Not just an American thing. Some people around are bad. In the last year or two, I've seen people in my circle who stole hundreds of pounds off a small charity, two or three who were involved in stalking/harassment, physical bullies and persistent liars. It is very difficult for me to consider any of those people involved "morally good" when they did those things.
That's before we get onto more complex questions of morality!
The "means of production" has been one of the clarion calls of Marxism. It is more about who controls those means than who owns them. They can be officially owned by a government (so called public ownership), a co-operative (or "people's committee"), shareholders or a board, but in reality controlled by an individual it or a handful of individuals. That pattern continues after revolutionaries "seize the means of production" as well.
It may not be seen as "pay to watch", but that is effectively what it always has been. Back in the early days, that idea could be excused — because TV was basically them and ITV, and Channel 4 in the early eighties — since there was a good chance you'd be watching their content. Back in my childhood there were so few channels you could often guess what someone had watched the night before, and you would chat about it. Not anymore.
Since the emergence of VHS/DVDs, satellite television and the internet, their viewing share has reduced considerably. They've gone from being 2/3 of the available channels to 1/2, to about a dozen out of hundreds of channels.
Right now, more British under-30s are watching YouTube than the BBC, which has undermined their stranglehold on TV. Many people simply aren't watching the BBC at all. BBC3 is an attempt to appeal to the young, which has had mixed results. Many children simply don't watch BBC content anymore.
By "pay to watch" I was referring to "pay <X> to be able to watch <Y>". I was not describing "you must pay something to watch anything".
The whole idea of the BBC was a cultural force that wasn't subject to commercial considerations. I'm not going to die on that hill, but we need to recognize that it is a very different idea to e.g. how many viewers are.
If the decision is to change that fundamental conception of the BBC, so be it, but don't try to sneak it in the backdoor. That said, some might argue that the bulk of contemporary BBC-produced content has already eroded it so much that the distinction is moot.
Lord Reith did envision the BBC as a cultural force for sure. I would certainly argue that they aren't producing enough highbrow content.
The BBC has shown some commercial considerations. For example, some of its documentaries and dramas are aimed for resale in foreign markets. In the past, the BBC has made money off magazines and books, DVDs/videos, music (including live concerts) and so on.
Their scientific and nature programming is decent, but very much aimed for sale to the American market, with the possible exception of the "Sky at Night" (which is only monthly). Their music programming is alright — some decent classical and jazz. Their sports coverage, again, tends to be very anglocentric (so if you're Scottish, Welsh or (Northern) Irish, don't expect much UK-wide coverage of your teams), but is better than ITV's.
Their drama has been going downhill for some years now (and is dominated by soap operas and crime dramas), and their historical/political content is often tendentious and anglocentric (not even that — Londoncentric). The BBC has traditionally best period dramas but is failing in that sphere now.
They are moving to a stricter pay to watch system. iPlayer for example asks you if you have a TV licence if you watch it.
They will probably end up following the Australian model where it is funded directly by taxation. Of course this will undermine the BBC's supposed quasi-independence.
The BBC is ridiculously slow to pick up on trends. BBC pop radio (Radio 1) only came in as a response to pirate radio. Its streaming services aren't as good as they could be, and they have the double paradox of showing the same content over and over (such as "Dad's Army" made before I was born), while keeping a lot of classic content unavailable.
The BBC does have some advertising on it, if you can call it that. Most of it tends to be inhouse. So in addition to TV programmes, in the past I have seen them advertising "Radio Times" (a magazine they used to own giving TV listings), tie-in books, TV licences, DVDs/VHS, and their other channels and digital services. They also cross-promote their material. When David Tennant was playing Doctor Who, you would frequently see BBC News 24 being featured in the programme.
Nowhere near as bad as other channels in that sense, but still there.
Historically, there have been also been substantial numbers of people who watched the BBC without licences in the Republic of Ireland and the Netherlands, but they couldn't do a thing about it. The BBC tended to be watched in the east of the Republic of Ireland and near the border with Northern Ireland. (Not so much in France from what I can tell.) Many of the houses in Dublin used to have massive tall TV aerials to receive it. Most have been removed now. (Within the Republic of Ireland, RTÉ is funded by their own licence system, but also has proper advertising on it, unlike the BBC. It has had similar questions about it.)
Well, I can. I'm old enough to remember "Radio Times", and other magazines, being advertised quite openly on BBC1 and 2 as well as their radio stations. I think they had to sell their share in "Radio Times", after government pressure, but they still do many tie-in books. (Especially true of their science fiction franchises such as "Doctor Who", which has dozens of official books based on it.)
The other advertising includes heavy promotion of BBC linked charities such as Comic Relief, Children in Need and so on. These charities make big money and there have been some questions about how that money is used and where.
BBC advertising is less obnoxious than commercial channels, but it is still there. In addition, the BBC owns BBC America (which carries commercial breaks), as well as having shares in services accessible in the UK including the "BritBox" streaming service, and the digital channels "Dave" and "UK Gold" which all have normal commercial breaks.
1) I suspect that I am older than you, but either way, probably the same cohort.
2) I have a very hard time considering a media organization mentioning its own products and activities in its content as "advertising". If you want to use the word that way, be my guest, but my understanding (and I think most people's understanding) of the term implies a 3rd party paying a media organization to include marketing content in their output.
3) Fair point about BBC America, but I don't think it really invalidates the point.
Quite easily. I haven't had a licence for over twenty years.
TV Licensing has no right of access to your home, so if they turn up, you can turn them away. You also ignore their letters. TV licensing is actually a private company separate from the BBC and the government.
In order to get access, they have to apply for a warrant to get into your home. To do that they have to fill out a lot of paperwork. If you have a TV (and I don't), it should not be visible or audible from anywhere outside these little toerags can hear/see it.
reply