state-funded media is from the devil. I'm American. (just kidding =P)

There are no BBC cutbacks. If there were we'd notice the fee go down. All they're doing is getting rid of a couple of pointless radio stations that very few people listen to, and getting a firmer grip of the website that's been growing out of control for years. Lets be honest here. Although parts of the BBC website are one of the web's shining landmarks, rather a lot of it is frankly pointless.

Well, if we're going to have that debate: the licence fee gives the BBC an independence most organisations can only dream of. When you see a newspaper or commercial station, their primary concern is to sell their product, not provide accurate news.

I'm from American and I love BBC shows. Just pissed that I have to spoof my IP to watch them online...

Well, figle, the BBC has to sell a product too, essentially, even if its free. Do you really think that "My man boobs and me" demonstrates a primary concern other than an attempt to get views. It certainly cannot be considered 'public service', can it?

The BBC is a great organisation, which does a great deal of really good things. However, at the same time it does a lot which is not justifiable under 'public service', nor is viable on a commercial basis. I claim that, if not supported by the law, people would still pay for the BBC, because it does produce such good content- so why have it supported by the law?

"I'm sure you'll find lots of dumb Americans who will post about how the government has no business funding the media and how the BBC is an affront to free speech and how Ayn Rand was a goddess of intellect. Have a little faith in our hegemony here, c'mon, man."

Ok, if you don't want a 'dumb American' to post about it, I, an intelligent Brit will do so instead. The government should not force people to pay for the BBC if they wish to connect to other television networks. To do so is a basic infringement on liberty, and cannot be justified since it does not protect any human rights.

The BBC is also, despite what you claim, biased. Of course, not overtly, but undercover, subtly. It has no way of avoiding bias: there is an editor who decides which stories are newsworthy and which are not; there are script writers; there are particular journalists in particular areas. It is impossible to avoid any bias in any news source, however with something like the BBC, the bias is not considered as much because we know, a priori, that they are 'balanced'.

The only ways to deal with bias is to allow people to easily, naturally move from one news source to another. However, the BBC has a huge competitive advantage owing to the subsidy it essentially receives. That means that the costs to somebody of moving from the BBC to another source would be far higher than for somebody to move from the Times to the Guardian, for instance.

When Murdoch changed to supporting the Tories, it was in reaction to the polls, not to try to lead them. Rather than being biased, he was taking the mainstream opinion.

Somebody funding news needs a motive, and there are only a few conceivable. Profit, propagation of an opinion and being forced to are the three genuinely probable ones. If we consider forcing people against their will to be immoral, we must conclude that profit is the better motive. Of course, when the forcing is done by government, the government can all to easily have another motive, and that can be very ugly indeed.

@Ghost: covering up your moobs is a public service ;)

Bahahaha, sorry, I forgot this site attracts idiots on both sides of the pond.

stratagos: I'm pretty sure that broadcasting them to the nation isn't though,

BBanner, care to actually engage in argument, or are you too unwilling to let ideas get in the way of your posts for that?

But Ghost, it is far easier to just assume one is more intelligent than another who has differing opinions and to then just dismiss anything the other says as idiotic.

Don't know if anybody reads Private Eye, but from their pages, the governemnt are under pressure from certain MP's in the Broadcasting Comittee to sell off the best bits of the BBC to Rupert Murdoch. These MP's, by the way, are former employees of Murdoch at News International. Free Speech, Liberty, the only news you'll get is what Murdoch wants to give you, for those in the US..FOX NEWS.

I'm gutted they're proposing to axe 6 Music - it's by far the consistently best BBC Radio station going, and I'm lucky enough to have a DAB radio. Even then Radios 1 and 2 are far more diverse and interesting than 98.2% of commercial radio - who won't play anything that isn't already a hit (R&B mostly) or an X-factor production line hit

The BBC makes most of the decent TV around (C4 do some good stuff, ITV have about 1 thing a year). It also makes some complete trash. However, it's damned if does, damned if it doesn't. If the BBC only made the high-brow, 'educational' stuff people seem to think is it's remit, then they would go 'elitist, no one watches'. As soon as it goes the other way it's 'dumbing down and populist'

The BBC is 'biased' in that it has a culturally liberal bias, and that it often goes out of its way to provide 'balance'. The fact that it is seen as 'left' by the furthest right of our mainstream polital parties is probably a good thing - it should sit in the middle.

Firstly, Octavius is correct when he says "there are no BBC cutbacks".

What the BBC is doing is to move funding from some areas to others. In particular they are closing down two radio stations, axing some content aimed at young teens, and reducing content on some areas of its website(s). The money saved from these budgets will be used to invest more money in making TV programmes. Taking the BBC as a whole, there will be no overall cutbacks as far as I am aware.

