stilover

Why not? They have a presenter who appeals to audiences and draws in audience figures. As Top Gear, they probably make more selling the show around the world anyway.

No. I meant the coverage on ITV was sh*te in the fact that, yes adverts every 10 minutes and rubbish pundits.


But the BBC want you to watch the BBC though. Hence having presenters that the public like and want to tune in to watch/listen to.

So you always turn the volume off between watching the highlights do you?
But you are watching the BBC though. Something you day you don't do

But you do have a choice if you watch F1 on the BBC or not. Turn it over.
As a mater of interest I don't have a choice if I want to subscribe to Sky or not. I live in an apartment block where Sky dishes are not allowed, so I welcome F1 coverage on terrestrial TV. Just like I'd welcome Lost back on Terrestrial. Big fights etc.

And what would happen then? Adverts every 10 minutes. Great. Just what I like to do all night, watch bl00dy adverts. Top Gear would then just be 40 minutes long instead of 60. Why? Adverts.

Wish

iTrader: (2)

He might only do 3hrs a day on the radio.
But he will be hounded day in day out.... all for £630k umm not my cuppa tea.

scoobynutta555

Do they? Can you provide me with evidence that chat show hosts provide the beeb with overseas revenue greater than their production cost for that prog, including the presenters wages? I somehow very much doubt JC or the other two are on 18 million pound contracts.
The punditry 'quality' is the same as far as I'm concerned. I do recall that Ian Wright was a rather lightweight panelist for the Beeb though. As far as I know the coverage of the action on the pitch (which is what it's all about) does not have adverts in it.



Yes but there is a line in the sand. I would rather the money spent on the highest earmers was used to make quality programming, something the BBC is mandated for and seems to have lost its way somewhat. I don't recall anywhere in the Beebs mandate that the most cherished presenters should be paid the highest wages.


I haven't said anywhere that I don't watch the BBC I have raised the point that "if" I wish not to watch it I shouldn't have to pay the licence. As the law stands you only have to have a tv or a tv card in your pc etc to be liable for the licence fee, even if you do not watch the BBC. Also, I pay a sub to Virgin and do not need to see highlights. Even if I chose not to watch any BBC channels at all I'd still be held liable to pay the licence. If I could by law be excluded from watching BBC at home if I didn't have to pay the licence then I would.

You do have a choice if you want to watch it or not, you don't have a choice if the BBC pays to screen these events though, I'll say this again though, my point is not events like F1 etc, it's the talking heads on massive fees.

Your individual living arrangements are your own choice. Although I'd imagine there would be the option of cable, or even streaming via your pc to watch channels not available on terrestrial.


And you'd be 120 quid a year better off for a start. All the other channels seem to survive with adverts. I have a V+ box which enables me to watch programmes without adverts.

I guess for the price of a licence fee every year anyone could watch free multichannel tv via cable/satellite.

scoobynutta555

Think I could live with it.

stilover

Wow. 2 full tanks of Petrol a year. I wouldn't know how well off I was.

For £120 a year, you get far more than BBC 1 & 2. Think of all the other channels they have now. BBC 3, 4. The kids channels. All the Radio channels. Every one of them advert free.

The BBC make far more documentries than ITV. Big budget award winning too.

Look at all the comedies over the years than the BBC have made. Some of the nations favorites.

£120 a year. Well worth it IMO.

stilover

Yeah, think I could too.

scoobynutta555

For £0 a year I can see all of this each year from my other place in Ireland as can nearly all of the Southern Ireland population. The BBC can afford to make more documentaries than ITV as they get twice the budget and they are mandated to. There was last year job cuts announced in the documentary/news making side of things.Also regarding adverts, there may be no commercial advertising on the channel, but there are many BBC adverts between shows for various other programmes, so it's somewhat of a myth that the BBC is advert free.

Regarding the other digital channels, IMHO there is no need for these additional channels as resources should be sunk into the 2 main channels. It seems to me there are numerous examples of poor programmes/repeats on all their channels, and it could be said they are audience chasing with low denominational programmes. Indeed there have been complaints about their monopoly funded foray into commercial territory with the digital channels and especially the internet.

Dream Weaver

Just because you dont like presenters like Jonathan Ross, doesn't mean there aren't millions of others who are very happy with him, like myself. Mrs and I have watched Rossy on Friday nights for as long as I can remember, he is excellent and I am happy to pay the small TV license fee for that.

Someone mentioned Michael Parkinson - dear god, that boring old fart isn't even in the same league as Rossy for quality - Parky can't interview properly and isn't remotely interested in the people he is with, just reading from a script.

I do agree with you that you shouldn't have to pay the fee if you dont wan't the BBC, but I would imagine the uptake of opting out would be minute.

stilover

I'll agree with you here.

Never watch BBC3 or 4.

scoobynutta555

I never said I dislike these presenters, I dislike the wage they are being given out of the public purse for the service they provide. After all, these people won't mend my arm if I break it next week.

I would welcome a choice of whether to pay the licence fee or not. I probably have a few other hundred channels to chose from I can honestly say I could lead a BBC free live quite easily.

PeteBrant

BBC is aces, because it is the exact opposite of ITV et al. It doesn't need to make populist crap in order to survive BBC2, 3 and 4 and Radio 4 **** all over anything put out on commercial channels.