BBC - Is it value for money?

[AllforNun]

It's not about a good job it's about accountability.

[Huguenot]

Moving the goalposts again.

What TV stations do you think are accountable?

Just for once AFN, I'd like to hear what you think is good?

[AllforNun]

Be like water my friend.

http://www.archive.org/details/Telestreets - click play

[Huguenot]

You mean the only good accountable telly is home made anarchist bullsh*t?

Lots of morons doing pieces to camera in their grotty front room? Utter crap from delusional idiots.

This is the kind of quality you find on Youtube. I thinking it's just called dumbing down.

[irony]

It's like my eyes have been opened. I can see how much better this must be than any TV stations we have today, certainly knocks Auntie into a cocked hat. Why would I want to watch Blue Planet when I could be talked at by AllforNun for three hours from her back bedroom?

[/irony]

[SeanMacGabhann]

Oh for F***s sake - all this dry debate about the BBC's "worth" - is it efficient? is it worth the money? is it as valuable as Norwegian (??????) television

Just LOOK at this 90 minute drama and

a) consider who else would fund it

b) who else would show it

c) how many people will now reconsider their negative opinion of Nesbitt

Awesome awesome stuff

[Keef]

I've never liked the fact you don't have a choice, but I have decided that Radio 4, and "Match of the day" are worth the fee.

[Keef]

Get lost Sean, good drama or not, Nesbitt is a c**t! ;-)

[antijen]

Huguenot, maybe you'd rather people go out and demonstrate when there not happy with something, these people are giving others the option of tuning in, its easy to sit talking about politics, news, that you dont agree with but to actualy do something about it and offer something to people who feel cut off from important things affecting there life, by a controlling, distorting media, it gives me hope that the "delusional idiots" are taking over the asylum.

[AllforNun]

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY thank you antijen, the thought of Hugenought creeping in my bedroom again really gives me the willies !

as for

"Just LOOK at this 90 minute drama and

a) consider who else would fund it

b) who else would show it

the answer is creative program makers who exist with or without TV companies, people actually consider it their passion to make programs, i know... hard to believe but true ! so this stuff would get made with or without the Beeb. Anyway like all uk Tv stations no doubt there are some top class people at the BBC my point has always only been they need to get back to providing unbiased content, get out of the arms of goverment and slash to bits their self fullfilling management structure.

[Huguenot]

Antijen, these delusional idiots are welcome to make their own television shows, I've never suggested they shouldn't. There's nothing totalitarian about my point of view. They can show it to whoever will watch it.

AFN isn't arguing about the 'option' to tune in, s/he wants all the other television stations shut down.

As with AFN, you're inventing an argument to defend.

I simply don't agree with AFN that we should shut the BBC down and replace it with this moronic crap because it's 'better'.

The question was, is the BBC value for money. At 38p per day, it demonstrably is. Ignoring any nonsensical student union arguments about bias, drama, documentary and natural history programmes are worth the 38p in their own right.

If you want to talk about a history of liberation, then think about the BBC's 1961 showing of 'Cathy Come Home', programmes like this changed society. Probably many of the freedoms you enjoy today are down to the Beeb.

Regarding AFN's assertion that this stuff gets made with or without the Beeb. This is palpable nonsense. You may not know how the commissioning system works, but independent 'free-to-air' stations don't get them made.

[AllforNun]

"I simply don't agree with AFN that we should shut the BBC down ..." oh huggy I never said anything like that.

And

"The question was, is the BBC value for money. At 38p per day, it demonstrably is"

That?s the point my friend how about we pay 38p extra a day in tax and put it to better use! You have no clue whether that 38p you currently spend is value for money. What would you do if it turns out you could get all you want for 15p a day?

As for

"Regarding AFN's assertion that this stuff gets made with or without the Beeb. This is palpable nonsense. You may not know how the commissioning system works, but independent 'free-to-air' stations don't get them made."

Unfortunalty huganit that is also another load of balls? More and more independent companies make this stuff and sell it to the highest bidder. That's why the BBC copies successful formats and rarely makes them!

