BBC. The type of rubbish on there can easily be found on Sky1, 2, 3, ot ITV1.
My suggestion would be to get rid of BBC3 and have a BBC Sports Channel in its place. That way, full comprehensive sports coverage can be provided whilst at the same time appeasing the whinging complainers bemoaning the fact theres too much football / tennis / cricket (delete as applicable) disrupting their programmes.
Complain about this comment
Yes Radio 6 is too good to be shut down. Now cut BBC 3 TV to save costs. We have enough children programs
Complain about this comment
More self-centred navel gazing via HYS.
I'd never heard of 6 Music until the move to close it, and I'll bet 99% of the population haven't either.
The austerity measures need to apply to the profligate BBC as well you know - so where's your plan for 40% cuts?
Start with:
You don't need Radio 1 and Radio 2
You don't need Radio 3 and Radio 4
You don't need the World Service
You don't need BBC 3 and BBC 4 TV Channels
And when on earth are we going to see the back of the tedious and expensive Jonathan Ross as promised?
Complain about this comment
Here's a crazy idea that usually gets rejected by the Mods for being too close to the bone.
The BBC still makes, or co-makes, the best Drama in the world. Rome, Band of Brothers, Life on Mars, Ashes to Ashes, Spooks...even Dr Who etc. However after we, the licence fee payers, give millions towards making these programmes they are shown once then sold off quick to satellite and DVD. If you want to see them again you have to pay twice, usually to a commercial broadcaster.
Instead of repeats of the newer decent stuff the schedules are filled with 30 and 40 year old repeats of Porridge, Dads army, Open all hours etc.
To say I'm not impressed is an understatement.... nearly as unimpressed when I found the same tennis match on both BBC1 and BBC2 the other night. THAT must have saved you a few pennies.
Complain about this comment
pzero wrote:
As for revealing salaries they must have something to hide or it would have been done by now. Be curious to see how much Alistair (i'm never off the BBC) Campbell is getting paid........
>>>>>>>
Oh come on pzero, you are not insinuating that the BBC helps support and promote left wing organisations and views are you? Thats like saying the pope is a catholic......The BBC is 'unbiased'....!!! Ha, ha...some may fall for that line but not all of us
Complain about this comment
6. At 11:54am on 05 Jul 2010, PeterTigerman wrote:
Finally perhaps the top person at the BBC should be elected to the post then perhaps we might get some decent programmes on both TV and Radio.
---
Because when the public vote for who they like best top-quality is always assured?
Complain about this comment
Like other Public bodies the BBC will have to make painful economic decisions. If they wish to keep 6 Music, then perhaps BBC Radio 4 must go. Perhaps the breakfast show format needs changed and we should have less presenters/correspondents/meteorologists on the payroll. Perhaps we need to have less in the way of serial drama and reality and stop trying to be a 24hour station. Or perhaps the channels should at least rename to their specialisms - I won't put down my thoughts on a new name for BBC1, but we already have a CBBC channel, and BBC Three could become BBC Drama, BBC Four could be BBC Highbrow, and BBC Two would then be BBC Comedy or somesuch. Of course having a single station with the best from each would be preferable and cheaper, but that's the Beeb's choice to make.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
However, the corporation's director general, Mark Thompson, has warned that revealing the salaries of its top stars would be "damaging and destructive".
---
Yes very because on hearing what this bunch get paid I will probably put a brick through the TV!
Complain about this comment
My views?
The BBC is an overstuffed money-gobbling state monolith that needs to be slimmed down and called to account.
The main BBC executives are paid far too much for the mediocre job they do, but they will never leave because no-one else would pay their over-inflated salaries. Mark Thompson earns more than £650,000 a year...nice; it's more than 4 times what the PM earns.
The BBC seems to spend time and money chasing ratings rather than trying to produce quality programmes.
The BBC panders to the 'yoof' market whilst completely ignoring the people who actually pay their compulsory TV tax. You don't think the 'yoofs' buy a TV licence, do you Michael Lyons?
The BBC should become a commercial venture and have to get its revenue from advertising. Without the compulsory handouts from the taxpayer it wouldn't last 5 minutes, but it might make the execs do some work for a change.
These are just a few of 'my views' - the rest are unprintable, but I think you get my drift!
Complain about this comment
13. At 12:19pm on 05 Jul 2010, AuntieLeft wrote:
Oh come on pzero, you are not insinuating that the BBC helps support and promote left wing organisations and views are you? Thats like saying the pope is a catholic......The BBC is 'unbiased'....!!! Ha, ha...some may fall for that line but not all of us
.........................................................................
Auntie, I believe the BBC to be wholly unbiased, I have been brainwashed into thinking this by their programmes! (They promised to remove the electrodes if I said that!)
I am just sick of seeing AC's smug face every time I watch something on the BBC! He was even on Top Gear last night! The man is nearly as annoying as Jonathan Woss and Graham Norton combined!
Complain about this comment
13. At 12:19pm on 05 Jul 2010, AuntieLeft wrote:
pzero wrote:
As for revealing salaries they must have something to hide or it would have been done by now. Be curious to see how much Alistair (i'm never off the BBC) Campbell is getting paid........
>>>>>>>
Oh come on pzero, you are not insinuating that the BBC helps support and promote left wing organisations and views are you? Thats like saying the pope is a catholic......The BBC is 'unbiased'....!!! Ha, ha...some may fall for that line but not all of us
Is Alistair Campbell left wing?. Could have fooled me. I certainly don't see much 'redistribution' of HIS wealth!
Complain about this comment
A bit more focus on the "inform, educate" part of the Beebs mission statement wouldn't go amiss.
Complain about this comment
Is the BBC making the right decisions?
The BBC should publish the Balen report if wants to do things right.
Complain about this comment
A lot of people use the BBC as a whipping boy, when in fact it does a remarkably good job. Obviously an organisation the size of the BBC will make mistakes, and it can not satisfy everyone, as everybody is different and wants the BBC to certain things they agree with, and stop others they don't.
The one thing I think is certain is that if it did not exist we would be a lot poorer.
There are a lot of pressures coming from the commercial sector to curb the BBC, most notably from Murdoch's News Corporation. If they have their way they will benefit and the General public will be worse off, as the BBC for example has already agreed to cut its web content under such pressure.
At the end of the day I pay £3 per week for all the BBC TV programmes including local TV programmes, lots of radio programmes, plus all the web content. That's an absolute bargain, as it less than the cost of a pint of larger, or 10% of the cost of a ticket to see my football team. Indeed if I take my Children to a football match with travel etc it costs over £100.
I thought Terry Wogan's comment about the top BBC staff taking a 15% pay cut was a bit silly. He has benefited hugely from the BBC salary over the years, and now that he is in semi retirement he changes his tune. I am sure that we all can think of loads of people who we think are paid too much in all walks of wife, but how much of this is down to jealousy.
Complain about this comment
BBC radio is very self-indulgent. How many presenters are there on programs.
If I wanted to hear so much gabbling I would start talking to myself.
Maybe BBC should just get back to basics of playing music, and also of ensuring their new digial services are fully operational to an extent which provides SAME or BETTER signaling up and down UK than pre-digital systems.
I wish BBC and all else would just dump digital in the bin, its just NOT fit for purpose and is WORSE overal quality then before.
Complain about this comment
Well done, Aunty Beeb! Your plan to boost ratings, increase network exposure and then come across as a benevolent corporation who Listens To The People has worked spectacularly. You didn't really think we believed you'd shut down 6 Music, did you|?
Complain about this comment
"16. At 12:23pm on 05 Jul 2010, grainsofsand wrote:
When is the BBC going to cut 1XTRA a station which Michael Lyons describes as "the digital station for young black urban audiences". How come Blacks get their own special radio station.
The answer: the BBC is anti White Racist - so how come they break the Law."
Get a grip. It would only break the law if they refused to let white people listen to it or refused to employ white people making it. 1Extra targets a specific audience in the same way that BBC Radio Cornwall targets people from Cornwall.
Doubtless you think because there's a BBC Scotland the BBC hate the English too? You'd be screaming 'political correctness gone mad' if some young black guy claimed that the white middle class bias of Radio 3 and 4 discriminated against him wouldn't you.
Complain about this comment
18. At 12:25pm on 05 Jul 2010, steve wrote:
However, the corporation's director general, Mark Thompson, has warned that revealing the salaries of its top stars would be "damaging and destructive".
---
Yes very because on hearing what this bunch get paid I will probably put a brick through the TV!
--------------------------------------------------
I suspect you already have a good idea how much they are paid, which is very similiar to the money they would get paid if they were on ITV or Sky. In fact it usually is less which is why people move across to commercial TV.
Life unfortunately is unfair, which is why footballers, who have even less talent than the people on TV get paid over £100k a week to kick a ball.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Why should it be damaging and destructive to reveal salaries, surely the licence payer has a right to know.
The BBC should have a sewrious rethink on programming, most of the populist rubbish on BBC1 is identical in content to that on ITV.
BBC 4 has some extremely good programmes but far too many repeats and is it really necessary to have so many childrens channels.
Stop trying to compete with Sky and go back to making quality programmes with good actors, good presenters that can actually speak correctly and stop remaking the classics when there are perfectly good adaptations that could be reshown.
Complain about this comment
I need BBC2 and BBC4. Radio 5 and 4 are popular with the rest of the family. I like the web presence. Who knows; although I suspect the Tories of being in bed with Sky so watch out BBC.
Complain about this comment
Congratulations to the BBC Trust for saving 6Music. As the succesful campaign to save it pointed out, it is one of the few areas of the BBC that offers unique content that could not be done by commercial radio, as they pointed out in their submissions to the BBC Trust
Complain about this comment
The BBC Trust has certainly made the right decision in not axing 6Music.
I am a footbal fan and also enjoyed Glastonbury, but if the beeb had cut 10% of the cost of covering these, The Asian Network and other cuts could have been avoided.
Why on earth are so many non essential reporters, bloggers and the likes needed at these events? Why is Nicky Campbell's 5Live Breakfast show broadcast from SA every morning? England are out, the tournament is now down to 4 teams, yet all these crews still appear to be on one big jolly.
Complain about this comment
Waiting for BBC Breakfast to begin this morning I saw a trailer for what I thought was surely some kind of satirical look at TV game shows called 100 Ways to Get Thrown Off A Gameshow... but apparently it's an actual show intended to be shown at 6.30pm on Saturday!
Is this the shape of 'quality' entertainment to come?
Last Saturday evening I was reduced to watching a DVD of "Rough Science" as there wasn't anything worth watching on TV (any channel), at least last night BBC2 had the excellent "How to make a..." series looking at Rolls Royce aero engines.
Complain about this comment
@"chiptheduck", so you're suggesting the BBC axe ALL BBC radio & concentrate soley on BBC1&2? Why don't we have TV Closedown at 9pm following the national anthem too while we're at it & go back to black & white broadcasts.
The fact that YOU had not heard of 6 music does not automatically mean that 99% of the population hadn't either. I don't like jelly, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't mean 99% of the population don't either.
If any radio station should be axed it is Radio3. Radio 3 has a massive budget but does not have the listeners to deserve that sum. Any vital Radio3 programming could easily be merged into Radio4 schedules and save the millions required.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@2 "Why would revealing the salaries of top stars be "damaging and destructive"?"
Because they are probably utterly obscene!!
Complain about this comment
The didgital tv channels don't enhance the variety or quality of shows available on television. I'd axe them and return better diversity to BBC 1 & 2. No complaints at all about BBC radio, though: second to none.
Complain about this comment
The BBC is the mouthpiece of the government and to add insult to that injury the public are forced and bullied under threat of prison to pay for it.
Complain about this comment
Good to see the moderators on HYS are as slow as ever. I expect this discussion will be very heavily moderated.
Complain about this comment
Clearly the BBC in its current unweildy form is unsustainable. For example, nearly all my friends (aged up to 35) no longer pay the licence fee but simply stream all the channels for free via the internet. There is no way the BBC can charge a fee to use the internet!!! Without significant change, the next generation will laugh at the idea of paying £120 a year just for three or four channels and a few niche radio stations.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps the BBC would have more money if it hadn't have sent more than 100 people to the World Cup, not to mention that ridiculous bus.
Also, why do they sent people to a location to give a six line report on something you can't even see from it, when someone in the studio could do it? When they did a story on Sout West Trains getting £100M from the government, the reporter was standing by the Freightliner yard at Millbrook in Southampton? WHY?? A complete waste of money.
Complain about this comment
The BBC is unique in that it is publicly funded without having any real responsibility to the people funding it. Until like any other company it has to make a profit from providing it's service and not from being propped up by anyone who owns a TV people won't be happy.
The BBC take licence payers money and use it to produce programs some good and some (well most in my opinion) appalling - many of these shows are then sold around the world to other tv companies. So when do I get my dividend for these sales? I'd love to see the BBC make the licence fee "optional" for a year and see if they exist at the end of 12 months given the wasteful way they spend our money.
I'd love to have the security of running a company without the worries of cash flow because people will knock on doors threatening fines for not funding me....
And before people point out that due to the funding I can use this website - well so can people from other countries...
Complain about this comment
The BBC, as a body funded by a regressive tax, should be subject to the same 25% cut in funding as the rest of the public sector. This would really focus minds on priorities.
Complain about this comment
The trouble with the BBC is that it is little more than an extortion racket. It doesn't matter if the BBC makes the right desicions or not, not everyone will agree with what the BBC does, yet eveyone is forced to pay for it. Most television is rubbish, that goes for all channels. However I don't mind that ITV is rubbish, they have to earn an income from advertising. What I don't take kindly to is having my hard earned money stolen from me, so that mostly rubbish interspersed with some good programs can be broadcast into my living room. Scrap the TV license, and take the money out of general taxation, that way at least the viewer would have some say over the BBC, through our elected representatives.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
One thing the BBC really does need to do.
Stop with the low-brow entertainment..., I yearn for the day that the BBC returns to fantastic quality entertainment such as,
Red Dwarf
Blackadder
The Young Ones
Only Fools And Horses
Bottom
Jeeves & Wouster
Dr Who (not the new trendy watered down version)
BBC should stick to what it does best,
Intelligent comedy
Fantastic Nature programms
Inventive sci-fi (tho this has always been somewhat lacking)
Get rid of the terrible soaps, gameshows, "im hotter than your moms pet rabbit" type programms,.
Bring back good cookery programms like the ones with Keith Flloyd (rip).
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"The BBC should become a commercial venture and have to get its revenue from advertising"
NOOOOOO!!! Try spending 2 months living in the US and just get your "news" from the TV there and you'll understand why the BBC should NEVER be a commercially funded orgainisation. News editorial decisions in a commercial environment are driven by a combination of a need to attract advertisers and an imperative not to offend them. "Inform?", "Educate?" - forget it. The BBC must remain independent of commercial pressures. It also keeps C4,ITV, etc honest.
Until you have experienced the misery of trying to get worthwhile information from a exclusively commercial TV medium you will not appreciate the BBC and the way it is funded.
Complain about this comment
Peter_Sym wrote:
13. At 12:19pm on 05 Jul 2010, AuntieLeft wrote:
pzero wrote:
As for revealing salaries they must have something to hide or it would have been done by now. Be curious to see how much Alistair (i'm never off the BBC) Campbell is getting paid........
>>>>>>>
Oh come on pzero, you are not insinuating that the BBC helps support and promote left wing organisations and views are you? Thats like saying the pope is a catholic......The BBC is 'unbiased'....!!! Ha, ha...some may fall for that line but not all of us
Is Alistair Campbell left wing?. Could have fooled me. I certainly don't see much 'redistribution' of HIS wealth!
Alister Campbell has been described as Labour's "unelected, but ... hardly underscrutinised" spin doctor. Doing La La Labour spinning funded by you and me via BBC. Makes me sick, this is NOT democracy or 'balanced reporting' ie BBC News showed what they called public sector protests last night. They were Socialist Worker Party activists, Trots, communists who want the downfall of the capitalist system NOT public sector workers. It would be like the BNP protesting about immigration and then being called 'concerned members of the public' by the BBC. The BBC MUST know they were Trots and it shows (in my opinion) they DO have an agenda and its not good for the country. We know the motto boys (and girls), infiltrate and agitate..... that’s what they are doing, MI5 please ...
Complain about this comment
'Is the BBC making the right decisions'?
Happy to see that 6 music may continue with its music, interviews/ documentary aspects of legend bands? However, 6 is in danger of being 'used' now by BBC Trust as a red-herring and distraction to quietly cut other BBC radio?
Any cuts to Radio 4 will be in breach of many aspects the BBC remit?
BTW do struggle to decide was Radio 2 is about?
As for BBC 3? Apart from Family Guy, American Dad, Russell Howard's Good News and the new Mongrels - is BBC 3 being deliberately run down, as it was started to showcase 'experimental'?
Perhaps BBC 4 should get more publicity - Wallander, sadly now finished, and very unexpected documentaries/off the the wall films.
As for EastEnders, Holby and Casualty - our family love them - we all need to suspend belief - it's good for the brain.
As for comedy/satire: Mock the Week, Have I got News for You, Would I lie to you? Live at the Apollo etc., etc., is crucial especially if the comedy is irreverent to politics, religion and any organised attempts to control what you think and how you think? Satire is the best defence for inspiration for improvement of how humanity functions and interacts?
Read my comment before posting - got a bit carried away? Sorry about that, but don't want to take anything back. Would prefer others to fill in the blanks of what we get from BBC and expect to hear from those who despise the BBC too, yet only able to complain about £12.00 per month?
Complain about this comment
The BBC delivers good value. However, it is time that the costs were cut and people in the Corporation made to work harder.
For example:
+ Retirement at 65 rising to 67
+ For all staff earning over GBP50k - 100k/pa a cut of 5% and from 100k to 200k/pa a 15% cut and anyone earning over 200k and immedaite cut to GBP 170k/pa - if they done like it leave!
+ Cut all local weather forecasters - do it centrally
+ End the maxing out of HR benefits
+ Increase outsourcing
Complain about this comment
Time the BBC stuck up for themselves. When Sky/Murdoch and the Tory's come knocking it will need as much public support as possible, and axing popular services to appease the haters will get them nowhere.
Complain about this comment
No the BBC is not making the right decisions. Whole evenings of documentries, and the like such as on Sundays boring. Why cant you put a decent film on on a sunday for a change. Fed up paying TV license for boring rubbish on tv & why 3 commentators for one tennis match. How much did you pay these people? More money than I will ever see i expect. I want a refund
Complain about this comment
The BBC follows its own agenda - toe the government line, don't mention civilian casualties in wars, promote the Roman Catholic faith, supress the Hollie Greig story, don't worry about events outside London. Until it becomes a national broadcaster, it shouldn't rely on national funding.
Complain about this comment
34. At 12:51pm on 05 Jul 2010, Megan wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.
35. At 12:51pm on 05 Jul 2010, migginsthecat wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.
36. At 12:52pm on 05 Jul 2010, Les Acres wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.
37. At 12:55pm on 05 Jul 2010, Norbert wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.
38. At 12:56pm on 05 Jul 2010, Dave wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.
39. At 12:57pm on 05 Jul 2010, yorkshire News wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.
40. At 12:58pm on 05 Jul 2010, you wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.
41. At 12:58pm on 05 Jul 2010, shendor wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.
42. At 12:58pm on 05 Jul 2010, Norbert wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.
43. At 1:01pm on 05 Jul 2010, R Breaks wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.
44. At 1:04pm on 05 Jul 2010, TJ1949 wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.
45. At 1:04pm on 05 Jul 2010, doug wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.
46. At 1:05pm on 05 Jul 2010, grainsofsand wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.
47. At 1:05pm on 05 Jul 2010, Mark wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.
48. At 1:07pm on 05 Jul 2010, James T Kirk wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.
49. At 1:07pm on 05 Jul 2010, edna teevee wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.
50. At 1:08pm on 05 Jul 2010, AuntieLeft wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.
51. At 1:10pm on 05 Jul 2010, corum-populo-2010 wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.
--------------------------------------------------------
Could a moderator please explain? I don't expect you will publish this.
Complain about this comment
The BBC has long been a part of the establishment, hence the licence fee.
Today's stars appeal mainly to the lowest common denominator, ie Brand and Ross, but their outbursts dont mean a thing now as long as these stars get an audience, because ratings are what's it is all about and not quality. Parkinson was the best, but even he got out while the going was good, he could see which way things were going.
I believe the BBC should lose the licence fee, and be in the market place like everybody else, and then the likes of Dimbley should lose their security, not that that would mean much on their salaries.
If Britain must continue to be market lead, without subsidy or investment, then let the BBC join in the market place, and let their executives, stars, and media pundits know what it feels like to feel and be insecure.
Move into the real world BBC, and while your at it, ditch the politically correct Question Time.
Complain about this comment
I would vote to keep 6 Music as a lot of digital programmes have already disappeared. I thought digital radio was the future. I do have concerns about the number of presenters and the locations they end up in. Last week, the main 6 o'clock news carried a report from Wootton Basset. The regional programme, which followed, also had a report from Wootton Basset but there was a different reporter. As they both work for the BBC, why not use the same one? I expect there was a different one for the radio report as well, or am I being cynical? In respect of individuals, I doubt whether paying huge amounts of money for a particular presenter means that they are that much better than the one they replace. I expect that there are quite a number of people who could and would read the news for a lot less money than is paid to those who currently do.
Complain about this comment
3. At 11:29am on 05 Jul 2010, PeterTigerman wrote:
Certainly not. BBC1 and 2 programming is just dreadful and completely out of touch with the viewers.
This is a joke, right? The BBC continues to be the only broadcaster of quality programming in these islands. ITV is almost unwatchable; Channel 4 serves up hour after hour of Big Brother or Come Dine With Me, or some other brain-shrivelling mush. As for the myriad other channels now available, without the BBC to produce the programmes that they show constantly in repeats they would be nowhere.
On the whole I think the BBC is doing an excellent job. I do think it should take a lead in cutting overblown salaries - something that the whole of our society should be doing - and I do think that they should be more robust in defending their "brand".
Complain about this comment
Glad 6 music is staying, am looking forward to listening to the younger Peel on Friday evenings.
Complain about this comment
Off topic I agree with #25. Digital is awful. It is possible to watch an anologue signal without an ariel (you may need to squint), with digital however a rogue cloud can cause a silent blue screen to appear on your television set.
Complain about this comment
42. At 12:58pm on 05 Jul 2010, Norbert wrote:
Perhaps the BBC would have more money if it hadn't have sent more than 100 people to the World Cup, not to mention that ridiculous bus.
Also, why do they sent people to a location to give a six line report on something you can't even see from it, when someone in the studio could do it? When they did a story on Sout West Trains getting £100M from the government, the reporter was standing by the Freightliner yard at Millbrook in Southampton? WHY?? A complete waste of money
Well, TV is a visual medium and if they'd just done a studio report they would have been told it could just as easily have been done on radio.
Complain about this comment
The problem is the BBC does so much it will always upset people no matter what it does.
This kind of democracy costs money by delaying plans, holding up budgets and forcing the operation of a service past its intended end date.
The trust need to think about licence payer value and less about principles. 6 Music is good - but its audience is small because it is a cut above the mindless drivel of radio 1. However, the unfortunate truth is, many more people want radio 1 than 6.
Complain about this comment
Radio 1 is far more irritating than all the other commercial stations put together or can i be more accurate we are paying to listen to music get those "disc Jockeys" with over inflated opinions of themselves off the air and let the music speak for itself
Complain about this comment
Presenters on BBC channels effectively have a publicly subsidized capital gain on their personal brand - which can give them access to significant future earnings and security - a personal publicity that companies would pay handsomely for to promote their brands. Payers of the TV license have no vote in how their license fee is spent which means ultimately so called celebrities are working the system to steal vast amounts of money and untaxed free publicity from the public. Presenters should therefore receive minimum wage for core hours and be permitted to top up income from use of their brand outside of BBC related activity. This would see a higher turnover of talent and a chance for new faces to be discovered - saving the hard up public pocket a significant amount, keep back room BBC staff with jobs and fair pensions and still give room for real talent to succeed.
Complain about this comment
30. At 12:47pm on 05 Jul 2010, Lynn from Sussex wrote:
"Why should it be damaging and destructive to reveal salaries, surely the licence payer has a right to know...."
The problem is I think, that the majority of presenters are not employees, they don't have salaries
They are freelance and their fees are negotiated individually either with the person themselves or usually through an agent
I don't know but I imagine their contracts contain a confidentiality clause
If these fees were all made public then the presenters would be aware of what each other earns and this could lead to a sort of 'bidding up', of the type 'I'm worth more than him, pay me the same or else'
This 'bidding up' could cost the Licence-payer more in the long run
All that was pure speculation but it could be what was meant by 'damaging and destructive'
Complain about this comment
Congratulations to the BBC for considering and taking on board the depth of public feeling surrounding the closure of 6 Music. A great day for artists, musicians and most of all, the listeners of a truly unique station.
Complain about this comment
I agree the 'inform' and 'education' part of the mandate should be a priority. There is too much lowest common denominator content (there are plenty of other commercial stations who provide rubbish aplenty).
I am astonished that the whole 606 element of the BBC website exists at all. All that money going to provide dozens of sports chat forums (editors, moderators salaries for a start - this is duplicating what other sites do and has little to do with BBC priority as I understand them. Complete waste of money.
Complain about this comment
pzero wrote:
A public body that can start an overtly racist radio station simply to pander to minorities has got it all wrong.
What are you talking about ?
Do you know what racist actually means and if so how could you possibly apply it to any of the BBC radio stations ?
Complain about this comment
I personally do not watch or listen to the BBC at all and I object to having the BBC forcibly (backed by law and a huge fine for non compliance) pick my pocket each year for more and more money for something I don't watch or listen to.I Would welcome the licence fee being slashed, a massive cut in over inflated salaries for the 'stars' and a few of the radio stations. The the corporation should go as a pay per view chanel, it would be interesting to see who buys?
Complain about this comment
Re Terry Wogan who suggests that staff,presenters etc.take a wage cut.Now,I wonder why he did not suggest that 5 yrs.ago.As far as I see it the BBC is no longer putting programmes on air or vision that the public want.Last week,Wimbledon on both channels at the same time taking up 12 hours air time.Presenters and commentators past their sell by date.I thought that when Clare Balding started presenting Rugby League that took the biscuit.There is too much of the old boys/women brigade.I will put up with the adverts.Scrap the T.V.Licence.
Complain about this comment
I think that the BBC provides quality programming in a wide range of media, for the price of the licence fee. Generally, the BBC is well-run, though has been rather in thrall to the government and its various, ludicrous, lines of the day (e.g. "the British have always been a peaceful and tolerant people"). The disclosure of "top talent" salaries has been damaging for the BBC and I believe they have overpaid for these people.
The sort of people who complain about the BBC on HYS are, in my opinion, people whose opinions come straght from whichever easy-to-read newspaper has the biggest photo on the front of it. The sort of people who oppose laws that protect their own safety and give them rights not to be stomped over.
Stick to Sky News chaps! They'll even tell you what to think, saving your brains for the difficult task of working out the odds on a 4 horse accumulator and whether that leaves you enough to get baby food on the way home if your sure thing doesn't come off.
Complain about this comment
I like how Sir Terry Wogan calls for a pay cut now that he's no longer in a full time role and the fact that he's the only person who get's paid for Children in Need.
Glass houses and stones spring to mind there Sir Terry!
Complain about this comment
It's time the left wing extremists and racists at the BBC were removed from all positions of power and influence.
The whole rotten organisation needs root and branch treatment. The license fee should be scrapped as it's a Communist-style taxation that forces people to pay for state media that they may not want or care for. Paying for left wing extremists who use their position as state funded media to advance their racist anti-Israel campaign and their global warming agenda amongst other things, sticks in the throat of many people.
Complain about this comment
I am extremely pleased to hear the news about 6 Music, it has fastly become my favourite radio station. I always knew the station was involved with good up and coming music from the gigs I went to that were backed by the station.
The news of it's closure only encouraged me to listen to it more regularly and now I can't imagine getting throught a weekend without it.
Complain about this comment
5. At 11:51am on 05 Jul 2010, pzero wrote:
No.
A public body that can start an overtly racist radio station simply to pander to minorities has got it all wrong. Trying too hard to be PC to please their former masters I think, but sadly that is only the tip of the iceberg.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure I get this. Can you elaborate on what you mean?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Never have listened to 6music or the Asian Channel or had much thought about the budget for the internet content.
However I have become extremely disappointed in the BBC programmes and can only reiterate what others have said regarding too many talking heads, (airheads mainly) and grossly overrated 'stars' like wossy and norton.
I don't see the need for 24 hour news either. Who's wonderful idea was that? Mostly it is repeated ad nauseum drivel, driven by conjecture, innuendo and rumour. And If this blasted company cannot even get an English spell checker sorted out when it is the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation there is no hope left.
Not everything in the company is bad, but it has serious flaws that it seems reluctant to address. for example why encourage comments to Question Time when the darned programme does not go our live and if you don't get on the blog before about 7am the thing is closed down anyway.
Look BBC after QT most of us drift off to bed and the first thing on our minds is not dashing off to the computer to add our thoughts.
Is the BBC making the right decisions? Not now, not in the past and not ever I suspect. Too stymied by PC nonsense and over-expensive nonentities.
Complain about this comment
The BBC Trust and the BBC management might be regarded as:
BBC Trust - version of the House of Lords? A fail-safe if you will, but increasingly secretive/unaccountable/unapproachable and uncontactable by the public? Complaint process deliberately difficult and protracted?
BBC as a Corporation - the management - an executive version of the House of Commons? Too many chiefs - not enough interaction with the public and new members/employees quickly whipped into the shape of the 'old boys' club? Complaint/feedback process too complicated, generic and deliberately sending you around in circles?
It would give the BBC Trust, and BBC as a Corporation, more credence and respect from everyone if their respective sites were actually more open to feedback and improved their complaints process?
Complain about this comment
I am very very annoyed that Radio 6 is being allowed to stay on the air - someone told me it was no more than a pirate station anyway. However, it's a very noisy radio station and so very unlike the Home Service which I think the young people of today should be encouraged to listen to. (I do hope you forgive my use of a preposition when ending a sentence)
Gen. Doogie Smythe (retired)
Complain about this comment
I totally disagree with the decision taken by the BBC trust to continue with the closure of the BBC Asian Network. The Asian Network provides fantastic entertainment for the millions of Asians in the UK. If the BBC wants to cut costs, then why doesn't it start by cutting the salaries of the "overpaid, so called stars" it employs using the Licence fee....
What other programming does the BBC offer for the Asian population on its schedules, be it on television or radio at present? - NOTHING that's what! If the Asian Network closes, then it will be false promises from the BBC to provide more for the Asian population....Will it be a heavily edited Bollywood movie at 2am on a Monday morning, once a year?
The Asian Network is needed.....It should not be closed!
Complain about this comment
Fantastic news. BBC6 Music has replaced Radio 1 as the leading new and vintage music radio station on the BBC and in the country in my opinion. Also whilst I'm here I will say I have no interest what the BBC pays it's stars or employees what business is it of mine. I think some people believe paying a tiny license fee makes them a share holder in a company that gives and has given us far more than we give them and frankly even with it's financial and legislated limitations still out performs virtually every other media network in the world. Where's the gratitude people? ITV isn't as limited in the same ways and look at the garbage they spew out on a daily basis across multiple channels.
The BBC has provided decades of brilliant programming on Television and Radio and now the internet and when a new format has come along it has always managed to remain at the head of the pack. 6Music is the latest example of this and I say congratulations BBC for achieving this and congratulations for seeing sense and keeping 6Music alive.
Complain about this comment
56. At 1:14pm on 05 Jul 2010, Jimmy Jazz wrote:
Could a moderator please explain? I don't expect you will publish this.
