[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by CyclopsRock)
Just so everyone knows, privatising the BBC wouldn't suddenly mean all the people there that make good TV and radio shows would die. They'd still be alive!

But it would mean that:

1 - The BBC would have adverts. Something that would much worsen it. I am watching eight out of ten cats on 4OD now, and the experience is so much worse than BBC iPlayer, mainly because of the adverts. The same is the case with live TV.

2 - A lot of the more niche stuff would not be made, because it would not get the viewing figures that would be needed (lower viewing figures = less money from adverts = less profitable = the show is replaced with something else).

[paperclip]

(Original post by CyclopsRock)
Just so everyone knows, privatising the BBC wouldn't suddenly mean all the people there that make good TV and radio shows would die. They'd still be alive!

The BBC has a reputation of investing in programming that other networks will not due to profitability. It is easier to bash out another season of Big Brother than find an independent, quality writer to risk investing in. Indeed, if your argument were true, then why does the BBC make so much on the open market by selling its successful programming to other networks across the world?

[tehFrance]

(Original post by paperclip)
The BBC has a reputation of investing in programming that other networks will not due to profitability. It is easier to bash out another season of Big Brother than find an independent, quality writer to risk investing in. Indeed, if your argument were true, then why does the BBC make so much on the open market by selling its successful programming to other networks across the world?

Er Sky invest in quality UK programming and Channel 4 don't do a bad job... the BBC is by far the worse.

[paperclip]

(Original post by tehFrance)
Er Sky invest in quality UK programming and Channel 4 don't do a bad job... the BBC is by far the worse.

Heh, international networks spend loads on buying things like frozen planet, as well as doctor who and top gear. The BBC is an internationally recognised brand of quality.

Channel four come under the public service broadcasting remit. The rationale is one of balance; they are still PSBs but cannot as easily be accused of bias. To provide a real comparison with the open market you would have to make a comparison between the BBC and channel five or ITV

[internetguru]

(Original post by paperclip)
Heh, international networks spend loads on buying things like frozen planet, as well as doctor who and top gear. The BBC is an internationally recognised brand of quality.

Channel four come under the public service broadcasting remit. The rationale is one of balance; they are still PSBs but cannot as easily be accused of bias. To provide a real comparison with the open market you would have to make a comparison between the BBC and channel five or ITV

The US networks manage to make much more successful programmes without government money.

[tehFrance]

(Original post by paperclip)
Heh, international networks spend loads on buying things like frozen planet, as well as doctor who and top gear. The BBC is an internationally recognised brand of quality.

Channel four come under the public service broadcasting remit. The rationale is one of balance; they are still PSBs but cannot as easily be accused of bias. To provide a real comparison with the open market you would have to make a comparison between the BBC and channel five or ITV

So what is HBO? Showtime? Canal+? Nine? (okay maybe not Nine) are they not internationally recognised for quality? you'd be surprised at some of HBO and Showtimes stuff and Canal+ (with much of the French TV and Film industry) makes great documentaries too. All of them are private, why can the BBC not do the same?

[Bellissima]

no way, bbc is brilliant, that is the last thing it needs. it is top quality TV, miles better than any of the other channels at producing good tv, the BBC NHU is one of the best in the world.

[paperclip]

(Original post by internetguru)
The US networks manage to make much more successful programmes without government money.

Do you know where the TV licence comes from?

(Original post by tehFrance)
So what is HBO? Showtime? Canal+? Nine? (okay maybe not Nine) are they not internationally recognised for quality? you'd be surprised at some of HBO and Showtimes stuff and Canal+ (with much of the French TV and Film industry) makes great documentaries too. All of them are private, why can the BBC not do the same?

It is quite telling that all those references are american. Sorry, please tell me how successful the British movie industry has been on the open market?

[internetguru]

(Original post by paperclip)
Do you know where the TV licence comes from?



It is quite telling that all those references are american. Sorry, please tell me how successful the British movie industry has been on the open market?

The British movie industry is one of the most successful in the world.

[kopite493]

(Original post by SpiggyTopes)
Have you ever had the misfortune to see American T.V.? That would be the outlook.

you mean

sopranos
the wire
24
game of thrones
entourage

i could go on

but well im sure you get my point

[paperclip]

(Original post by internetguru)
The British movie industry is one of the most successful in the world.

Not according to the Prime Minister:

"Prime Minister David Cameron said the film industry should support "commercially successful pictures"."

