Every adult in Britain will be forced to carry 'carbon ration cards'

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I watched UK terrestrial most of my life - up until I moved here 4 years ago. I get the idea of being able to choose what I want to watch - but having had both cable and satellite I'm really not all that impressed by the standard of the programming here. There's a few good shows - but the vast majority of the stuff I come across is total garbage, IMO.

[Peikko 1,575]

There is no one single program that makes or breaks the argument as to whether the UK tv licence facilitates quality programs across UK tv (does one really believe that ITV would produce the same programs if it was competing against a different organization?). The UK tv scene is a product of many factors, not least that one major network is financed not from advertising, but from a universally applied charge (tv licence). This fact ensures that programs are produced not simply to put bums on seats, but also to be educational, artistic and cater to minorities. Yes, it's not a 'fair' charge in that you have to pay it even if you never watch the bbc but in this instance I revel in the unfairness and long may it continue!

Some people may enjoy programing that caters to the lowest common denominator (with a very few notable exceptions) but I don't. I like the quirky, insane and frankly bizarre output that the Beeb has always produced along with some exceptional radio programing and I miss it over here. It's not ruining my life because I simply do other things but the shows that you find on US tv for the most part are cheap and fluffy, like a diet of mills and boone.

As for US talk shows, honestly, they are a pale immitation of the likes of Parkinson (those were the days). I think even Johnathan Woss beats the pants of anything I have watched here where the guests barely get to open their mouths let along reveal anything interesting about themselves in the 'mini' segments alloted to them between the 'stand up' comedy (written by those jolly writers) and the commercial breaks.

Edited June 12, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

There is no one single program that makes or breaks the argument as to whether the UK tv licence facilitates quality programs across UK tv (does one really believe that ITV would produce the same programs if it was competing against a different organization?). The UK tv scene is a product of many factors, not least that one major network is financed not from advertising, but from a universally applied charge (tv licence). This fact ensures that programs are produced not simply to put bums on seats, but also to be educational, artistic and cater to minorities. Yes, it's not a 'fair' charge in that you have to pay it even if you never watch the bbc but in this instance I revel in the unfairness and long may it continue!

Some people may enjoy programing that caters to the lowest common denominator (with a very few notable exceptions) but I don't. I like the quirky, insane and frankly bizarre output that the Beeb has always produced along with some exceptional radio programing and I miss it over here. It's not ruining my life because I simply do other things but the shows that you find on US tv for the most part are cheap and fluffy, like a diet of mills and boone.

As for US talk shows, honestly, they are a pale immitation of the likes of Parkinson (those were the days). I think even Johnathan Woss beats the pants of anything I have watched here where the guests barely get to open their mouths let along reveal anything interesting about themselves in the 'mini' segments alloted to them between the 'stand up' comedy (written by those jolly writers) and the commercial breaks.

Jonathan Ross costs the taxpayers 18 million. If the BBC's purpose is not to "put bums on seats" why does the BBC chase ratings? What is the educational, artistic, cultural value of Eastenders, Two Pints and a Packet of Crisps, Strictly Come Dancing and the Apprentice? (the latter 2 are formats produced by commercial television in the US without the aid of taxpayers)

[Peikko 1,575]

It chases ratings because the great british public, bless 'em, demand accountablity. Sadly, accountability seems to be measured only by 'bums on seats' which I find a totally flawed concept. Personally I think they should take the high road and forget about appealing to the masses and pandering to the egos but I don't think they will.

Also, the successful formats aren't predictable and there is no reason why the BBC should always produce programs that have limited appeal just to be perverse. Who would guess that the totally forgetable 'come dancing' of the 70's would spawn the hugely successful 'strictly come dancing' (which I believe started as a fund rasing charity event, no?)? That this format has traversed the Atlantic and is successful here too is a little surprising but, would they have dared try it let alone dream such a conept up without the success in the UK though? My instinct is a resounding, no!

Edited June 12, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

no broadcaster anywhere (commerical or otherwise) would try anything if they didn't accept a degree of risk. this is not something that makes the BBC special.

what "public service" is served by behaving as a commercial organization?

why should taxpayers lavish huge salaries on stars?

British people do demand accountability - that is why many of them are asking these questions.

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't understand the success of Eastenders though, such a miserable show.

[Peikko 1,575]

It's not my choice that the Beeb chooses to measure its accountablity in terms of bums on seats. I would not do so, I don't think the public is served paritulcarly well by trying to be all things to all men, which at the moment the BBC is trying to do. However, I understand why this has happened, it's happened because they have to justify this licence fee to a perverse public that wants ad free tv but doesn't like to pay the licence - or maybe I am the only one who likes the BBC these days.

Regardless, I didn't say that no one else accepts risks, but are you honestly suggesting that anyone in the private arena would have put forward ball room dancing as a potential financial success before the BBC piloted the format while endeavoring to raise money for charity? It was a happy accident, that's all and the BBC has produced these happy accidents before and if it survives, will do so again.

[Amby 490]

Eastender is so horrible

[Peikko 1,575]

Quite honestly, I don't think it's possible to explain the BBC in terms of value for money. Either the UK likes having a network that isn't financed via advertising and the public continue to 'fork' out the licence fee or it doesn't and the whole thing comes to an end. I think it's a good thing even with its flaws but I am sure if the british public chooses en masse to opt for commercial tv then that will happen and it will be the end of that particular era.

[SMB x2 0]

The TV tax isn't all about the "quality" of programs the BBC is churning out....it is, and I don't know how anyone can dispute the fact, an enforced tax on the people of the UK....if you don't pay it, you go to jail, full stop. It is just another way this government finds a way of ###### us out of money.

I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood you, but just to clarify, are you suggesting that people go to jail for not paying their UK TV license?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the last line. It's not "this" Government that's finding another way to get money ouy of you, the BBC has been publicly funded since its inception.

Stu

[SteveLaura 0]

Leave the BBC alone and pay the bloody fee. I'd find it hard to believe that you can't find something on one of its channels that you'd be happy to watch. Consider it like the taxes you pay to keep your local libraries open or your parks clean and safe. You don't have to spend your entire free time in either of them, but you'd miss 'em if they were gone.