F1 going to Sky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

No no and thrice no!!

It's included in the licence fee, it is NOT free.

---

I guess that depends on how you define the word free. By the strictest definition, very few things in life are truly free! BBC broadcasts are free in the same sense that NHS medical treatment is free. Everyone ultimately pays for it through taxation. If they renamed the "licence fee" to "television tax," it would be a better description of the thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Come on... Please don't try to argue that Labour were any different, and lets not forget Labour's attempts to emasculate the political independence of the BBC with the 45 minute WMD affair.

Both political parties have attacked the funding of the BBC when they're in power because taxpayers want more for less as usual and bashing the BBC on spending is a populist move.

---

The whole "sexed up dossier" affair demonstrated that, contrary to popular belief, the BBC weren't afraid to go head-to-head with Labour on controversial issues.

Cameron and Osborne had numerous meetings with the Murdochs before and after the election - indeed the very first person to meet Cameron as PM was Rupert Murdoch. The incoming PM described the prospect of BBC cuts as "delicious"; an ex-Conservative Party chairman was appointed as head of the BBC Trust and immediately declared that the public should expect savage cuts; the deal for the Murdochs to take full control of the BBC's biggest rival was about to be rubber-stamped by Jeremy Hunt, a man who despite having an impartial role described Rupert Murdoch as a great man on his website; we now know that in '08 that the Murdochs had a direct influence on the Conservatives' plan to top-slice the licence fee.

Maybe both major parties have, as you say, attacked BBC funding when it seems opportune. But the Conservatives are the only ones to actually cut their funding by dint of a licence fee freeze in the face of rising costs, and the desicion to make the BBC pay for the (previously government funded) World Service.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Come on... Please don't try to argue that Labour were any different, and lets not forget Labour's attempts to emasculate the political independence of the BBC with the 45 minute WMD affair.

Both political parties have attacked the funding of the BBC when they're in power because taxpayers want more for less as usual and bashing the BBC on spending is a populist move.

---

Labour's 45 minute WMD affair was not confined to the BBC, it was a ploy aimed at the media in general to justify their policy.

The independence of the BBC is something that any government in power objects to, and every government complains about BBC bias so in that sense Labour were no different. However, the current government have an ideological objection to a publicly funded broadcaster above and beyond the acceptance that cuts should be made. Bashing the BBC may be a populist move with the Daily Mail, unsurprisingly, but I don't see evidence that it is popular with the electorate as a whole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Come on... Please don't try to argue that Labour were any different, and lets not forget Labour's attempts to emasculate the political independence of the BBC with the 45 minute WMD affair.

Both political parties have attacked the funding of the BBC when they're in power because taxpayers want more for less as usual and bashing the BBC on spending is a populist move.

---

I agree completely, but I do believe that one significant difference exists in terms of the attitudes of the respective parties to the very notion of the existence of a publicly-funded public service broadcaster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Labour's 45 minute WMD affair was not confined to the BBC, it was a ploy aimed at the media in general to justify their policy.

---

But no other media outlet lost its boss as a result of said affair, did they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave B

The whole "sexed up dossier" affair demonstrated that, contrary to popular belief, the BBC weren't afraid to go head-to-head with Labour on controversial issues.

---

And then meekly backed down, in spite of the fact that we all know, and knew, who was at fault. That affair has been responsible in the eyes of many for a sea change in the very culture of the BBC, and not for the better — a sea change exacerbated by the absurd reaction to the Ross/Brand business. The BBC is now scared to defend itself, scared to fight its corner and often too scared to be genuinely controversial, such has been the influence of a fairly right-wing Labour government, the Tory element of a fairly right-wing coalition government, and certain more right-wing segments of the printed media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyL

Surely one of the main purposes of publicly funded broadcasting is to cater for minority interests. The lowest-common-denominator trash that the majority want (if ratings are to be believed) will always be abundantly provided by commercial broadcasters.

---

Culturally, this would be a very good thing, but to which sector would the public gravitate towards? The lowest-common-denominator trash, sadly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Culturally, this would be a very good thing, but to which sector would the public gravitate towards? The lowest-common-denominator trash, sadly.

---

I believe now would be an appropriate time to link to this:

[youtube]Nv_TvSB-9Mk[/youtube]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave B

I believe now would be an appropriate time to link to this:

[youtube]Nv_TvSB-9Mk[/youtube]

---

A genuinely laugh-out-loud moment. Thanks Dave!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave B

I believe now would be an appropriate time to link to this:

---

I hardly remembered there was a time when Stephen Fry was so thin :)