|
|
Post by michael on Jul 24, 2017 16:32:57 GMT
With the pay gap in the news is it time we scrapped the licence fee altogether?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2017 16:36:28 GMT
.
|
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jul 24, 2017 17:07:05 GMT
This is just not a story that I can get either interested about or excited about. I watch the BBC. I am ok paying for it.
My wife has a theory that many women end up being paid less because, as a general rule (to which as ever, there are always exceptions), they are inherently risk-averse compared to men and consequently aren't such good negotiators as men. If that is true, then it's unclear that this is really a problem of employer bias. But it is a problem exacerbated by an opaque remuneration systems and one that can be cured by salary transparency, so I am all in favour of that. It would be nice to have it in my office too...
|
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jul 24, 2017 17:14:12 GMT
The pay issue doesn't interest me either. Women tend to be paid less because they take years out of their careers having children
I suppose the issue for me is that if you don't pay for the BBC you go to jail. I think it needs substantial reform as the old arguments just don't hold any more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blarno on Jul 24, 2017 17:25:00 GMT
Arse. I clicked yes instead of no.
|
|
|
|
Post by LandieMark on Jul 24, 2017 17:42:20 GMT
Needs reform - the whole thing is archaic!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2017 18:13:21 GMT
What with the seemingly archaic thinking processes used to generate programs and the fact that it is a rip off, the least they should do is drastically review the entire elephant along with staffing levels, especially higher up. The expenses and riotous financial rewards for what seems like no return. A good slow shooting of a lot of them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2017 18:16:27 GMT
[
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jul 24, 2017 18:35:32 GMT
I selected the needs reform option. Going down the no route I'd all very well but how then does the BBC fund itself. Ok adverts is the obvious option but with Services like Netflix and Amazon eschewing adverts in favour of a subscription it's hard to see a reliance on advertising revenue being a long term solution and to be honest I'd hate to see the BBC going down that route. I have no problem with the cost of the licence fee as I do watch a lot of BBC programmes and enjoy the context of Radio 4. Admittedly the monthly fee of about £12 is above the going rate compared to Netflix etc, but it's still acceptable value overall. I can understand how it may seem uncomfortable for non payment to be illegal but I think the focus needs to be the use of the services and I do think owning and using a tv should not require a licence. You could equally face legal action if you are caught streaming live Premier League games without paying for example so perhaps going down the paid subscription route is the way to go. But equally important is preserving the unique mix of programming that allows educational shows and new talent that a purely profit led network wouldn't invest in.
As for the pay of BBC tv personalities I don't disagree with them getting the market rate if that's what's required although I can think of many better football pundits than Alan Shearer for the £450k it costs for the privilege of his pearls of wisdom each Saturday evening. As our national broadcaster we do expect there to be some of the best tv talent on show and limiting their pay will not achieve that in the same way a wage cap of £50k a week won't allow your football team to win the Premier League these days. How many Man City fans wish they could go back to the days they were in the third tier of English football? It's a simple fact that if we want the best it has to be paid for and in the case of many of the personalities whose wages were highlighted they could have earned more with a commercial broadcaster so perhaps we should be praising their loyalty.
|
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jul 24, 2017 18:41:20 GMT
Am I alone in having absolutely no form of pay-per-view TV service?
|
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jul 24, 2017 18:44:17 GMT
I don't use any pay per view. I've never seen Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad or House of Cards.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boxer6 on Jul 24, 2017 20:55:12 GMT
Am I alone in having absolutely no form of pay-per-view TV service? No, none here either. Unless, of course, you count the BBC! |
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jul 24, 2017 21:00:41 GMT
Regardless of you three having consecutively posted you are likely to be in the minority, if not now, certainly in the near future. I don't have Sky or cable myself as the streaming services are much better value. I recently discussed this with a colleague who was paying Sky almost £50 a month just for telly 😳. After our little chat he ditched them and signed up to Prime, Now TV and Netflix and still was saving money, he's quite chuffed with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy C on Jul 24, 2017 21:20:27 GMT
I pay £60 a month for SKY (it used to be £90!)
I like most sports though, so the Sky Sports package bumps the cost right up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roadrunner on Jul 24, 2017 22:24:54 GMT
Am I alone in having absolutely no form of pay-per-view TV service? No, none here either. Unless, of course, you count the BBC! And none here either. |
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Jul 25, 2017 6:50:05 GMT
Am I alone in having absolutely no form of pay-per-view TV service? No, none here either. Unless, of course, you count the BBC! Same here |
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Jul 25, 2017 6:59:49 GMT
Am I alone in having absolutely no form of pay-per-view TV service? We don't pay for TV either. I gave Sky up a couple of years ago because £34/mth for largely the same as Freeview just wasn't worth it. I miss a few things like Eurosport and Motors TV where I could see some endurance racing and Rallycross but apart from that I don't miss it at all. There is also no way I am going to pay £60 or £70/mth just to get the sport I would like to watch. I haven't done the maths or looked at each offering but I am sure that Sky's new "channel for each sport" is going to increase that cost unless you are a one sport person.
