MoneySaving Poll: Should the BBC be downscaled?

JenniferK

gbankian wrote: »

Although I'm in the older age bracket, I think that everyone should pay, including over 75s, as paying £12.12 per month per household for all the BBC stuff is very good value for money. There could be a reduction, perhaps for single occupancy households in the same way that there is for Council Tax. I also think that anyone who uses the BBC in any way - radio, website etc - and not just live TV should also pay the licence fee.

and if you don't watch the BBC stuff is that fair?

JenniferK

Ian_Summerton wrote: »

Why do people seem to happily pay nearly £1000 per annum for the full Sky package then complain at £150 for the BBC. I suspect it is because it has the tag "License" and is seen as another form of Tax. Certainly the value from the BBC is incomparable with Sky (and they have adverts as well)

Its about choice. You can choose to pay £1000 a year to Sky. To watch Sky you then have to pay a fee to the BBC even if you never use the service. Is that fair?

patanne

If there is no credible BBC then I am prepared to bet that Sky will increase their fees by a lot more than the license fee. I will also have a free corner of my living room because 1 minute of reality TV is 1 minute more than my intelligence can tolerate.

JenniferK

patanne wrote: »

If there is no credible BBC then I am prepared to bet that Sky will increase their fees by a lot more than the license fee. I will also have a free corner of my living room because 1 minute of reality TV is 1 minute more than my intelligence can tolerate.

So the BBC don't do reality TV?
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Mars_Bar

I see that MSE email is reporting a 39% vs 22% figure. Technically correct, but ignores those users who suggested that the BBC should have _more_ funding, not less.

The headline figure should be that 59% think that the BBC should either have the existing license fee, should have a _larger_ license fee, or should be funded from general taxation. That's a massive vote of confidence and should be publicised as such.

Cornucopia

Mars_Bar wrote: »

I see that MSE email is reporting a 39% vs 22% figure. Technically correct, but ignores those users who suggested that the BBC should have _more_ funding, not less.

The headline figure should be that 59% think that the BBC should either have the existing license fee, should have a _larger_ license fee, or should be funded from general taxation. That's a massive vote of confidence and should be publicised as such.

That's slightly missing the point, I think.

The nature of the BBC is that it needs the overall support of the population to justify its existence - a bare democratic mandate is not enough. Once 30-40% of the public want significant change, then the BBC cannot justify imposing its fee upon the entire population.

The other issue is that the MSE poll is just "a bit of fun". Polls of the entire population typically put the figure "for change" at 50-60%.

Mars_Bar

Cornucopia wrote: »

That's slightly missing the point, I think.

No, it's not. My point is that MSE are giving misleading results to their poll. 60% think that the BBC should get the same or higher level of funding. That's what they should be reporting. Whether that 59% should be enough to tell Murdoch to eff off is a side issue.

The nature of the BBC is that it needs the overall support of the population to justify its existence - a bare democratic mandate is not enough. Once 30-40% of the public want significant change, then the BBC cannot justify imposing its fee upon the entire population.

Well that's utter nonsense on two counts.

1. What is it about the nature of the BBC that means it requires the support of the population any more than any other publically-funded organisation?
2. Even if you can explain this ephemeral "nature" that makes it special, why should a minority be able to overrule the majority?

The other issue is that the MSE poll is just "a bit of fun". Polls of the entire population typically put the figure "for change" at 50-60%.

First off, "The entire population"? Please point me at that poll so I can see the wording and so they can explain to me when they polled me, since I count as part of the "entire population" and I've never been asked before.

Secondly, "for change" includes those who believe it should be funded through taxation. That's reflected perfectly here also. The point wasn't "should nothing change?", it was "should the BBC be downscaled?". It's pretty clear that the answer is a resounding "no!".

Cornucopia

Mars_Bar wrote: »

No, it's not. My point is that MSE are giving misleading results to their poll. 60% think that the BBC should get the same or higher level of funding.

I don't have a problem with that. Perhaps "missing the point" wasn't the right way to word my interjection? Maybe "missing the bigger picture" is more accurate.

Well that's utter nonsense on two counts.

1. What is it about the nature of the BBC that means it requires the support of the population any more than any other publically-funded organisation?

That's easy. It's because of the unique way it's funded (sounds familiar). (a) we don't need there to be a State permit for TV watching, and the BBC is unfortunate in being caught up with that truism, (b) as it stands, people can opt-out of the Licence relatively easily - if enough do, the BBC is in big trouble (*), and (c) if you're not doing anything important in your public service, you need to be sure that you're doing something popular.

2. Even if you can explain this ephemeral "nature" that makes it special, why should a minority be able to overrule the majority?

You're right - being ephemeral and frivolous are two reasons why it shouldn't be subject to the same funding rigour as other, more important public services.

Add to that (a) that other similar services exist that are free to use, (b) that technology exists whereby individual households could freely opt in and out, and (c) that it's just the telly.

First off, "The entire population"? Please point me at that poll so I can see the wording and so they can explain to me when they polled me, since I count as part of the "entire population" and I've never been asked before.

Oh dear. I'm not going to explain the whole rationale behind opinion polling. If you don't like it, take it up with Mori (nice guy, apparently).

Secondly, "for change" includes those who believe it should be funded through taxation.

I don't believe that was an option.

That's reflected perfectly here also. The point wasn't "should nothing change?", it was "should the BBC be downscaled?". It's pretty clear that the answer is a resounding "no!".

From MSE members who voted.... and why would you take that as a result when you object to a "proper" opinion poll?