In more general terms, I am a huge supporter of the BBC. While TGM is right to say that no news source can be 100% unbiased, the fact is that the BBC has by fact the most balanced news coverage of any mainstream English-language news provider I have ever come across. The BBC is respected across the world for the quality of its news and factual content on both radio and TV, and the quite simply superb BBC news website is one of my favourite non-pornographic websites. I consider the licence fee a small price to pay for this wonderful service.

My point isn't that the BBC is good, it is that three-fold:

1. Being license fee paid gives it its loose-loose situation. Both arguments made are valid. If it is to justify itself as public service, it should be high-brow etc., but if it is to justify itself to the general public, it has to be populist. Quite right, Pete, it cannot win, surely the epitome of a bad system.
2. It does provide a good service. For this reason, it could succeed without forcing people to pay the license fee. That way people can choose whether or not they want it, and a vast majority would want to pay for as good a service as it provides.
3. Forcing people to pay a license fee goes against liberty, and is morally wrong.

@TGM

I agree the license fee mechanism has issues, although I wouldn't go as far as 'morally wrong' - but mostly beause I think taxation is moral.... However, I think it should be centrally funded, so some sort of tax raising is required.

If you gave people the 'option' to pay for the BBC, it would be forced to become populist and chase ratings. Quality would go down. Anything a bit risky (Being Human, Gavin & Stacy) would never fly. Anything a bit thoughtful (If, The Wonders Of The Solar System, How Earth Made Us, Coast) wouldn't get the ratings.

Look at the 'quality' ITV and Sky make compared to the BBC - oh, wait, it's not there. It may not be perfect but the alternative is much worse

Here's another way of looking at it. The average Brit spends about 3&1/2 hours watching TV a day. Our glorious state owned commercial TV stations (Channel 4 etc) and public commercial TV stations (ITV, Sky etc) fill on average 7 minutes per hour (more in prime time) with adverts about supermarkets messing with statistics to make them look slightly cheaper and updates on humanity's eternal quest to put an infinite number of blades into a razor.

If all TV were to go the way of commercial advertising it would cost us 150 hours of our waking life each year (9&1/3 days) watching adverts. The license fee is a small price to pay for a few days extra life.

So why make it a license fee, rather than just a free-fee?

You rely on the fact that people would stop watching the BBC if they could watch Channel 5 without paying that fee. Is there even anything on Channel 5 worth watching?

You guys seem to think that the quality would necessarily go down if the BBC were run other than we a forced income, but also think that its well worth that income. Why would the income really be less secure if everyone is watching BBC TV etc. etc.?

I couldn't agree more, Octavious. I hate the fact that TV programmes are constantly interrupted by adverts. Being able to settle down and watch a film, or a feature-length programme, on the BBC and know I'm not going to be interrupted every 10-15 minutes by people trying to sell me car insurance is worth the licence fee alone.

Jamie, either you and I are in a vast minority on that point, or the BBC is an excellent business model with no need for an affiliation to the state, an affiliation that as we know provides it with such criticism because the justifications are incompatible.

@ Ghostmaker:

Why are you so hung up about the idea of being "forced" to do things?

Firstly, the government forces us to do stuff all the time. If you have a problem with that, the BBC is the least of your worries.

Secondly, you're not really being forced. You could choose not to have a TV, thereby paying no licence fee, and still see loads of TV programmes on your computer. The BBC, ITV and Channel 4 all have websites with 100's of hours of TV shows that you can watch for free. If you don't like paying the licence fee, then stop paying it!

I don't watch TV on a TV, no. But if I wanted to, even watching commercial channels that are nothing to do with the BBC, I am still obliged to pay for the BBC. That isn't right, because it is restricting the options open to me. It is restricting a free trade between me and a commercial broadcaster. I am forced into the alternative you provide, away from the vast array of options true freedom would allow.

So you are asking now, why liberty; why not a tax on owning a television? Because of the property right. If I own a television, and somebody else is broadcasting to me, why should that force me to pay money to a third party? It shouldn't, you are taking my money because of a mutual agreement to exchange with somebody. Now that is immoral.

It is a fundamental human right: the right to property. That means that I have a right to my money, but also a right to my body and hence my freedom. Forcing me into the dilemma of pay the license fee or have no television from the position of pay the license fee or have no television or have a television but don't watch the BBC is an infringement on my property and liberty, that is what makes it immoral.

It is immoral regardless of whether the government is doing it or a bandit is doing it. It is immoral regardless of whether a majority of people voted for it or supported it or not. It is immoral regardless of whether it is done in other parts of life. I accept the point that there are worse examples of immorality- corporate law, normal taxation, the socialist healthcare system, 'social' security- but I don't admit that that tu quoque means that I shouldn't be against the BBC. There is no either-or in this case, rid us of the lot!

