I don’t know. You either don’t have a TV or you’re breaking the law (not that I’d condemn you. There’s something sort of 1960’s East Bloc underground about having a clandestine TV.)
When you buy a TV or VCR the information is forwarded to the TV Licensing Authority which is responsible for collecting the licensing fee. They have an enforcement division that searches for any TVs that are not registered.
The money collected from the public paying the mandatory license fee is given to the BBC, making the BBC publicly funded.
Just curious - any speculation from our British cousins as to why Murdoch’s Sky News does not have the same reputation as his Fox News? Is jingoism simply so much less widespread there that the same target demographic does not exist in a profitable size, or at least is adequately served by the Mirror and such?
december, if it isn’t already clear, you need to very careful about such casual use of the word “pro-American”, okay?
Speculation from an expat British cousin - my impression is that there is proportionally less unworldliness in the UK than the US, and as a result proportionally less jingoism.
The Mirror was startlingly anti-war, you may be thinking of The Sun. It was extremely pro-war and jingoistic over the recent conflict.
Zoff - I don’t have a teevee so I don’t get any of the eight BBC channels.
I think that’s a good question, Elvis. My answer is pure speculation.
The public in the UK have different expectations and sensibilities. Traditionally, news and current affairs have been a strong suit of the BBC – an organisation committed to ‘public service’ broadcasting and other high-minded ideals like Monty Python, etc. Been the case for over 50 years.
In whatever fields its competing, the BBC is supposed to be about ‘standards’ – those standards in relation to reporting news means fierce independence and objectivity.
That’s what the commercial channels compete with - a competitor (the BBC) who relies on the public responding to quality in order to be the most popular. You can put up something like Fox but it wouldn’t last five minutes because the public are used to having their news and current affairs of a certain critical standard.
It’s actually difficult to describe the width of the gulf between the US and UK markets - think, Blair and the Parliamentary debates vs, Bush and his ‘press conferences’, maybe.
There’s a significant difference between television/radio news standards and what you’d expect to see in a Murdoch-owned “newspaper” like The Sun.
I’m confident that London_Calling is right about the market opportunity Fox would find. If News Corp thought any differently they would either have replaced Sky News with Fox already or else have morphed its news coverage towards that of Fox. Sky News is already unwatchable for me and its at the edge NC think the market will bear.
And goodness knows, Murdoch hates the BBC with a very real passion – which is, of course, the greatest compliment anyone could pay. What does he like to call it … something like ‘subsidised broadcasting’, I think. Always reminds me of the ‘socialised medicine’ stuff
I agree that Murdoch would have loved to be able to save the expense of Sky and have used a Fox clone instead. Shame that ….
I love December’s sources: The editorial page of the Wall Street Times and the National Review. Next thing he’ll start quoting ari fleischer press releases.
I think we can’t be too critical. Why is it Americans have this big fear of critical thinking? When did it ever hurt anyone? If Bush is so good, then why doesn’t he open up and explain everything so we can judge him?
I’m not sure if you posted this to explain why you don’t know about the fees or as an argument that the BBC is not publicly funded. If it’s the former, then I’m glad to know you won’t be thrown in the hooscow for non-registration of your boob tube, and I’m sorry if I’m belaboring the point.
If it’s the latter, the fact that not every person pays a fee doesn’t mean the BBC isn’t publicly funded – a fee/tax can be levied on only select portions of society. Mandatory licensing fees that go to the BBC constitute public funding even if the funds aren’t collected from every citizen.
Hey I was truthful, and putting my opinion into context. What makes me bias because I like them? I agreed they put a slant on their reporting. So what is your point exactly? the idjit i refered to compared US news coverage to Iraq tv.
Spite, I appreciate your truthfulness, your opinion, and your acknowledgement that Fox tends to put a slant on their reporting. I will not defend OliverH’s comments, as I know he is more than capable of doing so.
However, I found humor in your comments, in combination, since we all have bias (it’s unavoidable), and you chastised him for his, without ackowledging your own (which was clearly evident).
I apologize if you felt singled out. Poking fun at december is so cliche.
If there is anything that Great Debates are good for, it is testing your opinions for bias. While we may often disagree, we may also help each other (and others) arrive at more well formed opinions. That’s my hope, anyway.
Why is it Americans have this big fear of critical thinking?
Don’t take it personally, Beagle!
But IMHO, 'tis somewhat true. The growing popularity of “opinion” journalists/anchors on TV who simplify things, make it a black-and-white, us versus them argument (which lends itself conveniently to much mocking and entertainment) has convinced me that there is such a trend amongst American news consumers. The other explanation is that news analysis is slowly morphing into the Reality-TV version of a mental bar fight. Look at how MSNBC ends up finding someone like Scarborough (or whatever his name is)… listening to him for five minutes makes my head ache. Yet another amongst an increasing breed of opinionated, morally self-enlightened individuals who indulge in simplistic, ahistorical and intellectually stunted debate.
I hate to say this, but it’s always, and I mean always been like that. Hurst and the Maine? Walter Winchell and Ernie Pyle?
News Analysis has always, at the common end of things, been broken down into a black and white issue.
It’s just that today, it’s easier to see it’s more than black and white. It’s not like Europe’s any better.
I just responded quickly and simplistically. I’ve always had a problem with holding a firm view on how to view BBC funding; one day I’ll be happy to think of it as a de facto tax, the next not. I suppose that’s just a result of the unique funding mechanism, it doesn’t – at least for me – sit comfortably in any convenient pigeonhole.
Fwiw, I think reasonably convincing arguments can be made for either case but I also think it’s something of a red herring. The issue, for me, is does the mechanism work and is it cost-effective ? My judgement is that it does and very well. From other discussions on the board I know not all agree.
And fwiw, I view the attempt to try and build in a little daylight between the State and the BBC as worthwhile – if nothing else it gives the BBC angles to argue it otherwise wouldn’t have. For example, if the reason for funding it this way is to ‘ensure’ 'independence’ (as often stated) then any Government attempt at interference undermines the very funding principle - the Government looks stupid for upholding the independence (by supporting the License Fee) and yet try’s to intefere.
In other words, this odd form of funding / daylight between State and broadcaster prevents and provides a disincentive for Government meddling on a day-to-day basis, IMHO.
I think you’re basically making a semantic argument. If a country decided to structure each department so that it directly receives its money without oversight, the money collected to run it is still a tax/mandatory fee if it is passed and enforced by the government. And if the fact that not everybody pays the fee makes it a non-tax, then taxation by this definition doesn’t exist. For instance, not everybody in the US pays income tax, yet it clearly exists as a revenue system set up and enforced by the government.
My original point was that Mr. Dyke was simply trying to protect his turf. Whether the funding structure is beneficial or not is separate from the fact that the BBC is publicly funded and he wishes to keep a certain level of funding that would be threatened by competition.
