Who else thinks that this is a good idea (Question about the future of the BBC)?

Question

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080704/tuk-uk-britain-bbc-fa6b408.html

As the BBC is funded by the Licence Fee, it makes sense for the Corporation to produce better quality programmes, rather than contributing to the general dumbing-down culture that is evident in Britain today.

Answer 1

our licence money is ill spent, the news is vauge and there is only a few programs that bring in mass amounts of viewers. Theres hardly any films any more and the majority of programs are repeats or news 24. BBC 3 and 4 are a waste of money. A licence costs over £100 times that by millions of people etc thats a lot of money. But this thing that really annoys me is that foregin countries can watch it free and have access to the i-player!!!!

Answer 2

Bad idea.  If that suggestion was carried out the BBC would effectively be destroyed as it wouldn't be able to compete effectively in the multi-platform age we're entering.  Its audience share would soon dwindle to the point the licence fee would be unjustifiable and it would end up going the way of ITV - straight down the dunnie!  The BBC is a great national resource and should be supported.

Answer 3

I don't agree with slimming it down to one channel/one radio station, but there does need to be more oversight on it to stop it from showing obviously commercial dross like the talent shows- the fact that they're slimming down things that are really valuable not just in terms of simple ratings like the natural history unit just strikes me as idiotic. The BBC makes some real gems, the resources just have to be directed there to allow them to continue to make them.

Daniel D- iPlayer isn't avaliable to people in foreign countries, and when it is they're going to charge for it.

Answer 4

The BBC needs to be scrapped altogether.

Answer 5

I pay as much for all my satellite channels as I do for the BBC.  And I rarely watch the BBC.

If the BBC want to continue as they are then they should provide us with some way of opting out.  With some channels - adult, films, sports etc -  you have to pay to view them, otherwise the signal is blocked.  

I think the BBC should be FORCED into doing that.  Why should I have no choice but to pay for something I don't even want?

Answer 6

keeping bbc1 & 2 will do nicely. Anything else is a waste, especially giving huge salaries to dump z listers. Dont scrap the BBC i have to live with Orbit satellite & its really h**l.

Answer 7

While I agree in principle, I think Sir Anthony Jay goes too far.

While it may be necessary  to trim the volume of output by about 30-50%, money could be saved by not showing expensive football and being careful when buying US programmes.

Quasi reality shows must all go and whenever possible the BBC should demonstrate correct pronumciation and use of English rather than running with the crowd in the hope of gaining widespread popularity.

Answer 8

Yes I think it would be a good idea to prune the management of the BBC and dead-head it at the same time.

Answer 9

Even if this happens the license fee will still be mandatory as it is a TAX.

Answer 10

Anthony Jay, although extreme, speaks a lot of sense. There are too many channels on TV at the moment.

As usual, this country has adopted the American model, where lots of channels means lot's of choice etc. In practice, there is very little choice as there is so much American rubbish available, and little quality output.

The BBC wastes so much money buying up this American detritis, when it could be channelling it into quality programmes to engage a wide audience.

I really object to paying for the likes of Jonathan Ross, Top Gear, poor quality morning "news" on TV such as we have at present.

There are so many repeats. The schedules are changed at a moments notice to cover the likes of tennis, which is only popular during Wimbledon and ignored for the rest of the year.

Too many so called celebrities who are talentless, presenters with irritating voices.

Yes, the BBC needs a shake up.