NewsCorp destroys BBC

FTBFun

tr3mor wrote: »

You get it for that price because everyone in the country is coerced into paying for it.

I used to think that the BBC news was better that Sky, but it's really not. Programmes like Jeff Randall Live are twice as good as the equivalents produced by the BBC. They actually have guests with experience in their field that know their !!!! from their elbow.

Sky News = mouthpiece for Murdoch and the rest of his Empire. Anyone who reads Private Eye and notes the "I-Sky" section will know what I mean.

Its caught on a bit as well as Richard Desmond has started doing it for Five.

StevieJ

FTBFun wrote: »

Sky News = mouthpiece for Murdoch and the rest of his Empire. Anyone who reads Private Eye and notes the "I-Sky" section will know what I mean.

Its caught on a bit as well as Richard Desmond has started doing it for Five.

The News corp media concentration is the big worry :eek: how Murdoch would love see the BBC neutered.

ukcarper

angrypirate wrote: »

In which case, if it is turned into a subscription only service you will have no problem paying £15-20 a month (to cover up the cost of people who dont subscribe to it). I watch very little on the BBC - i find the socialist reporting too baised and unbalanced. Having said that I do enjoy the occasional masterchef and spooks.

If the choice was a basic sky package without BBC channels or a BBC package with out Sky channels I would much rather give by £18 to the BBC..

ruggedtoast

Cleaver wrote: »

I've said it before and I'll say it again. When I look down the list of direct debits, bill payments and general spending we do each month I'm constantly amazed at how much pleasure, information and interesting stuff I get for just that little £12 a month. I can't think of anything else I buy that gives me better value for my money.

I only agree with that statement now I have kids, as the childrens' programming on the beeb is actually very good.

If it didnt exist all we'd have would be dire, badly drawn American cartoons of people fighting eachother.

Prior to that though, a bunch of overpaid variety primadonnas, a dull news website, dreadful situation comedies, dismal soaps, some low quality radio stations, and a lot of science documentaries apparently aimed at people so stupid a Year 7 inner city science class would be crying with boredom.

Didnt really seem worth £150 a year to watch Ideal and listen to Radios 6 and 4.

tr3mor

FTBFun wrote: »

Sky News = mouthpiece for Murdoch and the rest of his Empire. Anyone who reads Private Eye and notes the "I-Sky" section will know what I mean.

Its caught on a bit as well as Richard Desmond has started doing it for Five.

Have you watched Sky News then? Or are you just basing your opinion on a comical magazine?

StevieJ

tr3mor wrote: »

Have you watched Sky News then? Or are you just basing your opinion on a comical magazine?

So you think it isn't a mouthpiece for Murdoch?

Graham_Devon

Personally, I don't mind paying it. BUT, they key thing that annoys people is lack of choice.

One person may think their £12 is great value. Another may prefer not to pay it.

That's the trouble with the licence fee. It's completely outdated, but the BBC would be crippled without it. Simply put, it relies on this outdated funding (or basically, TV tax) to run.

PhylPho

FTBFun wrote: »

Sky News = mouthpiece for Murdoch and the rest of his Empire. Anyone who reads Private Eye and notes the "I-Sky" section will know what I mean.

Wot utter colemanballs. You obviously know nowt about news gathering or editorial independence or editorial cost management.

If you did, you'd be posting here wondering why the BBC staffed the rescue of 33 miners in Chile with no less than 25 journalists.

Whereas Sky managed with. . . five.

If you did know anything, you'd be posting here wondering how come Sky News's excellent presentation -- populist though it may have been, but so what? -- consisted of a large graphic at the top lefthand side of the screen showing the countdown of miners rescued, whereas the BBC managed to screen, er, the time in Chile.

The rank amateurism, over-staffing and milking of the taxpayers' purse by BBC news mandarins would be hilarious if it wasn't so flamin' expensive for the rest of us.

As to your faith in Private Eye, I've been a subscriber since Christopher Logue and Richard Ingrams were running it, so please don't think I'll ever vilify it.

However, as any fule know, the current editor of the Illustrious Organ doesn't spend any of his spare time on the payroll of News Corp but, er, somewhere else.

tr3mor

StevieJ wrote: »

So you think it isn't a mouthpiece for Murdoch?

No. Not especially.

FTBFun

tr3mor wrote: »

Have you watched Sky News then? Or are you just basing your opinion on a comical magazine?

I have Sky, so yes I do watch it occasionally.

It is The Day Today come true. But not as funny.