The BBC, it's inconsistencies, money wasting and political nonsense

You answer my question with a question I'll answer yours no prob's.

Don't think they do but are not as big as the BBC,(don't no why you should bring the ITV into a debate about the BBC) the BBC is a British treasure it's not making money for share holders the big money men of this world, so it is despised by the tory party and there supporters, it transmits news around the world be it Radio or T.V. in an inparshall way to say it's money wasting and political nonsense is way of track in my opinion.

One more time do you want the BBC privatised like the conservative party want.

 

I would personally like the BBC to go down the channel 4 route. Publicly owned but not funded through a TV licence. I asked the question about itv because to a simple lad like me I genuinely don't see any difference in the way that both broadcasters approach political things so I wanted to know how you thought they were different in that respect.

I do fully understand why BBC being owned by somebody like Murdoch would be a bad thing but I can honestly say that I have seen no more political bias from channel 4 or ITV than I have at the BBC.

My comments regarding money wasting and political nonsense were referring specifically to the creation of fake companies to replace household names because they can't be seen to be advertising. Especially when other programmes n the BBC will then actively encourage you to use these companies. Surely you would agree that the rules should be be or the other? Either pretend Facebook doesn't exist and spend money inventing a website called friendbook (I'm pretty sure I've seen that on a BBC show before) or admit it exists and ask people to visit the shows Facebook page. To have one BBC programme inventing friendbook and another telling you to visit their Facebook page is just a bit silly and that's the political nonsense I was talking about.

 

I would personally like the BBC to go down the channel 4 route. Publicly owned but not funded through a TV licence. I asked the question about itv because to a simple lad like me I genuinely don't see any difference in the way that both broadcasters approach political things so I wanted to know how you thought they were different in that respect.

I do fully understand why BBC being owned by somebody like Murdoch would be a bad thing but I can honestly say that I have seen no more political bias from channel 4 or ITV than I have at the BBC.

My comments regarding money wasting and political nonsense were referring specifically to the creation of fake companies to replace household names because they can't be seen to be advertising. Especially when other programmes n the BBC will then actively encourage you to use these companies. Surely you would agree that the rules should be be or the other? Either pretend Facebook doesn't exist and spend money inventing a website called friendbook (I'm pretty sure I've seen that on a BBC show before) or admit it exists and ask people to visit the shows Facebook page. To have one BBC programme inventing friendbook and another telling you to visit their Facebook page is just a bit silly and that's the political nonsense I was talking about.

 

BBC is fantastic and we are lucky to have it. Live abroad for a bit and you'll come back with a very different attitude. Publicly accessible TV in most countries is appalling.

 

Possibly because they have zero control over commercial broadcasters?? Just guessing.

 

Know
Their
Impartial

Sorry to be a pedantic old git.

 

If you watch one you know whats on the others, they all use same storylines and at the same time.

 

Adverts, adverts, adverts.

No thanks.

 

If channel 4 gave you the option of £12.5 a month to remove it's adverts would you pay it?

 

Daft comparison. Of course he wouldn't. No-one would. One commercial TV channel against the BBC's TV channels, national and local radio, websites, BBC learning, World Service etc? Have a go, by all means, but try, at least, to give it a semblance of credibility.