So the conclusion is ...Huge should replace Gordons B's adviser his fact's are way better !!!!

[AllforNun]

and here's some stuff for 0p

http://climatecamp.org.uk/node/442

Christ and listen to this government monkey talking shite....apparently shouting at a police officer is provication ....odd how this news reporter seems so indifferent to violence towards women.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7999277.stm

[Huguenot]

No, AfN, these production companies don't 'get it made and sell it to the highest bidder'.

The production companies come up with a concept and a budget which they propose to a distribution house who touts it around TV stations to see if anyone will buy it.

If it's a low budget ratings winner (think 'Deal or No Deal') then most will take it.

If it's a high budget documentary than like as not the only possible bidder is the BBC, who (if they take it) will then become more involved to ensure their money is wisely spent.

If there is no buyer, the program won't get made.

I have no doubt that there are efficiency savings to be made at the BBC, but I'm also an apologist for human nature. Organisations don't run particularly efficiently because people aren't robots. More power to that.

If you want to make this debate (a new goalpost again AfN) about whether I would welcome the BBC at 15p a day, then the answer is yes, but it doesn't change the initial question about whether the BBC is value for money at 38p. It is.

Finally, if you are seriously asking if shouting at people is provocation, then I suggest that you try shouting obscenities in people's faces in Nunhead's pubs for a few hours. If you provoke a response then it is indeed, quite literally, provocation.

I'm not one of the people in this world who dehumanise policemen, if you do, which I'm sure you don't, then that would be a failure of imagination and a heinous crime. I can assure you that as a human being, if I came up to you and screamed obscenities in your face, you would hit me with your baton. I would have deserved it.

That's why AfN I welcome your opinion, I don't tell you to f*ck off to another thread (as you have done to me), and I shall smother you with kisses and hugs if I ever meet you in the street ;-)

[AllforNun]

Now that was well thought and and well written but sadly the BBC aint worth 38p a day, and no you can not slap women then batton them because they tell you to fuckoff, especially as no where in the police training does that training day exist. Youmay notice the way the police dress on those occasions, that effectively dehumanises them ! An why do you think people shout obscentities at each other in Nunhead pubs ? never happens as all the muppets hang out in your neck of the woods ! And as for your first argument, maybe you have heard of endemol ? they basically came up with it and left the TV company with little choice but to buy it, thats really how it works... "oh crap if i do not fund this someone else will" so sorry you big smothering bear you but your a bit out of date !

[Huguenot]

Lol, daft!

For Endemol read... If it's a low budget ratings winner (think 'Deal or No Deal') then most will take it. .

The point is that Endemol made 'Deal or No Deal'.

They don't make quality drama, documentary or news.

Are you proposing that Endemol is the future of British Television? Let's have a look at their contribution to humanity:

Reality Shows

* Big Brother

* The Big Donor Show

* Star Academy

* Extreme Makeover: Home Edition

* The Games (British TV)

* The Farm (TV series)

* Only Fools on Horses

* There's Something About Miriam

* Gay, Straight or Taken?

* Kid Nation

* Queen Bees (TV series)

* Estate of Panic

Game shows

* 1 vs. 100

* BrainTeaser

* Break The Bank

* Deal or No Deal

* Eliminator

* Fear Factor

* For the Rest of Your Life

* Golden Balls

* Hotrods

* I Love Money

* In The Grid

* Judas Game

* Midnight Money Madness

* Participation TV

* Set for Life

* Show Me the Money

* Take It or Leave It

* Take the Cake

* Wipeout

* Wheel of Fortune

Now, if you were proposing that Endemol isn't value for money, I'd shake you by the hand.

Thank God there are more intelligent people contributing to our media landscape. I rest my case.

[Marmora Man]

IT may hurt your case Hugenot but I'm following this argument with interest and cheering you on all the way.

The BBC does represent value for money FULL STOPAs I have said earlier in this thread it could be more efficient, it could be more considered and it could tone down it's statist approach but for all that the world's media and the world's public consumers of media would be poorer for its loss.

