close
more_vert

i agree too. The BBC is far from perfect, but it's a good deal better than any other large media outlet i can think of. Kind of The Guardian of the airwaves, y'know? They're still going to steer clear of undermining the established order in any great way, but are - at least - a step up from the rest.

However, the problem i have with the licence-fee is that it's mandatory. It's a technical issue, i guess, but there should be a way of blocking an individual TV from picking up the BBC signal. If Joe Smith decides he'd rather save 100 quid a year and lose out on the BBC, then he should have the right to do so.

As it happens, BBC News-24 is by a *long* way the most watched TV channel in my household, with the dial rarely leaving it (except for a couple of hours on Sky-1 from 8 to 10 on Thursdays, of course :-)

So i have no objections to paying the licence fee. If some of that money is supporting an alternative to the tabloid mess that is Sky News or the shiny shallowness of CNN, then it's money well-spent. And BBC-Four is pretty good too.

I generally think the Beeb license is preferrable to ads, especially when things like things like "Life of Mammals" grace the screen.
However, I do feel somewhat irked in recent times that substantial monies from the license fee are diverted into producing & promoting stuff on channels I can't see i.e. BBC's 3 & 4 and News 24 and so on. In particular I'm thinking of BBC3 'cos of it's remorseless plugging on the regular beeb ( the channel with 'no adverts'?) which has a bigger annual budget (from the license fee) than Channel 5 and currently often has viewing figures of less than 50 000 for its 'flagship' shows. I currently can't afford cable/a box or whatever the ***K it is you need to see these things yet my money is going to fund these ventures.
What I have seen of BBC 4 it seems pretty good (parent & pals have it) but cant afford to be forced into cable/digital just to see where my license fee is currently going.
Yours, peeved of Manchester