--------------------------------
Well they did let it through but as to getting an explanation - you must be joking - law unto themselves and no reasons forthcoming, EVER. That needs to change.
Complain about this comment
What is 6 Music? Until the BBC proposed to close it, I'd never heard of it. Apparently, it's another pop music station. Why do we need another pop music station when we have Radio 1? The money saved by closing it could be better spent producing more high quality TV programmes like the David Attenborough series.
Complain about this comment
"The BBC needs to rethink BBC. The type of rubbish on there can easily be found on Sky1, 2, 3, ot ITV1.
My suggestion would be to get rid of BBC3 and have a BBC Sports Channel in its place. That way, full comprehensive sports coverage can be provided whilst at the same time appeasing the whinging complainers bemoaning the fact theres too much football / tennis / cricket (delete as applicable) disrupting their programmes."
really ? so why not BBC 4 ? BBC 3 is actually a good channel - I see no real use for BBC 4 though. BBC 3 helps feature comedy shows such as family Guy, and Two Pints, and more. The BBC really need to look else where for these savings, such as staffing, and salaries to its exec's.
Complain about this comment
The "right decision" is for the BBC to shift to a subscription-only service, funded also by advertising; see how many people actually want the BBC and are willing to pay for it; and then allocate whatever revenue it receives as it wants to.
That's how businesses are run. You aren't forced to pay for what you don't want, on threat of prosecution, when there are free alternatives out there you could be enjoying, and when the content of the provider isn't anything exceptional or special anyway.
WHEN ARE WE GOING TO SEE THE END OF THE LICENCE FEE PLEASE? WITH HUNDREDS OF CHANNELS AVAILABLE, IT IS A DISGRACE THAT PEOPLE ARE STILL BEING FORCED TO PAY FOR THE BBC BEFORE THEY CAN WATCH ANY OF THEM.
Complain about this comment
I don't normally engage in these sortrs of forums, but when I heard Radio 6 was for the chop I was gutted - it is head and shoulders the best music station on the radio for anyone that isn't part of the 'teen idol', X-Factor, brigade.
To hear that I am not alone in thinking this, and seeing the wealth of support by the music industry itself,is great. To hear that the BBC Trust has decided Radio 6 is here to stay helps one keep their faith in the BBC and suggests that the BBC Trust is exactly that...something we can trust!
Complain about this comment
Blimey moderators, is this one of your birthdays and so you thought you'd play a trick? Lay virtuals on the table and hand over the mallet!!
If it wasn't that they all paid their license and are, therefore, entitled to a view, I'd remove any comments that don't say:
"Dear BBC,
You are, quite possibly, the most effective and stunning organisation, in fact, if a certain Danish lager ran a public service broadcasting empire, it would be the BBC.
Yours in deep regard,
etc etc."
Anyway, what were you thinking?
Complain about this comment
On the whole the BBC does a good job, but why do they need two presenters on Breakfast? Also, considering the huge salary Mark Thompson gets, surely he could afford a good shave? That stubble he sports is very scruffy looking!
Complain about this comment
Was the "Proposed" 6Music cut always a stalking horse? The damage to this website - which is being proposed solely because very hostile busness interests have demanded it - is still supposed to be going ahead - unless we can stop it. A music-based radio station is relatively easy to establish or shut down - and there are thousands of them all over the world. This website is unique and most have taken thousands of hours to develop. Trashing it because a few busness people are greedy and angry is pathetically stupid - another example of the BBC Trust not standing up for our interests against a dogmatic government and sleazy big business. It is still up to us to tell the BBC Trust what we want from OUR BBC.
Complain about this comment
There are 116 managers within the BBC who are paid more than the Prime Minister. I am sure that they feel that their job is far more important than actually running the country but the bottom line is - it isn't.
All of them require immediate sacking and also the junk the highly over paid, over rated "stars" who properly belong on a commercial channel - there are thousands of talented candidates who are perfectly capable of doing their jobs far better at a mere fraction of the price.
The BBC will only be making the "right decisions" once it has done this, scrapped all the cheap quizes, soap operas and reality TV and spends every single penny saved on quality TV - IE, Drama, Comedies and Documentaries that actually have very high production values.
Complain about this comment
"The BBC follows its own agenda - toe the government line, don't mention civilian casualties in wars, promote the Roman Catholic faith, supress the Hollie Greig story, don't worry about events outside London. Until it becomes a national broadcaster, it shouldn't rely on national funding"
1. toe = tow
2. Promoting the Catholic faith? Even if they did, why not along with all the others or none at all for that matter? Do YOU have something against the catholic faith? If so, that's your problem, not that of the BBC.
3. Dont worry about events outside London? Utter twaddle.
4. "Until it becomes a national broadcaster" - which nation, as it covers the one I live in adequately? Do you live in Tonga?
Complain about this comment
PS. Agree with post #42 on 5th July - 'Norbert'.
In addition, although this year clashed with World Cup and Wimbledon - it would make sense to help save so many marriages to take sport broadcasting and those over-paid waffling ex-sportsmen onto BBC 3 as BBC 3 is available for the above until 7pm anyway?
We dread to think what will happen when the Olympics start? Will BBC 3 and BBC 4 be available before 7pm and broadcast all the sport from these two BBC channels? Or, will the promoters and Olympic Quangos complain? hmmmm?
Complain about this comment
I think the BBC remit is to provide the kinds of entertainment which are less likely to appear on commercial TV - that's why I happily pay a licence fee. Not forgetting that for one fee I get not only TV but also radio and web. I find it hard to understand how commercial providers can feel that BBC subsidy is unfair when it was in existence long before their companies and they entered the market knowing that. Part of the problem is the 'dumbing down' of BBC into commercial TV territory whcih is impacting their share of the market (eg Doctor Who), debates like this which focus on whether the BBC is VFM are misguided and we are in danger of losing the unique role of the BBC.
Complain about this comment
Not a very busy day on HYS and yet the moderators are slacking, wonder why that is, too many home truths coming out perhaps.
Maybe we could save the BBC some money by not having censorship on HYS?
Okay so the jobless figures in Bombay would go up by a few but got to save a few quid.....
Complain about this comment
6 must stay - Where the programmes are about the music and the listeners, not about the presenters. The other stations are more about watching the referee and not the players.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
62. At 1:21pm on 05 Jul 2010, James T Kirk wrote:
42. At 12:58pm on 05 Jul 2010, Norbert wrote:
Perhaps the BBC would have more money if it hadn't have sent more than 100 people to the World Cup, not to mention that ridiculous bus.
Also, why do they sent people to a location to give a six line report on something you can't even see from it, when someone in the studio could do it? When they did a story on Sout West Trains getting £100M from the government, the reporter was standing by the Freightliner yard at Millbrook in Southampton? WHY?? A complete waste of money
Well, TV is a visual medium and if they'd just done a studio report they would have been told it could just as easily have been done on radio.
---
Why stop there - they could have given someone with a match ticket a fiver and he could have e-mailed a review of the match to all license fee payers at little or no cost.
Though i'm sure the (not entirely impartial) print media would still be railing about how the profligate beeb had wasted £5 of licence payers money - whilst still banging on about the poor quality and bias contained in the e-mail....
Complain about this comment
PS. Our son just reminded me - we work shifts, why should we care? Good point?
Anyway, I'm still annoyed. Just because our family working hours aren't typical, others may be?
Complain about this comment
better to keep bbc radio 6 and scrap bbc radio 1 rap station..
That's all they have played for years now......It's C/rap...!
Complain about this comment
If the BBC is supposed to provide a service in music broadcasting that isn't provided by commercial radio, why is there so little jazz broadcast? With the loss of JazzFM there is now virtually no jazz broadcast on national radio other than the odd programme on Radios 3 and 4 from time to time.
Complain about this comment
BBC online service is world class, a benchmark for others. It should be expanded not cut.
Complain about this comment
Great news! Can we now convince Adam & Joe to have a permanent Saturday morning fixture?
Complain about this comment
Does the BBC need to pull back from being a station paying ridiculous sums to alleged talent? Yes. Let Christine Bleakley disappear elsewhere.
The BBC needs to focus on what it needs to be, and that is the best neutral broadcaster in the land. Anyone like me who has spent a few years living in North America will understand how vile the bias within CNN and Fox News is. The Murdoch juggernaut can't roll over the BBC with the help of the new government.
Mark Thompson, entertaining the public is not your primary role. Educating the public and informing the public are far more important than paying wads of cash to talk show hosts.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
adam & Joe FTW
Complain about this comment
Well done to everyone who helped save Radio 6. This is by far the best music radio station on the airwaves. The content is balanced, interesting and a must-hear for any music lovers out there.
It is Radio and 1 and 2 that need a look at!
Perhaps there are savings there? Why would anyone listen to Radio 1?
Long live Radio 6
Complain about this comment
The BBC should be closed down. It serves no purpose and represents poor value for money.
Complain about this comment
I am so glad 6 music has been saved. It is disgusting how so many decent local stations ar ebeing monopolised by giants such as Heart, I hope the BBC is leading the way in this respect.
Personally I rarely listen to Asian Newtowrk and as a teenager a few years ago probably never visited the Blast website.
Trying to get into the radio industry is a long rocky road, with many giants opposed to any form of work experience or taking on new talent. I also hope 6music will lead the way in this respect.
It would appear 6 music has come out better for all of this with many more listeners and increased PR. Also, Lauren Laverne is fantastic, she should be on over Fearne Cotton any day.
Complain about this comment
It's clear that the BBC could very easily make very big economies.
One relatively obvious and painless measure would be to cut down the number of presenters on many programmes. The BBC always seems to use several, when one would do just fine.
This is very clear on its news, sports, and lifestyle output.
The news could and should be read out by a relatively anonymous continuity-announcer type person, rather than by the 'big names'. The broadcasts could also be cut in length - get rid of all those journalists interviewing each other.
They could do the weather Channel 4 and 5 style - read out by the newsreader or continuity announcer, with a few graphics if necessary.
In their cookery/gardening style output,they could cut down on the numbers of the shows, and get back to basics. Let the presenters just show how to cook/garden etc, rather than show us their (no doubt fictitious) life, friends etc.
And there are whole areas the BBC could easily pull out of - it doesn't need to do the likes of education and history. Others do both, just fine.
In short, the BBC could shrink very easily, and still provide a perfectly adequate service. I for one would welcome a more adult, back to basics approach.
Complain about this comment
74. At 1:35pm on 05 Jul 2010, SystemF wrote:
It's time the left wing extremists and racists at the BBC were removed from all positions of power and influence.
The whole rotten organisation needs root and branch treatment. The license fee should be scrapped as it's a Communist-style taxation that forces people to pay for state media that they may not want or care for. Paying for left wing extremists who use their position as state funded media to advance their racist anti-Israel campaign and their global warming agenda amongst other things, sticks in the throat of many people.
----
And replaced by Fox news UK?
Thats what a lot of people who criticise the Beeb really want.
They don't want impartiality - they want the active promotion of their own values and believes accross society.
.
Little hint, any 'news' organisation that openly backs one political party whilst actively telling peeople that voting for their rivals will destroy the country is not impartial.
And before some right-whinging conspiracist declares thats exactly what the BBC did in the last election - Its illegal to do so in the UK.
So present your evidence to offcom and the beeb should get shut down. Of course you'd need evidence and the conservative party had no complaints about the beebs election coverage - but i'm sure somebody out there knows better.
Complain about this comment
74. At 1:35pm on 05 Jul 2010, SystemF wrote:
It's time the left wing extremists and racists at the BBC were removed from all positions of power and influence.
The whole rotten organisation needs root and branch treatment. The license fee should be scrapped as it's a Communist-style taxation that forces people to pay for state media that they may not want or care for. Paying for left wing extremists who use their position as state funded media to advance their racist anti-Israel campaign and their global warming agenda amongst other things, sticks in the throat of many people
I suggest you need lessons in political philosophy if you think the BBC is in any way communist. I won't comment on whether the BBC is anti-Israel, but the Global Warming agenda is not "theirs". The BBC is merely reporting the overwhelming position of the vast majority of scientists and the UN body (the IPCC) that represent the 192 governments that cover the entire political spectrum that take the problem seriously.
You should have watched Panorama last week. The BBC had two climate change sceptics (Christie and Lomborg) in debate with two mainstream scientists. ALL agreed that the climate is changing, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that the extra CO2 man has put into the air since industrialisation began is changing the climate. These they agreed are beyond doubt. The debate is not about the core science it is about how reliable the predictions are (how fast and how bad it will get) and what, if anything, we can do about it.
The idea that the BBC is driving some communist conspiracy and a global warming agenda of their own is frankly risible.
Complain about this comment
Iam okay with 6 music not being axed.
But i must agree with a lot of HYS. We don't need so many presenters on Breakfast TV, 2 presenters, 4 sports presenters and Most of them were at the world cup! 2 weather presenters.
Make cuts here, The BBC would save a fortune.
Complain about this comment
The BBC can never get it right, unless its an exception, like some generic soap opera like Eastenders enjoyed by millions. We have quite a rich and varied styles. The days of the 70's are over where everyone watched one of a small number of channels. Some of us don't even watch TV any more :)
My best advice for the BBC. Do not spend lots of money in one area. Keep making programs for minorities which are done cost effectively. Certainly get actors/ presenters which are not making stupid amounts of money.
Ignore the cries of being too 'PC', because reality is many of us are in a minority when it comes to what type of media we like to consume. This fragmentation will just get worse.
Complain about this comment
Why should people have their salaries revealed.
Just because they work for the BBC or a bank or the government, or any other organisation that the tabloids have designated evil and corrupt or in crisis, shouldn't mean they lose their right to privacy!
If not, why aren't all salaries and overtime and bonuses and child benefit and tax credits and income support, and gambling winnings(and losses) and paper profits from house price inflation, and other assets and credit card debts and bank balances all published weekly on a web site where everyone can "Judge" everyone else!!!
Wouldn't that be fun! :-)
Complain about this comment
It is fantastic news that BBC 6 Music is saved - the right decision has been made. It is arguably the best digital music station and should be preserved to last for many, many years to come. It plays a good range of music from reggae to punk. I love it so thanks BBC Trust!
Complain about this comment
Just want to post to say that I totally agree with comment #24 left by David at 12:33pm on 05 Jul 2010.
These discussions always bring out the TV snobs who think everyone should only be interested in watching the programmes they like. They have plenty of choice from many intelligent documentaries and dramas created by the Beeb, yet they still choose to complain when the beeb show one or two reality tv progrommes. It really is just TV snobbery at it's worst at a time when you have vaste amounts of choice.
Complain about this comment
Phillip / General in answer to your points would I be allowed to start a radio station for 'young urban whites' or even the non-asian network on the BBC?
Not a chance, I would be ridiculed as a bigot or worse.
Racism works both ways, but the BBC are too busy living in their socialist utopia to even contemplate that NU-Liebours social engineering and multi-culturalism experiments have failed miserably So ditch the PC nonsense and spend the money saved on better progammes for the majority.
Cant wait to see if this gets past the mods or not!
Complain about this comment
Surely there are enough radio stations laden with music already. 6 radio ought to go commercial, and then everyone would be happy.
Over the years, even the BBC has dumbed-down on many programmes, both on radio as well as TV. There is so little of educational value, and the number of trailers is alarming. I suppose the BBC's twelve-year old producers and programme-makers have been responsible for such dirge, and the only way I can get around time-wasting slots is to record everything and whizz through the tedious stuff.
As we pay the licence fee, why shouldn't we know who gets paid what? Is there something else to hide?
Complain about this comment
#76. Philip of England.
I think (though I could be mistaken) that #5. is erroneously mixing up the BBC Asian network (which is closing) with BBC 6 Music.
Complain about this comment
I like radio 6 so I would think it would be a good thing to keep it. Having said that though I think the BBC has in recent year tried to play the political correctness game by introduing stations for selected ethnic minorities. There have been ethinic minorities in this country for many years. After WWII there were many eastern europeans, Italians, Chineese etc communities who settled in this country and who to this day haven't been give their own BBC radio channels. The argument that communities pay their licence fee and should get something for it doesn't stand unless it stands for all communities which clearly it can't. Lets get back to common sense please.
Complain about this comment
Is the BBC making the right decisions? No.
Is the BBC's DG correct that revealing salaries of 'top stars' is damaging and destructive? No.
The BBC is unique. It has no competition for audience within the UK because its income is raised in an exclusive manner. It should use its position to advantage. Instead it is audience chasing, making targets of its opponents instead of leading them to greater quality to compete.
For my license fee I say the BBC has been and is far too complacent, almost contemptuous, about its audience.
BBC Radio 6 reprieved pending a broader review? The only sensible approach so why the necessary intervention?
Sack the DG.
Complain about this comment
I am glad there will be some thought going into salaries. TV 'personalities' are just people who do no more than any other person and so should not expect special wages. Terry Wogan would have accepted a cut without a doubt and yes he benefitted from his time at the BBC but everyone did. Now is where the cut off point should be and nothing before should be slated or discussed.
People in the public eye receive too much be it actors, sportsmen or tv personalities. Do a decent job - get same pay as the rest of us - be content.
Complain about this comment
I love the BBC online pages. I use them all the time for research, news and for info on BBC programmes. Please don't cut this service by 25%. I know James Murdoch is a friend of George Osbourne, but don't let this friendship lead to a Sky take-over of BBC's online services.
Sadly, the BBC Trust seems unable to stand against such forces....alas, for the BBC.
"Reith where are you now?"
Ray
Complain about this comment
In reply to -
56. At 1:14pm on 05 Jul 2010, Jimmy Jazz wrote
You have far, far, far, far, far, FAR, FAR too much time on your hands my friend to complain about a comment que of 20 or so. Did you ever use the the previous HYS format when there used to be HUNDREDS of comments awaiting moderation, and it took about 12 hours for your comment to appear?
Surely you could find better ways to amuse yourself than complaining about such a non-issue?
Complain about this comment
19. At 12:29pm on 05 Jul 2010, Mrs Vee wrote:
Mrs Vee - I coudln't agree with you less. The problem with the BBC is that as they become more successful at selling their products (especially abroad), profits have increased but there is no obvious "home" for those profits. Which is why they have been channelled into increased salaries, more employees and waste. A commercial company would need to pay shareholders these excess profits, whilst the BBC doesn't. There are several solutions to this.
1. Make the BBC a commercial enterprise; scrap the licence fee
2. Freeze or reduce the licence fee to force some fiscal control
3. Have some of the profits returned to either the state or the licence fee payers
(1) - I would reject as it is the licence fee which is the cornerstone of what is unique about the BBC and why it is head and shoulders above it's commercial competitors, in terms of range and quality of programmes
(2) - the licence fee still represents a huge proportion of the BBC's income and if this is cut it will enforce economic restraint
(3) - I like this idea, although it might fall foul of some EU policy (quite rightly too - but you might see a fall in the number of licence fee dodgers)
It's the excess profits that are the problem, not the licnce fee. It's gauling to hear people say "scrap the fee" - I already get enough commercial drivel on my TV thank you very much. And whilst we get some of teh best bits of American television, have you ever seen teh rest of it - absolute dross!
The BBC is very special and I'd like it to stay that way.
Complain about this comment
It is absolutely right to be keeping 6Music open! I believe it epitomises what BBC radio should be all about.
BBC 6Music is as intelligent as Radio 4 and as entertaining as Radio 1, but it appeals to a wide variety of people with its programming, with both Dance Anthems and Funk and Soul shows, influential and creative guests, and with a commitment to discovering and giving airtime to new talent that would otherwise have been ignored both by other BBC stations and commercial radio.
I listen daily and will be extremely happy for it to still grace the airways!
Complain about this comment
The BBC should take a leaf out of C4's book when it comes to comedy. The comedy writers on the beeb are so entrenched in their little Oxbridge world that they've failed to understand completely what the rest of the world considers funny.
BBC World, and in fact all the other services which make the network available to those overseas, should be protected. The US, Middle East, India and now China have made fast progress in promoting their cultures overseas, don't let British culture fall by the wayside.
Complain about this comment
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
Is the BBC making the right decisions?
Don’t make me laugh. “What do you think?”
On a day when the BBC Trust tells them that 40 years after they set up Radio 1 and Radio 2 that they have no coherent music policy. What a disgrace
The BBC aren’t making the right decisions and now they aren’t even listening to the people they should listen to most the viewers and listeners of whom the slightest consultation with would have shown that BBC 6’s closure would have been a mistake.
If anything the BBC is putting up the shutters. I don’t know anyone that complained about the proposal who received a reply. Any contact info at all is buried within the bowels of the web site and as stated replies are either not forthcoming or arrive months later with an apology and a patronising response.
Even this forum is heavily moderated = censored and replies take hours to appear why? The subjects chosen for discussion are chosen by the BBC. Access like that could give North Korea a run for their money.
I happen to think the BBC is the greatest media organisation in the world - a global brand that you can truly be proud of when you are a Brit abroad but I’m becoming weary of the lack of accountability. I couldn’t give a hoot about the Director General posting his minicab receipts on the website. I want to see a proper and meaningful democratisation of the BBC not tokenism
Complain about this comment
I'm just grateful the BBC provides advert-less programmes (and they could cut down on trailers, too, which must cost a fortune). If all TV and radio were commercial, I don't think I'd watch or listen to nearly as much...
Complain about this comment
They should tag a second question on to the forthcoming Referendum:
"Do you want to keep, and pay for, the BBC, via the licence fee, or do you not want to keep and pay for it via the licence fee?"
I imagine the NOTS would far exceed the YES PLEASEs.
This is supposed to be a democratic country, but we're never asked if we agree to the present unfair, unreasonable, licence fee setup. We are forced to pay whether we like it or not. It shows a totally gutless government, that this farce is still continuing. It was established when there were only three channels, two of them BBC. How many hundreds of channels exist now? And how many of them can you watch within the UK without also paying for the BBC first of all?
Crazy.
Complain about this comment
The BBC is doing a good job and I can't believe that so many posters believe it would be better in the private sector. Just look at the biased news coverage you get in the USA etc. The licence fee is excellent value when you consider the cost of alternative activities like going to the cinema, a football match or just going to the pub.
There is a case for saying that the BBC is doing too much and it will have to make savings like every other public body. Isn't what Radio 1 does covered by commercial radio? BBC1 and 2 are good in parts (documentaries, wildlife) and there is no real alternative to Radio 3 and 4.
Complain about this comment
Since I have to sit through adverts (even if for other BBC services) while listening to the radio, especially on Radio One, and often hit "play" on my PVR only to realise that an overrunning programme on the television means I'm liable to miss the end of my show *BUT* the BBC still insist on nearly 2 minutes of ads for their other channels/programmes then I can only assume that the BBC would be excellent at running commercials. Thus the BBC could drop the absolutely dreadful television license which is nothing short of government-scantioned money-with-menaces in the way its collected & administered by Big Brother BBC's "outsourced" scaremongering license department.
Complain about this comment
Perfectly logical decision 6 Music fits the charter obligations and has no commercial equivelent.
Complain about this comment
Like all organisations, the BBC is top heavy with executives who in times of crisis, make the case for their own existance at the expense of everyone else. I'm sure as in all business's there are people queing up for all the BBC's high paid jobs, they'd do them for a fraction of the cost and probably do a better job. All part of the jobs for the boys network.
Complain about this comment
Is the BBC making the right decisions? No. It continues to insist on spending taxpayers' money on giving religious leaders - and ONLY religious leaders - a prime time slot on which to lecture us all, unchallenged, about we too should believe in gods for which there is absolutely no evidence. It's called [Religious only] Thought For The Day. Ironic, since it's for those who have decided not to think for themselves but to let others do it for them.
Interesting that no commercial station provides a similar slot (to the best of my knowledge). That's because they term unchallenged slots like that 'advertising'. Which is exactly what it is. So either charge for it, remove it or open it up so that those who don't believe in gods can participate on an equal footing.
Complain about this comment
This welcome decision by the BBC Trust seriously calls into question the judgement of senior BBC management. Personally, I think that this makes the position of Tim Davie untenable and I look forward to reading about his resignation.
The decision to scrap 6Music was a cynical attempt to cut costs without having to make harsher decisions elsewhere. Nor did it do anything to strip out the layers of middle management at the BBC.
A great decision for music enthusiasts everywhere.
Complain about this comment
55. At 1:13pm on 05 Jul 2010, danensis wrote:
"The BBC follows its own agenda - toe the government line, don't mention civilian casualties in wars, promote the Roman Catholic faith, supress the Hollie Greig story, don't worry about events outside London. Until it becomes a national broadcaster, it shouldn't rely on national funding."
Is this comment meant as a joke?
I've seen various reports of civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan on the Beeb. I've also seen a number of Beeb reports on child abuse in the Catholic church and possible cover-ups of the abuse by the church (very UNSUPPORTIVE). As for the 'don't worry about events outside London' comment...I don't think i'll even bother dignifying this with an answer - just try opening your eyes and ears.
Complain about this comment
Sky has 6 weatherpersons and were thinking of cutting back.
My BBC region alone has more forcasters then that. If you say we have 6 in our area multiply by the regions and i would think there must be at least 60 weatherpersons not including the national ones.
We can get forcasts every half hour on news 24 so why do we need so many?
I would prefer that money to be used on real journalists.
Complain about this comment
90. At 1:50pm on 05 Jul 2010, Cobbett_Rides_Again wrote:
Was the "Proposed" 6Music cut always a stalking horse? The damage to this website - which is being proposed solely because very hostile busness interests have demanded it - is still supposed to be going ahead - unless we can stop it. A music-based radio station is relatively easy to establish or shut down - and there are thousands of them all over the world. This website is unique and most have taken thousands of hours to develop. Trashing it because a few busness people are greedy and angry is pathetically stupid - another example of the BBC Trust not standing up for our interests against a dogmatic government and sleazy big business. It is still up to us to tell the BBC Trust what we want from OUR BBC.
----
But thats just so unfair - think of all the money that could be going to private business through charging more for a less comprehensive service.
As i said in a different strand the only way people will pay for online news is if there is no free or licence funded alternative.
I'd be amazed if this news website exists in its current worldwide-coverage form in 18 months time
Complain about this comment
I am pleased that 6 Music has been saved, but am more concerned about the 25% cut in the BBC's online content. In my opinion the BBC has some of the best websites on the internet and I wouldn't want these to be cut. The CBeebies website was recently changed and now I can't let my daughter use it because it's just a large advert for the iPlayer, I hope this isn't the shape of things to come.
Overall I think the BBC does provide good quality programming - there are many programmes (particularly on BBC4) that I wouldn't expect would be broadcast on any other channel. Everyone likes different things and I think there is something for everyone on the BBC, so I don't understand people's comments complaining there is "nothing on".
As for the comments regarding sport and why can't BBC3 and BBC4 be used during the day - I read on another site that they are used for the children's channels during the day. I'm not sure if this is correct or not - perhaps someone from the BBC could confirm/deny, then it might help to solve the arguments!
Complain about this comment
Until the proposal to close the programme was announced I had never heard of it. When I heard of the proposed closure I tried to find the programme. No mention of it in newspaper programme lists.
If it is so popular why is it not listed in the newspapers? What frequency does it use?
Complain about this comment
74. At 1:35pm on 05 Jul 2010, SystemF wrote:
It's time the left wing extremists and racists at the BBC were removed from all positions of power and influence.
The whole rotten organisation needs root and branch treatment. The license fee should be scrapped as it's a Communist-style taxation that forces people to pay for state media that they may not want or care for. Paying for left wing extremists who use their position as state funded media to advance their racist anti-Israel campaign and their global warming agenda amongst other things, sticks in the throat of many people.
Quite impressive then that this bunch of commies have got the UN and 192 governments (of centrist as well as right and left wing), all major national science academies across the world, major oil companies (hardly likely to endorse something that is against their interests), major global corporations, news media around the world (apart from Fox) as well as environmental campaigners all signed up to doing something about this "global warming agenda" of theirs? They've even got the Tory party in government taking this alleged commy inspired problem seriously. Maggie would be turning in her grave if she were in one!
As a conspiracy theory it is a bit implausible that all these disparate and, incompatible, groups would all take this seriously at the behest of the BBC, isn't it? It would fall apart of its own contradictions unless, perhaps, they had no choice but to agree the science is compelling.
Complain about this comment
Channel 6 devalues the high standard of Engineering in the world which the BBC has always set. These standards are the highest in the world. As the moderators disliked my colourfull description, I will quote the words of a friend and acknowledged world wide expert on Digital Audio and Video, "Have you ever heard a DAB Radio? It sounds like an old fashioned Wireless with a sock stuffed in it!"
Complain about this comment
I think the BBC does a fantastic job for the money I pay. My programs aren't chopped into pieces by adverts and trailers for other programs within the program I am watching. I generally get 55 minutes of programming per hour instead of about 40-45 minutes on commercial stations. Yes, there are areas that could be improved, costs cut and better decisions made, but compare the quality and range of programming to Sky and ITV and in my opinion the BBC is so much better.
Not everyone is going to like every program produced - I dislike some things that others can't live without - it's the way we are and every channel has to do their best to meet the broad range of tastes out there in the world.
I'll bet a fair number of people complaining about the licence fee are paying a subscription to Murdoch which is far worse value for money and helps keep footballers in the manner to which they have become accustomed. Now that's what I call poor value for money!
Complain about this comment
I'll come do a presenting job at the BBC and be far cheaper - I am sure no one will mind that I have not been "formed" by the BEEB !
I have a 'home counties accent' - is that OK ?
Complain about this comment
100% Correct as far as keeping 6 Music is concerned. Well done BBC Trust. The BBC just needs to sort Radio 1 out now which needs to be clear and distinct from 1 Extra instead of the Stations blurring into one as they seem to be doing right now
Complain about this comment
Give the public a referendum on whether to keep the BBC. The Beeb no longer speaks in the interests of everyday decent citizens but would rather champion the rights of criminals and immigrants, challenge them and you're guilty of racism, bigotry or ignorance (take your pick).
I'd vote all the BBC staff out work without a second thought. The Beeb has ripped from me a sense of national identity and challenging their view of the world simply earns a person some derogatory name.
BBC, you are genuinely PATHETIC!
Complain about this comment
Excellent news on radio 6
Complain about this comment
I would have liked to see BBC Asian network retained. It's a great loss...well done BBC for taking MY Licence fee and doing what YOU want with it. Anyone need a free DAB radio...?!
Complain about this comment
why are mine and other comments made just after 2pm not on view whereas others after this time are? I have not been controversial or used bad language or anything....come on BBC yes or no men....strictly as they come and no queue jumping
Complain about this comment
Good!.. whoever decided that axing it was a good idea needs a slap. Love 6 music hate executives
Complain about this comment
Maybe when this government CUTS the licence fee in half the beeb will take a SERIOUS look at salaries, remember..you heard it here first! As for upsetting these people, tough welcome to the REAL world.
Complain about this comment
105. At 2:04pm on 05 Jul 2010, grainsofsand wrote:
When is the BBC going to cut 1XTRA a station which Michael Lyons describes as "the digital station for young black urban audiences". How come Blacks get their own special radio station? Why do Whites not get a radio station devoted to white music and white news and white special features. The answer would be appear to be because the BBC is racist.Just look at the race of all the DJ's on 1xtra most of them are Black - why so many Blacks and not more Whites?
---
One more time if i can avoid being moderated
'Black Music' is a recognised musical genre taking R & b, Hip-Hop and some types oof dance music. These are popular with a large swathe of society the majority of them non-black.
A few years ago exactly the same stuff used to be termed 'urban' and in a few years time it will be called something else.
Or would you claim that 'Urban' music discriminated against county-dwellers?
Complain about this comment
Gotta love arch-hypocrite Wogan's comments. How much was he on before he retired?
Complain about this comment
18. At 12:25pm on 05 Jul 2010, steve wrote:
However, the corporation's director general, Mark Thompson, has warned that revealing the salaries of its top stars would be "damaging and destructive".