On the VFM equation perhaps it should be costed as (Total net costs to run) / (Total number of consumers)

The divisor across the world will surely run close to a billion, maybe more? Whereas Norwegian broadcasting is seldom seen outside Scandinavia.

[mockney piers]

A quick point, I'm not sure about all the state channels mentioned, but certainly RAI and TVE have editorial policy dictated to them by the government of the day, and don't have the Beeb's much jealously admired independence.

Of course this government has managed to pull the teeth out of that independence (like so many other civil liberties) to a certain extent using inquiries, bullying tactics and political pressure, but at least it has never managed to garner control over editorial policy.

And apologies for the cheap political point Huguenot.

[SeanMacGabhann]

The governments of the past have tried tho haven't they?

Was it in the 50s or the 60s when the government was so incensed by the BBC that they were planning troops to break into Broadcasting House, whilst the BBC managers had given out hammers to staff, instructing them to smash teh equipment if the troops came in

[Brendan]

It is also, rarely but less rarely than most of the other broadcasters, airs programmes that aren?t written for the lowest common denominator which seems to be someone with an IQ somewhere between that of a labrador and a macaque .

As an aside, is it wrong of me to think that broadcasting should uplift and challenge the populace to become better than they are and not just be an orgy of inanity piped into and reaffirming their self-imposed and celebrated cesspit of ignorance?

Or am I being some kind of snob?

I suspect I?m being some kind of snob.

Tough my opinion stands.

[????]

A good thing on the whole. Of course, it was the crap managemnt and weak editorial policy (maverick unchecked stories) that let the governemnt have one over the BBC over Iraq, which resulted in the Governemnat getting away with so much...

edited for missing words

[AllforNun]

Yes exactly ! that's the point just cause it's still identified by 3 letters it does not mean it the same institution, at which point are you going to wake up and realise that the coup has happened and you all slept through it ! but that's what governments do now, quiet docile revolutions, creeping erosions of Civil liberties, working to just fund the state, collective rather than individual, collective but under the behest of the state. It's not crap management and weak editorial policy, it's actually strong strong state management and perfectly positioned soft editorial policy.

and as for the below they are statements from another century, they are completely and utterly out of date in todays world.

"but at least it has never managed to garner control over editorial policy" and "Beeb's much jealously admired independence"

[bawdy-nan]

because, of course, that document wasn't "sexed up" was it ...

[AllforNun]

Yes that's what happens - a few rebels pop up and bang , the DG goes, the journalist gets the boot, a few more resignations and other reporters get smeared and their established contacts dry up. proves my point really......will anyone else step up ....well we shall see.........

[mockney piers]

well I must say I'm pretty disappointed with their knuckle rap of the wonderful Mr Bowen (local lad too)

[bawdy-nan]

I don't think it proves much. Its right and proper that the bbc strives to fair and balanced and seen to be striving.

The easily accessible complaints procedure and culture of complaining which now exists (outside the bbc but reflected by its approach and serious consideration of every complaint that is made) means that sometimes there is a pernickerty fiddling about the rules rather than attention to the substance of whats been broadcast. Which is to say the world beyond govt has got more savvy about rules and regulations as well as perceiving that there's an automatic right to influence what's broadcast and how.

The complaint, partially upheld by the BBC trust against EDite Jeremy Bowen, and reported today was made by a tiny section of the audience (reportedly 3 complaints). The investigation by the Trust and the subsequent comment in national newspapers and messageboards,including calls for his resignation, shows how extraordinarily difficult it is to negotiate an impartial line in an area where feelings run high and facts are disputed (and Malcolm Tucker would have something to say about "facts").

Similarly in the Brand/Ross furore everybody wanted the BBC to represent "their" interests and the same "heavy handed" repsonse by the BBC trust might be seen by others as flimsy. "Responsibility" can be perceived as excessive pandering to political masters but the truth is that there are many competing and contradictory interests and, mostly, the BBC treads a pretty steady path, I think.

Edited to say: cross posted with you MP ... re JB reading the reports I think, technically, they had a point - ie if you drill down to a precise interpretation of the editorial guidelines but in context its nonsense