I don't have a license fee, and I would bet heavily that Ghost doesn't pay one either.
I must admit I would like to support the BBC, but at around £120 its just too expensive for me.
I would quite like to see the BBC funded off taxation, as it is a national institution and whilst there are people like me who don't watch TV to stay within the law, I doubt there's anyone who doesn't watch TV, listen to BBC radio or use the BBC website.

Oct: Maybe they haven't officially been cut back yet, but you wait until the election...

@TMG - The BBC income wouldn't be secure if people chose to pay for it, in the same way that the government income wouldn't be secure if people chose whether or not to pay tax. But then you get into the "I'm a single adult in work, and I'm healthy - why should I pay for the NHS, schools, public transport, child benefit, social security........"

The BBC is not a business - it's a public service.

And everyone posted while I was typing...

@ TMG - Health care, social security and taxation are not immoral. I'd argue that social security is a moral imperative of a capitalist society, but that would take us way off course.

Do you consider government spending on services you do not personally use (care for the elderly perhaps, or schools) to be immoral

> I don't watch TV [shows] on a TV, no.
Where do you watch TV shows? Which shows? How are they paid for?

Pete U, I consider government taxation for services I *do* use to be immoral, never mind those I don't. It is a misuse of the legal right the government has to use coercive force on its citizens. I would be happy to say "I'm a married adult out of work with children, why should somebody else have to pay for my upkeep?"

As for the voluntary tax analogy, the problem with the voluntary tax is that you have benefits that you cannot exclude people from. With the BBC its easy, just don't allow them access to the iPlayer or to the TV broadcast.

@ Kestas, I use the free online versions for all the programs I watch. They are paid for either by advertising or by the licence fee. But that is irrelevant to the question of whether or not there should be a license fee. I think there should just be a subscription to watch the BBC. I'd pay it.

Oh, and by the way, its TGM

>They are paid for either by advertising or by the licence fee.
I think you need to shut up about morality.

@ Ghostmaker: "It is a fundamental human right: the right to property."

Ah. That's where we differ. I consider property rights to be immoral.

There is no right to property.

re Jam: Did you ever meet Sicarius?

I have to say I love the BBC, but I'm very worried about where they're going over the next few months

@ Figle:

Yes, I'm familiar with Sicarus, although to my considerable disappointment he always refused my offer of a private one-on-one debate via email, an offer which I made on more than one occasion. This made me believe he was a bit of a fraud.

Quite probably, although at least his arguements were [generally] sensible

kestas, why? With the advertising, surely you have no qualms with that, particularly given that I watch it.

So the only question is, is it immoral for me to benefit from the license fee? Well, by analogy, would it be immoral for a glazier to benefit from a vandal? Of course not. So I am consistent in my morality, and will gladly use my free speech to state it.

Jamie, I could argue from base principles for the property right, but don't quite feel like it at the moment, so I think I'll just agree to disagree with you.

@ Ghost: "Jamie, I could argue from base principles for the property right, but don't quite feel like it at the moment, so I think I'll just agree to disagree with you. "

I will also agree to disagree on this one occasion, because a debate about property rights would be getting off-topic in terms of the original question of BBC cutbacks.

On a more long-term basis, TGM, I think you are a bright guy, and I'm interested in your position and how you came to it. I'd love it if you would email me so we could have a discussion about property rights and my claim, here, that they are invalid.

I'd like to see that debate. =)

One positive outcome of the BBC cutbacks is that the current Radio 5 Live presenters are apparently refusing to move to Manchester. So we in the UK might have a chance of programmes which aren't censored by the neo-liberal-pseudo-socialist Blairite-Cameronite elite.

> So the only question is, is it immoral for me to benefit from the license fee? Well, by
> analogy, would it be immoral for a glazier to benefit from a vandal? Of course not. So I
> am consistent in my morality
You watch shows from the BBC without paying, then whine about the immorality of your freedom being violated by the license fee you don't pay. You compare that to making glass panels to replace ones which were smashed by a vandal.
You are "happy to say "why should somebody else have to pay for my upkeep?"" but apparently are fine with watching TV programming somebody else paid for (except that your freedoms are being trampled on in doing so).

