Split Thread BBC news reporting

[Darat]

You can call it whatever you like, but it's a tax, because you don't have a choice about paying it, even if you don't watch the BBC.

Yes you do. And it's watch or listen.

 

[Darat]

I have to pay a subscription for all the TV I watch. It's true it's possible to end up paying the BBC's subscription fee even if you never watch their TV shows or listen to their radio channels (which I personally find hard to imagine) but you do still have access to them. Paying the monthly sub gives me access to Netflix, and if a month goes by when I don't watch a single show on it I've still paid that sub and can't get it back. So it's really only the "mandatory if you own a TV because that automatically gives you access" aspect of the BBC fee that's unique, and I don't think that's enough to classify it as a tax.

You don't need a BBC subscription if you never watch or record live TV broadcasts on any channel and never watch live streams on any online service, and the reason you need a subscription if you watch the live stuff is that it is broadcast on the BBC's transmitters and you need to pay it for the use of them.

And something quite a few Brits don't know if you only listen to the radio you don't need any BBC subscription even if you listen to BBC radio and use BBC Sounds!

It does seem very strange these days to call the BBC subscription a tax if you don't also call Netflix's subscription a tax.

 

[Ziggurat]

You don't need a BBC subscription if you never watch or record live TV broadcasts on any channel and never watch live streams on any online service,

Regardless of whether it's ever the BBC.

and the reason you need a subscription if you watch the live stuff is that it is broadcast on the BBC's transmitters and you need to pay it for the use of them.

Except it applies to live streams which don't use their transmitters, including non BBC live streams.

It does seem very strange these days to call the BBC subscription a tax if you don't also call Netflix's subscription a tax.

Except it works nothing like a Netflix subscription.

 

[Darat]

Regardless of whether it's ever the BBC.

Except it applies to live streams which don't use their transmitters, including non BBC live streams.

Except it works nothing like a Netflix subscription.

How doesn't it work like a Netflix subscription.

 

[Ziggurat]

How doesn't it work like a Netflix subscription.

I only need to pay Netflix if I want to watch Netflix. I don't need to pay Netflix if I want to watch Hulu.

You have to pay the BBC to watch things that have nothing to do with the BBC.

 

[Darat]

I only need to pay Netflix if I want to watch Netflix. I don't need to pay Netflix if I want to watch Hulu.

You have to pay the BBC to watch things that have nothing to do with the BBC. V. :::

But you do not have to have a BBC subscription.

 

[Mojo]

The BBC took over the collection of its voluntary subscription fee back in 1991, the government isn't involved in the collection or enforcement of the collection.

If that was the case do you think Thatcher would have let it get away with what she thought was its bias?

And why do you think the Tories more recently spent 14 years trying to bully it?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I know this may be hard for an American to believe, but legally the BBC must endeavour to be independent and impartial, because doing otherwise would go against the legal basis for its existence.

And no organization ever does anything illegal, right? Especially when legality is squishy and they don't think anyone will notice...

 

[Jack by the hedge]

And no organization ever does anything illegal, right? Especially when legality is squishy and they don't think anyone will notice...

The charter is the contract under which the BBC operates. It's not a memo or some guidelines. And there is not a shortage of loud voices ready to yell if it breaks its charter requirements.

It gets renewed (or not, who knows?) every ten years, which is intended to keep it at arms length from direct government interference. The licence fee is an historic anachronism, you would never set up a system like that now, but it goes back to 1926 when it seemed like a nifty idea, and the reason it never got replaced with another funding model is politicians kicking the can down the road every ten years because nobody wants to risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater and getting blamed for it. I'm really surprised it survived the last renewal but there's no current hint it won't survive the next one too. Also the UK is far from being the only country which still has a licence fee, it's not some unique outlier. And it only provides part of the funding these days, since as much as practicable is made from overseas sales of BBC content.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

The charter is the contract under which the BBC operates. It's not a memo or some guidelines. And there is not a shortage of loud voices ready to yell if it breaks its charter requirements.

