If overpaying high profile presenters equates to about 30p a day, presumably cutting that ‘wastage’ ( in my opinion) would release funding for the excellent dramas and other programmes I’d be happier to contribute my 30p to. At present, the only BBC programmes I watch regularly are University Challenge, Mastermind, and the occasional drama series, usually on BBC Four and with subtitles.
I suspect the reduction in sending journalists to stand in front of iconic foreign buildings has had more to do with Covid, although I do remember the outcry over the ridiculous numbers sent to cover one of the US elections, in comparison with other news providers.
I notice that many of the threats of what we would lose if the BBC had reduced funding, have concentrated on removing some of the less commercial but perhaps more important content. I’ve seen no mention of a decent overhaul of the grossly inflated salaries and general financial wastage that would impress someone like me. There is a massive amount of talent out there who would shine within the BBC, at a fraction of the cost. Fair enough, if they then get poached by commercial companies, they have to justify big salaries to their shareholders and advertisers, while there seems to be no curbs on how the BBC choose to spend their funding.
The BBC is not supposed to be a commercial company, and has had protected funding so that it didn’t have to behave like one. Sadly, it has forgotten that.
The amount we pay for “excessive” salaries is £29 for each TV licence. That’s not an insignificant sum but it’s not huge either. However that figure comes out of a calculation of what the BBC’s payroll bill would be if all their employees were paid the national average wage. Take out all the people who are not presenters but who are paid more than UK average - audio engineers, editors, programme managers, graphic designers, senior researchers, PR executives, camera operators, lawyers etc - and the amount of that £29 that goes to the presenters like Zoë Ball and similar really is quite small.
Reading newspaper reports of BBC presenters being paid massive salaries makes for good headlines but replacing those people with lower paid unknowns will reduce the licence fee just a little and, maybe, the enjoyment factor quite a lot.
We saw harlots on Brit box I think nowadays there are many ways to watch a series. I just personally prefer to pay for what I want. And not have to pay for what I don’t want.
Didn’t do line of duty obviously but I imagine Game of Thrones had similar viewing figures?
The law says you need to be covered by a TV Licence to:
watch or record programmes as they’re being shown on TV, on any channel
watch or stream programmes live on an online TV service (such as ITV Hub, All 4, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, Now TV, Sky Go, etc.)
download or watch any BBC programmes on BBC iPlayer.
This applies to any device you use, including a TV, desktop computer, laptop, mobile phone, tablet, games console, digital box or DVD/VHS recorder.
The part I find the most controversial is the idea that you should have a TV licence to watch on your phone your friend streaming on Youtube. Obviously, they have no moral right to do that and they have no way how to find out anyway, but just the fact that they try is outrageous.
If their content is so good, why do they need to parasite on other content creators (or just normal human communication, really)? TV licence is simply a tax disguised as a licence fee. If it is so good for educating the masses (I would say brainwashing, but call it as you want), ok, make it tax-funded. But don't play these stupid games with me.
EDIT: I also want to add that what counts as "online TV service" and when you need the licence for Youtube streams or social media streams isn't really clear. But the licencing authorities have always liked to take the scaremongering approach because who cares about the actual rules - they just want as many people to pay it as possible.
@Ben Cotto, I concur 100%. Maybe those who watch tv, other than BBC can tell us the great stuff we're missing? Specific programmes not just " sport " " films " " documentaries " etc
Posts
At present, the only BBC programmes I watch regularly are University Challenge, Mastermind, and the occasional drama series, usually on BBC Four and with subtitles.
I suspect the reduction in sending journalists to stand in front of iconic foreign buildings has had more to do with Covid, although I do remember the outcry over the ridiculous numbers sent to cover one of the US elections, in comparison with other news providers.
I notice that many of the threats of what we would lose if the BBC had reduced funding, have concentrated on removing some of the less commercial but perhaps more important content. I’ve seen no mention of a decent overhaul of the grossly inflated salaries and general financial wastage that would impress someone like me. There is a massive amount of talent out there who would shine within the BBC, at a fraction of the cost. Fair enough, if they then get poached by commercial companies, they have to justify big salaries to their shareholders and advertisers, while there seems to be no curbs on how the BBC choose to spend their funding.
The BBC is not supposed to be a commercial company, and has had protected funding so that it didn’t have to behave like one. Sadly, it has forgotten that.
Reading newspaper reports of BBC presenters being paid massive salaries makes for good headlines but replacing those people with lower paid unknowns will reduce the licence fee just a little and, maybe, the enjoyment factor quite a lot.
I think the highest viewing figures in years was for Line of Duty.on BBC
Line of Duty on amazon Prime.
The law says you need to be covered by a TV Licence to:
This applies to any device you use, including a TV, desktop computer, laptop, mobile phone, tablet, games console, digital box or DVD/VHS recorder.
The part I find the most controversial is the idea that you should have a TV licence to watch on your phone your friend streaming on Youtube. Obviously, they have no moral right to do that and they have no way how to find out anyway, but just the fact that they try is outrageous.
If their content is so good, why do they need to parasite on other content creators (or just normal human communication, really)?
EDIT: I also want to add that what counts as "online TV service" and when you need the licence for Youtube streams or social media streams isn't really clear. But the licencing authorities have always liked to take the scaremongering approach because who cares about the actual rules - they just want as many people to pay it as possible.TV licence is simply a tax disguised as a licence fee.
If it is so good for educating the masses (I would say brainwashing, but call it as you want), ok, make it tax-funded. But don't play these stupid games with me.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_Vincent