---
Yes very because on hearing what this bunch get paid I will probably put a brick through the TV!
--------------------------------------------------
I suspect you already have a good idea how much they are paid, which is very similiar to the money they would get paid if they were on ITV or Sky. In fact it usually is less which is why people move across to commercial TV.
Life unfortunately is unfair, which is why footballers, who have even less talent than the people on TV get paid over £100k a week to kick a ball
--------------
I am not paying the wages of ITV presenters or Premier league footballers. I am however,paying the wages of BBC "talent" and Nurses and with the prospect of Nurses being redundant a significant reduction in the £2 billion + annual salary bill to the BBC and its redirection to important front line services is entirely appropriate.
If the BBC talent think they are being hard done by go and work for someone I am not subsidising!
Complain about this comment
The ongoing World Cup exemplifies that the BBC employs far too many people. We have commentators, pundits and correspondents for both TV and radio all on a jolly to South Africa. How much duplication is going on? This does not represent an efficient or justifiable use of the licence fee.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Is the BBC making the right decisions?
Certainly not - and the HYS Moderators are living proof.
Complain about this comment
No, not until the pay of all presenters, 'stars', other employees and people paid from the BBC (via whatever means) is capped at twice national average income.
No one in the BBC is worth more than that.
Complain about this comment
The decision to not axe 6 Music is the right one - it is the best source of new and interesting music on the radio.
BBC Radio 2 has lost direction completely - it no longer knows what age group it is trying to appeal to and has an unbelievably restricted and "safe" playlist. The same goes for the "record of the week", etc.
My suggestion - swap Radio 2 and 6.
As regards celebrity salaries, as a public body the BBC must be transparent about how it is spending licence payers money and so salaries should be made available.
Complain about this comment
Why should people have their salaries revealed.
Just because they work for the BBC or a bank or the government, or any other organisation that the tabloids have designated evil and corrupt or in crisis, shouldn't mean they lose their right to privacy!
If not, why aren't all salaries and overtime and bonuses and child benefit and tax credits and income support, and gambling winnings(and losses) and paper profits from house price inflation, and other assets and credit card debts and bank balances all published weekly on a web site where everyone can "Judge" everyone else!!!
Wouldn't that be fun! :-)
----------
Every clinical nurse or classroom teacher has their salary revealed as they are public sector employees on specific pay scales.
Why should special rules apply to BBC talent?
I suspect we all know the real reason is because it would seem obscene by comparison £100's of thousands to read the news or give a weather forecast £22,000 to work as a staff nurse in ITU.
If this was a private company then perhaps they could keep this information confidential,it isn't and the lame argument that it would give information to commercial competitors simply won't wash any more.
Complain about this comment
You pay your genius of a director general £832,000 per annum and you have to ask US?
Complain about this comment
It is the right decision and also maybe the wrong decision.
I was told that the Asian Network had a huge budget and I wondered why?
Surely axeing the Asian Network is extreme, it could be run at a budget the BBC can afford.
As for 6 Music I don't don't think there ever was a plan to axe it, just a very clever PR exercise to make sure we all made a fuss before the next Tory government (now the government) came is and tried to get rid of it.
The real problem with 6 Music is that it reveals just how sub standard Radio 1 has become.
It's like listening to Smash Hits x Hello Magazine!
Complain about this comment
151. At 2:34pm on 05 Jul 2010, UKSikh wrote:
I would have liked to see BBC Asian network retained. It's a great loss...well done BBC for taking MY Licence fee and doing what YOU want with it. Anyone need a free DAB radio...?!
---
As I understand it Asian Network isn't competing at all well against local Asian stations - they just can't get the audience they thought was out there.
If your'e going to miss it try organising a campaign and kicking up a fuss - not only did it work for 6 music it now has a higher profile and more listeners than it ever did before they looked at cutting it.
Complain about this comment
This is my first time on this board....oh my days! I have never encountered such a bunch of right-wing conspiracy theorists as are gathered here. Look, the BBC IS the BEST broadcasting organisation in the world. If you don't believe it, get on the Eurostar and pop over to France, fly over to the US - all of them are tosh compared to the Beeb. Ok, there are some weaknesses but it's a darn sight better than anything else on my Sky+ programme guide. Even BBC3 is picking up - Mongrels is top quality. Anyway, GREAT news about 6 Music and for the naysayers on here - I'm sure the Doctor could lend you the Tardis to move your stuff back to the 19th century - that seems to be what you are wishing for!
Complain about this comment
The right decisions? When the BBC gets £4 billion a year in licence fee revenues, pays the director general £800,000 and Jonathan Ross £18 million but can't make a decent TV programme? Try and think when you saw the last good programme on BBC. The Office, more than 10 years ago? When was the last time the BBC put a decent selection of programmes on for Christmas? Morcambe and Wise, 30 years ago? Yet you can still watch Dad's Army on the mainstream BBC channels - made 40 years ago. What the BBC does is produce biased news and put PC comedies on Radio 4 that has the invited studio audience screaming in laughter at lines that are as about as funny as a motorway accident. If the BBC was abolished tomorrow it would not affect the standard of broadcasting in this country at all and it would save us all £140 a year of wasted money.
Complain about this comment
160. At 2:40pm on 05 Jul 2010, chiptheduck wrote:
Is the BBC making the right decisions?
Certainly not - and the HYS Moderators are living proof
But the other day you told us you were an accountant, one definition of which is someone who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
Complain about this comment
"105. At 2:04pm on 05 Jul 2010, grainsofsand wrote:
When is the BBC going to cut 1XTRA a station which Michael Lyons describes as "the digital station for young black urban audiences". How come Blacks get their own special radio station? Why do Whites not get a radio station devoted to white music and white news and white special features. The answer would be appear to be because the BBC is racist.Just look at the race of all the DJ's on 1xtra most of them are Black - why so many Blacks and not more Whites?"
I think thats the 3rd time you've made this very tedious point.
-How many black classical or operatic composers are there? Radio 3 is effectively 100% white music presented by white people for white people.
-How many black DJ's or Presenters are there during daylight hours on Radio 1, 2, 3 & 4. By my reckoning 1 in total.
-How many black newscasters or weather presenters does BBC1 employ. None.
Two thirds of the BBC's output is made by and for white middle class brits. I am no more offended by 1Xtra than by Cbeebies. The BBC does a pretty decent job at making minority shows for minority groups (like Songs of Praise and Gardeners world).
Complain about this comment
I am absolutely delighted that 6 Music will continue. No other radio station offers what 6 Music covers. I only discovered it about a year and a half ago and have, as an obsessive musician and listener to music, been deeply enriched, informed and entertained by it.
These kinds of services should be held up as an example of what happens when the BBC gets it right. Closing it would have been madness. This has made my day.
Complain about this comment
6 Music is of no interest to me. I had never heard of it until the beeb said they wanted to close. it.
The BBC is probably the most inefficient, top heavy organisations it is possible to imagine. Get ride of 75% of management and others not directly involved with program making and you would have something worth protecting.
I think the BBC should be full privatised and the licence fee abolished. If the BBC had to earn its money like everyone else, we would soon enough see how useless the corporation is.
Complain about this comment
I value the BBC more than I can describe, but it it does not fully recognise why its' non-commercial model is so valuable insofar as it has not developed a set of parameters which exploit the production values and ethics which it has been gifted. IT DOES NOT NEED TO COMPETE WITH RUBBISH, EVEN IF RUBBISH IS PLAYING ON THE MAJORITY OF RECEIVERS.
The model is a licence-fee, and ALL expenditure without any exception is the province of the fee-payer. It is outrageous that it is obscured.
As for content: agreeing with other comments, BBC3 is not worth keeping; there are too many talking heads on sport, and too much low and poor quality comedy. Why is the weather forecast split away from general anouncements? It is obvious that [once the fee-payer is accorded authority], then the whole model can be questioned. Example: I do not want or need in any way to have the "news" of Derek Simpson's rampage across Cumbria and then have personalised on-the-spot reporting about it. This is not just a lightweight view, but formed from the observation of an elderly person whose views were largely formed by broadcast content. It became obvious to me that it affected her mental health to have continuous crime-reporting pumped out at her. It is not entertainment and most of us us do not benefit in any way from listening to it; the personalised on-the-spot reporting is often salacious. I would like to see a news channel which is separated from entertainment, and reporting of news on Radio 4 reduced to basic factual summaries. The crucial point is to make the choice of news that of the listener, not the editor. I now select items on "Today" from the iPlayer, and do not listen live.
By developing such innovations, the BBC could be really distinctive and give the fee-payer the opportunity to participate, as seen in the 6 MUSIC announcement.
Complain about this comment
24 David
"A lot of people use the BBC as a whipping boy, when in fact it does a remarkably good job. Obviously an organisation the size of the BBC will make mistakes, and it can not satisfy everyone, as everybody is different and wants the BBC to certain things they agree with, and stop others they don't."
The BBC is ok, really, it's ok - but not much more than that. It doesn't do a 'remarkably good job' in many ways. Its documentaries are childish, its drama outclassed, seriously outclassed, by the US at the moment. In fact, the French and German programmes I see a lot of compare very well with the BBC.
Its news is highly dumbed down and biased towards its own agenda. Its comedy is lame.
"The one thing I think is certain is that if it did not exist we would be a lot poorer. "
You say that with such certainty, without providing any backup for your claim.
Complain about this comment
11. At 12:06pm on 05 Jul 2010, chiptheduck wrote:
"You don't need Radio 1 and Radio 2
You don't need Radio 3 and Radio 4
You don't need the World Service
You don't need BBC 3 and BBC 4 TV Channels
And when on earth are we going to see the back of the tedious and expensive Jonathan Ross as promised?"
How strange - you say the BBC should drop it's mainstream radio channels - why? because they're catered for in the commercial sector I assume?
However you then say the BBC should drop it's niche TV channels that cater as a test bed for quality and breakthrough programming?
A Jekyll and Hyde view...
The approach consistent with dropping R1-4 would be also to drop the mass-market ethos of BBC1 (and Wossy) in favour of exactly that in evidence on BBC3 and 4.
Do that, and the argument has a little more credence....
Complain about this comment
80. At 1:42pm on 05 Jul 2010, London_Road wrote:
"I am very very annoyed that Radio 6 is being allowed to stay on the air - someone told me it was no more than a pirate station anyway. However, it's a very noisy radio station and so very unlike the Home Service which I think the young people of today should be encouraged to listen to. (I do hope you forgive my use of a preposition when ending a sentence) - Gen. Doogie Smythe (retired)"
The Home Service?
That's going back a bit!
Perhaps you'd like the Light Programme and the Third Programme back also?
Times do change and I think it must be difficult to encourage the young people of today to do anything, least of all to listen to 'The Home Service' (Radio4), their attention span isn't up to, never mind their interests
Complain about this comment
BBC 6 music has provided a wide range of DJs and good quality music. The main debate within BBC budget cuts clearly isn't around shows such as Jon Richardson's or Stephen Merchant's - these shows are a breeding ground for talent and the facebook campaigns for 6 music alone shows its popularity. A clear assessment of the higher paid earners to understand whether they really add value to the BBC brand for the remuneration they receive is the crux.
Long live 6 music!
Complain about this comment
"121. At 2:12pm on 05 Jul 2010, MrKay wrote:
I like radio 6 so I would think it would be a good thing to keep it. Having said that though I think the BBC has in recent year tried to play the political correctness game by introduing stations for selected ethnic minorities. There have been ethinic minorities in this country for many years. After WWII there were many eastern europeans, Italians, Chineese etc communities who settled in this country and who to this day haven't been give their own BBC radio channels. The argument that communities pay their licence fee and should get something for it doesn't stand unless it stands for all communities which clearly it can't. Lets get back to common sense please."
The reason the BBC didn't have more stations than the original 4 was because there wasn't enough bandwidth for more. It was only relatively recently that Radio 1 got an FM frequency. With digital you can broadcast 100's of new stations without causing interference to other channels. The cost of running a small digital radio station is minimal.
Complain about this comment
The BBC needs to be sold off or severely cut back right down to basic.
I say this because of the rate of it's expansion, yes we need music, pop and jazz stations and the likes of R4.... they have to be paid for and the license fee can not keep going up and up whilst the DG's and Co. at the Beeb dine and taxi at our expense.
You can bet the day will come you have to have a TV license and have NO TV.... just the internet.
That's the reason I say this, the Beeb are all take, take take and expect more, more more, no re4ason they don't want us to see their expenses and let us see every penny spent - what other answer is there?
Complain about this comment
The BBC is the one finest things the UK has going for it, quality non-partisan broadcasting, covering ALL aspects of our society...
What the blatantly racist, homophobic all round bigots that obsessively vent their venom on HYS (hypocritically quite often using the BBC as a forum to bash the BBC?) cant seem to understand that the BBC is not there to pander to their specialist views.
Britain IS one of the most culturally as well as ethnically diverse places on the planet, with a huge range of different needs and desires, the BBC reflects this. It is highly respected abroad and is very commercially successful outside the UK.
If any of the people who continually bash the BBC would like to propose a viable alternative, that gives the same quality and diversity of service for the price? which is pence a day... would we really want the commercial alternatives?
It's a jewel we wouldn't miss until it was too late! We should be supporting the BBC not trashing it.
(That said, it does need to get it's backbone put back in as it has just about given up pushing any boundaries for fear of offending anyone and is starting to self censor - which is never good for the public)
Complain about this comment
I am glad that the BBC have decided to keep 6 music going. It is a good station offering the type of music and analysis that the late John Peel used to do when he was on the radio.
What is embarrassing is that the decision-makers think it is ok to take away The Asian Radio Network.
I am a young British Asian and due to work I don't get to listen to the station as often as I could but it has real talent on there and I am always listening on BBC iplayer to Sonia Deol and Raj and Pablo's shows. My mum loves the old Indian songs with Kanwal Qazi on a Sunday afternoon as I'm sure do many other Indian mums.
Saying that both my parents listen to Radio 4 quite a lot, Radio 5 live and the World Service but to have that link to something from their origins makes then want to listen to the ARN also.
As I live in London I get all the other Asian stations but they live up in the midlands so they don't.
Every media institution is feeling the pinch at the moment with the recession but the BBC should have thought very carefully about paying a little less to their so-called stars.
Complain about this comment
pzero wrote:
Phillip / General in answer to your points would I be allowed to start a radio station for 'young urban whites' or even the non-asian network on the BBC?
Not a chance, I would be ridiculed as a bigot or worse.
Racism works both ways, but the BBC are too busy living in their socialist utopia to even contemplate that NU-Liebours social engineering and multi-culturalism experiments have failed miserably So ditch the PC nonsense and spend the money saved on better progammes for the majority.
If there weren't any radio stations serving young urban whites then I have no doubt you'd be able to start up radio stations for them, unfortunately for you the BBC did this decades ago when they established Radio One and there are now dozens of radio stations serving the needs of young urban white people in the UK.
There are millions of British Asians living in the UK, more in fact than there are Northern Irish or Welsh people living in the UK and until a few years ago there wasn’t a national radio station serving their needs and that is why the Asian Network was established.
Why then do you think it is racist to provide programs or channels for British Asians but not Northern Irish people, Welsh people or Scottish Gaelic speakers (BBC Radio nan Gàidheal) ?
Northern Ireland has two BBC radio stations (Ulster and Foyle) yet there are fewer than two million people in Northern Ireland, there are fewer than a hundred thousand Scottish Gaelic speakers but the BBC still provides a radio station for them.
And why do they provide these services for minority audiences ?
Because that’s exactly what they exist to do, provide services to the whole of the UK.
The Asian network and 1Extra are also not non-white or non anyone else either, they are aimed at providing programs to a specific audience that had been ignored by commercial radio but they do not exclude anyone from listening or taking part with their shows; just as Radio 2, 3 and 4 are aimed at specific audiences but don't purposely exclude others from their shows.
The only reason you perceive racism is because you have a chip on your shoulder and you're so consumed by self pity that you see any service provided to anyone but you as an injustice.
The reality is that the BBC currently provides 10 national radio stations to the whole of the UK; one of them is aimed primarily but not exclusively at British Asians. This is not a sign of racism, it is merely a reflection of our multi-racial population.
Complain about this comment
The BBC must stick to core principals which should be quality (not quantity) and impartiality (not bias). Also, why employ all these pointless, chin-wagging sports commentators that continually surmise over what might or might not happen in any given sports event? They rarely say anything we don't already know. Some of them sound like pompous, over-blown children. Let pensioners do their job for a tenth of the cost and you'll get more enjoyable broadcasting to boot.
Complain about this comment
HYS asked how should the Corporation be spending its money?
As far as I am concerned it can spend its money (the money it makes from merchandise, selling programs etc. after paying back production costs) however it wants.
But the license money should be fully accounted for and justified. Which it is not, currently.
Complain about this comment
The BBC is losing (some would say that it has already lost) it's way. It's programming used to be of a noticeably higher quality than the commercial stations, but it has been dragged down by striving for higher ratings. Let the commercial stations play to the lowest common denominator - they are driven by advertising profits, so their worship of popularism is understandable - but the Beeb should get back to producing quality programming.
As for salaries of talent employed by the BBC - if the British public is paying their salaries, then the British public have a right to know what those salaries are, in the same way that we have the right to know what an MP is earning. If the talent doesn't like the fact that their salaries are in the public domain, they can go elsewhere.
The BBC can make some pretty savage salary cuts amongst their own upper echelons of management, as well! The Director-General of the BBC shouldn't be earning about four times as much as the Prime Minister!
Complain about this comment
@93 BBC3 and BBC4 digital slots are used for Cbeebies and CBBC before 7:00pm so would not be available in the manner you suggest.
Complain about this comment
The BBC's push for the digital revolution in TV broadcasting has actually rendered the BBC TV licence fee unnecessary. BBC TV can be a subscription service today on all of its channels, including Freeview, with technology already used by other media outlets in the UK such as Top Up TV on Freeview and Sky on satellite.
What possible argument for retaining the TV Licence could still exist? The real discussion should now concern the immediate privatisation of the BBC.
Complain about this comment
These kind of things will always happen...the BBC has to account for every penny it gets from the license payer...
When the BBC axed 'Top of the Pops' there was an outrage...there was a tentative offer to buy the show by ITV...yet the show just pops back every now and again for specials...
6 Music may not be the taste of everyone and some other music stations by the BBC may be the same...but sooner or later the realisation that the pot of money coming in can only be spent once has to come to the fore...
The same goes with so called Star Salaries...personally Jonathan Ross leaving not only rids the expense of a high wage...but allows the BBC to get in some people with real talent of entertaining and not lowering the standards into the gutter...
The BBC needs to be checked regularly on both TV and Radio for programme output and also the outgoings for programmes and its people being both employed and also those turned into stars...
I still believe my license fee is value for money and I accept that I may never watch or listen to every programme on every channel...but the majority of content is British and that shows the difference with imported programmes on many digital channels shown via the Sky system.
Complain about this comment
I think they could quite easily jettison the BBC 3 digital television channel, it is filled with junk.
Complain about this comment
The BBC should stop paying unbelieveable amounts of money to the big names and give some of the up-and-comings a chance to show their stuff. Not only would this save money, but it would also give the BBC more to direct into production and give us more and better in the long run. It makes me sick to think of the money spent to stars when three or four equally talented but as-yet-unfound actors could do the job just as well. People tune in for the content, not necessarily the name on the billing.
Complain about this comment
BBC Licence fee = £145.50 per year
Sky Subscription = £48.50 per month or £582 per year
I know which is better value for money and if we want to improve our broadcasting in this country we should get rid of Sky.
Complain about this comment
If the reason for saving this station is the quality of music it provides then why do we have to put up with Radio 1 & 2? Both of them broadcast over-familiar mass market products which could be more than adequately catered for by commercial stations like Capital, Heart or Magic etc
Complain about this comment
As those who know music have repeatedly said Radio 6 is the currently the best music station.Generally, the BBC does a fine job but BBC 3 does seem a weak point - too much 'reality' dross.
Complain about this comment
The BBC making the correct decisions? I thought it was the EnglishBC. With the world cup coming to an end we will eventually see the end of full blown biased reporting. Oh sorry. That was once England were sent home.
Listen to practically any weather report on the radio and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are rarely mentioned. The North means the Midlands.
The BBC is out of touch preferring to spend taxpayer's money on dumbed down rubbish and endless repeats. It's a disgrace!
Complain about this comment
I am absolutely thrilled that 6 Music is to stay on air. It is SUCH a welcome relief from tbe X Factor culture, promoting exposure to talented new musicians plus also airing a massive varied back catalogue of tracks going back four decades. The presenters are passionate and knowledgable about music.
For me, its perfect for my age group (40s) as Radio 1 is too youth orientated and I don't feel ready for middle of the road Radio 2 just yet.
I have been heavily involved in the protests, attended both demos and I wrote to the Trust with my views, pleading not to go ahead with the closure.
Today is a victory for common sense, thank you BBC Trust.
Complain about this comment
inchindown2 - "6 Music is of no interest to me. I had never heard of it until the beeb said they wanted to close. it."
Precisely why it should stay. The BBC is the only broadcaster who can cater for niche markets as it is supposedly not run purely for profit, unlike all other broadcasters in this country.
I do not watch BBC3 but appreciate it caters for a niche market. I do watch BBC4, the only freely available arts channel in this country. It would be a great shame to see it go for the sake of producing more mindless Strictly Come Celebrity Wife Cooking or somesuch because they seem to think that chasing ratings with (primarily) the dross put out on ITV is a good idea.
The online service is also important but maybe a little flabby, and could easily be cut back without too much loss in quality.
Finally, having recently returned from France, I can only say that all you BBC haters/naysayers do not know how lucky you are to have such a high quality national broadcaster.
Complain about this comment
Whilst listening to the news this weekend, I heard of a service called BBC Mundo - part of the world service - a service about Latin America, broadcast to Latin America, in Spanish, with an extensive Spanish web-prescence at http://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/. Now, I may be silly, but I was under the impression it was the BRITISH broadcasting corporation, and the World service of this British organisation was provided to give news to British people who were currently overseas. Or maybe I'm misreading the charter.
Complain about this comment
#170. At 2:56pm on 05 Jul 2010, Peter_Sym wrote:
I think thats the 3rd time you've made this very tedious point.
-How many black classical or operatic composers are there? Radio 3 is effectively 100% white music presented by white people for white people.
-How many black DJ's or Presenters are there during daylight hours on Radio 1, 2, 3 & 4. By my reckoning 1 in total.
-How many black newscasters or weather presenters does BBC1 employ. None.
Two thirds of the BBC's output is made by and for white middle class brits. I am no more offended by 1Xtra than by Cbeebies. The BBC does a pretty decent job at making minority shows for minority groups (like Songs of Praise and Gardeners world).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes my apologies for listing it twice - that's due to the moderators censoring it out. By the time they make a decision - the debates closed.
With regard to Black DJ's on Radio 1 there are - there appear to be 7 Black DJ's and one Asian DJ out of 41 DJ's. Roughly 17% of Radio DJ are black - but why so many when this does not match the % of Black in population.
There are 2 black weather forecaster - Jay Wynne & Liam Dutton.
I ask you the same question which you have not answered - why is there no radio station for Whites?
Complain about this comment
I pay x amount to Sky and y amount to the BBC, the BBC being by far my cheaper monthly outlay and for that I get a broader and a better quality return. All I really watch on Sky is the footy and the occasional film, whilst from the BBC, I get 4 decent channels, great radio programmes - from classical to 6 music to news (Radio 4 & 5) to arts to culture and also a great news website. For my money, the beeb wins.
Complain about this comment
General,
Our views may actually be closer than you think.
I dont believe any minority should be treated any differently from the rest of us, be they Welsh/Gaelic speaking or indeed Asian. The BBC is there to service the whole country, but in my opinion is becoming too fragmented because of political correctness. Where do you draw the line? BBC Polski? BBC left handed read haired Uzbeks?
The BBC needs to concentrate on producing quality programmes on both TV and radio for the WHOLE nation instead of wasting money trying to placate every vocal minority group out there. If there is a place for such a thing as 'left handed red haired Uzbeks radio' surely this should be financed commercially and not to the detriment of the BBC in general.
Complain about this comment
I dislike censorship with a few caveats (such as protection of children, and inciting crime).
However having said that as a human being I BELIEVE that we should have the right to tell stupid people to shut up and stop talking utter tosh.
The Beeb lost all credibility when it did not stand up for the journalist Andrew Gilligan in 2003 for his report on the iraq dossier. I wonder if the bbc have apolagised to Mr gilligan as he has now been proven correct.
We should abolish the licence fee as the beeb is already making money from many cable channels that are showing BBC repeats such as DAVE made by the bbc chosen by dave.
Complain about this comment
Fantastic decision! Common sense won, this time anyway. Ha, ha!
There's vast amounts of stuff the BBC puts out in different formats that I have no interest in, but that's inevitable. Overall the Beeb does a good job. Salary cap needed for the stars though, IMHO.
BBC website good. I hardly watch TV at all and in the valley I live in we can't get digital TV or radio (I have to listen to 6 Music online). I'd probably watch some of BBC 4 if I could get it.
Complain about this comment
197. At 3:32pm on 05 Jul 2010, Eddie wrote:
Whilst listening to the news this weekend, I heard of a service called BBC Mundo - part of the world service - a service about Latin America, broadcast to Latin America, in Spanish, with an extensive Spanish web-prescence at http://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/. Now, I may be silly, but I was under the impression it was the BRITISH broadcasting corporation, and the World service of this British organisation was provided to give news to British people who were currently overseas. Or maybe I'm misreading the charter.
--
If its part of the world service its actually funded by the foreign office, piggybacking on the BBC brand.
Same with BBC Persia - a government operation utilising the BBC brand but with virtually no connction to the BBC as we know it.
Complain about this comment
grainofsand - "I ask you the same question which you have not answered - why is there no radio station for Whites?"
I really hope that question is put in jest. If so, it's not funny. If not then you are to be pitied.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I don't know what you're all harping on about. As soon as analogue is switched off we won't be able to watch anything anyway. Digital doesn't work when it rains...
Complain about this comment
198 "I ask you the same question which you have not answered - why is there no radio station for Whites?"
The vast majority of the BBC's output is aimed at whites. What would you want that is missing from the BBC output? Is there any type of music you want to hear that isn't broadcast by the BBC? Clearly you DO feel the need for BBC Das Sturmer but the rest of us don't. Radio 2, 3 & 4 are the whitest things on the airwaves.
I'm an aetheist but I'm not screaming discrimination because songs of praise is on for an hour on Sunday
Incidentally the main buyers of 'black' music in the UK are white middle class kids from stockbroker belts who think their life is just like growing up black in South Central LA. Its rather tragic.
P.S forgotten about Jay Wynne
Complain about this comment
180 Richard Ward
"The BBC is the one finest things the UK has going for it, quality non-partisan broadcasting, covering ALL aspects of our society...
What the blatantly racist, homophobic all round bigots that obsessively vent their venom on HYS (hypocritically quite often using the BBC as a forum to bash the BBC?) cant seem to understand that the BBC is not there to pander to their specialist views.
Britain IS one of the most culturally as well as ethnically diverse places on the planet, with a huge range of different needs and desires, the BBC reflects this. It is highly respected abroad and is very commercially successful outside the UK. "
You're for the BBC because you share its views. The problem is, most people don't.
Your posting reflects the narrow cultural horizons the likes of you share with the BBC. You think the UK is uniquely diverse - it isn't. Travel a bit round Europe and North America, and you'll see what I mean.
The BBC manages to preach diversity, but actually be very monocultural. It's pathetically poor in terms of reporting foreign news (unless it's about the US or Israel). It's even worse when it comes to broadcasting non English language films, programmes and music
Yet it constantly campaigns for the immigration and multiculturalism which poll after poll, generation after generation, the Brits, like most other Europeans, increasingly loathe.
It is highly racist and snobbish in its treatment of white natives, who are portrayed as lazy bigots, compared to our wonderful minorities and immigrants. All its political 'comedy' regards immigration as good, anyone who disagrees as mad or bad. The only funny thing is the fact that so many BBC people want YOU to live in the multiculty cities while THEY do a Billy Bragg and 'Escape to the Country' as their own programme suggests.
Complain about this comment
pzero wrote:
Phillip / General in answer to your points would I be allowed to start a radio station for 'young urban whites' or even the non-asian network on the BBC?
Not a chance, I would be ridiculed as a bigot or worse.
Racism works both ways, but the BBC are too busy living in their socialist utopia to even contemplate that NU-Liebours social engineering and multi-culturalism experiments have failed miserably So ditch the PC nonsense and spend the money saved on better progammes for the majority
What do you mean "the majority"? Do you mean a lowest common denominator that most people don't object to? That would be pretty bland and really ensures no-one gets what they want. The white majority in this country are not a homogenous group. I don't like football or watching sports, so I am untypical of this ethnic majority. Equally what I do want to watch or listen to won't appeal to that "majority". Deciding what to broadcast on the basis of who or what constitutes a majority is a pretty dumb way of choosing what to broadcast. Clearly some programming is directly correlated with some ethnic groups, but also appeals to other groups too. Programmes on gurning are highly correlated to the majority group in the UK but is hardly a majority "sport".
Programming should reflect the diversity (in the sense of breadth of tastes, not political correctness) in the UK. Once you do that of course a lot of peopel will object to a lot of what's broadcast but that's the price you pay for having some of what you really want broadcast.
Complain about this comment
I am in difficult here. The BBC stopped making decisions on merit a long time ago and the present level of programming is so bad it is a joke.
The Trust need to sit down and decide just what they want the BBC too be. The leftwing populist PC setup that it currently is, or an unbiased organisation providing decent entertainment and factual information. I know which I would prefer.
Complain about this comment
"What is required is massive cuts in salaries, pensions, expenses and more money spent on quality programming that viewers can look forward to."
This is rubbish - how can you do anything of "quality" when you lose all your staff (talented or not) to the commercial stations who already offer higher salaries??
Why not do this the obvious way - scrap the license fee, and make BBC 3 and BBC 4 a subscription service. If people love the BBC as much as it is claimed, virtually everyone will subscribe and the money can be spent on a more limited number of good quality programs. BBC1 and 2 can remain "free to air" and stick with the usual repeats or low cost options.
Also, scrap all regular news broadcast. I've always hated the way that every 2 hours or so you have to be "snapped back to reality" with compulsory news - its so obviously done for brainwash purposes. You have BBC News 24 which you can switch to whenever you wish, why do you also need news to be rammed down your throat on the regular channnels too?
Complain about this comment
62 "42. At 12:58pm on 05 Jul 2010, Norbert wrote:
Perhaps the BBC would have more money if it hadn't have sent more than 100 people to the World Cup, not to mention that ridiculous bus.
Also, why do they sent people to a location to give a six line report on something you can't even see from it, when someone in the studio could do it? When they did a story on Sout West Trains getting £100M from the government, the reporter was standing by the Freightliner yard at Millbrook in Southampton? WHY?? A complete waste of money
Well, TV is a visual medium and if they'd just done a studio report they would have been told it could just as easily have been done on radio."
Yes, but it was a television news report, and the visual might just as well have been a studio presenter considering he wasn't even at an SWT station!
Complain about this comment
#200 " If there is a place for such a thing as 'left handed red haired Uzbeks radio' surely this should be financed commercially and not to the detriment of the BBC in general. "
Its precisely because things AREN'T commercially viable that the BBC should be doing them, because no one else will. There's no money in a songs of praise channel or a gardeners world channel either. The trick is to maintain a public broadcasting service without being detrimental to the organisation in general.... one Jonathan Ross pay check will cover the bills of a lot of minority digital radio stations.
If broadcasting was limited to 'commercial' stuff we'd have wall to wall X-factor and big brother. Forget 'timewatch' or 'question time' or 'coast'. Not commercially viable. No advertiser would pay for adverts around those.
