mangoldm
Something else I might have mentioned - although paying for a TV station through a tax might seem alien to you, surely its not normal to withhold each part of your tax bill on the grounds that you don’t use the service it pays for? If you don’t have kids do you opt out of the part of tax that pays for schooling? If you don’t live in a hurricane zone do you make a deduction for the amount the government pays in aid to help regions of the country that have been affected by a hurricane?
HBO is a subscription channel and we have those here too, but the other channels you watch are paid for by advertising, and if you buy the products you pay for the ads whether you watch those channels or not. Try haggling over the prices you pay in the supermarket if you want to opt out of paying for their advertising.
Seeing as we’re going so far off topic, surely you can imagine why? You don’t have to agree with it, but you can understand the position that not everything should be driven by the lowest denominator.
Bromley (who always watches Sky One and never watches BBC ).
The Canadians do this too, so point taken that it is imagineable. I enjoy British TV (we get BBC America and I enjoy Graham Norton and Hyacinthe Bucket quite a bit). The notion that one can use government force to impose culture on the barbaric hordes who would otherwise be watching WWF Smackdown is elitist and wrong, IMHO.
But to keep this in GQ territory, is there much debate about this in the UK?
Nobody forces people to watch TV; all television apparatus is equipped with an ‘off’ switch.
The BBC also expends considerable energy on consulting the viewers; polls, focus groups, pilot episodes etc (I suppose this is a bit like being driven by the marketplace).
No, your just forced to pay for it. Imagine HBO sending a truck to scan your house because you aren’t allowed to watch any TV if you don’t pay for HBO!
I can’t quantify “much debate”, but I’d say the answer is yes.
Government force is not being used to “impose culture on the barbaric hordes” but there is a public service remit obligation on the BBC (and on the commercial, part-government-owned station Channel 4) which is used to keep all stations’ ambitions high. They’re told to guarantee to produce a proportion of their output that is not simply as cheap to make as possible, which is supposed to set standards for the fully commercial stations to compete against. The BBC doesn’t just make highbrow shows nobody want to watch.
BTW, the BBC doesn’t make Graham Norton’s show, Channel 4 does.
I thought I’d already mentioned the difference between HBO and other commercial stations?
The commercial success of shows in the USA generally depends on ratings - which seems fair enough as a measure of market forces. But one of the claims the BBC makes is that it can afford to let an experimental programme grow on its audience rather than drop it because it’s not instantly popular.
Also, I hear that American corporations sometimes choose to advertise or not depending on a moral judgement about a programme’s content (irrespective of viewing figures). For instance a million people watch a show, five hundred hate it, but those five hundred have a strong ideological connection to the head of the show’s main advertiser so the advertiser pulls out. Is that true, and it fair to say, therefore, that heads of large corporations have a disproportionate amount of editorial control over broadcasting in the USA?
).
someone chooses not to pay the license fee, but watches TV anyway?