Tell me, does Hollywood need to use lottery funding, EU and UK subsidies to remain commercially viable?

[internetguru]

(Original post by paperclip)
Not according to the Prime Minister:

"Prime Minister David Cameron said the film industry should support "commercially successful pictures"."

Tell me, does Hollywood need to use lottery funding, EU and UK subsidies to remain commercially viable?

No.

[Student2806]

(Original post by tehFrance)
So what is HBO? Showtime? Canal+? Nine? (okay maybe not Nine) are they not internationally recognised for quality? you'd be surprised at some of HBO and Showtimes stuff and Canal+ (with much of the French TV and Film industry) makes great documentaries too. All of them are private, why can the BBC not do the same?

HBO, Showtime and Canal+ (I'm not including Nine, because it's not only **** but also on the verge of financial collapse) are all subscription broadcasters you have to pay to watch.

[tufc]

(Original post by 2468_James_Maaay)
Goodnight quality television.

Yes, because ITV have never made anything decent...

[jesusandtequila]

If we're going to go about privatising it - then why not turn it into a consumer co-operative, where all those who choose to sign up to the BBC are the joint owners of it. This way, maybe we'll still see some of that public interest served without needing to resort to charging people to watch TV even if it's not the service they want (that is, even if they don't watch the BBC).

[CyclopsRock]

(Original post by paperclip)
The BBC has a reputation of investing in programming that other networks will not due to profitability. It is easier to bash out another season of Big Brother than find an independent, quality writer to risk investing in. Indeed, if your argument were true, then why does the BBC make so much on the open market by selling its successful programming to other networks across the world?

My argument? My argument was that they wouldn't die. That Steven Moffat and Paul Abbot would still be writing TV shows, there'd just be adverts in the middle.

As it happens, I agree that the role of the BBC should be to make niche programming. I mean, ideally, I'd rather it made nothing; I don't believe the force of government should be invoked to provide people with entertaining television and radio. But if I did, I'd support it making niche programmes - and only niche programmes. That it competes with other stations for ratings is atrocious - they shouldn't care about ratings. They're in the unique position where they don't have to care about it, and then they go and make some generic, repetitive spunk like The Voice. Why? That market sector is already well catered for. The people at large have a lot of choice when it comes to faux-reality singing *******s. They don't need Radio 1, a competitor to all the commercial pop stations. They don't need to enter bidding wars with ITV for sports coverage. Now, I hate Adrian Chiles as much as the next red blooded male, but I struggle to see how the BBC can justify spending millions of public money acquiring the license to broadcast a sport that would be absolutely identical on another channel, just so we don't have to watch adverts at half time, and have to look at Gary Linekar instead of Adrian Chiles.

tl;dr I don't think the BBC has a mandate to force people to pay money for the sake of entertainment. In a situation where they insist upon doing so, they should concentrate on exactly the kind of programming you mentioned; But that's not what they do right now (at least, not nearly enough).

PS If the BBC makes a load of money selling stuff abroad, maybe it should do that here, too...

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
If we're going to go about privatising it - then why not turn it into a consumer co-operative, where all those who choose to sign up to the BBC are the joint owners of it. This way, maybe we'll still see some of that public interest served without needing to resort to charging people to watch TV even if it's not the service they want (that is, even if they don't watch the BBC).

Whoops accidentally negged, agree. I don't understand why people think it's the government's job to provide you entertainment. It isn't. If you like niche market, tough, you're just going to have to restrict yourself to smaller programs. Since when is it fair to force others to fund your interests?

[xXedixXx]

Please don't ruin the BBC. Nay.

[mevidek]

No, because i don't want advertising on the BBC.

[Leon Trotsky]

Couldn't disagree with this more. The BBC is the best broadcaster in the world precisely because it's publicly funded.

The license fee prevents the BBC from being subjected to the whims of the market, which in turn allows it to take risks with the kinds of TV shows it puts on the air. If the BBC take a risk with a show and it turns out to be unpopular, they learn from their mistake and move on. If a commercial broadcaster like ITV takes a risk with a show and it turns out to be unpopular, they stand to lose a lot of money in ad revenues. Which do you think is more likely to produce riskier content? The BBC also produces a lot of important content that probably make a loss if they put ads on it, like BBC Parliament.

I don't think it's a coincidence that some of the best TV shows in the world come from broadcasters with secure revenue streams (i.e. not primarily ad-funded) such the BBC and some of the premium subscription cable channels in the United States like HBO.