meritocrat

In my own country, I think the BBC should be privatised.

In general why should the state own broadcasting institutions. They can perfectly operate within the private sector.

simian

Um, I trust the state-owned BBC to give much more accurate news and more important news than any of the private-owned US companies. Saying "they can perfectly operate within the private sector" does not seem to apply to the US news sources, so far as I can tell.

Simian

victorialis

What do you mean by perfectly? Perfectly by private-sector standards? Yecch.

Despite the proliferation of TV channels, quality hasn't gone up a whole lot. Overall it's just a wider stream of the same thin mix. I'm not sure what you think would be gained by privatising. Do Carlton and Channel 4 need competition, or should the BBC just go away? Do we need more game shows, Big Brother and soaps? Do we need further multiple outlets for Friends, the Simpsons and Star Trek?

The BBC stands out sharply against that background (granted it's not difficult). I don't like the license fee -- but at least I get something for it, and there's something painfully funny about the fact that you get a discount if you're legally blind.

Daleth

What Simian said.

What seems to be happening here is that the media are run by bigger and bigger corporations. The bigger the company, the stronger its ties to the government, and so the news is more biased to support the government every year. It's possible that because the BBC is outright state-owned they have to be much more careful about political bias because there's a greater risk of being called on it by the public.

See, here I'm a big old conspiracy theorist for even suggesting government interests sway the media corporations. Can't point a finger straight to the gov't, so I must be a paranoid freak.

Dal

meritocrat

Nothing justifies the licence fee any more.

BBC programming is just as 'unimaginitive' as other networks.

excreationist

Well then it would either be funded by lots of advertising (and product placement), which comes from the profits that companies make out of people - and/or it would be pay-per-view... and then poorer people (some elderly, etc) mightn't be able to afford it. But as you've said in the past, you don't really care about the poor. If it was pay-per-view, there would be lots of administrative costs to make sure only those that have paid for it get the BBC, so then the total costs to the public would be more. The cost per faithful viewer would probably be less though.
BTW, corporations try to milk as much profit out of consumers as possible - so they'd want to minimize the costs of programs (e.g. do reality shows, etc) and make as much advertising revenue and/or money from paytv. But government-run TV stations don't make a profit... they're simply given a budget (usually a tight one).

But anyway, you're entitled to your opinion, but apparently most of the people in the UK or at least most of the government doesn't want things changed.

The shows I've seen on the BBC usually seem to be very educational and have high standards of journalism, etc.... I guess there would be other kinds of shows on it too.

I guess there is nothing that would convince you since you don't like the idea of people paying for something (like the BBC) that they may not personally watch. You probably believe in "user-pays" for everything... like sick people (and their insurance companies - assuming they have insurance) being responsible for paying medical bills, people paying all the costs of their education (no public schools), etc.

Monkeybot

Well, theoretically, I might agree that government-funded broadcasting companies are a bad idea, but I have to say that the current media situation indicates otherwise. I mean....

NPR vs. Fox?
BBC vs. CNN?

Sure, all of those companies have flaws, but IMHO, CNN's and Fox's are far more grave. The problem with privately-owned news companies is that they need to sell to the biggest market possible, and they fall prey to sensationalism. News is no longer to inform; it's to captivate viewers.

OK, so I don't know how it is in the UK (the only British source I read regualrly is the BBC, and sometimes the Guardian -- not exactly a broad sample!), but sensationalism and "lowest-common-denominator-ism" is definitely a pitfall of privately owned media.

Tigermilk

No adverts. Pure uninterrupted viewing.

I think the BBC has better quality programming, NOT just aiming for the lowest-common-denominator-TV that ITV goes for so that they can sell their commercial slots.

Edited to add: Holy crap it's taken me a long time to write these few lines. When I started this thread only had the OP! (I blame a customer who needed an hour of my time.....)

victorialis

meritocrat... you do have another choice.

Get rid of your telly.

I'm not kidding. No telly, no fee.

If you were to watch American commercial television for a week, you'd never think again about the end of the world. You'd believe it had happened already.

B. H. Manners

I like the BBC as is and find it much more intellectually stimulating than private owned US television.