Complain about this comment
166. At 2:51pm on 05 Jul 2010, whiler wrote:
As I understand it Asian Network isn't competing at all well against local Asian stations - they just can't get the audience they thought was out there.
If your'e going to miss it try organising a campaign and kicking up a fuss - not only did it work for 6 music it now has a higher profile and more listeners than it ever did before they looked at cutting it.
---
Mate, name one other asian station on DAB...i think you will find there is NO competition and BBC asian is a clear winner. It wasn't meant to be, what's the point kicking up a fuss when they'd already made their minds up?!
In my opinion, not enough was done to market this station and this could have appealed to a much wider audience.
Complain about this comment
I listen to 6music, and damn glad I am that it's apparently been saved. Hurray!
A little concerned though about the "high-profile" campaign and the much mentioned celebs (from the mainstream music industry) who backed it. I don't think it's a "black" thing, a "white" thing or an "Asian" thing, but lets face it, if the Asian music equivalent of David Bowie (and I've no idea if there is one, and if so who it would be) made the same fuss about the Asian network as Bowie et al did about 6music, would it have got the same column inches in the Guardian? I think not. It's all very well bowing to the pressure of a well fought campaign, but is the Asian network (for example) really of less value just because the twitterati didn't mobilise behind it?
And as for 6music being alternative - maybe review again the list of high profile celebs and industry figures who supported it. Same with BBC's Glastonbury coverage - it is "indie" like Jennifer Aniston was punk when she wore an MC5 t-shirt on Friends. And it's not just a "white" thing - Dizzee Rascal, Snoop Dogg and Kele from Bloc Party had heaps of coverage at Glasto but, despite being black they are hardly "alternative", "indie", "underground" or whatever. (Kele's single has a heap of mainstream industry support before you start...)
Yes, there's some good alternative stuff on 6music, but there's a lot more "landfill indie", especially daytime. Let's face it, we don't need another radio station for people who find Coldplay "alternative".
Can you please put Craig Charles on at least twice a week now? Awooga, awooga...
Complain about this comment
It will be a sad sad day for Britain if Murdoch does get his mitts on the BBC. This last bastion of intelligent, educational and informative TV and Radio is a national treasure and should never be sold to the highest bidder or dismembered like some fatted cow.
I suggest you watch a day of CITV or Nickleodeon and then compare it with CBBies to see what the future of a commercialised BBC would look like. Our children need informative and educational TV, not dross interspersed with endless adverts.
BBC Radio in particular is worth the fee alone, whether BBC 1, 2, 3 , 4, 5, 6 or 7 they all produce programmes that would simply not be made in a commercialised arena. They may not appeal to all listeners but as a collective they create something that is culturally and educationally needed in a country that is being run to the dogs by an unending thirst for money and pandering to the lowest common denominator.
We will miss it when it is gone.
And all this for a measly £120 a year compared with £50 odd pounds a MONTH for Sky!
Complain about this comment
198. At 3:33pm on 05 Jul 2010, grainsofsand wrote:
There are 2 black weather forecaster - Jay Wynne & Liam Dutton.
---
You've actually catalogued the number of non-white weather forecasters?
Presumably as part of your evidence for the BBC conspiracy against whites?
For your own health you need to let it go....
Complain about this comment
Firstly, I am very pleased about the saving of 6 Music due to it's unique nature(I'm listening to it as I write this.) I also feel that the vast majority of the BBC output is certainly of a higher quality and of more productive appeal than what is available commercially. As a Sky subscriber I have no problem with the license fee which is considerably cheaper and provides more quality. I also have a great problem with sitting through advertising.I also agree that the BBC should concentrate on what it's good at and leave the populist reality shows to the commercial broadcasters that need them to make money.
Secondly, I find it highly assuming that those on this site who decry the license fee and the BBC as a whole should choose this particular forum, provided by the license fee and the BBC, to do it. If you feel the BBC is so rubbish and the license fee such an unjust tax, DON'T USE IT. If enough people don't use the BBC the license fee becomes untenable as you are taxing the majority of people for a minority activity. However if the majority of people use and enjoy a service(which is currently the case) the greater the case for it's funding and continued existence.
I will continue to support the BBC and the license fee by listening to Chris Moyles on Radio 1 in the morning, Listening to 6 Music at work, watching Football, Rugby, F1, Tennis and other sports on BBC 1, Mock the Week on BBC 2 and Russell Howard on BBC 3.
Complain about this comment
@81 "The Asian Network is needed.....It should not be closed!"
This will probably get flamed, but.... the last time I looked, the first B in BBC meant British. Unless I'm mistaken, Britain is part of Europe, not Asia. Britain has a large and diverse migrant population, however we don't have the Polish network, despite the size of our Polish population.
Free to air digital and satellite sources have virtually thousands of channels on it from various Asian sources. I appreciate that there is a quite large Asian population in this country, however those licence fee payers who aren't interested in Asian programming must surely outweigh them ten times over. I think it's a bit unfair to expect them to subsidise something that they aren't going to be remotely interested in.
Complain about this comment
There is one decision the BBC never makes, it tells us that it researches to find out what people want, well i have duly paid my licence for 60+ years and have never been asked or invited to be asked what my preferences for radio or television might be, nor have i ever heard of anyone else being asked, programmes seem to be leaning towards the politically correct brigades demands and the younger element who are not the majority when it comes to licence paying. Why not make it a practice to send a questionaire and statement for salaries approval when you send us your request for licence payment? Maybe there is someone out there who may have been asked their views and perhaps the BBC can tell us what sort of numbers they seek opinions on and take response to.
Complain about this comment
On the TV side of things, I'd like to see a dedicated BBC sports channel.
Or a channel for the programmes to be moved to to make way for sporting events. But either way, I need my weekly fix of Zoë Hanna [Sunetra Sarker] and her perfect skin, d*** it!
Complain about this comment
I think the BBC do a good job in most of the things it does. Apart from not standing up for the people who are squashed by the Establishment,they never do enough to redress the Power in favour of the Public so those at the top have to Justify their actions.Far to often the people at the bottom(no matter how good they are) still cannot win.You would think the PUBLIC broadcaster would favour the Public.
Complain about this comment
@198 "I ask you the same question which you have not answered - why is there no radio station for Whites?"
Unless I'm mistaken, there's nothing stopping Whites from listening to any radio station. However, I understand where you are coming from. I want to know where my Young Age Pension is... ;-)
Complain about this comment
I find it hard to understand why Radio 5 (Live) is avaiable on AM(MW) but not on FM, where the popular channels all seem to be situated. Is this because of bandwidth restrictions? Surely now that more radio is moving to Digital there must be space to get 5 Live on FM? It's this kind of thing that makes people question the decision-making powers of the BBC Board.
The BBC have to go back to basics and understand what they are trying to achieve - understanding that you can't please everyone. It has a suite of TV and radio channels available to it, and should quantify the purpose of each one. If BBC1 is the place for the best soaps and drama then that is what should be advertised and it should be renamed BBC Drama. If BBC2 is the channel for new and established comedy (stand up, sketch shows, sitcoms, panel shows, etc) then it should be BBC Comedy. you see how it works? That way you get what you want (in genre terms) instead of Doctor Who followed by Doctor Who Confidential on another channel, or Dancing on Ice/Finding Dorothy/Maria/Ezmerelda followed by their equivalent behind-the-scenes shows on "the other channel". Keep them on one channel and free up the others to show items of merit to their viewers. It's far easier than trying to be all things to all people and stops me constantly clicking past Casualty City-enders on the River when I want to watch Never Mind Have I got The Week in Gear.
Complain about this comment
I for one am grateful that that 6 Music had this near miss as I wasn't really aware of it until recently, so imagine my pleasure to discover a station without a 10 song playlist or the same tired old ethos of all the others BBC and commercial. There are some real gems to be had, not all of it appeals to my taste but at least it's interesting and I am so pleased to have discovered the Soul and Funk show.
Best of all I can get it on Freeview so don't even need to buy a DAB radio!
Now to get to the "other station" in the news...
Other contributors said:
A public body that can start an overtly racist radio station simply to pander to minorities has got it all wrong.
What are you talking about ?
Do you know what racist actually means and if so how could you possibly apply it to any of the BBC radio stations ?
Well I don't claim to be "Wiser than You" but it seems to fit all the usual conditions of being racist and I'm offended to boot, but of course that's OK as I'll just be labelled a racist as that's the easy way out.
As long as there are the double standards like this then it's wrong. I for one am pleased that they are taking it off the air, same goes for 1 Extra. They even advertise it as a "Black Music" station. I like all types of music but I DON'T check the skin colour of the musicians - OK
Complain about this comment
204
///""I ask you the same question which you have not answered - why is there no radio station for Whites?"
I really hope that question is put in jest. If so, it's not funny. If not then you are to be pitied.//
I am to be pitied, too. I've looked all over and I really can't see a BBC White People radio station. Please let me know where to look.
Thanks in advance.
Complain about this comment
the BBC as a whole is OK.
Just.
BBC1 & 2 are becoming bland and boring, Radio 1 is full of rubbish but does serve a purpose as do 2, 3 & 4.
Complain about this comment
Reading through some of these comments, it just goes to confirm how some people really buy into the Daily Mail's view of the BBC as some liberal waste of money, and will take any opportunity to have a crack at it.
The truth is that we are VERY lucky in this country to have the BBC, even with its imperfections. Without it, who would inform and entertain us? We would be left with ITV, Sky, Virgin media, and our newspapers, which is a horrible thought. If you think that the BBC is biased, think about how compromised those organisations are by their business interests, and the fact that they are purely money making enterprises. The BBC gets criticised from ALL sides for being biased, which shows it's broadly getting the balance right.
Although there's lots of BBC output I can happily live without, my life would be much duller and less informed without Radio 4, 6 Music, the World Service, the iplayer and BBC podcasts. For those services alone I consider my license fee an absolute bargain.
Complain about this comment
198 Grains
"With regard to Black DJ's on Radio 1 there are - there appear to be 7 Black DJ's and one Asian DJ out of 41 DJ's. Roughly 17% of Radio DJ are black - but why so many when this does not match the % of Black in population.
There are 2 black weather forecaster - Jay Wynne & Liam Dutton."
Non-whites are massively over-represented, relative to the population, on our local BBC news, and especially on CBBC.
Also you'll notice that any time the BBC shows a classroom full of schoolkids, there are disproportionately high numbers of non-whites.
This looks very much like the kind of racism that minorities objected to when they complain about the police being overwhelmingly white.
The BBC's policy is unforgivable chiefly because it IS racist, and secondly because the BBC isn't supposed to make social policy. It's a broadcaster - a highly racist one, admittedly, but just a broadcaster all the same.
Complain about this comment
People; what's clear is that the BBC could do with putting on a few subliminal adverts to get people to spell right :)
You cheCK your wallet, but sign a cheQUE
You pay your licenCe fee, but get licenSed to drive a bus
Or is this a sign that what most people watch, when it isn't from the BBC, is American!?!
Complain about this comment
It amuses me that there are so many posters "bad mouthing" the BBC's radio output. Have they ever actually listened to the output of the commercial broadcasters and compared their performance with that of the BBC?
I'm far angrier with the government who are insisting that I have to change over to digital radio at great expense when the FM frequencies are quite good enough for the listening I want to do.
I see no problem with the BBC having to provide the number of employees and contracted artists they have in each scale of pay grades. They do not have to name the people after all.
I'd much rather my licence fee was paid to encourage talent rather than pay the inflated contracts requested by the "stars" and their agents. If the "stars" believe they are being underpaid then by all means let them negotiate new contracts outside the BBC. I've yet to hear the BBC (or any media organisation)say that there are no applicants suitable to fill the openings that happen.
All in all I don't think 39p a day is too high a price to pay for all the output the BBC provides. Even though I don't watch or listen to 90% of it.
Complain about this comment
We are lucky to have a broadcaster of the breadth and quality of the BBC and should never take it for granted. The decision to keep Radio 6 is the correct one and will be seen as such as more households and cars get DAB radio. (I hope DAB sound quality is going to improve, though.)
I doubt that cutting the wages of some 'stars' and management is ever going to amount to all that much as a percentage of expenditure over the years. If money is to be saved I would prefer to see a reduction of one TV channel - the output of channels 2, 3, and 4 could be fitted into two channels.
Complain about this comment
212 Norbert
Is it a possibility that BBC South has a studio in Southampton or Portsmouth and simply despatched their local reporter? Wouldn't exactly break the bank would it!
Complain about this comment
It is high time the BBC reviewed and reduced the number of pundits and commentators that are employed at Wimbledon and the world cup.
The numbers employed are way beyond anything that is needed.
Complain about this comment
I enjoy BBC3, Family Guy and American Dad gives me hope that the US has'nt been taken over by the Bible Belt yet, and that Americans may have an understanding of irony after all.
Complain about this comment
"one Jonathan Ross pay check will cover the bills of a lot of minority digital radio stations."
There is far too much bleating about Jonathan Ross's paychecks. People need to get some sort of sense of perspective.
There are 22,539,000 households in the UK. Lets assume they all have a TV license. That means that the amount of money raised by the TV license is 22,539,000 x £146 = £3,290,694,000 a year.
Paying Jonathan Ross £12,000,000 a year uses up 0.3% of the license fee. That isn't enough to fund anything of any value whatsoever. The only thing it does is placate a load of chest beating Daily Mail readers who are jealous of the fact that THEY aren't earning it!
Pathetic.
Complain about this comment
@219 : As if you can't be British and have roots from an "asian" sub-continent at the same time?! You've opened a whole new debate here LOL
Complain about this comment
If you think 6Music highlights 'alternative' music then your view of music must barely extend beyond the top 10. The only truly alternative & experimental music on the BBC is played on Radio 3 [bring back "Mixing it"!] Cocker, Maconie et al are only really concerned with being "hep" & "cool".
As for salaries: chances are most who want BBC top earners' salaries published think these people earn too much in any case, so what's the point in publishing them? If you think these people are undeserving, what are you going to DO about it? Yeah, right, nothing, thought so.
Complain about this comment
Why would revealing the salaries of top stars be "damaging and destructive"? Surely licence fee payers have a right to know how their money is being spent. If the BBC does not answer to its customers then who does it answer to?
Do BBC channels and programmes provide good value for money? The answer to that question will vary from individual to individual and it should be asked in comparison to what? Given that the ITV channels and channel 4 are provided free of charge as are many free view channels and given they produce some great programs the answer would be no.
There are arguments for the public funding a broadcaster. The most important one for me used to be the word impartiality. There was a time when the BBC was an impartial source of news and information however in recent years it has become an organisation that leans heavily to the left in the way it presents things so on that basis public funding can no longer be justified.
Does it produce good programs that are worth paying to watch? Undoubtedly. I am a fan of many of them and have a vast collection of BBC DVD's that I have purchased over the years.
Regarding 6 Music. The BBC in common with every other organisation needs to take an inward look and ensure that it is providing good value for money and its output is something that people want. If analysis shows that 6 Music has a declining audience or a static audience of small size then obviously that needs looking into.
Even f the BBC finds that everything it does is wholly successful it may still be necessary for cuts to be made. Each new station/channel etc has to be funded. Often an organisation over extends itself and at the end of the day there is a limit as to what people are willing to pay for a service.
Complain about this comment
The license fee is a ripoff for the quality of programming so often received. Terry Wogan, much as I can't stand the man, is completely correct in that everyone hired by the Beeb could stand to take a 10% cut. Especially the highest-paid presenters. Given that enough are on a million a year they wouldn't even notice the cut.
Complain about this comment
I have to say, in defence of BBC Radio stations, that Radio 2 and Radio 4 are excellent. I actually prefer Classic FM over Radio 3 - but you cannot knock Radio 4 for its diversity. I have certainly listed to programmes on it which went into detail over tricky issues like the BP oil spill, the Middle East, Afghanistan and Iraq - some idiot poster said something about it being biased. Rubbish. And as another poster said, the BBC gets bashed from all ends of the political spectrum which sounds to me like it is doing its job.
Complain about this comment
Actually £12,000,000 / year would go a long way on Radio drama.
The BBC should get out of the celebrity business - if that means losing presenters to ITV and Sky then let them go. In fact the market value would drop dramatically if one of the main employers said "no, we're not playing this game anymore".
There are plenty of other people who would be willing to take up the positions - some would be great, some wouldn't, but it would allow the BBC to bring on new talent
Complain about this comment
Local BBC Radio stations should be scrapped or combined into Regional Stations to save money. In East Anglia we have at least 4 BBC Radio Stations which often combine in the evenings to one music broadcast. I never get any useful information from our local BBC Radio station so it's a waste of money. They constantly have people phoning in with their personal opinions about irrelevant, superficial topics. If I want local info I use the Internet or local paper. And the music they play is dull and boring. Either scrap them or reduce the large number of stations. I want real local radio from my town, not county-wide BBC radio which only talks about other far-away towns.
Complain about this comment
There is little I watch on TV but it usually is BBC1 or BBC2. With regard to radio I listen to R4 & R2 (but not the dreadfull J Ross, who my wife loves but I loath with a passion - the man is neither witty or funny).
The only problem areas for the BBC is where they start to chase ratings. The minority channels are good and cheap, so keep them. Trying to be popular usually fails, (I seem to remember a comment about MTV in it's prime that said that young people only watched it for an average of twenty minutes). Good programes start with creative people, even Morcambe & Wise gave all the credit for their success to their writers.
If the BBC concentrate on producing good programes the ratings will follow. What Murdoch wants is the BBC to fail so he can sell more satallite rubbish at inflated prices. The more good stuff produced by the BBC means less people will fall for his poor product.
I for one still support the BBC, any service that can produce the brilliant Old Harry's Game on R4 is definitly doing it right.
Complain about this comment
I really don't believe the BBC understands the words "economise" or "saving"! It sends armies of staff to cover events like Glastonbury, the Olympics and the World Cup, when surely the same job could be done with far fewer correspondent, reporters etc.
My plan for the BBC would be:-
*Make R1 and R2 commercial.
*Allow programme sponsorship and paid advertising BETWEEN not during programmes.
*Disband BBC3 - replace with a BBC sports channel and make it a subscription service for all sporting events (even the listed ones) but at a "token rate rather than Sky Sports exhorbitant monthly charge.
*Make the I-Player a subscription service
*Put paid advertising on to bbc.co.uk
That way, if they really feel they have to pay inflated salaries for alledged "talent" the money is there, but if the feel that salaries could be slimmed down then, heaven forbid, the TV tax (licence fee) could be reduced (now I really am whistling in the wind!!).
Complain about this comment
226 The Bloke - I thought you were making a rather good ironic joke until I read your other posts.
An Anglo-centric radio station? Hmmm - R2? R3? R4? 6Music? That enough choice for you? Unfortunately BBCLet's Go Back To The 50s doesn't exist, although I'm sure you could find a franchise for it. Unbelievable.
The BBC may sometimes fall over itself to be seen as right on or PC, but racist? Are you sure you know what the word actually means?
Complain about this comment
Am very, very pleased about the 6 Music reprieve. For people like me, it is the ONLY place to hear the kind of music we enjoy and, crucially, to hear new music of the type we enjoy. It is the natural place for the former Peel listeners out there.
Personally, I feel that iPlayer and the BBC web sites and pages are innovative and of the highest quality. They are leading edge and, despite what some may say, this is broadcasting. True, it crosses-over into publishing territory, but why shouldn't the BBC be leading the way in this emerging sphere as they do -- or should -- with radio and TV?
Spend money on ensuring this leading edge approach remains instead of luring so-called stars that only appeal to the lowest, common denominator. One of the great things about BBC radio is the quality of the music, comedy and drama you will hear, not the fact that its the Latest Media Darlings' new show on... Radio 2.
Am also bemused by some of the offerings on BBC 3 which just seems to be chasing the Channel 4 audience. Channel 4 already does all that. There have been some highlights, but not enough and not anything that couldn't have gone on either BBC1 or BBC2.
Complain about this comment
I think it's utterly wrong to close a radio station that provides a valuable service to a section of society, while paying so-called "celebrity presenters" millions of pounds. I wonder how far down the salary the list you have to go before you get to a total of more than the whole budget for Asian Network? Half a dozen maybe? None of the pompous twits are worth more than a fraction of what they get paid, even if "worth" having at all. If they feel that their "talents" are worth that much, they can always try the commercial stations.
By the way I'm not Asian, and have listened to the station once (possibly twice). Just because I don't listen to it does not mean it isn't worthwhile... the same applies to Radio 3.
If they need to close a station at all, they should start with BBC3 TV, since it's full of complete rubbish most of the time and must cost at least ten times as much as a radio station to run.
They should also think about WHY BBC6 and Asian Network don't get the listener numbers they wanted - because they're DAB-only. Not everyone wants to buy an expensive, power-hungry, limited-reception device to listen to one particular radio station when they already have a perfectly good radio anyway, or several of them... including in the car. Put these two stations on FM and you will see their audience multiply out of all recognition.
Complain about this comment
6. At 11:54am on 05 Jul 2010, PeterTigerman wrote:
Finally perhaps the top person at the BBC should be elected to the post then perhaps we might get some decent programmes on both TV and Radio.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeh right, the country voted in the General Election and look what we ended up with.
Untill all this happened I had never actually heard of BBC Radio 6 or is it called Music 6?
For the first time today I've had a listen, but found that here in Glasgow I can't actually get it on either of my radios and had to find it on my Virgin Plus Box. All they seem to do is played 30 plus year old music from the 80's and earlier. In other words pretty much rubbish and very boring. especially when he sp[ent 10 minutes talking about listeners Tattoos.
Complain about this comment
mmy1949 - 231
"It amuses me that there are so many posters "bad mouthing" the BBC's radio output. Have they ever actually listened to the output of the commercial broadcasters and compared their performance with that of the BBC? "
I compare the BBC to its European counterparts. It's infinitely better than some, pretty average compared to others.
Those who defend the BBC against its competition tend to compare it only to a very limited range. I tend to zap between the BBC Today and its counterpart on France Inter. The BBC offering is pretty ordinary, but very obviously very much more expensive than its counterpart.
I also listen to a lot of podcasts. There is some great stuff on the BBC, but comparing it to the French, Quebecois, German, Dutch and Swedish ones, the BBC tends to come out sounding rather more expensive, and infinitely more childish, than the grown-up foreign competition.
Broaden your cultural horizons, be as multiculty as the BBC professes to be - but isn't - and you'll get a better picture of how unremarkable the BBC really is. It's ok, really it is ok, but it's not the thing of splendour it, and the benighted Guardianistas who sing its praises, think it is.
Complain about this comment
After further checking my Virgin Plus Box I found that there are (at least on my Box) 18 BBC Radio Stations. Sounds a bit like overkill to me, but then I rarely if ever listen to the Radio.
Complain about this comment
pzero wrote:
General,
Our views may actually be closer than you think.
With respect, you must have misinterpreted my comments as our views are diametrically opposed; I am more than happy to support the BBC when they produce minority programs because they're the only broadcaster that does.
I believe they provide vital services to our whole community, unlike commercial broadcasters who only provide services if they know they can make money out of it.
As Peter_Sym said above:
If broadcasting was limited to 'commercial' stuff we'd have wall to wall X-factor and big brother. Forget 'timewatch' or 'question time' or 'coast'. Not commercially viable. No advertiser would pay for adverts around those.
I'm perfectly happy to contribute to a public broadcaster in the knowledge that a percentage of their output is not to my tastes because I know there are lots of programs that they make that I enjoy that many others do not, I don't care if this is because of a difference in age, location, race or just a plain old difference in taste.
Complain about this comment
Stan Pomoray wrote:
Paying Jonathan Ross £12,000,000 a year uses up 0.3% of the license fee. That isn't enough to fund anything of any value whatsoever. The only thing it does is placate a load of chest beating Daily Mail readers who are jealous of the fact that THEY aren't earning it!
£12 million is a massive amount of money. Forget that its about 650 times my wage, it could do a helluva lot of good in many areas. The Bus "KickStart" I mentioned (205) cost less than that IN TOTAL. If Wossy's contract covered the same 12-15 years (ie. £144-180 million in total) life span of a bus, it could pay for about 500 hybrid powered double-deckers. In other "fields", I can only imagine how much value it could be in Cancer Research, or saving the sight of millions of Africans.
As regards sublimile advertising, what about the hard-sell of the new Land Rover on Breakfast the other morning. The fact that 1000 jobs were safe was a (good) news story - the rest was pure advertising.
Complain about this comment
The BBC is the jewel in the crown of British broadcasting but it's being ruined by right wing lackies like Mark Thompson, get rid of him and whoever it was that decided to pay Jonathan Ross his obscene salary.
Complain about this comment
When one sees the dross on Sky etc, the BBC always makes the good decisions, thank goodness for them. They are one thing in Britain which is actually good, in fact great!
Complain about this comment
I generally watch/listen to the BBC on iplayer, especially in the evening. I usually watch Breakfast in the morning though channel flick when something that doesn't interest me comes on. Daytime BBC TV is appaling particular the get rich quick property programmes. I like listening to the old comedies on iplayer at a time that suites me so I say keep iplayer. As far as salaries are concerned the BBC isn't there to provide vast salaries to presenters. The Beeb should be a showcase for new talent and if people want high salaries let them move to independent channels or leave. I can do without the likes of these people who earn more than the PM who are mainly talentless and just shout too much. Mind you, the Beeb is still worth the licence fee cos there are no adverts, though they do seem to be advertising themselves more and more these days. Probably so that they can sell hour long shows to Dave without Dave having to edit them to make way for their ad breaks. I haven't listened to R6.
Complain about this comment
@237 : "As if you can't be British and have roots from an "asian" sub-continent at the same time?! You've opened a whole new debate here LOL"
Of course you can. I have nothing against people wanting to be proud of their heritage. :-)
Complain about this comment
226. At 4:15pm on 05 Jul 2010, The Bloke wrote:
204
///""I ask you the same question which you have not answered - why is there no radio station for Whites?"
I really hope that question is put in jest. If so, it's not funny. If not then you are to be pitied.//
I am to be pitied, too. I've looked all over and I really can't see a BBC White People radio station. Please let me know where to look.
Thanks in advance.
I think you'll find that Radios 1,2 3, 4 and 5 appeal of the broad cross section the community you refer to as "white people". But I would be very surprised if ANY one liked everything broadcast on all these channels and the majority will probably only like what's broadcast on 3 channels maximum (but no majority for WHICH 3 channels max). However, there will be many in what you would call ethnic minorities who will like what's on these channels and some of what you call "whites" will like what's on the stations targeted at minority tastes.
You see, there's no such thing as "majority" when it comes to such things: just people. There are lots of individual people each with their own tastes in arts, music, culture, comedies, dramas etc etc and making decisions about what to watch or listen to with scant regard to whether their tastes are a majority or a minority. Pigeonholing people into broad groups says ,ore about you than it does anyone else.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The BBC can't win, can they! Sir Michael Lyons said he “…wanted the … very popular Radios 1 and 2 and to make sure they are more different … from what's available in the commercial sector,"
It seems to me the commercial stations tend to follow the BBC, not the other way around! So, if the Beeb has to change its audience winning routines every time a commercial outfit starts to copy them, this pattern will go on until the BBC no longer appeals to a mass audience … and then the beggars will criticise the BBC for having audiences too small to justifying the license fee!
Complain about this comment
I completed the BBC Trusts on-line survey regarding BBC 7 recently and I noted the comment that there is a suggestion to re-launch BBC 7 as "Radio 4 Extra" with programming taken from Radio 4.
Please don't! BBC 7 is the best speech based radio station in the UK. I love the classic comedy series and the plays / stories during the day. As I drive for a living its nice to have a laugh and not have music or the same old Radio 4 programmes to listen to. Do I see another battle looming to save BBC 7 in its current form?
Complain about this comment
231. At 4:28pm on 05 Jul 2010, markmyword1949 wrote:
It amuses me that there are so many posters "bad mouthing" the BBC's radio output. Have they ever actually listened to the output of the commercial broadcasters and compared their performance with that of the BBC?
-----------------------------
Yep, neither come out of it particularly well. So I listen to very little radio. Don't watch much telly either cos the rubbish served up is really rubbish rubbish.(Most of the time).
There are of course still some quality programmes out there but they aren't confined to the BBC. It is like searching for a needle in a haystack looking for decent stuff.
As I have said previously, the BBC would do well to concentrate on what it does best and stop trying to compete with the commercial stations for dross.
Complain about this comment
219. At 4:04pm on 05 Jul 2010, Norbert wrote:
@81 "The Asian Network is needed.....It should not be closed!"
This will probably get flamed, but.... the last time I looked, the first B in BBC meant British. Unless I'm mistaken, Britain is part of Europe, not Asia. Britain has a large and diverse migrant population, however we don't have the Polish network, despite the size of our Polish population.
Free to air digital and satellite sources have virtually thousands of channels on it from various Asian sources. I appreciate that there is a quite large Asian population in this country, however those licence fee payers who aren't interested in Asian programming must surely outweigh them ten times over. I think it's a bit unfair to expect them to subsidise something that they aren't going to be remotely interested in.
Asian people are license payers too, so it is reasonable to provide content that appeals to them. Since you are not forced to tune into their channels and there is plenty of choice on other ones and the availability of choice to them does not materially deprive you of choice, why should the BBC (and other broadcasters) not broadcast content for minority groups. When the number of channels was very limited this was hard to do, but not any more.
Complain about this comment
253. At 5:00pm on 05 Jul 2010, Dentonian wrote:
Stan Pomoray wrote:
Paying Jonathan Ross £12,000,000 a year uses up 0.3% of the license fee. That isn't enough to fund anything of any value whatsoever. The only thing it does is placate a load of chest beating Daily Mail readers who are jealous of the fact that THEY aren't earning it!
-----
£12 million is a massive amount of money.
----------------
I agree and totally wasted on an idiot like ross. I am not jealous of anyone earning that sort of money if they are worth it but he is not in that category. I thought he was a waste of space before the Andrew Sachs incident BTW, so this is not related to that, though it confirmed my view of him. Far too full of his own self importance.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I think the loss of Ross, Chiles and Bleakley can be borne but it would be a pity to lose someone like Graham Norton - I'm not a fan but I think he at least has some talent.
Radio programmes? I would miss 6 although I wouldn't even notice if 1 and/or 2 were axed.
An area I would like to see axed is announcers where we have two when one would be quite adequate, especially when the second one is there merely to balance either the gender or race quotas.
The problem of over-staffing is most obvious in regional news broadcasts where it takes an army of often talentless individuals to present a thirty minute 'news' programme, whose most important content has already been aired on the national news. Talentless duos sit, peering intently at the monitor and waiting to complete one another's sentences, for all the world like an old married couple. The male of the species sometimes attempts lame jokes whilst the female simpers. They are at their worst when adopting faux sombre voices and expressions whilst announcing a death, for instance, and instantly brighten up when announcing the next item. They 'interpret' news announcements by making them in a theatrical rather than a matter of fact tone. 'News' is just that, not entertainment. get rid of the sofas and seat one indvidual at a desk, or a sofa if they prefer. And why so many 'outside bradcasters'? Midlands News has one who I just cannot watch because she waves her arm about like someone performing semaphore, but minus the flags. And they are all so amateurish!!
And what is 'your ninety-second news update' for, especially when broadcast just one hour after the early evening news has ended and when we have the News 24 channel anyway?! In my opinion it's merely a time filler!
Even if axeing some was merely a minor economy, it would do my blood pressure a world of good!
Complain about this comment
Hurray for saving 6 Music.
Publish everyone's salary, it's public money.
BBC output, all radio is worth the money. TV, I'm not a fan of BBC1, but see it's purpose. The rest are OK, but just OK.
Complain about this comment
BBC 1 and 2 have just awfull programming. I actually watch BBC 3 and 4 more than 1 and 2. The only BBC service I am happy with is Radio4.
As for BBC1 and 2 there entertainment value is ZERO.