(*) They're whinging already, but that's just hype. Expect significantly more hand-wringing with waves of orchestrated celebrity lobbying approaching from the South before the issue is settled.

Mars_Bar

Cornucopia wrote: »

I don't have a problem with that. Perhaps "missing the point" wasn't the right way to word my interjection? Maybe "missing the bigger picture" is more accurate.

But I don't have a problem with the bigger picture. If the majority of people think the BBC should be funded by advertising, then so be it. They're idiots, but people are entitled to be idiots

My post was making the point that MSE were misleading in their reporting of the results of their own poll.

Cornucopia wrote: »

That's easy. It's because of the unique way it's funded (sounds familiar). (a) we don't need there to be a State permit for TV watching, and the BBC is unfortunate in being caught up with that truism, (b) as it stands, people can opt-out of the Licence relatively easily - if enough do, the BBC is in big trouble (*)

Fair points. None of those excludes general taxation (with a legislated separation from government, perhaps through an independent body setting the funding levels?) as an option.

(c) if you're not doing anything important in your public service, you need to be sure that you're doing something popular.

The BBC is important. An independent media organisation providing an agenda that can counter the privately-funded media without fear of losing advertising, as well as challenge the government without fear of losing funding, is one of the best things (along with a free NHS) that this country has to offer.

You're right - being ephemeral and frivolous are two reasons why it shouldn't be subject to the same funding rigour as other, more important public services.

Don't put words in my mouth to try to win an argument. That's not what I said and you know it.

Add to that (a) that other similar services exist that are free to use,

No, they don't. Quite apart from the fact that you pay for ITV through putting up with advertising (so it's not "free", and an hour's programme is actually nearer 45 minutes) a look at the output of ITV1, ITV2 and ITV3 vs BBC1, BBC2 and BBC3 (and I don't mean just prime-time 7-9pm) will show you the vast difference between advertising-funded and license-funded output.

Oh dear. I'm not going to explain the whole rationale behind opinion polling. If you don't like it, take it up with Mori (nice guy, apparently).

Would that be the same opinion polling rationale that said that labour would be running the country by June?

FWIW I understand opinion polls very well (one of the reasons why I want to see the original source is that polls can be easily skewed by their questioning). But you said "the entire population", blatantly not true.

I don't believe that was an option.

Which is why I asked for a link to the source.

From MSE members who voted.... and why would you take that as a result when you object to a "proper" opinion poll?

Once again, my primary objection is the misreporting. If you're going to report on the results of your poll as if it were important, make sure you get your figures right.

Cornucopia

Mars_Bar wrote: »

But I don't have a problem with the bigger picture. If the majority of people think the BBC should be funded by advertising, then so be it. They're idiots, but people are entitled to be idiots

That's what I like to see - a wholehearted commitment to freedom of speech, and the process of democracy that you were previously commending.

You can spot the people who are genuinely committed to democracy - they are the ones who accept the result irrespective of whether they agree with it or not.

Fair points. None of those excludes general taxation (with a legislated separation from government, perhaps through an independent body setting the funding levels?) as an option.

I think the issues with funding centrally are two-fold: (a) if done properly, the Licence precept would be related to ability to pay, and if 40% taxpayers were suddenly faced with the "true" cost of maybe £350 per year, their attitudes may be a little different, and (b) there needs to be the independent body you suggest to see fair play. Other than that, if we must have the BBC, and subscription is not permitted, then that would be my next "least worst" option.

The BBC is important. An independent media organisation providing an agenda that can counter the privately-funded media without fear of losing advertising, as well as challenge the government without fear of losing funding, is one of the best things (along with a free NHS) that this country has to offer.

BBC News and Current Affairs is important. Not anything else. What does editorial independence for Strictly Come Dancing even mean? Blue sequins, not red - I can see it now.

C4 report on a huge range of issues, generally without fear or favour, and sometimes even carry relevant ads in the breaks of those very programmes. Like the newspapers. Oft-vaunted, this issue... not serious in my opinion.

Don't put words in my mouth to try to win an argument. That's not what I said and you know it.

Do I? I assumed you knew what "ephemeral" meant. I was obviously wrong.

The fact remains (whether you agree or not) that TV is by its very nature ephemeral and frivolous, certainly when compared to "serious" public services, like the NHS and Schools.

No, they don't. Quite apart from the fact that you pay for ITV through putting up with advertising (so it's not "free", and an hour's programme is actually nearer 45 minutes) a look at the output of ITV1, ITV2 and ITV3 vs BBC1, BBC2 and BBC3 (and I don't mean just prime-time 7-9pm) will show you the vast difference between advertising-funded and license-funded output.

Another tired old chestnut. BBC vs. ITV is an argument from 1955. We are talking about a huge, diverse commercial media now, including hybrid PSB C4 group, and new models like Netflix. I will stand by the entirety of commercial media against the BBC any day.

Would that be the same opinion polling rationale that said that labour would be running the country by June?

FWIW I understand opinion polls very well (one of the reasons why I want to see the original source is that polls can be easily skewed by their questioning). But you said "the entire population", blatantly not true.

If you understand opinion polls, then you understand why "the entire population" is supposedly represented by them. I'm not going to argue the point because I have my own issues with them, but the use of the term "entire population" in the context of a poll that was a sample of "the entire population" doesn't seem that outlandish to me - certainly when used to contrast with a poll that was not a sample or a poll of the entire population (not even close).

Which is why I asked for a link to the source.

There have been several, but they are difficult to find as political opinion polls crowd the search results.

Here's an example.... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2486652/Licence-fee-revolt-7-10-viewers-want-cut-abolished-think-BBC-biased.html