A Conversation for Talking Point: How should the BBC be funded?
BBC v. Royal Family
Otto Fisch ("Stop analysing Strava.... and cut your hedge") Started conversation May 30, 2002
Isn't it interesting that the Murdoch owned anti-license fee press are in favour of keeping the royal family, on the grounds that it's good for the UK abroad, tourism etc etc.
Yet isn't the BBC one of the key factors in the UK's continuing disproportionate influence in the world? BBC news has a massive international reputation for accuracy and impartiality. BBC programmes and formats are sold throughout the world. We have the least worst TV in the world, and long may this continue.
The license fee is a stupid way of funding it, though. It costs a fortune to collect and hits the poor hardest. Given that so much of our politics and elections are fought on TV and radio rather than in public meetings, not having access can mean being disenfranchised.
Five words for anyone who doesn't rate the BBC
Simon. Scharma. History. of. Britain.
Otto
BBC v. Royal Family
Mister Matty Posted Jun 2, 2002
Murdoch would just like the broadcasting rights so he can rip off terrestrial viewers like he does his digital viewers
"want to watch this film on Murdoch1? Ooh, that'll be an extra five pounds! What do you mean you've already paid, that was just for the channel!"
Lump-sum beats pay-per-view and hidden-charges any day. That's why I support the license fee.
Key: Complain about this post
BBC v. Royal Family
More Conversations for Talking Point: How should the BBC be funded?
Write an Entry
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."