Time the coropration was either shook up or shut down. There is no value for money as far as I can see. Where are the comedians the great shows like Red dwarf. Too many stark reality shows and cheapo television.
Take tonights enthawling BBC1 line up. Countryfile, Eastenders, Panorama, and Crimewatch. BBC2 is just to sad to list. Call that entertainment cus I dont.
The BBC just cannot compete in a multi channel world and no longer represent good value for money. There should be a way of owning a television and not having to pay the licence tax without being labeled a criminal. This is after all the 21st century. Truth is they could not survive if they had to compete on a level a fair playing field with the other broadcasters.
Complain about this comment
The "Trust" making decisions on what and what not gets axed is not for some biased quango.The licence payers are the owners of the BBC.Let the people decide.
Complain about this comment
Other posters have mentioned the 'overmanning' at big sporting events but the same is true of such things as the US elections - it seems every programme on the BBC was represented there! At what cost?
Complain about this comment
I saw a note about the Beeb management salaries, hundreds getting salaries more than double that which the PM gets, seems we should cut the managers not the services we get.
Complain about this comment
One thing it need not do is join the surround sound craze. This silly cinematographic gimmick was not meant for homes but now thanks to vulgar commercial TV it has become "standard".
Residential areas are now infested with these systems and the deliberately extended and exaggerated low-frequency output (much more penetrating throughout buildings than mid-high) is a menace to the sleep and health of millions. So much more so when they are used for violent (lots of explosions) computer and video games when not watching TV.
Greg Dyke correctly pointed out to us, that before Reith, the BBC was merely a marketing device to sell wireless sets. It would appear that under its recent management it has again reverted to the (now irresponsible) role of encouraging the sale of unnecessary electronic junk with which to fill the undiscerning public's homes.
Complain about this comment
"......revealing the salaries of its top stars would be "damaging and destructive".
Oh dear, poor things, so overpaid that they are embarrassed that people might actually think they are not worth the money we licence payers are coughing up to keep these self-aggrandising executives rolling in the gravy trough.
Complain about this comment
"74. At 1:35pm on 05 Jul 2010, SystemF wrote:
It's time the left wing extremists and racists at the BBC were removed from all positions of power and influence.
The whole rotten organisation needs root and branch treatment. The license fee should be scrapped as it's a Communist-style taxation that forces people to pay for state media that they may not want or care for. Paying for left wing extremists who use their position as state funded media to advance their racist anti-Israel campaign and their global warming agenda amongst other things, sticks in the throat of many people."
Oh do shut up - Absolutely pathetic
For that little rant your deserve to be locked up for at least 7 days in a dark room with your eyeballs forcibly directed to watch a 50" LCD TV showing nothing but North American TV; 8 minutes 'normal' program + 5 minutes 'advertainment' ad infinitum.
After that you'll be begging to pay the licence fee.
Complain about this comment
27. At 12:39pm on 05 Jul 2010, Peter_Sym wrote:
...
Get a grip. It would only break the law if they refused to let white people listen to it or refused to employ white people making it. 1Extra targets a specific audience in the same way that BBC Radio Cornwall targets people from Cornwall.
There is a difference between targeting a geographic region and targetting a particular race of humans though. I don't have any particular qualms with a 'black' or 'Asian' station but there is a difference.
Complain about this comment
This is great news. It's the only music radio station that I listen too. I also agree with the BBC Board that there are way too many antique and property programs on day time TV
Complain about this comment
The plethora of regional television stations should be closely scrutinised. In Northern Ireland we are served up endless repeats --sometimes on the same night! -- of local dross which means that network programmes are either delayed or not shown at all. If there is a market for local television let the market fill it and let the BBC concentrate its resources on high quality national programming. Incidentally BBC Northern Ireland have recently announced an expanded team of "regional journalists" in a province the size of Cornwall and with a population of Liverpool!!
Complain about this comment
The following is a quote from the Daily Telegraph: "It's not his fault he's paid that money. Don't criticise him for taking the money, because all of us would."
This comment was reported a couple of years back regarding Jonathan Ross's £18 million BBC contract
During an Interview with Guess who?
Any one who didn't say Terry Wogan go to the back of the class.
Obviously Sir Terry has had a change of heart.
Complain about this comment
Having read the news article on the BBC trusts report, I think they are spot on with the criticism of bbc 1s morning schedule, these programs like Homes under the Hammer and Bargain Hunt, need to go, they have been on too many times and I used too like them but because of the amount of them I have became completely bored of them, and also in a time of great worry and massive cuts from the government, I don’t think they reflect society and too me the BBC need to thing carefully about the audience that watch these programs and to a great majority it doesn’t represent people values
Complain about this comment
Have the BBC Trust just woken up from their long slumber?? How long does it take these dopes to realise that the output from all of the channels daytime and evening is low quality cheap and nasty. Mr Thompson also needs to realise that we don't care if he loses "talent" because their salaries have been published. The BBC loves to cling on to "has beens". Get rid, I say, they wont be going to the drivel on ITV. Oh and Mr Wogan should keep his opinions to himself, his salary was protected for far too long. Come on BBC someone get a grip, we want quality innovative and imaginative programmes. Let's face it if you dont deliver you may not be getting a licence fee for much longer.
Complain about this comment
The BBC should not be in the business of providing the recording companies with a free advertising platform for their products.
If you want to listen to loads of music, go buy it. Music radio is everywhere and the BBC could make big savings in this area.
It's only music. If the recording companies want it advertised by broadcasters, they should pay for the airtime. Better still, they could set up their own radio stations and compete with each other.
I object to my licence money going to propping up the record industry and its millionaire shareholders.
Complain about this comment
"There should be a way of owning a television and not having to pay the licence tax without being labeled a criminal. This is after all the 21st century."
There is a way - emigrate. You'll soon be back after a few hours of foreign telly.
We have the best system. Don't knock it.
Complain about this comment
I think the BBC could look at it's budget on the news service and look into cutting some of the vast network of it's news teams. Some BBC News programmes and presenters are inadequate for the task e.g. Some of the presenters have trouble speaking the Queen's English and some of the programmes on the periphery of the news sphere such as E.24 should be scrapped and put into Newsround if there was a desire at all to keep it. The BBC should look into generating some of it's finance through the sale and distribution of BBC Films and enhance the brand to take on the troubled Pinewood studios and takeover the Bond franchise which has over the last 2 films grossed more than enough money to pay for itself and millions of pounds in profit in cinema screenings alone. The BBC could also look into the Drama series like Spooks which occupy >25% TV share and see if anything similar or thrilling could take place instead of franchises such as spin of series Holby city. Other suggestions could be the axeing of BBC Four and bring their content over to BBC Two instead of numerous cooking programmes. Current content is quite good but could be better and those should be maintained - like Top Gear, Spooks, New Tricks. However some could be enhanced or replaced by looking at past successful programmes and competitors who are making a higher quality of programmes and start to remake and rebuild on the BBC's reputation as a high quality broadcaster who could then sell these programmes overseas for a premium e.g. Heston Blumethal series on Channel 4 or Days that shook the world no longer on BBC Two or Three Men In A Boat sequels on BBC or 24 originally on BBC Two and then Sky 1 or James May's Spin off series on toys and British built things. Perhaps looking into the five channel's series on The Royal Navy and also past series on The Royal Family and the different offices of state done by the BBC could be a good way of providing rich content that could be sold on while also providing a genuine insight and recognition for our Armed Services and the inner workings of state e.g. Shadowing the Prime Minister.
Complain about this comment
''How should the Corporation be spending its money, and how open should it be in doing so?''
The question should have read ''How should the Corporation be spending TAXPAYERS' money, and how open should it be in doing so?''
The Corporation should be spending TAXPAYERS' money far less generously than it has done to date. There seems to be the attitude that because the BBC is not accountable to ordinary people, it should be able to pay the highest salaries and fees to anyone it likes in order to get ahead of private sector broadcasters. It is quite evident over the years that transparency has not been the watchword of the BBC, judging how its top executives have regarded any scrutiny of what it pays to top personalities as being so confidential, that the public ought not have the right to know.
I hope this new Government puts a freeze on the licence fee for the next two years with a view to making reductions thereafter. Is there really any need to have two people reading news on tv when the PM program on radio 4 can do with just one?
Complain about this comment
Is there any point in posting comments? Do the BBC powers-that-be read them? Does anyone in the BBC read them? Since the BBC has arbitrarily removed 'recommendations' one has no clear idea now whether or not anyone else agrees with any particular view.
To the matter in hand.
I am retired. I love many of the daytime programmes under threat. I love especially Bargain Hunt, Cash in the Attic (but only if Lorne Greene doesn't present it - unpleasant voice and poor grammar), To Buy or Not to Buy, Michael Portillo's train journeys, Saturday Kitchen, and Flog it.
I hate Homes Under the Hammer, A Place in the Country (where do they find all those ridiculously rich people? Not relevant to most of us).
Consumer programmes are likely to increase - Heaven help us. It is those, not the antiques programmes that are loathed. I am bored rigid by Cowboy Builders and any of the Dominic Littlewood consumer programmes - though I love him.
AND IF YOU CHANGE YOUR MINDS AND TAKE DOCTORS OFF - THE ONLY HALF-DECENT SOAP WHERE NICE PEOPLE ARE USUALLY KIND TO EACH OTHER, AND WHICH IS OFTEN INTENTIONALLY HUMOROUS - I WILL COME TO THE BBC CENTRE AND TIE MYSELF TO ANY RAILINGS THAT EXIST UNTIL YOU BRING IT BACK.
Does the BBC intend to consult those who actually watch day time programmes? They failed to do so over Working Lunch (which was excellent)and presumably will ignore our views over these proposed changes. Perhaps the BBC has forgotten what it is there for, and for what it receives licence fees - to inform, educate and entertain. Many of the (for example) achieve all those aims in one programme.
I am getting extremely frustrated by the BBC, and I know of many others who are too.
Wake up and listen to your audience!!
Complain about this comment
I wonder how many people on HYS have Sky, some must have. Anybody you has Sky is paying over twice as much for this as they do the BBC.
At the end of the day we pay less than £3 per week per household for the BBC. You just need to see one programme or listen to one radio show for that to be a bargain. I am not a tennis fan but if I was I could watch the mens final yesterday which would have cost be over £100 to see live, and that would be in one of the cheaper seats. Last week they show Glastonbury, which I could watch in the comfort of my own home rather than pay £200 for a ticket. They also have films on which If I went to the cinemas to see with my family would set me back over £30.
Complain about this comment
Regardless of what you think of the BBC's decision making, the fact is they do make the best programmes, whether on Radio or TV.
Look at all the best comedy shows on tv now, and have ever been. How many haven't been made by the Beeb?
Not many, that's for sure!
And then there are the documentaries and nature programmes!
So I'd say, back off the Beeb, as their track record speaks for itself!
Complain about this comment
Having lived in the USA for 12 years and to quote Pink Floyd "53 channels of s@*$ on the TV to choose from" I would like to point out to viewers of the BBC that they do not realize how lucky they are to have such a quality corporation, firstly the BBC web site is unbeatable in terms of news, iplayer and everything for every age, the first thing my 11 year old does in the morning is log on and check the news. 6 music is on all day long at our home and the quality of music and broadcasters is superb. The BBC should be proud, obviously their are a few poor programs that reflect society today and how dumb we have become, please continue to educate.
The BBC should have a royal seal.
Complain about this comment
7. At 11:54am on 05 Jul 2010, General_Jack_Ripper
Couldn't agree with you more
When will people realise how lucky we are to have the BBC in this country. It may not be perfect but it is a lot better than the alternative dross on Sky
Do we really want the likes of Murdock and his son to control the world. This is the man who stated that the only guarantee of a free impartial news is profit
Just like Fox News I suppose
Complain about this comment
It is only right that the BBC should be kept on its toes when spending TV License payers money. I think it is good that they have responded to the call to keep 6 Music, although I do not listen to it. The diverse nature of the services it provides is one of its strengths.
The BBC has kept me thoroughly entertained and informed by radio and TV going on for some 60 odd years now, although you could not pay me to watch a 'Soap!' I have also noted that from time to time, it has come under criticism for both content and bias. Politicians from the government of the day are the usual suspects, when they feel that the Beeb are not being nice enough to them, often following up their complaint with veiled threats over the licence fee and independence. Well I have always come across comment and content that I have vehemently disagreed with or disliked. Equally I have also found the opposite, and that to me indicates balance. The other main detractors are ITV companies and the odious Rupert Murdoc, who are always eyeing with envy the licence fee. I hope they never are allowed to get a penny of it. Sky TV rep's finally gave up trying sell a dish to me, when one of them was smart enough to ask me why I did not want one. I told them It was because I had a good memory. Asked what I meant, I recalled the launch of B Sky'B. Murdoc went on terrestrial TV, saying what bad value for money the licence fee was and how Sky was going to give much more choice and be much cheeper! I knew he was being economical with the truth then, and see no reason to change my mind now. What do people pay a month for Sky now? To say nothing of the fact that many events world wide, that came with the licence fee, are now charged for with a one off pay per view fee, and what did that give us? A lot of overpaid sports stars!
More power to your elbow BBC, keep up the good work.
Complain about this comment
As I do not listen to 6 Music or radio 2 since the idiiot Evans was employed I can't really say. However the salaries of the likes of Evans, Ross etc should be published for the shareholders, licence fee payers, to see if they think their money is being well spent.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Re - 208. At 3:48pm on 05 Jul 2010,
The Bloke - Where in this statement do I claim the UK is uniquely diverse - I do not, but due to it's history of empire and global reach - like it or not we do have one of the most diverse populations, and as the State Broadcaster it is required to reflect that. Also please Don't assume all white people are Right Wingers, most people follow live and let live principles.
Those of you preaching on about how there are no programs for "Whites" (whatever the vastly diverse White's could want) - try
Songs of Praise - White/Christian
Nick Griffin on Question time - White/Facist
2 pints & packets of crisps - White/Working Class
Top Gear - Anti Global Warming - White/Boy Racer(Clarkson)
Gavin and Stacey - White/Working Class
Country File - White Middle/Class
Stop spitting your venom - I'm white and I don't like any of the above, but then I don't think with my skin pigment.
Loads of what I would call rubbish on the BBC - but other people like it - in the same way there are things I like that others don't - get over it!
Complain about this comment
The BBC is not perfect - it makes some pretty shoddy programmes (the decline of Panorama into tabloid journalismis a perfect example) and its stars are overpaid. However, before anyone wants to say we are better off without out it, they should try living in a country without a TV license - wall to wall adverts every 10 minutes and an appalling quality of programming. The BBC has produced some outstanding drama series and its documentary film-making is second to none. The news reporting is superb and you only need to watch ITVs World Cup broadcasts to see how much better the sports reporting is. I am delighted that 6Music may be saved as it is absolutely sublime radio - perfect music with intelligent presenting. I think that those whingers who complain at how bad things are only spend their time watching DIY SOS and Eastenders and have not spent the time to realise the diverse and eextraordinary range of programmes the BBC offers. I don't like paying my TV license every year - just like I don't enjoy spending any large amount of money on one thing - but at the same time - I would not change it and would happily pay more.
Complain about this comment
Absolutely has the BBC made the right decision. Twice has Sir Michael Lyons hit the nail on the head, 6 Music is by far one of the best things the BBC6 has produced, it would have done the Corporation a great injustice and kick in the teeth if they had followed the 'smart' advice of Mark Thompson (who should resign by the way), but I definitely agree the salaries of certain 'stars' could be better focused else where, I shall not sink so low as to mention the names of those who are well overpaid, but a certain Radio 1 Breakfast presenter and a former Radio 2 and chat show host makes the list in my book!
Well done to all those who fought the 6 Music closure, the people have spoken!
Complain about this comment
It seems to me that the BBC is being run as much by, possibly even more by, BBC News and Current Affairs (or whatever they are now called) than it is by its management. I say this as it seems to me they may have had the greater part to do with the removal of Greg Dyke, whose approach perhaps did not sit well with their own perspectives and agenda.
I would like to see transparency here and reassurance that this problem, if it indeed subsisted, has been completely resolved.
I would then like to see an end to the apparent BBC News blackouts on various topics of central relevance to great numbers of the public, but which BBC News has, as far as I can see, decided would be better not publicised. (For instance the significance of recent Court rulings to the employment rights and entitlements of millions).
The effect on the uncritical mind of endlessly saying nothing on a topic, about which it would be logical to say a great deal, is to engender a stronger fallacious impression that the true facts are not the case, than would be so if the untrue position were repeatedly stated explicitly. This device is used endlessly by much of the press, and I would like it if the BBC did not also do it.
Complain about this comment
Paying Jonathan Ross £12,000,000 a year uses up 0.3% of the license fee. That isn't enough to fund anything of any value whatsoever. The only thing it does is placate a load of chest beating Daily Mail readers who are jealous of the fact that THEY aren't earning it!
-----
£12 million is a massive amount of money.
-----------
£12 MILLION WOULD PAY THE SALARIES OF 400 ITU NURSES OR 200 HOSPITAL DOCTORS ----- Your idea of nothing of value differs from mine.
Complain about this comment
The main problem with the BBC generally is that it tells us what we want rather than us tell them what we want. Too many programmes on the major 2 tv channels cater for minor topics that most viewers don't want.
consequently they view or subscribe to channels etc that do provide popular programmes & topics.
Complain about this comment
There are other stations that could be cut too. For example 1 xtra has too small an audience and 5 live sports extra which is on a small loop when not covering sporting events. And Radio 1 could go back to joining Radio 2 between midnight and 6am to save money on nights. Scrap BBC 3 to and either scrap kids progs on BBC 1 and 2 or close Cbeebies and CBBC which just broadcast the same programmes. BBC 4 could become BBC extra showing classic programmes and themed days/weeks with BBC 2 going back to showing the type of programmes it used to.
Complain about this comment
It would be very good if we could trust these organisations not to pay these exorbitant salaries to either staff of those on television or radio but it appears that if we don't know the details money is no object. I woud not have liked people in general to know my salary even though I was not in this sort of league - I always thought I had to be worth my salary and others should be the same but it doesn't work that way. Many people seem to be born thinking the world owes them a living.
Complain about this comment
The BBC should spend some of its money on a total restructuring. With devolution it is clear that there is a need for seperate public broadcasters in the four home nations. So let's disband the BBC and set up an EBC (English Broadcasting Corporation), SBC (Scottish BC),WBC )Welsh BC) and NIBC (N.Irish BC).
Complain about this comment
6 Music may appeal to the self adulating twits in the pop world but it holds absolutely no appeal for the majority of the population.
Complain about this comment
The BBC has been making the wrong decisions ever since it forgot it was a public service and decided to lower its standards to try and compete with commercial television.
Ever since then The BBC has spent our money trying to outdo Commercial television in the “Who can lower the standards” competition.
Until the BBC stops trying to drop its standard to the lowest common denominator it will continue to make the wrong decisions
Complain about this comment
I wonder how many people on HYS have Sky, some must have. Anybody you has Sky is paying over twice as much for this as they do the BBC.
------
Can always rely on a BBC fan boy!
I receive 90 channels via a satellite cost of installation £100 monthly cost nothing.
I also have an additional 46 channels free of charge with a telephone line from my cable phone supplier.
For my £150+ BBC TAX a year I get 2 adequate TV channels 2 less than adequate TV channels and a News channel which is actually quite good.
I have excluded the BBC radio out put as I also get over 160 Radio channels free of charge with the above satellite and Cable.
The BBC is poor value it would be better value if a far larger proportion of the £3 billion+ licence fee was spent on programmes not inflated salaries.
Complain about this comment
301. At 7:38pm on 05 Jul 2010, Home Rule For England wrote:
The BBC should spend some of its money on a total restructuring. With devolution it is clear that there is a need for seperate public broadcasters in the four home nations. So let's disband the BBC and set up an EBC (English Broadcasting Corporation), SBC (Scottish BC),WBC )Welsh BC) and NIBC (N.Irish BC).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Absolutely. The role of the BBC would, naturally and properly, then be assumed and replaced by that of a pan-European authority with more enlightened and progressive values, one would reasonably assume. No more "Thought for the Day".
Complain about this comment
The BBC is paid for by the public for the public. The BBc cannot possibly keep everyone happy all of the time. There are already too many BBC TV and radio stations to manage they have expanded too far and become too big at our expense. Time to reign it it like the rest of the public services. I am a civil servant looking at a two year pay freeze. while the excesses of the BBC and private sector (Executive pay rises 5% despite share price falls. BBC news also today) go unabated. If enough people like some type of music it will then find it's way into main stream radio stations. The full time campainers are the only people asking for this and only because they've been told they can't have it.
Complain about this comment
302. At 7:41pm on 05 Jul 2010, Wee-Scamp wrote:
6 Music may appeal to the self adulating twits in the pop world but it holds absolutely no appeal for the majority of the population.
That's exactly the reason it SHOULD be on the BBC - it wouldn't be a commercially viable station - but 1 Million people do listen to it and they represent up to £140 Million pounds worth of license fee, are you saying they should not be catered for? That's a bit selfish
Complain about this comment
Too may Antique and Property programmes?, no way, not enough Antique programmes, I'd like to see one along the lines of 4's Time Team, also more sience programmes, less or zero football, there's way too much football.
I agree with the high fliers getting a pay cut, everyones will have to bite the bullet.
I'm retired now but I can remember my mortgage interest rate at 17% and tax and insurance nearly 50%, why people are whinging now beats me, blame the banks, they're at it again, large bonuses and running the currancy into the ground, no wonder we're in the s**t.
Complain about this comment
Of course the BBC isn't biased, or racist towards the indigenous population. I've never heard a BBC director say the BBC was "Hideously white". I've never heard only one side of a story or issue presented. I've never heard a presenter/journalist talking over the person being interviewed - desperate to get "the official BBC viewpoint" across. Mind you I have seen the fairies dancing and singing at the bottom of my garden. Oh dear I'll probably be moded for that.
The way the BBC is currently run, is slowly but surely coming to an end at the hand of politicians, fed up licence payers, market forces and technical innovation. You can listen to thousands of radio stations on the internet for free. Go to America and you will see and hear Radio stations run by a handful of people and reaching out to all kinds of people and niche tastes. Watch TV and you'll also see a reporter and a camera man, or even a reporter and a camera and all kinds of local and international news programs being produced at a fraction of BBC costs.
Watch French TV or listen to French radio and discover what real cultural programming is all about. Take a good look as the credits roll on the average BBC programme. These are only the people who are "entitled" to have their names credited, there are lots more involved. Ask anyone in the theatre how many people are employed for the production of a hit play or musical and the comparison will shock you. It's not difficult to quickly reduce the costs of BBC because the corporation directly employs very few people, apart from the managerial and exeutive classes. The majority of its output is subcontracted. Without the BBC those production companies would struggle to survive, plenty of scope then for contract negotiations. Given that something like 90% of Equity actors are "Resting" at any given moment of time, there are lots of young, middle aged and older women and men who would be delighted to read the news, or a script as a presenter etc, or even, heaven forefend, act, for the going equity rate.
BBC has become bloated, biased, politically correct, full of its own self importance and completely out of touch with ordinary people who are forced by law to pay for a service whether they want it or not.
It is not democratically accountable, too often gives patronising responses to complaints and employs far too many "managers" at far too high a salary.
It used to be the benchmark for every broadcasting company in the world, and a bye-word for fearless and impartial news reporting - but sadly not any more.
Complain about this comment
if radio 6 is so 'successful' then a commercial radio could do it?
in these days of open access broadcasting there is no need for public subsidy to recording firms.
Complain about this comment
I see no problem about the mind-changing over Radio 6. The BBC is being forced to make cuts and made its deliberations. Subsequent research showed that radio 6 is viable and will therefore remain. That's fine by me.
Many underestimate the work the BBC does besides pumping out radio and television programmes. It is technically the finest broadcasting system in the world, caters to just about every taste. Continual review of progamming, and research in broadcasting technology are inevitable.
Complain about this comment
Totally disagree with 301. The occasional insight into life in Wales, Scotland and NI, is the only light relief we get from London being rammed down our throats. We're going to get enough centralisation from the Government as it is, when it breaks up the northern conurbations (again), so that London once more becomes EIGHT times bigger than the next largest political entity (Birmingham), rather than a mere THREE times, as it is now. We all remember Thatcher last time - Invents a dispute with Ken Livingstone as a pre-cusor to supposedly scrapping the GLC - except she didn't. She scrapped all the northern Metropolitan counties, and quietly restored the GLC (renamed GLA), and then we got TfL and all the other London quangoes.
Complain about this comment
As the vast majority of UK homes have a television and paying for a licence is compulsory, I think the people who work in the BBC should be treated as public sector workers and face the same low pay rises as other public sector workers. The highest public sector worker should be the prime minister, which would mean that current 'stars' on millions of pounds a year would get five or six figure salaries instead. I think the BBC should act as a 'nrsery' to develop talent and then charge other companies who wish to take their workers, in a similar way to a Division 1 or 2 club deciding a fee for a player to move to a richer club.
Personally, I also feel that the licence should be based on the number of occupants of a home, so that large families pay a higher licence than a single person.
Complain about this comment
The decision to close 6Music was incomprehensible in the first place. It is the only radio station apart from Radio 3 that comes close to fulfilling the Beeb's original cultural and artistic remit - an oasis in the desert of commercial pap or highly specific minority programming that fills most of its other channels.
Also, while not Asian myself, I regret the passing of the Asian network. I am glad that in this case most Asian communities can find some community-specific content on analogue and digital radio, but feel that any contraction in this service is once again running counter to the BBC's traditional mandate.
As often in cases like this, the blame lies with the national government - in this case for constantly pressuring the BBC to prepare for a future transition to purely commercial operation to the detriment of its public service remit. The organisation is still the envy of most other countries, and it will be tragic if the commercialisation shibboleth kills it off.
Complain about this comment
Costing less than a pound a day the BBC is still good value for money. What I am not so sure of is the need to have reporters on the spot. Why do we need to see some berk standing outside of the Home Office, ( Min of Health, Downing Street, Battersea Dogs Home) simply to read a press report sent by E-mail to the news room at the BBC? Why do we need two pretend Luvvies to read the News? Why does the weather reporter need to travel from the computer room to Ascot, Wimbledon and Scunthorpe?
Why pay so much for 'Presenters?' several of whom have little to commend them other than toilet humour.
There is obviously a need for economy in many depts. of the BBC , all that is except for those directly involved in programme production.
Complain about this comment
The BBC is not delivering the type and quality of programmes that they were once renowned for. In addition to the poor service offered to the licence fee payer the BBC have grown into a large wart on the face of the British public, where it is ugly and not wanted. The salaries of the top fat cats in the BBC are beyond belief. Then they have elaborate expense accounts and goodness knows what other hidden perks. The time is now ripe for the Government to make cuts to the BBC budget. This can be done by reducing the licence fee thus the large £3.2 Billion annual budget the BBC gets from the British Licence Fee Payers will be reduced and thus the salaries and gold plated pensions can be trimmed. Afterall if the rest of the country have to tighten their belts then the same should apply to the BBC.
Complain about this comment
The Corporation is not spending it's money,the Corporation is spending our money,over 4 BILLION POUNDS A YEAR,money that could and should be spent elsewhere.
Complain about this comment
So we should commercialise the BBC. Why? We already have commercial stations (ITV, Sky etc) and they, for the most part, broadcast the most awful, absolutely banal, drivel. Who wants more?
Sky reeks of political bias, costs far more than any licence fee, has hundreds of channels and the only ones worth watching, apart from sports channels, are old BBC repeats.
I am no great fan of much of what the BBC does and, like numerous of these posts I wonder why it takes two people, both being paid six figure salaries, to read an auto-cue? Having said that, in terms of quality, the alternative is too awful to contemplate.
Complain about this comment
I think the BBC as a service is excellent, however, I do feel that it suppresses new talent by using the same old names time and time again and
they dismiss other staff who are very popular.
Complain about this comment
I couldn't help suspect that the BBC had no real intention of axing radio 6 but at the time knew that had to at least make a gesture.In any case, radio 6 may in time still get the chop because the listening figures may plummet now the station's been saved. However if people are genuinely passionate about it, the same way I'm passionate about radio 3, 4 and 7 then good luck to it. I love these radio stations. As for TV, there is occasionally an excellent programme but so much dross as well. And in terms of news and some other programmes there seems to be so much unneeded spending. it's difficult to get round the fact you need to pay a BBC TV licence to watch all TV. And the BBC is only a fraction now of what most people watch. It is simply morally wrong. I would gladly pay for a licence if I had the choice. The fact I don't have a choice I find almost incredible in this day and age.
Complain about this comment
The biggest total waste of money must be the BBC's decision to buy the rights to show the World Cup final. The same football match is being shown on ITV at the same time, funded from advertising revenue.
What an utter waste of license-payers' money!
Complain about this comment
#304 : Who actually needs 136 channels? How many are actually any good?
Complain about this comment
More and more i am watching Sat TV for my entertainment.
No,not Mr Murdochs ouput for the brain dead (although Sky News is polished and professional) but Discovery,History etc.
BBC2 is without doubt utter repeated garbage.
Close BBC4 and transfer the quality shows to 2.
Close 3 altogether.
You don't have to be on 100,000 of pounds a year to see the cracks in the BBC's output.
Complain about this comment
The BBC must make thousands of decisions a year, large and small, on hundreds of subjects, so the question is unanswerable as it stands.
The Corporation will never satisfy everyone, so there has to be some form of overall popularity judgement. What's wrong with measuring the proportion of audience a BBC channel gets out of the whole audience for similar channels, and taking into account how many channels there are in the group? Consistent falling below what is agreed as an acceptable percentage (over a year?) and the channel should be axed;
As for pet hates:
Silly visual techniques that insult the intelligence (e.g. speeding up or slowing down recordings);
too many presenters who speak as if we're all morons and can't understand what's being said without them explaining it to us;
Morecambe and Wise-type double-act presentation of the news (what's wrong with one presenter - isn't it expensive enough?)
News bulletins which consist of interviews beween the presenter and a correspondent - why can't the correspondent speak directly to us, who're paying for it?
'Music' or some other form of noise with everything.
Finally, the best idea I've seen here so far is the abolition of the dire BBC3 TV, and adding the money saved to current sports budgets to set up decent sports channel - something the BBC could be really good at if it used its admired past experience to give us something without hype, trivia, 'human interest' (and of course with no more than half of the current sports presenters!)
Complain about this comment
first thing to do is stop paying taxi fares to staff if they are getting paid a wage that should be enough and another thing 600 top executives how much money do they get per decision my guess way to much
Complain about this comment
Come on, the BBC gets over £3 BILLION a year....just think of how much of that is wasted. Frightening.
Complain about this comment
One more pet hate that I forgot to mention earlier. There's FAR too much news about America. Much of it is trivial local stuff which isn't of the slightest interest to anyone here, and telling us the name of the local police or fire chief of some obscure town in backwoods Alabama, or whatever is absurd
The BBC's presence in the USA could probably be cut by two thirds without us missing anything of real importance, and the money saved put into domestic TV with far more useful effect
Complain about this comment
The BBC should concentrate on making decent programmes not dumbed down trash.
I have not watched TV for over a year now but I have only missed 3 programmes of any interest in that time. So not much incentive to buy a TV and cough up the licence fee. Says it all really.
Complain about this comment
My wife and myself think the BBC make excellent programs and we very rarely watch any other channels although there are certain over paid presenters who are so far up themselves we simple turn off!
As for the adverts on the independent channels their use is getting worse. I have spoken to a number of viewers who were watching the England games on HD only to miss the goal as the adverts switched in. If you have ever been to America you will know what I mean.
Unfortunately people do not appreciate what they have until it has gone. The same will be true of Royal Mail. When people have to fetch their mail from some central repository then they may rue the day they wished Royal Mail gone.