As for the BBC, I don't like the licence fee much but I listen to a good bit of advert free BBC Radio and would hate to lose that. I also think with the advent of digital TV, recording and fast forward that TV adverts are a dying medium (or at least not the golden goose they once used to be) and if the BBC were to lose the licence fee, it would be forced down the subscription route which I doubt would leave any of us better off than we are with the current arrangement.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Jul 25, 2017 7:05:22 GMT
and if the BBC were to lose the licence fee, it would be forced down the subscription route which I doubt would leave any of us better off than we are with the current arrangement. Well, depends on how the BBC were to be funded. On the basis that pretty well the entire population listens to/watches the BBC, why should there now be a special licence for it, why not fund it from the general kitty held by the Chancellor? Although I doub that politicians could find a way of making that work... also the salaries paid to presenters/celebrities should drop, I am sure that there are many others who could do just as good a job for less money. |
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Jul 25, 2017 7:22:28 GMT
johnc said: and if the BBC were to lose the licence fee, it would be forced down the subscription route which I doubt would leave any of us better off than we are with the current arrangement. Well, depends on how the BBC were to be funded. On the basis that pretty well the entire population listens to/watches the BBC, why should there now be a special licence for it, why not fund it from the general kitty held by the Chancellor? Although I doub that politicians could find a way of making that work... also the salaries paid to presenters/celebrities should drop, I am sure that there are many others who could do just as good a job for less money. State funding would/could be a massive problem. The BBC is often accused of favouring the right, by the left and of favouring the left by the right - I reckon that shows that it is by and large fairly neutral and independent of any particular view. Whilst the BBC receives funding through the licence it can maintain its own agenda and continue to try and be an impartial provider of news and information. However as soon as the State provides the cash there are not only the real dangers of State influence but also the damaging accusations which may be completely groundless but may still prevent the full truth being told. You just need to look at China, N Korea and Russia to see how a manipulated press and TV system warps the truth and skews the views of the public largely for the benefit of the controlling powers.
I am not saying that would happen but Politicians have proven time and again that they cannot be trusted and they will do and say what they feel they need to do or say to get what they want - when they have control over the national broadcaster I think the BBC's reputation would be left in tatters and the population may be lapping up the same fake news they see on social media on a daily basis but this time from the BBC.
|
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jul 25, 2017 7:42:37 GMT
The BBC isn't impartial and that matters when 90% of people in this country get their news from it. It's not just a right/left thing but being able to have balance on issues. For example the BBC have never once done a positive piece on Brexit, like it or not they ought to take a neutral position and offer both sides of the debate equal airtime.
I think it needs major reform. It gets £4billion a year and so should have more than a few hits under it's belt but often they recycle the same formula and the schedule is stuffed full with antiques programmes as result. I think it needs to be an incubator for talent then when that talent can command a premium let it go to the commercial markets.
As it stands the BBC is a tax funded monopoly that competes with other channels and stifles competition as a result. With a myriad of channels I don't see why they should all be advert free. The BBC has adverts anyway but for its own stuff so I'm not bothered about it making money from that space instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by PG on Jul 25, 2017 9:32:57 GMT
Regardless of you three having consecutively posted you are likely to be in the minority, if not now, certainly in the near future. I don't have Sky or cable myself as the streaming services are much better value. I recently discussed this with a colleague who was paying Sky almost £50 a month just for telly 😳. After our little chat he ditched them and signed up to Prime, Now TV and Netflix and still was saving money, he's quite chuffed with that. This is the remarkable thing. People are wiling to pay £50+ a month for Sky and yet balk at less then £13 per month for the BBC. Yes, the BBC funding method is not perfect, but any other system is at least as problematical. Adverts are a dying way to fund TV - as press business section comments on ITV confirm. Subscription can work, but only if a large enough percentage are willing to continue to pay it and is it really different to the current method? General taxation has all the political interference issues. Yes, the BBC do advertsie their own programmes on TV, but only between programmes. Not every 15 minutes. I do find the adverts for their own stuff on radio already too intrusive, so going to advertising on radio to fund BBC radio would drive me mad. I hate listening to commercial radio as the adverts are terrible and all too frequent. It would not work (or be fair to viewers / listeners of those parts of the BBC) to make certain channels of the BBC advert carrying and others not. I've heard "worthies" say that BBC 1 and R1 and R2 should go commerical, and the rest be left as they are, for example. That's so bloody snobbish as to make my piss boil! The one area where reform may work is digitial content. That's becoming more and more important. So if people paid a reduced licence fee (for terrestrial TV and free to air radio) and then had to subscribe to watch iplayer or listen to radio over the web, that could work. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jul 25, 2017 9:39:07 GMT
I would go out of my mind if I didn't have my NOW TV and Netflix given the utter garbage that is rolled out by terrestrial TV. I don't watch masses of TV but I do like to sit down at 9pm and be entertained for an hour and it's rare you find anything on the BBC to suit. I can't watch TV with adverts, that drives me mad so it has to be either recorded so I can zip through them or streamed box sets. I have no idea why the BBC has 4 TV channels when they can't produce enough quality content for 2. Get rid of BBC 3 and 4 and work on producing quality content for the other 2.