It gets renewed (or not, who knows?) every ten years, which is intended to keep it at arms length from direct government interference. The licence fee is an historic anachronism, you would never set up a system like that now, but it goes back to 1926 when it seemed like a nifty idea, and the reason it never got replaced with another funding model is politicians kicking the can down the road every ten years because nobody wants to risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater and getting blamed for it. I'm really surprised it survived the last renewal but there's no current hint it won't survive the next one too. Also the UK is far from being the only country which still has a licence fee, it's not some unique outlier. And it only provides part of the funding these days, since as much as practicable is made from overseas sales of BBC content.

Not to mention that companies usually break the law (when it's done deliberately) for private profit.

 

[catsmate]

Don't mistake disinclination to engage for concession.

Indeed. Often it is simply not worth the effort of attempting to engage with those blinded by their ideology.

 

[catsmate]

You can never expect that a "news" organization funded by the government would be balanced of fair. They know which side their bread is buttered.

Sigh. As has been explained to you previously, the BBC is not funded by "the government".

 

[catsmate]

You're so funny. Look, a shiny memo! What penalties have been imposed on the BBC for bias, other than "whoops, sorry about that"?

Ah, facts....

 

[catsmate]

Which is why is always under so much more scrutiny than other organisations and why we have a right to know what it is doing.

Indeed, if only GBNews, or Sky for the USAians, was subject to the same level of scrutiny.

 

[smartcooky]

The charter is the contract under which the BBC operates. It's not a memo or some guidelines. And there is not a shortage of loud voices ready to yell if it breaks its charter requirements.

Loud voices yelling are no real consequences. Who enforces the charter?

It gets renewed (or not, who knows?) every ten years, which is intended to keep it at arms length from direct government interference. The licence fee is an historic anachronism, you would never set up a system like that now, but it goes back to 1926 when it seemed like a nifty idea, and the reason it never got replaced with another funding model is politicians kicking the can down the road every ten years because nobody wants to risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater and getting blamed for it. I'm really surprised it survived the last renewal but there's no current hint it won't survive the next one too.

Its surrounded by better funding models now. Politicians kicking the can down the road is not the flex to think it is

Also the UK is far from being the only country which still has a licence fee, it's not some unique outlier. And it only provides part of the funding these days, since as much as practicable is made from overseas sales of BBC content.

Right up there with nations like Mauritius, Ghana, Pakistan and Namibia.

Meanwhile, broadcast license fees were abolished in the rest of the Commonwealth

Canada 1953
Australia 1974
India 1984
Trinidad & Tobago 1987
Sri-Lanka 1996
Malaysia 1999
Cyprus 2000
New Zealand 2000
Singapore 2011
Malta 2012

Several more countries never adopted broadcast license fees in the first place... Jamaica, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Kenya, The Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Guyana, Fiji, Brunei, Botswana, Vanuatu, Malawi, Zambia, The Gambia, Belize, Samoa, Dominica, Seychelles, Tonga, St Lucia, St Kitt & Nevis, Antigua & Barbuda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Grenada and many others

Yeah, maybe not a unique outlier, but an outlier nonetheless!

 

[smartcooky]

You're so funny. Look, a shiny memo! What penalties have been imposed on the BBC for bias, other than "whoops, sorry about that"?

Well they have had a few Directors getting the Golden Handshake for not doing their jobs properly. That alone should tell you something about the culture.

 

[Trausti]

Sigh. As has been explained to you previously, the BBC is not funded by "the government".

Is it not the UK government that permits them to collect a license fee from people who watch tv on any channel, not just the BBC? If the UK government revoked that license fee requirement, you'd have a point.

 

[arthwollipot]

Meanwhile, broadcast license fees were abolished in the rest of the Commonwealth

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is somewhat conservative and slow to act. Who knew?