Hands off the BBC!
Complain about this comment
It should be allowed to continue because it has original and engaging content.
Complain about this comment
Well come on lads! There is not really a lot of point of suggesting or critising the BBC, All you will get back is the old auto reply message. Lyons is living in the past! and for me Sir Wogan is on the right track with a 15% pay cut for want of a better word celebrities! Millions of pound notes going into the likes of Ross etc.? Is that really where our licence fee is going? The BBC are Public Servants from top to bottom and for me Ser Lyons needs to get his act in gear?
Complain about this comment
No the BBC is not making the right decisions.
The BBC should not cut anything at all, it is perfect the way it is.
The BBC should not bow down to pressure from competitors who complain when it's better than them but are quite happy to steal sports events from the BBC when they can outbid the BBC.
The only thing that the BBC has done wrong recently is getting rid of Jonathan Ross and the best chat show ever made.
Complain about this comment
They could start by paring to the bone the army of 'presenters' and techy's they send to every major sporting event. How many was it to the Olympics in China? That's right - around 430 of them. I can't believe that it couldn't have been more efficiently run. There is NO NEED for morning radio shows to 'come live from wherever'. It's just a junket. If I want the sporting event in question, I can turn over to it. Cutting down costs is not rocket science. It just means saying 'no' to some very pampered people.
Complain about this comment
I wonder if we could get the Panorama reporter and her production team struck off for incompetent journalism for their piece on incompetent teachers: video with no relation to the content of the voice-over, opinions asserted as fact, unsupported allegations and pseudo-questions self-answered by non-sequiters.
I have no interest in the subject matter, but I have taught journalism on three continents over 30 years and, were this presented as a student project, I would have given it a D. Its only redeeming value as a TV programme, pulling it out of the "F" range, was the clarity of the video and audio.
Complain about this comment
Reading some of the right wing neocon views here I can only hope that the UK does eventually become part of a 'United States of Europe', with more enlightened European views.
Complain about this comment
290. At 7:06pm on 05 Jul 2010, Al Clarke wrote:
....The BBC has kept me thoroughly entertained and informed by radio and TV going on for some 60 odd years now....
---------------------------------------------
Fair enough, but why should we be paying it to keep us entertained any longer?
It was probably right to include 'to entertain' as one of the BBC's duties when the Charter was first granted in the 1920s, and when the BBC was the only means of providing entertainment for a mass audience. But what possible justification is there in the multi-channel world of the 21st century for a public body to be providing entertainment out of a hypothecated tax?
Inform and educate, yes. And a much smaller licence fee could do that to present standards. But entertainment should be a matter for private enterprise.
Quality isn't a question here - the Beeb does some good drama, but so do some commercial channels. The Beeb puts on the same predominantly US films as the others; both public and commercial TV put on some pretty dreadful 'entertainment' And why should sport (a commercial activity these days) be anything but commercially broadcast? Unless of course the latest version of the Human Rights Act gives me a legal right to watch the Cup Final, the Test Matches, Wimbledon etc on publicly funded television....
Complain about this comment
I am surprised at Mark Thompsons apparent naivety - let me explain to him how talent negations work...
Crummy TV inc think Mr Woss is ideal to front their latest celeb-fest. They approach his Agent who inflates his salary by X%. Crummy TV offer Y% less than this and Wossy either jumps or stays. The only way to stop this is to ensure the Beeb pays more than Cummy inc can afford.
Keeping salaries secret doesn't stop this as AGENTS are there to tout their talent and they benefit directly by getting more money. Agents will freely disclose to Crummy Inc what Wossy will walk for if they think it can be topped.
So to be certain the Beeb keeps Wossy and the like, they have to pay more than others can afford. If they do not then talent will walk (assisted by agents).
In light of the above, the Beeb must be paying pretty much top whack on all of its talent and it is public disapproval that drives the secrecy...
Complain about this comment
You are really asking the wrong people. Instead of asking all users you should ask only licence fee payers. They are the customers and should be your focus.
As one such licence fee payer, I use Radio 4, Radio 7, BBC 4 and BBC 24 hour TV and net-streamed news.
The rest of your streams seem pretty indistinguishable from commercial output so you are wasting national resources and inhibiting commerce by duplicating and competing against private sector broadcasters.
By all means do good public and creative service with oddities like Radio 6, TMS on long wave, Radio 3 etc. but there is no longer any need for Radios 1 and 2 or BBC 1 and 2 as they are the sort of dumbed down popular output that commercial outlets are only too happy to provide.
One could then reduce the licence fee by perhaps half, which would free up cash, administrators and ‘talent’ to compete in the private sector for the nation’s benefit.
£2.5bn(?) a year is way too much for the BBC.
Complain about this comment
Rossy chatting with a side kick for £10+ million pounds a year + the odd celebrity awards! theres something I'm missing here? keep going BBC its just I can't afford the celeb's astronomical wages and my council tax on me state pension
Complain about this comment
It seems to me that the whole of BBC One and Two's programming togther with that of BBC Radio 2 is in the hands of inexperienced graduates.
The institution of the BBC does not deserve to be degraded by offering the sort of drivel we see so often in the listings. Have producers lost touch with their audiences?
For my part I have voted by with my feet. Good bye (for ever?), once respected BBC.
Complain about this comment
I used to be a staunch defender of the BBC as a world-class public institution, but not any more. The quality of the BBC's news coverage is second rate, with a strong pro-establishment bias (not surprising, considering it recruits most of its management and talent from BBC College Oxbridge). The website has been reduced to a shadow of its former self, to the point where you wonder what it's really there for. I'm no sports fan, but every other channel does sports coverage infinitely better the BBC. As for "light entertainment", it has shot itself in the foot by joining the stampede downmarket chasing ratings.
I firmly believe that the only reason we still have the BBC is because no other broadcaster could be trusted to display the required degree of sycophancy towards the Windsors for their family events.
Abolish the licence fee now, I could do with a few extra quid in my pocket.
Complain about this comment
Interesting that a middle class supported music channel gets reprieved whilst Asian and youth programming gets slashed. Same old BBC. Archie Andrews and the Navy Lark to return? Alvar Liddel reading the news? Doesn't appear the BBC trust is any more up to date than the programmes. Perhaps Alcor just defrosted a batch quietly.
Complain about this comment
I’m a little puzzled as to why the BBC are making cuts the licence fee has gone up not down.
If cuts are being made and not just a smoke screen then it would be fair to assume the extra money will be given to those remaining. Even more money for Thompson, Paxman and co.
Or yet more expensive wine and travel.
The BBC really is the place where you can have your cake and eat it.
Complain about this comment
332 Bob. So, the BBC is perfect is it, I don't think so.
The talentless Jonathan Woss, is moving to another broadcaster so you will be able to pay your licence fee and see him and his like elsewhere. Quite why he emerged from a TV ad into a so called celebrity beggars blief.
Radios 1 and 2 should merge, when R1 first came on air it was the BBC's answer to the pirate radio stations, what a let down. 'Flowers in the Rain' I remember, was rhe 1st record played. I gave up listening to 'pop' music.
Until today. I checked and listened to some clips from 6 Radio on the iPlayer, well worth keeping.
Regretably, I shan't listen again as I don't have a digital radio neither can I afford one.
Complain about this comment
If the BBC is made to justify itself along with other public sector departments we can expect the dole queues to grow far beyond the governments proposed benefit reforms.
Complain about this comment
Usually I wouldn't comment that I agree with a decision but on this occasion I think it is right. Music 6 deserves to survive. The radio is a very important part of the media; radio 4 is especially good in disseminating information.
We all have favourites so far as TV is concerned; soaps are a waste of time for me but property and antique programs are very entertaining. Your dwelling is, after all, about the most important thing most people are involved with. Others may take an opposing view but the BBC does provide valuable information and good value.
Complain about this comment
The beauty of Sky or cable TV is that you can decide not to subscribe.
Unfortunately if you want to watch any television you have to pay the BBC.
£6 million a year for 'Woss' you have got to be having a laugh.
Complain about this comment
The BBC makes me proud to be British, and I think alot of people on here take it for granted. I love BBC Radio 6, and I was very happy at the desicion that it shouldn't be cut. I just hope the BBC continues to provide the world's best news coverage despite these cuts. As for accusing the BBC of pro-establishment bias, I'm afraid it must be all in your heads.
Complain about this comment
The licence payer demands quality programming and the best stars to fill them, for their money. On the other hand we don't want to see overstaffed and bloated, overpaid executives wasting our licence fee, and thus it is right that the beady eye of accountability is trained on the BBC to ensure constant provision of maximum funds going towards making high quality programming. At the same time we must recognize the envy of commercial broadcasters like Sky and it's lobbying politicians who wish see to the BBC neutered and restricted in the scope of programming, pretty much in the same way Sky was made to relinquish ITV shares, bought to limit ITV's competitive expansion. Even on a comparative basis, the most basic sky package of it's own rarely produced 'new programmes' (mainly repeated, and US programming) doesn't bear comparisons in quality or price, where Sky costs £18 per month (£216.00 per year) for basic viewing. The licence fee is thus excellent value, and removes the need for advertising, leaving the Commercial Stations free to corner that revenue stream, in the knowledge that the programming quality bar is high for them. I for one wish to see the best programmes for my licence fee, and not a 'public broadcasting system' like in the USA which relies on donations and charity, to exist. We are lucky in many ways to have the BEEB, and we all must ensure the politicians know this!
Complain about this comment
How much was the great Ronnie Barker paid for Porridge and Open all hours and how much would that equate to in 2010?
That man alone did more for the BBC than any freeloading excecutive.
Complain about this comment
Donald Rockhopper wrote:
Reading some of the right wing neocon views here I can only hope that the UK does eventually become part of a 'United States of Europe', with more enlightened European views.
>>>>>>>>
Typical 'Guardian reader', anyone who has another opionion to them is a 'Daily Mail reader' or 'Little Englander' now a 'right wing neocon'. The left have had their day and made a huge mess. Lets see what the future holds but I am sure the leftists will be in for some nasty shocks as this mess is sorted (including the left leaning BBC)
Complain about this comment
James Lange wrote:
I wonder if we could get the Panorama reporter and her production team struck off for incompetent journalism for their piece on incompetent teachers: video with no relation to the content of the voice-over, opinions asserted as fact, unsupported allegations and pseudo-questions self-answered by non-sequiters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Get used to it. Even the Parorama producers have worken up and smelt the coffee. Now the focus will be on the leftist institions (about time) and it is obvious they 'dont like it up them' as they would say in Dads Army. Typical left wing 'democrats', anything said against THEM, they want them sacked or silenced. La La Labour is not in power anymore and wont be for five years, get used to it.
Complain about this comment
I'm afraid that I am now at the stage where I watch almost nothing on BBC TV. I do listen to Radio 2, 4 and 5 Live and World Service.
Once upon a time, BBC produced good TV. Now it is brain numbing drivel (Strictly Come Dancing; Eastenders; advertising Andrew Lloyd Webber's next production) I can't switch on the TV or pick up the Radio Times without endless promotion of Dr Who.
Let's start with salaries - as public sector workers, no-one in the BBC should earn more than the Prime Minister. It is not the place of the BBC to compete with other stations for 'talent'. As a public sector broadcaster, the BBC should grow new talent, then pass them into the commercial sector. The BBC should not be competing with commercial salaries - in my opinion that constitutes state aid - where public funds are being used to distort commercial markets.
Regional Programming - let's make it the rule that when something happens in a Region of the UK, the local BBC reporters go to the scene and provide the link to the National news where appropriate. We do not need a whole team from London to be sent to duplicate the local arrangements. Stop moving UK programmes to regions so that they can pass as regional programming - spend regional allocations creating new programmes from those regions.
Please use some World Service and BBC world programmes on domestic stations - believe it or not, there is a whole world out there that 90% of the UK hears nothing about. More than 80% of political decisions are made in Europe yet there is virtually no coverage of the European Parliament; no awareness of the views across Europe; utterly, depressingly anti EU, insular broadcasting. Same thing applies to the reporting of news from other countries - unless it is the USA or a disaster, no mention.
Some web content for education is superb - language programmes for example, but the educate and inform remit is not translated on TV.
Complain about this comment
343
..I’m a little puzzled as to why the BBC are making cuts the licence fee has gone up not down...
because of the wages/pension etc.
most public sector pensions are nothing but ponzi schemes dependent upon ever increasing donations form those who come after.
Complain about this comment
Absolutely agree 315. Haven't seen so much waste of dosh on pointless travel since the MP's expenses scandal.
Complain about this comment
The one thing that the BBCs competitors really want to curb is its website and on-line activities...6 Music was always a smoke screen, a distraction whose purpose was to act as a lightening conductor for protest about the cuts. The real jewel in the BBCs crown is its website, its fantastic, and it is because it is so good that the Tories acting on behalf of News International want to ruin it...How much protest is there about that? Not much, because 6 Music has deflected the attention away...Its the same principal as the Government talking about 40% public spending cuts so that 25% cuts don't look so frightening...and the sad thing is we've all fallen for it...
Complain about this comment
Having seen Jarvis Cocker waxing lyrical about the saving of 6Music, I now couldn't care less if it survives or not. What does he know about music?
Complain about this comment
"Do BBC channels and programmes provide good value for money?" (BBC):
(I only have Radio so I can only comment on that):
"good value for money?" - it depends on whether ALL listeners are considered on a Pro-rata % of the Population...
As far as I'm concerned, too many BBC Radio stations - but especially Radio 4 & 5 - are increasingly catering for single groups on far too great a scale. Radio 4 has almost become BBC's 2nd 'World Service' - with rising programs re: Africa and Asia. They are also increasingly Female-centric in their programmes, Authors, Plays and their 'starring-roles'. Add to this the excessive PC in their programming and from their Interviewers and Commentators - and these Stations have degraded into a mere 'hotch-potch' of a mediocre 'soup'.
In my personal opinion:
Modern BBC Radio - since 1997 - also makes far TOO much effort to denigrate our own Country, Culture & even Government - for the sake of gaining the 'acceptance' of these single-groups.
One FAIR and 'equal' thing I have to thank them for - after many years of trying to convince them - is that they will now allow us to have a 'Mens Hour' on radio 5 live - AT LAST! Well, at least I can look forward to that - the rest of the 'PC' stuff - I will continue to ignore as only fit for Children...
Complain about this comment
I'd like to know if the beeb make money out of the sponsors boards behind interviewd football stars.
Complain about this comment
God bless the BBC.
6 Music, Radio 4, BBC1, BBC2, BBC4 all produce top class programming. Much of it programming which would not be commercially viable. Not to mention the great BBC website. Not everything the BBC broadcasts appeals to me. I don't have any real interest in the Asian Network or 1xtra, however I absolutely believe they should not be cut either. They also provide the kind of service that the BBC should be about, specialist programming which would not otherwise be produced by commercial broadcasters.
If anything should be cut it is BBC News 24, it is completely unnecessary, there are numerous commercial alternatives also available on freeview (albeit inferior alternatives) and the BBC already provides comprehensive news coverage through the BBC website, radio 5live and regular news bulletins on all its radio and television stations.
Complain about this comment
Honestly, the BBC should shut down along with every other broadcasting company. There's no need for television, radio or even newspapers now that we have the internet. Only old grandads in denial think otherwise.
Complain about this comment
I for one would be happy to pay an increased licence fee if I was sure it wouldn't be wasted on even higher salaries and benefits for executives and talent.
Complain about this comment
I am really glad that radio 6 (6 music) survives. The campaign got it hundreds of thousands of extra listeners. 6 Music was almost kept secret! Personally, I would get rid of BBC TV channels 1, 2, 3, and 4 rather than 6-music. They do (collectively) show something worthwhile watching for a few hours a year, but that's hardly worth getting the bulk of the licence fee money is it? And 6 music costs them hardly a thing!
Anyway, I was one of those who filled in the forms the Beeb put out, and cutting 6 music was my main complaint. Much to my surprise the BBC trust actually listened and overruled the pathetic overpaid (how can you be paid at all for being as much use as a rubber ladder) and hard of thinking management.
Well done trust!
Complain about this comment
Of course, the BBC is not always making the right decisions---But, that is the reason for having these types of reviews/audits to make sure things can be improved....
~D~
Complain about this comment
335. At 9:38pm on 05 Jul 2010, Donald Rockhopper wrote:
"Reading some of the right wing neocon views here I can only hope that the UK does eventually become part of a 'United States of Europe', with more enlightened European views."
European are enlightened?.
332. At 9:26pm on 05 Jul 2010, Bob wrote:
"The BBC should not bow down to pressure from competitors who complain when it's better than them but are quite happy to steal sports events from the BBC when they can outbid the BBC."
The competitors have to generate revenue the hard way not have it handed over to them by a forced tax.
Complain about this comment
A case of the kettle calling the pot black. An overpaid Terry Wogan, who took his appearance money when on Children In Need, is crying crocodile tears. Why doesn't he donate 15% of his salary to charity?
Complain about this comment
Simples!
Radio 1 is left alone
Radio 2 becomes a continuous music station 24 x 7 with no presenters (something only the BBC could do, thus a very good use of the channel).
Radio 3 is left alone
Radio 4 is left alone.
Radio 5 has its hours trimmed to only when there are actual large sports events on.
Radio 6 is left alone, but uses low cost presenters.
Radio 7 becomes an internet only download/podcast station.
BBC local radio is scrapped. Listener figures for most stations are laughable so why persist?
BBC1 TV is left alone but has daily airtime reduced.
BBC2 TV is left alone.
BBC3 TV is scrapped and its best stuff is merged into BBC4
The BBC stops paying silly salaries to talent and grows new cheaper talent instead. The BBC cuts back on junkets and jollies.
Complain about this comment
The BBC want's to save money?,let's see
Shut down all TV and Radio from 11pm.to 7am. 7 day's a week, this would cut the wages bill by 20%,it would also save 30% of it's energy bill,(the BBC would be greener).
Sell of all it's buildings in london and move to other parts of the uk.
Remove the Trustee's who only work 2 to 4 days and who are payed on adverage £60,000pa. plus expences eg.£5,000 for travel.
The best idea is to SELL OF THE BBC.
Complain about this comment
Firstly ..Overall the BBC network is by far the best network available within the UK... The rest don't even enter the BBC's shadow
The fact that the BBC is the best has lead to the BBC lapse in both quality and decency .That in turn has lead to many families restricting What is actually allowed into the home via the BBC... No ,I am not Mary Whitehouse! I believe there is a time and place for everything BUT public funded BBC Tv is either the time nor the place what the public would consider to be "obscene,violent or abuse material".
In the majority of cases such material is totaly uncalled for ..
regardless of water shed etc the BBC does not know who is actually watching a TV programme at any one time..there it should assume that any risky material WILL effect some one who is watching or listening
NO, NO, NO - I hear that is censorship .... And so! consider if you were in a 24hr supermarket and, you heard serious swearing from a member of staff or a customer .. You would expect something to be done. So by the same token ..If that abuse was coming for a TV ..then again you would expect something to be done ...Implies the TV network should not be Transmitting such abuse ..
Most people Swear, make sexual, ethic and religious jokes BUT most censor that by noting who is present BEFORE ..making such remarking ...
TV can,t do that .. the only way it can is to put the onus on a viewer by only allowing such material to be viewed by subscription ... that would then determine the need for such material
Apart from the above BBC Radio and TV is on the whole doing a fine job
Complain about this comment
Generally I'm a supporter of the BBC and the concept of a license fee.
However why 4 episodes of Eastenders a week AND an Omnibus?
Reduce it back down to 2 per week and fill the free air time with varied programming.
Lets have various short runs of dramas, (not just year round Holby City/casualty), as well as returns of old concepts like Tomorrows world, Top of the Pop's, Play for today.
Surely one of the lessons from Doctor Who is that revamping concepts that have worked in the past rather than dumping them can be very effective.
Also the advantage of a license fee should mean there isnt a need to compete with the sort of programmes that are on other channels. Particularly when ITV has shows like the X factor and Britains got talent screening, instead of coming up with a similar programme for the same time why not come up with a concept that appeals to the viewers who switch off from talent/celebrity shows. There is actually a lot of us about.
Complain about this comment
The BBC, like most broadcasters, has the broad spectrum of quality in its programming - from woefully bad (BBC Breakfast News, Radio 1) to exceptionally good (Question Time, Radio 2, Radio 4). Personal taste plays a huge factor in this. It is impossible to please all of the people all of the time. Simple - if you don't like something, don't watch or listen - freedom of choice.
The BBC is right not to publish individual salaries, which would adversely affect competition. Salary "bands" is more appropriate.
The BBC desparately needs to get rid of Jonathan Ross as soon as possible: unfunny, patronising, pretentious, pompous, overpaid etc etc etc. He, sadly, has spoiled every show he has been part of (They Think Its All Over, Film..., Radio 2). Freedom of choice - I turn his shows off every time I hear his smarmy voice.
Complain about this comment
BBC Programmes with just a few very notable exceptions are utter rubbish. I now watch less than 4 hours TV a week, and only 45 minutes of that is BBC - the rest is special interest. To have to pay a license fee for that is ridiculous. Tell them to take advertising and continue with soap and quiz programming for the masses, or take public funding and become a real public service broadcaster. Bring back the style of Civilisation, The Ascent of Man, and serious, educational (i.e. not cult of personality) documentary. Why does every programme have to be shot round a 'front-person' anyway? Break the mould!
Complain about this comment
367. At 06:53am on 06 Jul 2010, Alan T wrote:
Simples!
Radio 1 is left alone
Radio 2 becomes a continuous music station 24 x 7 with no presenters (something only the BBC could do, thus a very good use of the channel).
Radio 3 is left alone
Radio 4 is left alone.
Radio 5 has its hours trimmed to only when there are actual large sports events on.
Radio 6 is left alone, but uses low cost presenters.
Radio 7 becomes an internet only download/podcast station.
BBC local radio is scrapped. Listener figures for most stations are laughable so why persist?
>>>
Well done, you sum up one particular argument very well. Sadly, it isn't your argument.
Allow me to show my list:
Radio 1 is scrapped - annoying noise with excitable, irritating and overpaid presenters.
Radio 2 don't care, so scrap it
Radio 3 well, my mum listens, so I suppose it should be kept
Radio 4 is OK most of the time, and should be left alone. Especially TMS
Radio 5 is brilliant and should not be touched
Radio 5live xtra - should be available to those millions of people who don't have DABS - suggest scrapping Radio 1 and using the frequency
Radio 6 don't care, never listened
Radio 7 rarely funny enough to tune into
BBC local radio is rarely as good or as popular as local commercial stations
You get the point? One man's meat is another man's poison?
This is why the BBC should be allowed to make its own corporate decisions. They understand that they have to cater for a wide audience.
I am no ardent supporter of the BBC because of its institutional political bias, but there is something to be said for an organization that strives to provide a service for those people who don't want to listen to the vuvuzela-like drone of the current crop of 'musicians' that infest Radio 1.
What I would like to see is an end to the ridiculous salaries that are being paid to some of the presenters. There should never be another Jonathon Ross scenario where the salary dictates the news over the ability.
And if salaries where paid on ability, the odious Ross would be leaving his mansion for a bedsit
Complain about this comment
If the BBC relied on market forces-advertising revenue-there would be no need for all this bureaucracy.More bureaucracy concerning the TV licence. As 99.9% of people use the BBC-even if it`s only hearing the radio- then it should,by default,be something that should be opted out of rather than have all that paperwork and detector vans.
Also performing is supposedly a profession where many are unemployed.With cheaper technology and this potentially cheap labour,surely there should be scope for more channels.We`re in a world where somebody can take their camcorder to a local game and produce something decent-So why not?
Complain about this comment
The BBC is the best broadcaster in the world, bar none. Used to listen to Radio 1 religiously until two or three years ago but went off it and now listen to most of the others. The only perennial problem with the BBC is its sycophantic, biased royal coverage which persists through virtually every item about the monarchy. Which other public expenditure would be reported as "62p" pa per capita?
Complain about this comment
There are too few 'top presenters' on the BBC and this is becoming monochrome and boring. David Dimbleby appears everywhere, always on Question Time, then presenting election night, then on some tour of Britain. Jonathan Dimbleby always hosts Any Questions, then presents tours of Russia and Africa. Paxman abounds from Question Time to University Challenge to various documentaries eg on Victorian England. Following closely everywhere is Michael Portillo. Andrew Marr has multiple programmes. They are OK and often good but they are not as unique as the BBC makes them seem. A much wider range of talent should be engaged to enrich the BBC with variety. Top salaries would then come down automatically. There are other people who would be far more informed and interesting on a documentary of Russia for example. Let's see new faces and hear new voices - let the BBC present the much wider talent in the nation and stop relying so extensively on name recognition.
Complain about this comment
If were in the state as the government says then it follows that the reduction follows into all state run things. This includes the BBC.
Were not interested in using the fee to pay for other things. A reduction of the licence fee to the same scale is now required and no fudging.
Complain about this comment
The bbc is as cost-effective as scargill was. Let's have a centre management of the bbc and it's trust and it's audience "councils"
Complain about this comment
its only the BBC that charge the public for the TV licence and what do we get complete and utter rubbish on those channels and what do the BBC get billions for utter rubbish.but there you go its called capitalism and there's no mercy.
Complain about this comment
Awaiting moderation - wake up you lot - or be sacked
Complain about this comment
Like most people of my generation the BBC has a place in my affections, not least because my mother won a prize (£10) on a TV quiz question that purchased a one week holiday in a caravan in Sussex. It was one of the best holidays the family had. At that time almost everything British seemed like the best and perhaps we really were the centre of the universe, for just a fleeting moment.
The BBC has sadly lost its way, the gradual grinding down happening when committees gain power and run their own agendas rather than those reflecting the customer. But it isn't just the BBC. Only a few products remain that we can claim favour the customer and not the seller. The money we offer as customers is simply not within the argument any longer, because we are marginalised. If we don't spend it on product 'a' the seller doesn't care, another punter who will spend it on product 'a' is just around the next corner.
The BBC is no exception to the rules that say things get too big, too distant from the customer, too remote from the problems limited choice brings. Downsizing would refocus BBC eyes on what the customer wants here, within the UK, and if the rest of the world wants to look at or listen in well okay let them pay for it. The once altruistically romantic side of the BBC is no longer present. It is a business with political motives, market positioning, media agendas, and poisoned 'class' chalices gathered from those who have commercial backgrounds.
The BBC is a victim of our failure to promote widespread apprenticeships within our business, organisations, trades and employers, whereby a tea-person can grow to be 'great' manager, director or producer, having already mastered the camera or the sound or whatever. Our dumping of apprenticeships coupled with a "no jobs for life" creed are two of the greatest mistakes we have ever made and will ever make.
What made Britain great, people or paymasters?
Complain about this comment
The BBC is now a gravy train - why does it take so many to report on one football match?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
As long as BBC Radio 7 is kept alive I don`t care about anything else.
Complain about this comment
In general, I think the BBC is a pretty decent organisation and I'd gladly pay the licence fee for advert-free television, BBC Radio and the BBC web site.
I don't approve of the huge salaries the BBC pay (or paid) Ross, Norton and such because I simply don't think they're worth it. I accept that 'stars' sometimes attract viewers but they should be used judiciously and salaries should be kept in check. There are plenty of 'minor' TV stars who may be big stars in the making - use them instead where the current batch of 'big' stars demand too much money.
BBC TV produces some decent dramas (Spooks, Life on Mars, Dr Who, New Tricks etc) and it still produces the best science, documentary and natural history programmes in my view. Personally I'm a little disappointed at some of the 'junk TV' it churns out these days (reality TV and such) but I guess this must appeal to some people.
Despite some gripes, I'd still pay the licence fee for the BBC even if it was optional.
Complain about this comment
The BBC need to sort out what it wants to be, a quality broadcaster with ground breaking content, or a follow the pack lets dumb everything down broadcaster?
At the moment its the latter, even its 'top star' newreaders cant do that without a megawatt smile or a slight frown of reproachment if an article doesn't come into line with their restricted views.
I'm fed up with having to pay my license fee to be bombarded with happy clappy airheads, another auction show and what has become the most patronising news programmes on the air, I've switched to Sky for my news.
The BBC is funded by the public it should, therefore, give the public a decent service, a quality service, I don't care how wonderful the under 8's find some of its stars, there are plenty of other channels to accommodate the type that watch Big brother.
Complain about this comment
382. At 08:40am on 06 Jul 2010, Essexbelle wrote:
The BBC is now a gravy train - why does it take so many to report on one football match?
----
Why is everybody suddenly an expert in the logistics of producing a month long outside broadcast from another continent?
Surely your'e not all just parroting stuff you've read in your favourite Daily?
Complain about this comment
The quality of the programme should be the selling point not the presenter. The BBC shouldn't be paying any "celebrity" to front a show. The BBC should be showing programmes other companies won't.
It doesn't need to bid for F1 or Premier League football when there are others willing to meet the outrageous charges for these sports and there are plenty of cheaper products lower down the pyramid. By entering the bidding war the BBC is fuelling the inflationary nature of these sports and as we have seen money going into the top level of football doesn't equate to national success.
Stick to the educational and informative programmes and help develop the minority sports that could make better use of the funding.
Complain about this comment
By and large I think that the BBC does a good job but in recent times they have definitely gone OTT on antique and cookery programmes. The Director General Mark Thompson and many of his senior management are "living in cloud cuckoo land" if they think that their remuneration levels are fair and reasonable. I have heard Mark Thompson try to justify these "fat cat" salaries by saying that they are awarded independently by the BBC Trust but one gets the distinct impression that this is a "cozy old boys club" which can lead to arrogance and complacency. Even Sir Terry Wogan has been reported in the media as agreeing that he and other "stars" are somewhat overpaid?
The license fee no longer reflects real value for money and should be reduced in line with the austere government cutbacks.
Complain about this comment
We want to know the "Stars" wages, so we can check if our taxes are being spent properly.
Complain about this comment
The BBC could solve all its financial issues simply by closing its in house 'travel agency' for over paid presenters, reporters and assorted fakers, evaders and deceivers!!!
Stop using our licence fee to send hundreds of employees all over the world! It really is not necessary is it?
Complain about this comment
The standards of the BBC have been ailing for years, more interested in producing dribble it can sell than quality programming. Im getting a little sick of this public sector drive to remove services rather than restructuring their own infrastructure. the
If the bbc do need to make cut back then it should begin with the BBC world service. The right to bite the hand that feeds it has to be removed from all public body. They should be forced to resolve issues in the same manner as the private sector.
Time and Time again we are told the bunch of overpaid waster are head hunted for what they can bring, time and time again the british public are subjected to the will of omnipotent tyrant's who's only recourse is to take.
Could this public sector culture exist anywhere else other than britian, Councils unable to reach landfull targets fining people because their bin are over flowing and Cutting back on uplifts too once every fortnight. Yet the same councils free to allow new house after new house tax its limited resources, in its pursuit of new council tax.
The NHS administrator after administrator yet when cuts are made it to the services, instead of 1 administrator we lose 3 nurses.
The public services are the cancer of modern day britain, we need to treat it and i think the BBC would be a good start. If the government wants us to get out of this mess then let them start by forcing the free loader into thinking their way out of trouble.
Complain about this comment
Question: Is the BBC making the right decisions?
Answer: Is black white?
The BBC is infested, to epidemic levels, with loonie, lazy, low-IQ, left-wing "radicals" who've never done in a days' good work in their useless lives and who've even less idea of what is needed to make a business - or a country - succeed than they have of calculus. One of the (numerous) very bad points associated with this enormous institutional bias and bigotry is that these public sector leeches are evidently genuinely incapable of comprehending their own left-wing bigotry - the dullards actually believe they're middle of the road!
Life's too short to educate most in the BBC. Their problem is one best solved with a judicious application of a P45, and a "golden goodbye" of thruppence ha'penny. And that's being generous. That my taxpayers' money is going to fund a propaganda organ of a wholly discredited and immoral political commissariat/politburo is way beyond funny - it begs for prosecutions.