I know I'm repeating myself but the BBC has moved well left of centre in its editorials and journalism and could do with a reset. You only have to watch Right to Reply when they wheel out some head of news or some such and ask then to defend their bias and see them literally sneer at the mere suggestion they are not impartial when the facts are put in front of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by PetrolEd on Jul 25, 2017 9:39:16 GMT
If we look at the talent pool for the BBC its clear the Male talent are head and shoulders above the female talent and therefore probably deserve the massive pay indifference. That's probably down to the fact that the female presenters are usually at least a 7/10 on the hotness scale and chosen for their looks rather than ability, not that I'm complaining. But how is it correct that we can have Bruce Forsyth on at a prime time whilst any woman approaching 50 is transferred to Radio 4 so that their wrinkles don't offend the viewer.
When the best female talent is Claudia Winkeleman and Alex Jones the BBC should worry, are we really suggesting they should be paid over £500k PA?
Its not the job of the BBC to compete on Wages, they should be developing new talent and not chasing audience figures, is that not the point of the license fee? Does Gary Lineker add anything to MOTD that your couldn't get from someone like Mark Chapman on £100k a year. Fact is these guys use their popular TV slots to make up a 7 figure income just off the back of being on BBC. Chase the money if you will but anyone remember Des Lynam!
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jul 25, 2017 9:45:52 GMT
I don't think 90% of people do get their news from the BBC - a shocking number of people I know seem to get it from things like Facebook  Also, BBC News 24's viewing figures are some way behind those of Sky News. I don't pay to view any TV although I do have a login for the family part of my brother-in-law's Netflix sub. You can get some things like Game of Thrones on freeview if you have enough of the channels. |
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jul 25, 2017 11:14:44 GMT
For example the BBC have never once done a positive piece on Brexit, like it or not they ought to take a neutral position and offer both sides of the debate equal airtime. I have seen pieces on the BBC which examine both sides of the story, and Question Time and Newsnight have both sometimes seemed more populated by vacuous Brexiteers than anything else. But to run an entirely positive piece on Brexit would be a difficult thing to do. How would you fill a half-hour slot, let alone an hour? |
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jul 25, 2017 11:47:36 GMT
To fill a half hour or hour long slot is your suggestion not mine. Coverage becomes skewed in individual articles when positive issues are appended with 'despite Brexit', this shows a clear position by the organisation that they believe Brexit to be bad. Whether you and I think it is or not isn't the point, it should be for the viewer to arrive at their own decision.
I believe the BBC position should be neutral for the reason that when they are biased it becomes easier to smear any position, regardless of accuracy, with fake news. I also think it contributes to the disenfranchisement of the electorate when it appears a difference of opinion isn't respected and debated but instead is simply shut down and you're told you're wrong. It probably contributes to why we can't have meaningful debates on matters like immigration without being accused of racism.
My own sense is if you patronise the viewer by feeding them a view and not letting them form their own they're more likely to stop listening to you and go off and read Breitbart or the Canary. I don't think that helps anyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Jul 25, 2017 12:01:01 GMT
I don't believe the BBC is being deliberately anti Brexit. Their reporting merely mirrors the position: we have put all the family silver on Black and we have a hope and expectation that it will come up black. However if it doesn't what will we do then? It would be wrong for the BBC to report on the positives from a future and unknown outcome when we have no idea how it will pan out. On the other hand, we know what we have now and it is very tangible what we might lose especially when the croupier is telling us there is no way it will be black and asking us to reconsider putting everything on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jul 25, 2017 12:01:51 GMT
Michael, how can you possibly say the BBC haven't shown anything pro-Brexit - unless you've watched ALL of their programmes for the last 18 months? Or you have a verifiably independent, unbiased source of course  |
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Jul 25, 2017 12:34:13 GMT
Yes, the BBC do advertsie their own programmes on TV, but only between programmes. Not every 15 minutes. I do find the adverts for their own stuff on radio already too intrusive, If you access the BBC website from abroad, there are adverts... fairly subtle/low-key and they don't really interfere with browsing, but they are there, as I found out when in the USA in May |
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jul 25, 2017 13:08:02 GMT
Tim, Lord Hall has been asked by Lord Pearson for an example of a single piece of Brexit coverage since June 23rd that puts it a positive light, he hasn't had a reply. The BBC broadcast Great European Disaster Movie without anything to counter it. This article sums up some of the issues: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/over-70-mps-write-open-letter-to-bbc-accusing-broadcaster-of-bias-a7640756.htmlBrexit is contentious example but I firmly believe they should be neutral in it even though I'm a remainer because I think this kind of thing creates that disenfranchisement and allows those that are disenfranchised to be sold a dud, fake news, whatever you want to call it. My 90% claim early was incorrect, apparently it's only 70% which is still far too massive. |
|
