Is the TV Licence fee worth it? Poll results/discussion

magyar

Defiant wrote: »

Whats the excuse going to be next time hey :mad:

What do you mean by excuse? I said I don't understand your English. An intelligent adult might rephrase their point rather than repeat over and over again "but I answered your question".

Defiant wrote: »

Stop being obtuse then and admit you just don't agree with my explination and you never will because the adverts rubbish is the only thing you have to cring too in regards to defending the BBC TV Licence.

I don't understand your explanation, and you're right I never will if you don't put it into English.

I'm not 'clinging' to this argument, I'm stating that it's not yet been disproved.

magyar

Schwade wrote: »

Cool that you like TV without adverts. But maybe there should be a market for people like you who like TV without adverts to subscribe for such TV (just like people with SKY). I still don't understand why the general public need to support this funding if they don't watch BBC and don't mind adverts or whatever it is. Why is the public funding locked into paying...

I presume the answer is that the BBC is continually able to convince the government that it is providing a public service.

TNG

Schwade wrote: »

Your assumption is commerical programmes comes a very poor second to BBC programmes. Can you check whether your assumption is correct?

FYI,

1. Royal Television Society has been providing awards to commercial programmes for generations.

2. News, the epitome for your need of "quality", has been awarded by Royal Television Society to Sky News and ITV (organisations to please shareholders/share price/advertisers).

3. If you actually look at the results, BBC does not have any advantage over commerical programmes relating to quality programmes.

It is your perception that is clouding the facts.

I fully accept that commercial strations are able to produce quality programmes. this has been and still is necessary in order to compete for viewers.

As soon as you make the BBC completely generate its own revenue, you will see the slide increase to even more Lowest Common Denominator TV (cheap, viewer attracting reality shows and soaps) and a lesser reliability on producing quality (i.e. comparatively expensive) programmes in order to keep the share price up and keep the advertisers happy. It is happening already, but my opinion is that it would increase exponentially were we to lose a publibcly funded broadcaster

BTW Thanks Schwade - a reasoned argument, rather than a jumbled rant and insults :T

magyar

Schwade wrote: »

Your assumption is commerical programmes comes a very poor second to BBC programmes in quality.

The problem you'll always have is the same problem I have in my job, which is wind farm development. (Not the BBC, but Defiant may yet to be convinced on this! :rotfl: )

I can argue until I'm blue in the face and deny most of the myths that get pandered about wind farms, but there's one that I cannot counter, which is 'I just don't like the look of them'

And no matter how much people say otherwise, 'I just don't like programmes with adverts'.

Now of course your point is that - fine, but you should have the choice not to pay for them and thus not watch them - and I taken as an argument in its own right, I would agree. However I would argue that you cannot view this as a discrete argument, you have to also weigh up the public service element.

Defiant_3

TNG wrote: »

As soon as you make the BBC completely generate its own revenue, you will see the slide increase to even more Lowest Common Denominator TV

Nice to see you've finally decided to join in with the debate TNG and I genuinely mean that. Now could you just explain why everyone apart from the mighty BBC is the "Lowest Common Denominator”?

Would you be talking about shows like these?

Homes Under the Hammer

Open House

Cash in the Attic

Bargain Hunt


Would your statement be opinion or fact ?

magyar

Defiant wrote: »

I'm not feeding the troll anymore. I've reported the posts and hopefully a mod will take action.

Well I agree, I hope they do take action. But you'll probably just come back as an AE, so I wouldn't worry too much.

Defiant wrote: »

As you can see he doesn't seem interested in defending the BBC by trying to answer your questions. He much rather keep it on the subject of ITV!

Do you mean me? If so, then I believe I have answered every question asked of me - if I have not done so then please point out where I have not done so.

magyar

TNG wrote: »

BTW Thanks Schwade - a reasoned argument, rather than a jumbled rant and insults :T

Likewise. I may disagree with you Schwade, but you've been polite and clear in your arguments. :beer:

Defiant_3

magyar wrote: »

Likewise. I may disagree with you Schwade, but you've been polite and clear in your arguments. :beer:

Yes he's kept it on topic too hasn't he magyar :rolleyes:

Schwade

TNG wrote: »

I fully accept that commercial strations are able to produce quality programmes. this has been and still is necessary in order to compete for viewers.

As soon as you make the BBC completely generate its own revenue, you will see the slide increase to even more Lowest Common Denominator TV (cheap, viewer attracting reality shows and soaps) and a lesser reliability on producing quality (i.e. comparatively expensive) programmes in order to keep the share price up and keep the advertisers happy. It is happening already, but my opinion is that it would increase exponentially were we to lose a publibcly funded broadcaster

BTW Thanks Schwade - a reasoned argument, rather than a jumbled rant and insults :T

Thanks.

The only reason why commerical televisions produces reality shows is because consumer wants it. That's market forces - which ironically means the "quality" programmes are not a great hit with anyone.

If the lack of public funding has such a major slide in quality, you should see this in the 100% commerically driven uk newspapers. But, in reality, there is a range of "perceived quality" of various newspaper - why? because at the end of the day, you have various consumers driving what they want.

TNG

Defiant wrote: »

Nice to see you've finally decided to join in with the debate TNG and I genuinely mean that. Now could you just explain why everyone apart from the mighty BBC is the "Lowest Common Denominator”?

Would you be talking about shows like these?

Homes Under the Hammer

Open House

Cash in the Attic

Bargain Hunt


Would your statement be opinion or fact ?

Again, you seem to have read something in to my statement that I didn't type. I didn't say everyone except the BBC, I included the BBC. After all they do reality shows and soaps - not that I watch much of either (on any channel).

That is the last response I will give you defiant. You are incapable of reasoned debate and are evasive, insulting and do not listen. You are quite welcome to comment on my debate with Schwade, as that is intersting. i look forward to reading your comments, they make me laugh