Complain about this comment
I think it's extremely rich (no pun intended) for Terry Wogan to claim BBC presenters are overpaid, considering he's the only one to insist on being paid to do Children In Need.
The Beeb should never have considered scrapping 6Music, but in these post-Gilligan days it is so frightened of politicians, it caves in even before it is asked to. Time to re-grow some spine and remind MPs the BBC belongs to the public, NOT to the government.
Complain about this comment
I find Wogans comments a bit rich coming from someone who took a salary for working on Children in Need each year that he hosted the show! Something about glass houses and stones come to mind!
Complain about this comment
A few things to comment on:
Never heard of 6 Radio so cannot comment on quality/usfulness (maybe that is a reflection on why the BBC thought it should go???).
What upsets me more is why we rely on the same presenters for our primetime shows? Its a bit 'overkill', do we really have no imagination? I don't believe we have no other talent to tap in - and - at a much lower cost.
BBC news needs a serious revamp - its the same regurgitated rubbish every hour. I have an idea - why not record 1 hours worth of news per day and just run it on a loop - I'm sure that would save the 25%!
Have a great day
Complain about this comment
Here's a thought
ITV is cancelling the excellent series The Bill ,which has for many years provided an opportunity for new talent in the industry.
Rather than paying millions for talentless presenters to make vaguely amusing comments or indeed to produce reams of agonisingly tedious celebrity learns to do something badly on the licence fee clap trap ,why not pick up the Series on the BBC?
As far as I can tell the BBC is bereft of a regular weekday intelligent drama series and this would also be an opportunity to consign the dismal New Tricks to the bin.
Complain about this comment
The BBC should be a centre of excellence; its programming schedule shouldn’t need to compete with commercial broadcasters. Reality TV and soaps should be left to commercial broadcasters, the BBC should only be broadcasting quality content, this quality content might not always be to my personal taste but if it is quality there will be no complaint from me. If this means that the BBC must cut the time it spends on air or reduce the number of TV and / or radio channels then so be it. First cuts should include the woolly headed nonsense that is BBC breakfast and whichever group of idiots that decided that Jonathan Dwoss was worth £18M
Complain about this comment
Too much time and money spent on football.
England reach the semi finals of the World cup and yet the BBC only picks up coverage in that later part of the group stages and even then only on the red button. Why? Because it is not football but hockey (second largest team sport in the world).
I like a lot about the BBC and would never want TV like you see in most other countries but there is some balancing that needs to be done with emphasis.
Complain about this comment
BBC appear to me digging their heels to hold on the bounty they have been enjoying for the last 30 years. 5 Billion £s licence payers money is too a big bounty to surrender easily and our successive govts have been too scare to take it away. Till they do BBC will continue to flout the public opinion.
Good for friends and relations but bad for the licence fee.
Complain about this comment
Its good that 6 music is going to be saved as it provides great value for money, and by the same measure its also good that the BBC Asian network is being shut down, as this does not serve the majority of licence players, as we are in UK and not asia, and the BBC should never pander to minorities in this age of equlaity. the thinking must be, any people who live here must fit in and become british, If they dont want to become british, then they are here for the wrong reasons, and should consider moving to a place more compatable with their beliefs and requirements.
Complain about this comment
don't listen much to bbc radio so out of fairness to both aunty and the program no comment.as for the tv programming,i'd like to see less spent on tv cooks,diy and property programs.they are,in my opinion,the beebs atempt at reality shows for the middle classes,stop!please.nothing wrong with a good instructive program on food and it's preparation,marco p white would be brilliant at teaching the nation along with delia.as for diy,forget MDF bodgers,go up to the land of the mouse man see how proper craftsmen work,inspire people thats what the beebs goal should be.i've no suggestions on the property shows,say,be more relistic and honest and think of all types of wage packets and savings.salarys, well lets be sensible,all savings should be put into programs.lets see more of the micheal wood type of progs and lets get people like henry lincoln along with people like him into the fold. these are some of my personel suggestions,they are not demands.i wish the beeb all the best in these austere times,i hope it trys to be more impartial in all categories..
Complain about this comment
393. At 09:24am on 06 Jul 2010, Wiser than you wrote:
Question: Is the BBC making the right decisions?
Answer: Is black white?
The BBC is infested, to epidemic levels, with loonie, lazy, low-IQ, left-wing "radicals" who've never done in a days' good work in their useless lives and who've even less idea of what is needed to make a business - or a country - succeed than they have of calculus. One of the (numerous) very bad points associated with this enormous institutional bias and bigotry is that these public sector leeches are evidently genuinely incapable of comprehending their own left-wing bigotry - the dullards actually believe they're middle of the road!
---
One question - where do you get all this information from.
Have you worked for a long time within the BBC observing the looney lefties and the low IQs? Did you employ a private detective to hand yo a dossier on management culture at the BBC?
Or is it just a baseless rant because you don't feel the beeb does anything to promote your own personal philosophies and prejudices?
'Wiser than you' my donkey.
'repeating what he's read' would be more aproppriate
Complain about this comment
Broadly speaking the BBC along, with the rest of a sizable majority of institutions, should learn a lesson in “fairness”. In other words, why the hell pay anybody way above the average wage (or whatever you wish to call it)?
Of course there is little point in talking "fairness" in this world where those who consider themselves a cut above the rest take an even larger cut to line their already plush pockets.
In a so-called free society there is no way of managing things other than to appeal to an individual’s better nature. Look, what have you, a manager of a soccer team rolling in millions, an ex-prime minister of a bogus socialist government rolling in millions, an ex-BBC presenter (a gold-plated lad if ever there was one) skimming off a mere six million quid p/a, all of them just rolling along nicely, thank you.
I look forward to seeing them all attempting to squeeze through the "eye" of that precious needle when the time comes!
Complain about this comment
Is the BBC making the right decisions?
Without the support of their nuLabour friends in power the BBC will struggle to justify much of what they do!
Their TV programmes are mostly rubbish or repeats or repeated rubbish. Their political programmes are awash with ex Labour MPs who find it impossible to find employment elsewhere. The BBC should be privatised and sold off.
Complain about this comment
What I found quite amasing is; in the run-up to
the last election the BBC was speculating much
about the possibility of a hung Parliament,more
so than any other outcome.
A hung Parliament is what we got!
Does the BBC have too much influence over the
viewers as in voters?
Sir Terry Wogan's right, those that can afford
a cut, should take a cut starting from the top,
the bigger the Pay packet, the Bigger the cut.
Not 15%, but 25% or more would be in line with
other Public Sector cuts.
'Less is More'.
Complain about this comment
I don't get the arguments against revealing what the "talent" is paid. If the BBC doesn't want it's rivals to know what they're paying that means they don't know what it's rivals would be prepared to pay, except that they assume it would be more than they're paying. The BBC's rivals don't publish what they pay either for what we have to assume are similar reasons. This means that the only people who really know what each side pays is the "talent". What kind of market is that? One in which the "talent" holds all the cards and can inflate their pay to whatever they want.
Or am I missing something?
Complain about this comment
How about paying their stars only once:
IE
Ever give them a salary
OR
pay them each time a program is viewed
dont pay them a VERY good salary and repeat fees!
Complain about this comment
382. At 08:40am on 06 Jul 2010, Essexbelle wrote:
The BBC is now a gravy train - why does it take so many to report on one football match?
well they need a full medical team oin the off chance that an english player might actually score and casue the presenters a heart attach
Complain about this comment
Firstly I am glad that 6 Radio has been saved. There is a place for it and there isn't a really good independant alternative, unlike the other channels that are to go.
Secondly I am somewhat confused as to why Mr Thompson should say that it would be "damaging and destructive" to reveal how much the "stars" are paid. Surely by working for the BBC, a public body, their earnings should be made available to the people who pay them ie us! We know how much the PM earns and I am 100% certain that the "talent" takes in a hell of a lot more than him. If these egotists don't like it they should move on.
I would like to say that I watch and listen to BBC programmes more than any other broadcasts and I do believe that when the Beeb gets it right it does it well. Radio 2, Dr Who, Top Gear, University Challenge and Masterchef are excellent however I would like to see less of that mindless drivel that is Eastenders. This programme put me on suicide watch every time I watched it ([past tense!) and I am surprised that the Samritans are not inundated with calls when the omnibus edition is aired.
Complain about this comment
The government should cut the BBC licence fee by "up to 40%" in line with it's other cuts in public services.
Complain about this comment
· 393. At 09:24am on 06 Jul 2010, Wiser than you wrote:
Question: Is the BBC making the right decisions?
Answer: Is black white?
The BBC is infested, to epidemic levels, with loonie, lazy, low-IQ, left-wing "radicals" who've never done in a days' good work in their useless lives and who've even less idea of what is needed to make a business - or a country - succeed than they have of calculus. One of the (numerous) very bad points associated with this enormous institutional bias and bigotry is that these public sector leeches are evidently genuinely incapable of comprehending their own left-wing bigotry - the dullards actually believe they're middle of the road!
Life's too short to educate most in the BBC. Their problem is one best solved with a judicious application of a P45, and a "golden goodbye" of thruppence ha'penny. And that's being generous. That my taxpayers' money is going to fund a propaganda organ of a wholly discredited and immoral political commissariat/politburo is way beyond funny - it begs for prosecutions.
####################################
I see that WTY once again demonstrates his staggering ability to include the word “leeches” into a comment that shows his inability to comprehend the meaning of the debate
Complain about this comment
393. At 09:24am on 06 Jul 2010, Wiser than you wrote:
Question: Is the BBC making the right decisions?
Answer: Is black white?
The BBC is infested, to epidemic levels, with loonie, lazy, low-IQ, left-wing "radicals" who've never done in a days' good work in their useless lives and who've even less idea of what is needed to make a business - or a country - succeed than they have of calculus. One of the (numerous) very bad points associated with this enormous institutional bias and bigotry is that these public sector leeches are evidently genuinely incapable of comprehending their own left-wing bigotry - the dullards actually believe they're middle of the road!
Life's too short to educate most in the BBC. Their problem is one best solved with a judicious application of a P45, and a "golden goodbye" of thruppence ha'penny. And that's being generous. That my taxpayers' money is going to fund a propaganda organ of a wholly discredited and immoral political commissariat/politburo is way beyond funny - it begs for prosecutions.
If anyone wanted a perfect illustration of the use of the word "irony", this is it.
Complain about this comment
I am NOT Asian and have never listened to the Asian Network, or even intend to.
Yet I cannot understand why yet another Music station is saved and yet a station that broadcasts for the Asian community is to close.
If Music 6 is so good and yet other contributors on here critiise Radio 1, why dont they scrap that radio station or change the style so both stations can remain as well as Asian Network.
It seems that the listen only to those who are most vocal rather than providing a service for everyone in the UK.
Shame on the BBC in what appears to be discrimination against the Asian listeners.
Complain about this comment
I am glad that 6 Music should remain in service, its a pity that the Asian Network couldn't be kept too. The BBC provide us with good value for the licence fee, but I think some of the stars could be paid a bit less. They take a lot of money that could be used in other areas, or to retain existing services.
Complain about this comment
I can honestly say I have never heard of 6 music. I quite enjoy radio 1 sometimes though.
In general I'd say the bbc do a good job although maybe a little bit wishy washy sometimes. We get a pretty good service really and if you compare it to elsewhere, lets say the yanks for example, we are quite lucky.
Complain about this comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
" I'll bet a fair number of people complaining about the licence fee are paying a subscription to Murdoch which is far worse value for money and helps keep footballers in the manner to which they have become accustomed. Now that's what I call poor value for money!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe - personally most of my viewing is done on the commercial channels, the point being is that I have a choice whether or not to pay that subscription. I can cancel it today and not have to worry about Murdoch's cronies coming round to my house threatening a fine or jail for doing so.
Not having the choice is what upsets people. I know the licence fee is not a lot of money but it's the principle. Sky have to sell their packages to customers as well as advertising space to finance themselves the BBC don't. As a result Sky channels are heavily interrupted and the quality suffers - hence the argument that BBC programs are much higher quality - Sky would be the same if they were funded as the BBC are.
Complain about this comment
Yes: why is there so little jazz broadcast?
I think that the BBC is OK really: it only costs us about a hundred quid a year and they provide loads of interesting programmes, HYS and stuff like that. My only real complaint is the vast amounts of money and air-time they use to make advertisements for their own programmes. That one about "Parking in Barking" has cost me a fortune in televisions I've had to lob out of ther window into the swimming pool. . .
Also, don't knock BBC3: once you know where all the rubbish, not funny "new" comedians can be found they are much easier to avoid!
Complain about this comment
The BBC thinks like the public sector - it's April therefore it's time for a pay increase/licence fee increase, irrespective of economic conditions and if they don't get it they think that they are being punished. Waste of money at the BBC is endemic because those who run it have no idea about living within their income and every year they bleat on about how much they need a licence fee increase, even though inflation has been virtually zero for 2 years. Senior employees have an exaggerated sense of self importance and believe that only the very best is good enough for them - ludricrously high salaries and bonuses,taxis everywhere, first class rail/air travel, expensive restaurants, multiple people doing what one could do etc. They should be made to work for a period in the private sector to see the real world and learn about cost savings and how to use money effectively. Whilst they are at it, take a bunch of ex-Labour ministers along to see how it's done because they haven't a clue either.
Complain about this comment
Last week it was "memories of BBC TV centre". Now its " is the BBC making the right decisions". What next week? "what do you like most about the BBC" HYS is becoming a sort of entertainment for the BBC's own pleasure. Its a revolving door. The public pays for the BBC who then spend that money on HYS hoping the public will tell them how marvellous they are. They are not the only public sector institution to behave in this way - look at how many hospitals have marketing departments.
I have a strong suspicion many BBC staff see the waste for themselves and dont approve but they have to toe the politically correct management line of the time, so in answer to no. 42 the current PC thing is to send reporters to 'live events'. We get this a lot - such as reporting on floods at night time when you can't actually see anything. Seems to me they have FAR too much money. Let all the execs leave for their more lucrative private sector jobs if they can get them. I'd be amazed if they all succeed. Just look at the ITV studio for the World Cup - they just dont have the kind of money the BBC has to spend on the Cape Town penthouse - which means the BBC has too much.
Complain about this comment
The BBC is using society as a cash cow, period.
They are trying to push through legislation that states if you own a mobile phone or a home computer, you need a TV License.
I don't own a TV at home, simply because I can't get a satisfactory signal where I live, and I'm not up for the costly "Future of television" ie Digital (Quite possibly to be one of the biggest recycling headaches in history).
Every time I watch an interesting program at my parents on Sundays and the picture starts to break up and the sound begins to lag, I am rudely reminded of "The Future of Television".
Cut the obese salaries of the stars to something more modest and that will save the BBC a fortune. True, Jonathon Ross makes me laugh sometimes, but people around me do it more often than he does, and they don't demand a kings ransom for doing so.
Complain about this comment
The BBC has its problems. All the others have far more. Whilst the BBC needs to get its act together some of the attacks it's receiving are ridiculous. Its output could do with improving but please don't bang on about commercial models being the way to go when they just produce even worse stuff crammed full of adverts.
Complain about this comment
So the boss of the BBC does not want the higher paid to have their pay revealed but is quite happy to take away the pension of its staff. How about him having a pay cut after all he is responsible for the quality of the BBC which is much reduced as it now seems just to be based on celebrities doing wacky things.
Complain about this comment
This talk of removing the license fee is silly. I would pay double for advert-free TV and Radio. how often do you sit, whilst watching commercial TV, and just flick through tens of channels of absolute rubbish when the adverts start? Not to mention all the "This programme is brought to you by..." junk - when have the Beeb ever missed an England goal through advert breaks?
However, PLEASE, BBC, pretty please, stop having all these mindless TV shows (in the X Factor/How Do You Solve... ilk) where to be a member of the audience you need to be a female who can only communicate in screams and shreiks, between the ages of 13 and 70, and have to have a lobotomy before you enter the building... Give us some credit, we are an intelligent bunch. OK, so the number of morons watching may go down, but let them go watch X-factor on ITV. They probably don't even realise the licence fee goes only to the BBC.
How about a twice-weekly Question time? Cheap, popular, relatively high-brow. And how about less than 7 members of broadcasting staff on Radio 1's breakfast show? We're often told how Moyles is the saviour of R1 - why does he need half a dozen sycophantic lackeys to help him?
I love the BBC and I'm proud of it, but it is really going downhill fast. The whole "Treat people like thicko's" attitude is just not on.
Complain about this comment
"28. At 12:43pm on 05 Jul 2010, David wrote:
Life unfortunately is unfair, which is why footballers, who have even less talent than the people on TV get paid over £100k a week to kick a ball."
Supply and demand, people pay to watch footballers and so footballers get paid a lot. And footballers are FAR more talented than people on TV. Like it or not footballers are the best at what they do, afterall could you play for england and be as good as rooney etc?
But on TV? Well i'm sure lots of people could do what Johnathan Ross etc do, i know i could. And they are paid with OUR money raised from a tax. We the tax payers should decide what TV stars are worth not the bbc.
Complain about this comment
I've listened to Radio 6 for years as it has always played my kind of music, and I was quite perplexed to why the BBC would even want to get rid of it.
For me, the BBC is an example of the highest standard for News, TV and Radio, but is ruined by unnecessary politics. To make things worse, there's allot of criticism that the BBC has got too big and powerful and makes competition difficult, and while I agree some license money go to funding shared services such as catch up tv services (like project canvas), I don't agree the BBC should refrain from being a example of industry and/or a competitor.
Obviously we're in times of financial strain, but I would think, if the BBC wants to trim their wallet, maybe look at scrapping regional radio and let the commercial radio stations deal with that niche market, because I would guess that the majority of people tune into local radio for travel updates over content.
Complain about this comment
401. At 09:46am on 06 Jul 2010, peter cona wrote:
"Its good that 6 music is going to be saved as it provides great value for money, and by the same measure its also good that the BBC Asian network is being shut down, as this does not serve the majority of licence players, as we are in UK and not asia, and the BBC should never pander to minorities in this age of equlaity. the thinking must be, any people who live here must fit in and become british, If they dont want to become british, then they are here for the wrong reasons, and should consider moving to a place more compatable with their beliefs and requirements"
So, 6 Music provides great value for money, therefore it should be saved
By the same measure, the Asian Network does not serve the majority, therefore it should be shut down
You are not using the same measure at all but applying two different criteria
If ignoring minorities and serving the majority is important then 6 Music should go, as well as the Asian Network as 6 Music surely serves a minority?
Value for money is almost impossible to guage since it is related to personal tastes eg I have no interest in either of these Stations so they can both go as far as I'm concerned but the BBC has to cater for everyone, not just me (or you)
Complain about this comment
Let's get this into perspective?
The TV license fee is around £3.00 a week. What can you buy for that anywhere else without advertisments? (btw YOU DO pay for commercial channels thrice. Cost of adverts at the till; cost of adverts on your electricity bill and shorter program times due to adverts)?
Certainly not from Murdoch et al, Sky or News International? Most certainly not from the Conservative friends of Rupert?
Complain about this comment
334. At 9:37pm on 05 Jul 2010, James Lange wrote:
I wonder if we could get the Panorama reporter and her production team struck off for incompetent journalism for their piece on incompetent teachers: video with no relation to the content of the voice-over, opinions asserted as fact, unsupported allegations and pseudo-questions self-answered by non-sequiters.
I have no interest in the subject matter, but I have taught journalism on three continents over 30 years.....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to today’s Guardian a spokeswoman for the GTC in England admitted that only 12 teachers had been struck off in England. The Panorama report included figures for Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, bringing the grand total struck off to 18.
Given that there are 500,000 registered teachers in the UK it beggars belief that only 18 have been struck off for incompetence in 40 years. Just goes to show what a protected existence they have led and why so many of our schools are going to the dogs.
Well done Panorama for highlighting something that is clearly a big problem.
Complain about this comment
· 421. At 11:02am on 06 Jul 2010, Mick wrote:
I don't own a TV at home, simply because I can't get a satisfactory signal where I live, and I'm not up for the costly "Future of television" ie Digital (Quite possibly to be one of the biggest recycling headaches in history).
#############################
You are right
Digital television is the biggest mass public con since privatisation, absolutely nothing to do with quality, everything to do with money
Complain about this comment
I AM MUCH MUCH MORE CONCERNED WITH THE MASSIVE CUTS TO FRONT LINE SERVICES ACROSS SO MUCH OF PUBLIC EXPENDITURE WHICH ARE GOING TO MASSIVELY IMPACT IN FIERCELY NEGATIVE WAYS ACROSS MUCH OF THE UK THAN RADIO 6.
I AM ALSO MORE CONCERNED AT NICK CLEGGS MORALs and ETHICS AT AGREEING TO FOLLOW TORY PARTY LINE IN EXCHANGE FOR PALTRY CONCESSIONS TO THE IDEALS AND BELIEFS OF THE LIB DEMS.
I AM ALSO MORE CONCERNED AT THE BBCs INABILITY TO RESEARCH AND REPORT ON SO MANY WORTHY SUBJECTS WHICH ARE OF MASSIVE IMPORTANCE AND SIGNIFICANCE TO MILLIONS OF UK CITIZENS, ESPECIALLY THE YOUNG, OLD, INFIRM, DISABLED.
THE BBC IS MORE TUNED INTO MEDIOCRE QUESTIONING OF POLITICIANS WHO BASICALLY JUST REITERATE THEIR PARTY STANCE AND WHICH IS JUST SO PRACTICED and REHEARSED/REPEATED that ITS ONLY PLACE SHOULD BE on DAVE & DAVE +1 & DAVE EXTRA EXTRA EXTRA + 100.
THE BBC GAINS £BILLIONS OF UK CITIZENS MONEY EACH YEAR.
FOR THIS, THE BBC DOES ACTUALLY SWEET LITTLE ACTUAL INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING AND INFORMING INTO THE BIGGER ISSUES WHICH EFFECT SO MANY PEOPLE and INSTEAD provide mediocre formated regular programmes of little actual relativity and consequence to the vast majority of UK citizens.
Every government pours massive scourn on previous government, but this should NOT detract from ANY UK governments care of duty to UK citizens, the present government is about to implement policys which basically tare up a HUGE chunck of moral care of duty to MANY MANY within society.
I am sure there are MANY MANY hundreds if not thousands of BIG ISSUES resulting in ATTROCIOUS OUTCOMES facing many people, yet WHERE are these profiles and investigations.
WE ARE FACING THE BIGGEST DESTRUCTION OF UK SOCIAL STRUCTURE SINCE ITs INCEPTION, WITH FAR FAR REACHING CONSEQUENCES NEVER BEFORE EXPERIENCED BY MOST PRESENT GENERATIONS and CONSEQUENCES THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC JUST DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE REALITY ONCE THEY ARE FULLY IMPLEMENTED.
ALL WE GET FROM POLITICIANS IS THAT they would rather not do this and that it might be a bit painful for some. WHAT A LOAD OF WOOD ROT!
YES PEOPLE KNOW THERES GOING TO BE LESS BUT LIKE STARVATION, YOU DO NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND IT UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY EXPERIENCE IT YOURSELF, OF WHICH A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF UK POPULATION WILL NOT EXPERIENCE SUCH HARSHNESS, BUT A VERY VERY SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE WILL.
THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE PRESENT ECONOMIC/FINANCIAL/SOCIAL SITUATION AND ITS LONG TERM IMPLICATIONS IS DESERVING OF A MUCH GREATER GUNG HO, OUTSIDE THE BOX, INVESTIGATIVE AND REPORTING JOURNALISM, IT NEEDS TO BE REMINICENT OF A BAYONETT CHARGE, WITH MUCH GREATER MENACE AND PRODING, INSTEAD OF THE LOVEY DOVEY "nice to see you to see you nice" mild questioning on NEWS and OTHER PROGRAMMES, which just gets responded to by party line with NO REAL FACTS or HONEST OPEN REALITY OF CONSEQUENCE.
WHILE THE BBC IS BEING SO SELF RIGHTEOUS ABOUT GETTING ITS OWN HOUSE IN ORDER, BASICALLY a SELF PRESERVATION PLOY TO ATTEMPT TO DIVERT GOVERNMENT BASHING THE BBC AND WEAKENING IT, LARGE PARTS OF THIS COUNTRY ARE GOING TO FALL APART AT THE SEAMS AND SUFFER MUCH MUCH GREATER CONSEQUENCES and REALITYS THAN IF RADIO 6 WAS CLOSED.
SURELY THIS IS WORTH MUCH MUCH MUCH MORE TIME AND EFFORT and COMPETANCE than that SO FAR PROVIDED FOR.
BBC IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE VOICE OF BRITAIN, it is ALSO SUPPOSED TO BE UNBIASED, BUT IN REALITY IT IS EVIDENTLY MORE ON THE SIDE OF THE PRESENT CROP OF POLITICIANS AND REFLECTS AND REPORTS/INFORMS ON MORE OF GOVERNMENT OPINION and SPIN/PROPAGANDA DURING NEWS REPORTS than IT DOES ON THE EXPERIENCES AND REALITYS/CONSEQUENCES OF REAL PEOPLE.
INSTEAD OF GETTING ED BALLS TO QUESTION and respond to MICHEAL GROVE, of which he is pretty useless and ineffective, WHY NOT GET MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO QUESTION MPs, BUT GENUINE CLEVER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO CAN SUBSTANTIATE POINTS OF CONTENTION, MAINLY BECAUSE THE ARGUMENTS AND REASONING OF OPPOSITION LABOUR IS AS MEDIOCRE AND WEAK as a THIRD HAND TEABAG and IS INCAPABLE OF STANDING UP FOR UK CITIZENS BECAUSE IT ALSO IS MORE ATUNE TO ITS OWN SPIN/PROPAGANDA, BUT WHICH IS INSTANTLY SMACKED DOWN JUST BY TORYS/LIB DEMS BLAMING ALL ON THEM.
GET THE PUBLIC IN, GET REAL PEOPLE IN, GET OTHER NON PARTY AFFILIATED EXPERTS IN TO QUESTION AND PUT FIERCE AND REAL/REALISTIC ARGUMENT TO GOVERNMENT.
WHEN GOVERNMENT STARTS TO QUESTIION THE PURPOSE OF THE BBC IS WHEN IN REALITY THE BBC IS TREADING ON TOES AND DOING WHAT IT ULTIMATELY SHOULD BE DOING WHICH IS TO HAVE A MUCH MUCH MUCH GREATER CARE OF DUTY TO CITIZENS THAN POLITICIANS!
Is the BBC making the right decisions?
THE BBC IS MAKING DECISIONS FOR ITS OWN SELF RIGHTEOUS PROTECTION which was started quite some time ago when Torys were in opposition and made MANY implied and other threats to and at the BBC. THE BBC IS SCURRYING AROUND DOING ITS BEST TO IMPLEMENT POLICY CHANGES AND CUTS, IT IS BASICALLY ACTING LIKE A WEAKER MEMBER OF A PRIDE OF LIONS/HYENAS ACTING VERY SUBMISSIVE TO A DOMINANT GOVERNMENT, DOING ALL IT CAN TO APPEASE THE DOMINANTE PARTNER IN ITS DYAD RELATIONSHIP WITH GOVERNMENT.
WHO IS PROTECTING ORDINARY PEOPLE, WHERE IS THE VOICE OF ORDINARY PEOPLE, its all very well minor groups having music to listen to, but I think in this time and age it is MUCH more important for the BBC to provide a VOICE for citizens and NOT just a service to listen to.
Complain about this comment
I am very much in favour of a BBC that is much closer to the ethos of quality over quantity.
In these days of always on media it might be a blessed relief for all if the BBC stopped trying to 'compete' with the commercial channels for viewing figures and concentrated on producing a more intelligent output.
The past years of sensationalised homogenous programming have dumbed down everything and the occasional quality programme is such a suprise that it becomes a talking point.
Also the spurious cult of celebrity - the BBC has a fixation on certain presenters like Norton or Bruce - every time you look they are there - do the bosses not understand that we are heartily sick of these gurning gobs on sticks.
The loonies appear to have taken over the asylum and everything must be politically correct or left wing socialist skewed.
No the BBC doesn't make the right decisions and yes it should make available for scrutiny the salary levels it pays - it is a public organisation paid for by a 'Tax' let's not forget.
I am sure that its commercial activities and reputation would be enhanced by concentrating on a quality output.
There has to be a balance of course and things must move with a modern world speed but quality and craftsmanship always impress - so fewer BBC channels, less staff and more quality and innovation please.
Complain about this comment
I'd like to buck the trend here. I think the BBC is doing a very good job. BBC1 and BBC2 are the best TV channels, with the only close competitors being provided by the other main public service broadcaster, Channel 4.
Whilst some curmudgeons complain about Radio 1, I say it acts as a bridge between 6 Music and commercial radio; certainly I would never have heard of a great number of bands were it not for Radio 1. Radio 2 provides the best of a mixture of spoken word and popular, older music. BBC 3 is aimed at young people, which is why it is often a target for abuse from 'licence fee payers'; but it is valued by its target market. Sure, not all of them are old enough to pay the licence fee, but would you wish to cut children's programming from our screens, as I'm pretty sure many children don't pay their fair share.
BBC News is the only broadcast news I watch; with ITV and Sky being too sensationalist; and although BBC Sport does sometimes seem extravagant (the revolving studio in Cape Town!?!), it excels at all sports it broadcasts. As for cutting the BBC website - it is the jewel in the BBC's crown. The only reason the BBC is contemplating these cuts isn't due to the public wanting them (despite the very vocal right wing on HYS); it's due to political pressure from politicians with friends who would prefer the BBC didn't exist at all.
I am not a BBC employee, but a student (who does pay his licence fee). The BBC is an organisation the country can be proud of, and is an example to other broadcasters.
Complain about this comment
357. At 00:20am on 06 Jul 2010, Mick wrote:
Having seen Jarvis Cocker waxing lyrical about the saving of 6Music, I now couldn't care less if it survives or not. What does he know about music?
Having made his living from music for 20 years plus, probably far more than you!
Complain about this comment
I have worked for private sector organisations where I and my peers thought we were doing everything in the best way possible and then the market delivered a jolt and only in retrospect did we realise the defects of our ways of operating. BBC types are never really subjected to any kind of real external presuure and clearly do not really think much is wrong with the status quo although they judge it politic to appear to consult. I don't know what kind of mechanism could be put in place to mimic the market's operation but we do need something as the current arrangements have delivered an organisation is hugely bloated and maddeningly self-satisfied.
Complain about this comment
· 425. At 11:14am on 06 Jul 2010, bigsammyb wrote:
"28. At 12:43pm on 05 Jul 2010, David wrote:
Like it or not footballers are the best at what they do, afterall could you play for england and be as good as rooney etc?
####################
My one legged granny could, play for England and be as good as Rooney etc
Complain about this comment
The BBC is a bloated monster that needs to be slashed down to size. Stop giving them the licence fee and see how much more efficient they become then.
Complain about this comment
401. At 09:46am on 06 Jul 2010, peter cona wrote:
"Its good that 6 music is going to be saved as it provides great value for money, and by the same measure its also good that the BBC Asian network is being shut down, as this does not serve the majority of licence players, as we are in UK and not asia, and the BBC should never pander to minorities in this age of equlaity. the thinking must be, any people who live here must fit in and become british, If they dont want to become british, then they are here for the wrong reasons, and should consider moving to a place more compatable with their beliefs and requirements"
People who like classical music are a minority
People who like football are a minority
People who like 24 hour news are a minority
People who like XXXX (where XXXX is any topic not liked by more than 50% of the population) are a minority....
Therefore the BBC should not serve any of these audiences. I'm not sure what they would broadcast that everyone would agree is watched by a majority (the weather, probably but 24 hour weather would be boring), but that doesn't seem to concern you, so long as no minority gets anything.