Like most people you want to get stuff but don't want to pay, that's not a big deal, and like many people you will come up with some very inventive and absurd ways to morally justify it, that's understandable for some kinds of egos, but acting like your freedom is being violated in the process is ridiculous and totally obnoxious

Also I wish we could have a discussion about the cutbacks and not have it hijacked by another stupid free market argument. You mention free speech but that doesn't mean you can hijack every thread related to any government service. (In fact mentioning free speech here is pretty irrelevant altogether)
I'd like these debates to be limited to threads dedicated to them more specifically, because I think it's driving people away

Sorry TGM - I was typing in a hurry :)

If you don't have a TV, you don't pay the fee. If you do have a TV, you *can* receive BBC broadcasts, and there is no way to prevent access (AFAIK). The licence fee is not perfect (far from it) but I've yet to see a proposal that is better, and protects the high quality programmes the BBC does make. The kind of destruction Murdoch would like to see would condemn us to a poorer quality of pay TV, at a higher cost

But it would be moral, under the definitions I have provided as moral, because I said it was moral. So there. Moral! Just! It would be just! Stop the unjust BBC license fee! We are being oppressed by license fees!

Let us paraphrase the great Mistress of Liberty, divine Rand herself: I swear by my television, and my love of it, that I will never program for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to program for mine.

I never listened to either of the radio stations they're going to drop and the only BBC web pages I look at are the news.bbc.co.uk pages at work at lunchtimes, so the cuts wont really affect me. Sadly, I very much doubt there will be any noticeable improvement in program quality, even though that's where they say the savings will go.

@ kestas: "Also I wish we could have a discussion about the cutbacks"

But there aren't any cutbacks, Kestas.

They are just moving money from one budget to another, within the BBC.

I never listened to either of the radio stations they're going to drop and the only BBC web pages I look at are the news.bbc.co.uk pages at work at lunchtimes, so the cuts wont really affect me. Sadly, I very much doubt there will be any noticeable improvement in program quality, even though that's where they say the savings will go.

>> So the only question is, is it immoral for me to benefit from the license fee? Well, by
>> analogy, would it be immoral for a glazier to benefit from a vandal? Of course not. So >>I am consistent in my morality
>You watch shows from the BBC without paying, then whine about the immorality of your >freedom being violated by the license fee you don't pay. You compare that to making >glass panels to replace ones which were smashed by a vandal.
>You are "happy to say "why should somebody else have to pay for my upkeep?"" but >apparently are fine with watching TV programming somebody else paid for (except >that your freedoms are being trampled on in doing so).

Look, I am not committing any immoral act just by benefiting indirectly or directly from something that is immoral. The status quo is very good for me personally: I get totally free television myself, letting other people pay the license fee. I wouldn't watch TV programs on TV without the license fee, either, I'd still use my computer. But I would gladly pay for it, because the license fee isn't just.

As for your anti-free markets winge, (note that the free-speech comment was just a quip) I'm not sure what you're saying? Does this mean that I cannot appeal in any debate to a broader principle? If we were discussing this and I said that the BBC should be expanded to cover all broadcasting, as part of a communist state, would that be disallowable in your eyes too?

There is government action that is valid, and where it isn't, there is good reason to point out that it is so. A false premise can lead to any conclusion, remember.

Pete U, if you watch Channel 5 without paying for the license fee, you are breaking the law: http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/

The BBC news website is excellent, but of course, its market position actively damages the rest of the industry, member.

BBanner, I can justify the property right from first principles, but (a) don't feel like it, (b) it really is starting to go off at too far a tangent.

Too bad you don't feel like it because I'm going to continue giving you sympathy for being oppressed. Is it painful to watch television, knowing that someone squeezed some blood out of you for that? JUST FOR THAT LICENSE FEE... every time you look at your government ID, know that someone was brutally beaten in a back alley so they could make them; every time you visit the doctor, they're wrestling a man out of a limousine and taking his property!!! just to kick him in the ribs and smash his head with billy clubs. They lift his wallet, pull the money out, toss it back at him. Later on they return to headquarters, HMRC agents insidiously tapping their fingers together, plotting on their next nefarious scheme and exercise of state force.

> The status quo is very good for me personally: I get totally free television myself, letting
> other people pay the license fee.
You're not supporting other TV shows by still watching BBC programs, but who cares about free market ideals when the status quo works right? If your high principals applied to the real world amounts to stealing BBC programs I don't want to hear you go on about morality.

> As for your anti-free markets winge
It's an anti-hypocritical-rant "winge", not anti-free-market. We actually share many of the same principals, and my dad usually takes the more socialist line than I do (e.g. regarding education).
I just want you to quit bringing it up at every opportunity like some one dimensional drone, especially if you don't apply your high principals to real life.
If you did the same thing for communism ("I don't pay the license fee, but still watch the shows, because they're not communist enough. I'd be happy to pay the fee in taxes instead, but until then guess I just have to steal their programming.") I'd find it just as tiresome

> There is government action that is valid, and where it isn't, there is good reason to
> point out that it is so
Not when every invalid action is invalid for the same reason. We get it you like the idea of free-markets, duly noted.

Next time you want to discuss your high ideals and typical lifestyle choices and how they're all justified please take the discussion to another thread. Thank you