The BBC gets too much money

Obviously, in countries where the national broadcaster is funded by the licence fee, the higher the population the more money the broadcaster has to make programmes with. So, with 60,000,000 people you'd have thought the BBC would be a pretty cracking service.

However, Sweden's public broadcaster produces good TV and Radio with only licence fee payments coming from a population of 9 million people, and likewise with Finland does also with a population of only 5 million.

The fact these low population countries can produce good programming on a much lower budget does make me wonder if the BBC could be made much, much leaner.

Reply 1

fire2burn

Define 'good' programming.

The opinions will vary from person to person. What you consider to be good programming will probably be completely different from every other user on here.

I for instance would like more stuff like Doctor Who, Sherlock, QI etc. I imagine someone else maybe an older more religious person would argue for stuff like songs of praise, or documentaries focusing on the church, Jesus, and all that jazz. Personally I find that stuff horrifically boring, we'd clearly never come to an agreement.

Reply 2

.:Doctor:.

You have no facts to back up any of your points, this whole argument is based around your opinion. Secondly the BBC produces fantastic quality programmes, if it lost any of its funding it would have to reduce itself to programmes such as Big Brother, which frankly has no academic value at all, nor entertainment value for that matter.

Reply 3

lovely_me

I quite like the BBC :dontknow:

And if went what would Dave do with its old shows to rerun? You'd interrupt the TV food chain OP; it's just not right.

Reply 4

concubine

Pretty certain the BBC creates far more, and more expensive, programs than the publicly funded broadcasters in Sweden and the like so... What's your point exactly?

Reply 5

NebulousPhantasm

The BBC definitely has too much money. The fact that they could even pay Jonathan Ross that amount of money is unbelievable. I like the BBC but it's way too big and I don't believe it should try to compete with the big commercial broadcasters but should develop more UK talent.

For example who really cares if the guy in a BBC drama is a no-name who hasn't proved himself? Give them the opportunity and the cream will rise to the crop insanely quick at low cost to the taxpayer. I would rather the BBC had 4 guys earning 50,000 than 1 guy earning 200K.

Reply 6

Aphotic Cosmos

Swedish and Finnish public broadcasters save a lot of money by just buying a lot of foreign programs and just subtitling them, often from places such as the UK and the USA.

The BBC is pretty legendary, all things said and done. Dozens of radio stations and channels, an excellent website, a fairly unbiased rolling news service, the single best natural history filming unit in the world, and the BBC World Service. Oh, and the proms and all the live music events around the country. And the films it finances. And the fact that it acts as a major avenue for exporting British culture and TV to the rest of the world.

For £140-ish a year? Pretty legendary, especially when ITV and Channel 4 are completely and largely **** respectively (More4 and Film4 are good)

Reply 7

mistermeowingtons

Aphotic Cosmos

Well put. I completely agree.

Reply 8

dd4483

The BBC is something we should be proud of, no way does it have too much money.

The only channel worth watching in my opinion. ITV? No thanks.

Reply 9

Roobagnall

Matematik

Your argument is so pointless.
Do Sweden and Finland pay the same amount as the UK? Do they offer the same services? Do they show adverts?
And please remember that not everyone in the UK actually has to pay the licence fee as it is done by HOUSE HOLD.
If you can make your argument more valid with some actual facts then please, do. In the mean time please remember that the BBC is probably the best broadcaster in the world.