Complain about this comment
The thing is, the BBC (that's TV, radio and internet services) is the best public service broadcaster in the world. Everything from news and entertainment, all completely advert-free (in the UK), a leader and innovator in video-on-demand technologies, complete unbias and impartiality but with some excellent opinion columns, it attracts the best people in the business and it doesn't let itself be swayed by anyone - public corporations, tabloids or even Government. It does an absolutely fantastic job and it is indeed a national treasure for the UK to have such a service.
That service comes at a price in the form of the license fee. Let's not go down the road of diminishing the value of the BBC and risk losing all of the above just for the sake of saving money. What we gain today, we would lose tomorrow. The BBC needs us to pay for it, we need the BBC as it's the only public body we can truly trust when the chips are down. Without it, we would have nothing but the ramblings of the tabloids, corporation driven TV (through advertising) and extreme bias bordering on lies and fabrication, shock headlines and news and information driven not by fact but by selling figures. We'd never know who to believe.
Don't treat the BBC as a luxury we can do without. It's a public service, we need it, it's our only friend in this commercial world and it works for us, not against us. Regarding the decision of the BBC Trust, it sounds like the right one. 6 Music has gained quite a bit of popularity since the news was announced to close it and I think more and more people are starting to enjoy it. However, having a station devoted to a section of people based on their race (Asian Network) isn't a good idea as it leads to exclusion also based on race. The decision by the BBC Trust is an example of how the right decisions are made with regard to the BBC. Naturally, since it costs public money, we always need to find ways of keeping the value, but let's not get into the argument about what the BBC stands for. We need it, may it live forever.
Complain about this comment
The UK's manageable deficit is being talked up by the coalition to further their public sector service reduction(tax cutting pre-election budget in 2015)agenda. The BBC is a target too. Cameron has agreed some back door deal with Murdoch on broadcasting. No matter what the BBC do, they are in the frame.
Complain about this comment
Aside from Radio 4, I never listen to BBC radio as they don't have a single station that plays the sort of music I want to listen to. Internet radio is much better for that - and free.
Complain about this comment
The BBC is clearly overstaffed to an unsustainable level. Given the proposed savage cuts on the public sector, it is only fair that the BBC, an expensive Government asset, is appropriately scaled down.
Why do we need so many weather forecasters whose interpretations of the met office’s forecasts are so often wrong? And, why do they have the deliver their interpretations ‘on location’? E.g. Ascot and Wimbledon – how much does this cost and what message is it sending to us ordinary mortals who are finding it increasingly hard to get buy.
Why do we need teams of TV news presenters, often working in pairs and getting confused as to who should be reading the next line on the autocue?
Why do we have to listen to so many sports commentators/guests/presenters having lengthy discussions, often stating what we already know or simply informing us that Wayne Rooney loves to score goals – at what cost?.
I dread to think how much it has cost us licence payers for the BBC to send the army of sports commentators and hangers-on to South Africa – is this really necessary and good value for money? In the current climate, the public sector is being forced to use video conferencing facilities, rather than travel to local meetings. However, the BBC is allowed to send people thousands of miles rather than use the expensive studios they have in London.
BUT, the most effective saving would be to replace the grossly overpaid Jonathan Ross with an entertainer.
Complain about this comment
431. At 11:42am on 06 Jul 2010, MrWonderfulReality
Why do you find it necessary to SHOUT your responses at the top of your voice?
SHOUTING adds nothing to your argument, it simply makes your comment more likely to be ignored than read
Complain about this comment
The statement was made "footballers are FAR more talented than people on TV"
well I offer you the remark that Alan Sugar made about footballers and remember he owned a football team once so he should know!
"if they weren't football players, most of them would be in prison"
Talent is a subjective thing and to my mind they aren't in any way talented but there again maybe I just have more sophisticated tastes than some folk...
and then
"Well i'm sure lots of people could do what Johnathan Ross etc do, i know i could. And they are paid with OUR money raised from a tax. We the tax payers should decide what TV stars are worth not the bbc."
Once again I have no time for Jonathon Ross or many of his overpaid colleagues but nevertheless I doubt you could do what he does, so we need to have a perspective on another subjective matter....
Complain about this comment
328. At 09:02am on 06 Jul 2010, thesubtleknife wrote:
BamberGas wrote:
"like the yanks love to show how much Junk Food they can eat, the brits love to show the world how drunk and violent they can be."
First of all, the use of "yanks" is deeply offensive. I wonder whether BamberGas, in earlier posts on HYS, has used any of the other pejorative words for ethnic or national groups...?
How is "yanks" deeply offensive? It is a derived from and a corruption of "The English" or "Les Anglais" used by Native Americans shortly after European occupation of what is now North Eastern USA (the French were not too far away in Quebec and both used natives Americans as allies in their regular wars). So, in terms of describing the orgins of that group in North America is hardly insulting (unlike some of the clearly pejorative terms for other ethnic groups).
However, it may not apply to citizens of Southern US States where Yankee is used to describe their Northern cousins but usually with a pejorative adjective. For instance, I once met a Texan who told me he did not realise "damn Yankee" was two words until he was 16.
Complain about this comment
Just like everyone else is having to do, the BBC should tighten its belt. Its appalling that the people at the top earn so much. Then they have the gall to have a left-wing bias in all that they do - talk about hypocritical. Also I can't stand their talking down to the viewers, i.e. "educating" us as to how we should think (pc) speak (pc) and feel (pc).
The few programmes of good drama are few and far between. Its time to get rid of the old cronie network, and really represent the viewing public.
Complain about this comment
FAO Wiser than you:
If the BBC made a high quality documentary about leeches (including their use and abuse), would you watch it?
Complain about this comment
Donald Rockhopper wrote:
Reading some of the right wing neocon views here I can only hope that the UK does eventually become part of a 'United States of Europe', with more enlightened European views.
>>>>>>>>
Typical 'Guardian reader', anyone who has another opionion to them is a 'Daily Mail reader' or 'Little Englander' now a 'right wing neocon'. The left have had their day and made a huge mess. Lets see what the future holds but I am sure the leftists will be in for some nasty shocks as this mess is sorted (including the left leaning BBC)
...Well AuntieLeft you are showing yourself to be the exception which proves the rule. Easily influenced by the media-controlled masses, with your flamed torches and pitchforks (typical Mail-reader). It's easy to say a mess has been made by the lefties, but if you look back far enough you'll see the mess was always there to begin with, and going backwards is not the solution. It's time for radical change, I'm all up for the idea of a United States of Europe, let's look forward not back.
Complain about this comment
"I dread to think how much it has cost us licence payers for the BBC to send the army of sports commentators and hangers-on to South Africa – is this really necessary and good value for money?"
For the benefit of "us license payers" as you put it, and to help "us licence payers" get some sense of perspective....
There are around 23 million households in the UK. Assuming 3/4 of them have TV licenses, that means that each £1 million spent by the BBC costs each license fee payer just under 6p a year. Or put another way, Jonathan Ross costs each licence fee payer 35p a year.
So when they sling him out, what will you do with your 35p? New Ferarri?
Complain about this comment
For all those who are so proud of the BBC. I travel in Europe a lot and speak fluent German. Over a period of time, I really began to realize how the BBC, very subtly, puts a political bias on almost all of its news reporting (and it is always to the left), even the local BBC's. This was a gradual realization, as I compared it with German TV channels, which inform and entertain, but with no subtle hidden agenda. This very subtle bias, is actually more damaging than outright bias as it is harder to spot and insidious.
Complain about this comment
For it's alleged left wing bias (yeah, right), the BBC does an excellent job in attracting more than its fair share of right-wing conspiracy theorists and various assorted lunatics to HYSs and blogs.
To be able to read their 'informed comments' and 'observations' is worth the licence fee alone
Complain about this comment
225. At 4:15pm on 05 Jul BAmberGas wrote:
>I don't claim to be "Wiser than You"
Just as well, for - except for a tiny minority of "you"s, that claim made by BAmberGas would be patently false... ;-)
Complain about this comment
I have never heard of Radio 6 - it is worse than Radio 4. Are they numbered in order of mediocrity?
Just how many radio stations do the BBC need.
Why is my licence fee funding radio?
I never listen to the radio, haven't done so for many years. I buy CD's and play them in the car, that way I dont have to listen to the inane rambings of some overpaid DJ
Complain about this comment
443. At 12:45pm on 06 Jul 2010, Artemesia wrote:
431. At 11:42am on 06 Jul 2010, MrWonderfulReality
Why do you find it necessary to SHOUT your responses at the top of your voice?
SHOUTING adds nothing to your argument, it simply makes your comment more likely to be ignored than read
=======================================
Because there are so many important things that are being overpowered/drowned out by unimportant nonsensical unrealist reasoning and biased inteligence, mainly by the media and political players but also by the mass of ignorant and attrocious crud on media comment facilitys and I feel certain things are worthy of greater visibility/loudness so they stand out and can actually be seen and heard.
The media and politicians swarm us with irrelevences, this is further expanded by the same of comments on HYS.
It is also part anger at the BBC, a public service which is NOT public in most respects, because where it provides for actual public participation, it might as well be hidden in a broom cupboard.
I think there is MUCH happening in the UK and world to be VERY loud about and to voice concern and opinion about loudly.
I am a passionate orator, I am not a practiced and rehearsed and pretentious politician or confined media reporter etc. My feelings and opinions etc are from the heart and gut, not manufactured by design and stylists.
Complain about this comment
439 wowstation - Exactly right.
This thread seems to have brought out all the right wing Tory apologists and Murdoch fans who seem to want our broadcasting in this country to go the way of the USA, where every program is decimated by advertising and the news reflects the sponsors' political bias. No thanks!
Complain about this comment
Pop music stations all over the place, the BBC should not bother with any. Commercial stations have this area well covered, do something better instead BBC.
Complain about this comment
I so agree with Terry Wogan although he might have chosen to say these words when he was earning one of the so called'high salaries'. However hard times call for hard measures and the BBC is no different to any other large organisation.Everyone not only have to tighten their belts,they have actually to be seen tightening them so bring it on.The BBC are blest with a range of high quality personnel who are not screaming for bigger and better salaries so all it has to do is recognise them and replace the big names with them. Problem solved.They could even ask the public who are the professionals they like-a winner all round.
Complain about this comment
They've made the wrong decisions on "top talent" pay- I believe that has distorted the market.
Otherwise, the BBC is a precious thing. Sky is a poor substitute. Aside from the BBC and Sky, can anyone name another large UK broadcaster worthy of the name? Channel 4?
Complain about this comment
437. At 12:12pm on 06 July I_Despise_Labour wrote:
>The BBC is a bloated monster that needs to be slashed down to size. Stop giving them the licence fee and see how much more efficient they become then.
What are you, some sort of closet-Communist or crypto-Socialist?
The main problem is not that the BBC is a bloated monster infested with mediocre apparatchiks; the sort of despicable penpusher incapable of creative writing himself or herself, but willing to collude in the suppression of Enid Blyton, BANNED BY QUIET DIKTAT by the Kommissars of the BBC because, essentially, she wrote too well.
No - while all that is perfectly true, the real problem is that the BBC has become the ABOLPPPBC...
What does ABLPPPBC stand for?
The Anti-British, Official Labour Party Political Propaganda Broadcasting Corporation.
It represents a disgraceful, if not downright illegal, misuse of public funds, scandalously perverted for party political ends.
It should receive exactly the same amount of public money as does, say, ITV.
Viz., NIL.
My colleagues are more tolerant than I, and have placed the BBC on Final Warning. I would dispense with such niceties or formalities, and simply cancel the Licence TAX today and cancel all accrued and/or paid pension "entitlements" for BBC staff - then sit back and watch the roaches slug it out for the crumbs that remain. Such gladiatorial extinctions would save on the P45 costs.
:-)
Complain about this comment
This seems to have a been a good call, 6 music is pretty good and does provide an interesting alternative to the money and PR lead music found on Radio 1. Radio 2 is pretty good but again the music comes from a more mainstream catalogue that would not facilitate the new and innovative music heard on 6.
The Asian network should however be closed, if the budget is tight then niche stations like this, that target an audience on the grounds of their specific race or culture should close rather than force the other BBC assets with wider potential appeal to drop their standards. Cultural shows should be facilitated on other stations as programmes rather than a whole channel.
Complain about this comment
Is the BBC making the right decisions?
I don't know, but I do know that the BBC Trust should be more transparent. In the long-run it will save itself the time & money involved in defending its decisions before the public.
E.g. The corporation's director general, Mark Thompson, has warned that revealing the salaries of its top stars would be "damaging and destructive".
To whom?
Is it not from this information that the public will feel reassured that BBC Trust is doing what it can to reduce deficits and respect the current monetary situation of the UK?
Do you agree with the Trust's verdict on 6 Music?
Yes.
How should the Corporation be spending its money, and how open should it be in doing so?
Dig the following statement (that really irked me): BBC management said: "the case has not been made for the closure of 6music".
Well then, how come it was being closed?
God forbid the salvation of Music 6 was a distraction. It wasn’t, was it?
Distract license fee payers with Music6 while shutting down other “cool stuff” some place else?
Complain about this comment
50. At 1:08pm on 05 Jul 2010, AuntieLeft wrote:
>pzero wrote: "As for revealing salaries they must have something to hide or it would have been done by now. Be curious to see how much Alistair (i'm never off the BBC) Campbell is getting paid"
>Oh come on pzero, you are not insinuating that the BBC helps support and promote left wing organisations and views are you? Thats like saying the pope is a catholic......The BBC is 'unbiased'....!!! Ha, ha...some may fall for that line but not all of us
>Campbell has been described as Labour's "unelected, but ... hardly underscrutinised" spin doctor. Doing La La Labour spinning funded by you and me via BBC. Makes me sick, this is NOT democracy or 'balanced reporting' ie BBC News showed what they called public sector protests last night. They were Socialist Worker Party activists, Trots, communists who want the downfall of the capitalist system NOT public sector workers. It would be like the BNP protesting about immigration and then being called 'concerned members of the public' by the BBC. The BBC MUST know they were Trots and it shows (in my opinion) they DO have an agenda and its not good for the country. We know the motto boys (and girls), infiltrate and agitate..... that’s what they are doing, MI5 please"
While your sentiments are admirable, and your conclusions about the BBC (the "Official Labour Party Political Propaganda Broadcasting Corporation") and how it has been subverted (by infiltration) from its role as a publicly-owned broadcaster are spot on, your suggested solution ("MI5 please") is incorrect.
One does not deal with a cockroach infestation by calling in the security services, already exhausted as they are by the 98%-fake "War On Terror" (sic)!
One deals with roaches by cutting off their food supply.
Licence Fee (I mean TAX) abolition forthwith, cancellation of all entitlements to present or future, funded or unfunded public pensions, mass dismissal of incompetent or mediocre staff (that will cull the ranks by 90+%) and denial of them any rights to claim state benefits. Let them apply to the Labour Party and Harriet for handouts!
Complain about this comment
May I point out to MrWonderfulReality that posts written in capitals are very unlikely to be read, especially when they are as long as post 431.
Road signs used to be written in capitals years ago but this was changed to lower case writing because it is easier and quicker to read.
And no, I didn't read post 431.
Complain about this comment
450. At 1:29pm on 06 Jul 2010, codep wrote:
For all those who are so proud of the BBC. I travel in Europe a lot and speak fluent German. Over a period of time, I really began to realize how the BBC, very subtly, puts a political bias on almost all of its news reporting (and it is always to the left), even the local BBC's. This was a gradual realization, as I compared it with German TV channels, which inform and entertain, but with no subtle hidden agenda. This very subtle bias, is actually more damaging than outright bias as it is harder to spot and insidious.
Well, I think it shocking that the BBC never balances its science programmes with the views of Creationists. I mean, on the reports yesterday about the Big Bang "afterglow", why wasn't there a Creationist discrediting this because they can show universe is only 6000 years old. Same with anything on evolution. They present it as fact when it can't be. Talk about bias. ;-)
Complain about this comment
403. At 09:52am on 06 Jul whiler wrote:
>393. At 09:24am on 06 Jul 2010, Wiser than you wrote: "The BBC is infested, to epidemic levels, with loonie, lazy, low-IQ, left-wing "radicals" who've never done in a days' good work in their useless lives and who've even less idea of what is needed to make a business - or a country - succeed than they have of calculus. One of the (numerous) very bad points associated with this enormous institutional bias and bigotry is that these public sector leeches are evidently genuinely incapable of comprehending their own left-wing bigotry - the dullards actually believe they're middle of the road"
>---
>One question - where do you get all this information from.
One answer - the existence of its institutional bias, while observable in the field, has been verified over a year by an extensive, privately-commissioned, covert monitoring study.
Given that the bias is proven, the causes of it are self-evident. No doubt when we have the time and get around to abolishing the scandalous Licence TAX, to quell the inevitable outcry the results of the study will be published.
>Have you worked for a long time within the BBC observing the looney lefties and the low IQs?
Unlike you, I don't need to become a roach in order to recognise the droppings of roaches...
>Did you employ a private detective to hand yo a dossier on management culture at the BBC?
Nah, "yo". There are plenty who work in the Beeb who feel as strongly as we do about how the organisation has been infiltrated and subverted over past decades. Aunty's drawers are leakier than even she imagines...
Honestly, I don't mind the BBC being an Organ of the Labour Party (and worse, if that is possible). But I do mind being forced to fund the propaganda, and I do mind the weak-minded millions being hoodwinked that the Beeb is non-partisan, unbiased, balanced, a reliable source of domestic news and commentary, etc. when the reverse is rue.
Complain about this comment
· 450. At 1:29pm on 06 Jul 2010, codep wrote:
For all those who are so proud of the BBC. I travel in Europe a lot and speak fluent German. Over a period of time, I really began to realize how the BBC, very subtly, puts a political bias on almost all of its news reporting (and it is always to the left), even the local BBC's. This was a gradual realization, as I compared it with German TV channels, which inform and entertain, but with no subtle hidden agenda. This very subtle bias, is actually more damaging than outright bias as it is harder to spot and insidious.
###################
Is it possible that German TV has a bias to the right?, one mans meat and all that
Complain about this comment
· 452. At 1:39pm on 06 Jul 2010, Wiser than you wrote:
225. At 4:15pm on 05 Jul BAmberGas wrote:
>I don't claim to be "Wiser than You"
Just as well, for - except for a tiny minority of "you"s, that claim made by BAmberGas would be patently false... ;-)
#################
If you spoke/wrote in English as apposed to gibberish, we might be able to understand what you are twittering on about.
You forgot the leeches
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
· 453. At 1:42pm on 06 Jul 2010, LancashireLass wrote:
I have never heard of Radio 6 - it is worse than Radio 4. Are they numbered in order of mediocrity?
Just how many radio stations do the BBC need.
Why is my licence fee funding radio?
I never listen to the radio, haven't done so for many years. I buy CD's and play them in the car, that way I dont have to listen to the inane rambings of some overpaid DJ
#######################
Then in radio 4 and 7 you are missing a world of entertainment and not an overpaid DJ in sight
BBC radio if far superior to BBC TV
Complain about this comment
447. At 1:22pm on 06 Jul 2010, Stevem65 wrote:
>FAO Wiser than you: If the BBC made a high quality documentary about leeches (including their use and abuse), would you watch it?
Certainly. They could do it either by commissioning an Attenborough-style expedition to a rain forest, or by installing a candid camera or three within Broadcasting House.
I'm a fan of BBC Wildlife and much else about its programming. But all of these can be preserved, and improved upon by freeing them from the outdated Soviet-style machinery, within the successor organisations. It is the overriding political bias to which I, and many others, take strenuous objection. Now we've won, we will act on this. Norman Tebbit was far too kind to Aunty the last time around. Now, it's time for Pest Control.
Complain about this comment
· 459. At 1:55pm on 06 Jul 2010, Wiser than you wrote:
My colleagues are more tolerant than I, and have placed the BBC on Final Warning. I would dispense with such niceties or formalities, and simply cancel the Licence TAX today and cancel all accrued and/or paid pension "entitlements" for BBC staff - then sit back and watch the roaches slug it out for the crumbs that remain. Such gladiatorial extinctions would save on the P45 costs.
#####################
The question on everyone lips is
Are “Roaches” the new “Leeches”? Answers down the toilet please
Complain about this comment
· 459. At 1:55pm on 06 Jul 2010, Wiser than you wrote:
My colleagues are more tolerant than I, and have placed the BBC on Final Warning. I would dispense with such niceties or formalities, and simply cancel the Licence TAX today and cancel all accrued and/or paid pension "entitlements" for BBC staff - then sit back and watch the roaches slug it out for the crumbs that remain. Such gladiatorial extinctions would save on the P45 costs.
#####################
The question on everyone lips is
Are “Roaches” the new “Leeches”? Answers down the toilet please
#######################
Re 462.
It's official
Complain about this comment
453 - LancashireLass
I'm sure there are things you watch or listen to on the BBC that are of no interest to me, but I wouldn't trot out the usual "Why is my licence fee funding X, Y or Z?", because the BBC is a public broadcaster and as the name implies tries to cater for all tastes. That is why it is licence funded.
If you don't like a particular program or service the BBC offers, don't watch/listen/use it - there's almost certainly something you do use it for, and damned good value it is when compared to that overpriced behemoth that is Sky!
Complain about this comment
In #11 chiptheduck wrote:
The austerity measures need to apply to the profligate BBC as well you know - so where's your plan for 40% cuts?
You can have your 40% cut when I get a 40% cut in my licence fee.
Complain about this comment
Wiser than you
Your name really is an oxymoron is it not?
Complain about this comment
· 468. At 2:29pm on 06 Jul 2010, Wiser than you wrote:
Go back to performing the sniping work of your mental masters, the castrated Labour Party, and leave it to folk like me to get all of us out of the gigantic hole Labour has dug for Britain.
######################
There are MORE people like you?????
God help us all
Complain about this comment
The BBC should concentrate on high tech. solutions to build it's worldwide audience where it can continue to generate growth and income. The BBC have made great progress, particularly with podcasts, Web news, etc, building worldwide brand awareness. What they now need to do is start generating more income from services like iplayer or similar from larger market abroad which will replace old technology like CD,DVD sales.
Complain about this comment
468 Wiser than you (sic)
"....and leave it to folk like me to get all of us out of the gigantic hole Labour has dug for Britain"
Don't undersell yourself dear....
Complain about this comment
411. At 10:16am on 06 Jul 2010, Anglo-Celt wrote:
"The government should cut the BBC licence fee by "up to 40%" in line with it's other cuts in public services."
I recommened this comment.
Complain about this comment
Just from what I am gathering with these comments, this argument is split into the usual Left Vs Right political battles you see in the Eton-driven House of Commons (does anybody else like me think 'House of Commons' is an oxymoron by the way?). It's typical that when arguments are drawn out about the BBC being bias, they are usually initially spouted by those of conservative values. Because the BBC doesn't respond to the opinions of ONE person -namely the person with the most dosh- they immediately conclude that the BBC my must favour the Lefties.
Now as much as I would love that to be true, being a Lefty myself, it isn't the case, what we are seeing here is people confusing democracy and freedom of speech, with some kind of ultra-left conspiracy to brain-wash the public.
The BBC has recently demonstrating why we should all be thankful of it's existence, a public service which actually considers the views of it's license payers and trusties rather than solely following the views of it's Director general or any potential sponsors. Now I understand this may not be what some old-fashioned Tories may not want, but that is why you have various other Commercial channels to choose from as well.
Rant over....
Complain about this comment
"470. At 2:34pm on 06 Jul 2010, Wiser than you wrote:
Certainly. They could do it either by commissioning an Attenborough-style expedition to a rain forest, or by installing a candid camera or three within Broadcasting House."
I have to admit I did laugh at the second part of your sentence above.
However, surely you're not suggesting you'd approve of that old leftie and global warming apologist making a six-episode, globe-trotting leech-fest?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
For it's alleged left wing bias (yeah, right), the BBC does an excellent job in attracting more than its fair share of right-wing conspiracy theorists and various assorted lunatics to HYSs and blogs.
To be able to read their 'informed comments' and 'observations' is worth the licence fee alone
+++++++++++++++++
and is it nice in cloud cuckoo land ?
Complain about this comment
· 475. At 2:45pm on 06 Jul 2010, mightyblooze wrote:
Wiser than you
Your name really is an oxymoron is it not?
###################
sorry you are wasting your time
A: He doesn’t know what it means
B: When he looks it up he won't understand that it applies to him
3: If he works it out it will all be a communist, Marxist, Trotsky, Looney left conspiracy and he will have to destroy the leeches, no sorry, roaches
Complain about this comment
The BBC wastes a lot of money on its ridiculous moderation policy. Let people express their views. If their views are beyond the pale, bloggers will let them know as they already do in no uncertain terms. Save some money BBC. Re-think your policy on this one.
Complain about this comment
475. At 2:45pm on 06 Jul 2010, mightyblooze wrote:
Wiser than you
Your name really is an oxymoron is it not?
A truly wise person would concede the possibility that they were wrong; only fools argue with such extreme certainty that they are right.
Complain about this comment
It appears that the Beeb is a great big gravy train that uses public funds in a cavalier fashion. Whether this is correct or not people believe it to be the case.
It's broadasting output is uneven and seems to be geared for the lowest common denominator where the ability to think about what is being broadcast is a definite liability.
As for 'star' wages I would like to know who the BBC employs regularly that could be mistaken for a star. One thinks of the likes of really talented people like David Jason et al but not DJ's and news readers who look like they've just walked in from a night on the town.
Complain about this comment
I have just had the misfortune of trying out Radio 6 to see what all the hype was about & I can tell you right now that the BBC Trust should go back on their word & pull the plug. Not that I think much of Radio 1 either & what's Radio 1X I'm nearly afraid of going on there in case it's vulgar. I've never listened to radio 7 either. Why is there so many stations with numbers? It's like trying to pick the numbers to win the "Lotto" looking for a decent radio station on BBC. & one more thing, do away with all the D.J's or most of them as a lot of them talk gibberish anyway.
BBC should do their stations in genre form like Pop, Country, Classical, Talk, Oldies, Chart, etc & that would save people having to listen to a lot of what they don't want to hear in the first place, "to everyone his own". I used to love Radio 2 but have found thrawling the net some great radio staions & even a station where you can pick out the music you want to hear for yourself, this one is a new one on the block. So I won't tell the BBC what to do, for after all they'll do the opposite. But just one thing, please turn down the volume with the ads & trailer's in between TV programmes. For I want my ears to survive so as to listen to the radio. Though sadly, not yours.
Complain about this comment
266. At 6:03pm on 05 Jul 2010, realHarryPotter wrote:
I think the loss of Ross, Chiles and Bleakley can be borne but it would be a pity to lose someone like Graham Norton - I'm not a fan but I think he at least has some talent.
________________________________________________________________
Are you having a laugh? Norton talented?
There is no talent in being high camp, it's an insult to gay men if nothing else.
I regard both norton, and that other purile excuse for humour alan carr, to be about as funney as a trip to the dentist.
I know some people find 'wossy' and carr funny, my wife for instatnce, but in both cases men (not 'lads') find them un-funny and offensive.
The BBC has a long history with success through the use of ordinery performers in good comedy roles. Steptoe & Son/Till death do us part both had very good character actors in the lead. So did 'Are you being served' and 'It ain't half hot mum', not to mention 'last of the summer wine' and ''ello 'ello' ALL had good performers AND NO STARS.
If the BBC stopped paying 'celebs' and started making them instead,that would be making the right decision.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
465. At 2:23pm on 06 Jul 2010, Wiser than you wrote:
>One question - where do you get all this information from.
One answer - the existence of its institutional bias, while observable in the field, has been verified over a year by an extensive, privately-commissioned, covert monitoring study.
Given that the bias is proven, the causes of it are self-evident. No doubt when we have the time and get around to abolishing the scandalous Licence TAX, to quell the inevitable outcry the results of the study will be published.
>Have you worked for a long time within the BBC observing the looney lefties and the low IQs?
Unlike you, I don't need to become a roach in order to recognise the droppings of roaches...
----
Aaaah so it is all just a paranoid fantasy.
scuttle scuttle (do cockroaches scuttle?)
Complain about this comment
"483. At 3:27pm on 06 Jul 2010, codep wrote:
For it's alleged left wing bias (yeah, right), the BBC does an excellent job in attracting more than its fair share of right-wing conspiracy theorists and various assorted lunatics to HYSs and blogs.
To be able to read their 'informed comments' and 'observations' is worth the licence fee alone
+++++++++++++++++
and is it nice in cloud cuckoo land ?"
And your point is what exactly?
I think you're half-way to demonstrating the validity of my original statement, cobber.
Complain about this comment
Each BBC radio station seems to cater pretty well to a broad range of people - teh loss of 6 Music would have been a huge mistake on the part of the BBC, as it is the only radio station (exluding internet radio) which catered to those of us interested in a certain type of Music.
Perhaps more importantly, it also provided an outlet to artists who would probably never be heard anywhere else but 6 music, as internet radio playing such music is relatively specialist and relatively hard to find.
The main problem with BBC output is it seems only to cater to the various interests of the white population, with teh one concession being 1Extra, which supposedly caters to a black audience, but in reality plays rap/hip hop and other types of music enjoyed by both black and white youth. Unless you are white, or a black person who enjoys rap/hip hope, the BBC singularly fails to offer Radio that is inclusive for everyone living in Britain today - the huge numbers of first generation Asian, African, Easter Europeans etc now living in Briatin seem totally uncatered for.
Apart from that, Bravo 6 Music - long may it continue to inspire and discover new talent.
Complain about this comment
484. At 3:29pm on 06 Jul 2010, Peter me not the other one wrote:
· 475. At 2:45pm on 06 Jul 2010, mightyblooze wrote:
Wiser than you
Your name really is an oxymoron is it not?
###################
sorry you are wasting your time
A: He doesn’t know what it means
B: When he looks it up he won't understand that it applies to him
3: If he works it out it will all be a communist, Marxist, Trotsky, Looney left conspiracy and he will have to destroy the leeches, no sorry, roaches
Actually WTY is an agent of the extreme left. He is seeking to discredit the Conservatives by appearing to be an unreconstructed Tory zealot.
Complain about this comment
I spoke to somebody recently who makes and presents factual programmes. When working with the BBC he had a team of 25, which meant that all production decisions had to be filtered through endless bureaucracy and committees. He then went to produce very similar, and equally good, programmes for ITV with a team of 3.
Complain about this comment
481. At 3:22pm on 06 Jul Stevem65 wrote:
>470. At 2:34pm on 06 Jul 2010, Wiser than you wrote:"Certainly. They could do [a study on LEECHES] either by commissioning an Attenborough-style expedition to a rain forest, or by installing a candid camera or three within Broadcasting House."
>-----
>I have to admit I did laugh at the second part of your sentence above.
>However, surely you're not suggesting you'd approve of that old leftie and global warming apologist making a six-episode, globe-trotting leech-fest?
Your characterisation of D.A. is quite wrong. Clearly, you don't know him.
Further, man-made global warming is a scientifically-proven fact. So, why would I object to someone else (however less educated he may be) who believes that we do not own our planet, but merely rent it from future generations, and that we've been atrocious tenants?
You might care to investigate the green credentials of the discredited and deposed Labour maladministration. They were very poor indeed.
Some Labour-enablers do have some vestigeal logic left... try to harness such meagre resources as you possess. There may be hope for your sort yet. ;-)
Complain about this comment
No, the BBC is making the WRONG DECISIONS.
Self-immolation should be on its agenda...
Complain about this comment
486. At 3:33pm on 06 Jul 2010, Sat_Tyre wrote:
>A truly wise person would concede the possibility that they were wrong
In some areas, I readily admit my fallibility.
The evident incompetence and wickedness of the deposed "government" is not one of those areas.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS