Seems an 'in' topic at the moment so what are people's thoughts on the BBC and the license fee?
I'm not sure how government can still make it a legal requirement to have a TV license to fund the BBC?

It's a strange corporation, funded by the public under the threat of a prison sentence if you don't pay and yet the public that are forced to pay for it have no input into how it's run.
Too many over inflated egos with matching over inflated salaries.

The BBC is far from perfect, but if this government is allowed to effectively kill it, it will be missed by countless people for a very long time.

Indeed Jim, just imagine a broadcasting system completely dominated by advertisers messages, much as we already have with any of Murdoch's subscription channels.

If you record and then skip the adverts on a Discovery programme, typically a 1 hour programme when transmitted will be over and done with in 45 minutes.

At present there are relatively few public service channels, which are increasingly under pressure from governments, in the BBC's case by influencing the membership composition of the supposedly politically independent Board of Governors.

The BBC would be missed, it gives alot of quality output.
HOWEVER
it is not unbiased as it should be in reporting political issues - this needs to change.
Salaries are a difficult one, if you want the best talent you must pay for it. The issues are around personal taste and opinion. Not everyone likes wogan or Evans - not everyone wants to watch tennis, f1, world football but many do.
It has the impossible job of being called to question when retaining said talent, paying alot for a certain sport.

I don't envy anyone justifying paying a person / for an event who/ that draws a massive audience but can be controversial with what is often an outspoken minority.

Bit late to this one, but for me it's only television. In saying that the BBC does have some good factual programs exposing bad people/scams, & all that is not good going on in this mad world at the moment.

I heard recently that around 100 top BBC executives yearly salaries are on £150,000 plus, & all the other perks no doubt with our money. Are these people worth that amount? We have little or no input regarding this. Personally I think it's very hard to justify anything like that sum of money, & that's not me being envious, I'm trying to get my head round how it would take your average earner on the street several years to see money like this.

Times change, the BBC in my opinion has spread it's wings a bit too far away from television. It's our money & obviously as mentioned it's very hard to please everybody who watches. I certainly agree with the OP...Too many over inflated egos along with their over the top salaries..

In terms of quality of programmes and breadth of coverage / subject matter I think the BBC offer a good service / value for money compared to the satellite or cable companies. I do think the funding questions over the license fee will come to a head soon and worry what the BBC would cut or stop broadcasting in order to continue.

I am sure there are areas that could be reviewed in terms of broadcast content and salary caps etc but long term we need to keep the BBC free of advertising and influence from the media groups.

The accusations of bias against the BBC are largely fantasy; many in power or powerful positions have trouble knowing the difference between neutrality and being actively hostile. It's a truism used by the right that the BBC is entirely staffed by pinko lefties. Plenty of left-of-centre politicians and figures have also made similar allegations of right-wing bias, but they don't get the same publicity.

Bottom line for me Jim, is the money side of things. As I've said earlier it's only telly. I fear that some people base a fair junk of their lives around television one way or another. The BBC it's fair to say have entertained a nation for decades, especially so back in the day when there wasn't electric gadgetry, gizmos & the like on the go. Whole families would sit round the set watching a favourite show.

Times have changed & the money side of the BBC should be looked into in depth.

But the cost (relative to other subscription channels) is massively good value.
Moreover, it's pretty well the only outgoing I have every month that I do not feel I am being fleeced over. What do I mean by this? Well, I pay a given amount for phone, internet, car insurance, energy etc, and I know that every time I turn the TV on (when not watching the BBC of course), those very same people are telling me that I could get those very same needs provided by the very same people for half the price if only I wasn't a customer already.

I know the TV license will cost me 12 and a bit quid a month, and for that I will get a stack of TV channels, 6 national radio stations, local radio and the BBC website.
I know I don't use them all - but there are few days I don't use at least one of them.

What can you get for £12 a month from Sky or Virgin? FA that's what.
What can you get for nothing? ITV & Channel 4 & 5. OK Channel 4 does have some things that are very watchable (But their remit seems to be far closer to the BBC than traditional commercial broadcasters). ITV....can't remember that last time I watched anything on there...Broadchurch probably. Channel 5 - The less said the better.


Even worse than the impact on TV, is that on the national radio network. Commercial radio is without exception dreadful in the UK. There will be no place for Radio 3 or 4 in the totally market-driven world.

The BBC, like the NHS and libraries.... I may not use them all or often, but I am pretty grateful to know that they are there should I ever need them.

Sorry for the rant...and thanks for reading.

OK, I'll make it simple..forget what it costs to view.

I just feel the huge six figure salaries that the corporation pay themselves (where they see fit) is way off the mark. Especially so at the moment. Do people think that these sums of money are justified, I certainly don't think so.

So you want a review of ALL BBC's spending based on the fact that a small percentage of the workforce get a commercial level wage?

What do you think people at the top of ITV and Sky get paid?

And if you want to point the finger of judgements about spending in the BBC, perhaps we ought to start with the £10M he BBC pay Sky for the privilege of going on the Sky platform.
Yep, Sky get PAID to broadcast content, rather then PAYING for it. Thanks for that, Thatcher.

I'm not basing anything other than my opinion. You are entitled to your views as I am to mine.

There are times when you really don't have to look into things too deeply & take some ones thoughts for what they are. I'm certainly not forcing my opinion on any one, just an observation really.

It's a reasonable observation: the BBC has many layers of management which do not at first sight appear to be either necessary or effective - but many of those people are responsible for managing things that the government has deemed requirements (e.g. diversity requirements, health and safety, legal, copyright, programming requirements etc) and many more are actually responsible for getting programmes out of the ideas stage and onto the final output.

As with any organisation there is a large step from the last level of people who 'do things' (where I left the BBC) to the top couple of layers of what look like jobs for the boys (and may well be). The scale within those two layers is a factor of twenty, all arranged on personal grades and contracts; and you can take another three or four times that for the 'talent' that pollutes enhances our viewing experience. Whether that amount is significant in a three billion quid a year enterprise is a moot point but I think it's fair to ask whether those high salaries are 'industry equivalent' - after all, how many other public service broadcasters of the size of the BBC are there in the world?

That said, I think the BBC offers huge return for the pitiful sums we pay for it; most of the restrictions of viewing (e.g. overseas) are constraints of the individual rights holders. The BBC would love to be able to offer its output worldwide, but then of course the licence payers would be up in arms about the waste of 'our' money.

A paid-as-you-go BBC is possible but unlikely in the short term; the technology is not in place on current TVs though many recorder boxes and satellite boxes have it. It would however be a big fail for everyone: the strength of the BBC lies in its range and scope. The argument that it shouldn't so soap opera|music shows|sports|whatever because the independents do it is a case of reductio ad absurdia; there is nothing (apart from perhaps religious content which is mandatory for the BBC but not the other PSBs) which either the other PSBs or the satellite/cable channels do not offer.

But the BBC is not there to *compete* with the other channels, as the current bosses seem to think: it is there to offer an alternative. It shouldn't be pushing the same material in the same slot as the others; that just reduces the audience for everyone, but the current bosses are largely from the independent world and that's their mindset.

When the BBC is good, it is bloody excellent; and even when it's bad it's still pretty good; and on top of that it's cheap as chips and doesn't carry adverts...

(Look at ITV's revenue sometime and realise that every penny comes from advertising, and then ask where that advertising budget comes from... that's right, on each and every single solitary object that you buy, there is an involuntary and unavoidable tax that pays for ITV, Channels 4 and 5, and every other channel be it terrestrial, satellite, or cable.)

I stand by my thoughts....

Peter Sissons, who I daresay is more intimately acquainted with the inner workings of the BBC than you or I, would disagree:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...er-Sissons.html

I've never voted and hold the Daily Mail and Guardian in equal contempt as opposite sides of the same biased, political agenda pushing coin, but when a supposedly neutral news outlet sets it's agenda as described above it should be disturbing to any neutral observer.

With so much "news" these days being no more than opinion presented as fact the potential for bias is greater than ever before and that opportunity is certainly not lost on the BBC.

Even putting the "news" output aside, just look at the opinion pieces published multiple times a week on the BBC news website. The vast majority of them have a left of centre bias and clearly toe the ideologically pure, "PC" party line. I can't remember the last time I saw an opinion piece there that I considered right of centre.

I'd rather not see left *or* right wing propaganda being pushed by a news outlet, but if we're to have one (and we undoubtedly do) then I'd rather have both, to retain at least a semblance of balance and allow alternative views to be presented for consideration. In an industry where straying from the "PC" party line can spell the end of your career, it's really not at all surprising though.

For an organisation that pushes "diversity" so much, it's actually quite amusing. Diversity in all things, excluding opinion, apparently.

As for the future of the BBC, I'd hope for major reform but I'd much rather see it remain in it's current (flawed) form, than be broken up or lost altogether.

Sky are a commercial organisation. Why shouldn't they be paid to broadcast BBC? Years ago I heard BBC is on Sky so that you still have to pay your licence fee even if you can only receive satellite TV.

The tories are not trying to kill the bbc but the bbc has to move with the times and change . I am not a tory supporter nor should i be forced to pay for something i dont use . Less and less people watch tv than they did 15 years ago . I am not singling anybody out but i cant see how Gary Lineker is worth £2 million per year to do MOTD which equates to 14000 licensees per year . Or the bbc pays £22 million to run "the voice" . It can and will change and still produce quality programmes .

Graham, I'm sure Peter Sissons feels that left wing bias is endemic in the BBC newsroom and culture, but I presume the irony doesn't escape you of where this article was published and the agenda of the Daily Mail with respect to the BBC?

One clue is in the fact that the "most widely read papers are The Guardian and The Independent". So, other papers than these two are read and of the 2 mentioned, one is distinctly, well, independent. And which paper is singled out as the one the lefties will skewer your career for reading? why, the Daily Mail...

Sorry, but there is a deafening sound of axes being ground there.

If you seek a counterpoint to the left-wing bias, I think you need look no further than Nick Robinson, who is about as left-wing as Rupert Murdoch. But, he has not only managed to keep his head above the red tide, he is now moving to the ultimate BBC establishment position of the Today programme.

Absolute neutrality is a very hard thing to achieve, not least because it depends who is judging it. In her life working in war zones, MrsC met quite a few senior BBC reporters (as well as those from other organisations) and from what she says, left and right mean little or nothing to these people, most of whom are more or less dysfunctional adrenaline junkies intent on reporting "the story" without getting killed, rather than spinning it to suit some old pinko editor in Salford or London.

I'm not saying that there is no left-of-centre sympathy in some aspects of the BBC, but it is commonly exaggerated to suit the message of other media outlets who don't have any charter to adhere to.

As for the BBC "changing and moving with the times", that sounds like unsubtle politician code for "doing what we want".

The BBC really isn't perfect - I don't think anyone pretends that it is - but as Barnacle eloquently argues, it is the only broadcaster that doesn't charge you behind your back for its astonishingly varied content across almost every platform.

Anyone on here on a six figure yearly salary?

Anyone here have a national television show bring in 10 of thousands of viewers?

Anyone here a top business exec? Anyone here a top doctor? Anyone any number of other professions which can earn 6 figure sums? All will be payed for no matter how indirectly by you and me.

for that matter why not have a go at the politicans who in these times awarded themselves a 10% pay ride whilst capping many of those "hard working tax payers" they love to talk about. Talk about fair.

When I originally applied to join the BBC, in the late 70s, there were questions on the application form asking whether I, my parents, and/or my grandparents were or had ever been a member of the communist party. Such membership was grounds for refusal to employ...

Many senior BBC employees have various security clearances for things about which I cannot speak but which might be obvious if you think about it; this does not speak of a significant difference between basic BBC values and the government of the day.

I suspect that the perceived left wing bias is from two sources; one the government-mandated 'equality' requirements and the other the fact that it is, in essence, a government-owned entity, even if outside direct control. Both seem symptomatic of 'left-wingism' even if there is no formal direct editorial 'spin' - which of course there is bound to be; everybody has a point of view, even editors.

And don't be in any doubt about the policies and biases of the 'free press' and its owners: they are entirely commercial and can change on a whim... look, for example, who Murdoch has supported politically at different times.

Anyway I think the review could be good for the BBC if it actually reviews what they do properly and identifes and allows it to focus more on what its good at and allows it to keep the diverse content and formats and even expand into other areas. What I dont think will be good or effective is doing a hatchet job on it for the sake of it or for some political gain.

I dont think banding around figures for what this show costs and what that presenter gets is uuseful unless you have the knowledge to see it if thats value or not otherwise how can you make an informed judgement.

But it will be a ideological driven hatchet job. The Tories hate anything where the free market does not reign supreme.

If it gets Jeremy Vine off the radio, they get my support.

Ok! RK, stop saying things I agree with.

People will start talking.....

Hence why i said could be good. As you say the motivation for the review is more than a little dubious and as Jim says there are definately people out for revenge.

So how can it be good? The review will be a committee of Tory stooge?

The minister is now on record as saying there should be a subscription element going forward.


Hopefully the BBC will hand the just agreed over 70 free licence and funding off the world and overseas service back to the Foreign Office

could be good not will be good....as in it could be good if they approach it correctly (they wont).