GB have sent 366 competitors to Rio 2016

Bang on mate and who gives a **** what Johnny Foreigner wants to watch... If he wants it so much mek all them pay. There robbing good hard working people like us blind with their liberal ****** and were ment to accept it like it's nowt. At least a few in this thred wi an ounce of common sense. Over 400 blokes to do job of 1 with a camcorder mind boggles that some will be robbed blind and thank bloke doing it

 

Really? I just don't see it. The best argument for the BBC is that unbiased journalism can only be subsidised when there are no commercial interests at stake. I'd agree with that. I like the idea of an impartial news service, so that's BBC News 24 saved. I think investigative journalism like Panorama and Newsnight, and current affairs shows like Question Time might not get a fair crack on commercial TV, so you can put them on the 24 hour news channel unless there's something happening. That's about it. Maybe the website, but that thing has become so bloated it's unfairly competing with the private sector, producing things like [ur=http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/37009276/how-to-make-sure-you-dont-miss-a-second-of-rio-2016-without-losing-your-job]this[/url], which looks like it was knocked together by the YTS kid. If you take those things that have actual value the cost of a TV licence would be drastically reduced. £10 a year sure. £140? Nah, that's something useful.

Beyond that, Homes Under the Hammer? Eastenders? Chris Evans' ridiculous salary? What do these offer to the nation that couldn't be replicated on commercial TV?

 

"Johnny Foreigner " does pay for it. The BBC sells content all over the world to different TV networks.

 

The whole point is that they aren't commercial and therefore don't just produce populist tv. They do screen populist programmes, but also specialist tv to cater to different people, and provide the public service of informing. Have you ever watched the terrible content on commercial documentary stations for example? BBC Four is worth the licence fee alone.

And they can take more risks than commercial stations because they arent dependent on what advertisers want. And given commercial interests are often so short sighted towards the kind of programmes you mention it usually means the BBC lead the way. 24, The Wire, The Killing, Borgen, The Bridge, Mad Men all brought to British TV first by the BBC.

 

Personally I think there's better programmes on my Now TV box, and it's cheaper than the licence fee; Billions, Game of Thrones, Veep, Last Week Tonight, Gomorrah, Silicon Valley, Shades of Blue, Banshee, American Dad, to name just a few, plus you've got loads of older shows to watch as well, ATM I'm re-watching Oz and Deadwood, on the BBC I probably watch about 3 or 4 programmes a week.

 

I wonder who's picking up the excess baggage tab for this?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Never been a very light packer. Off to Rio..... <a href="https://t.co/z9Vvkywg9l">pic.twitter.com/z9Vvkywg9l</a></p>&mdash; Gabby Logan (@GabbyLogan) <a href="https://twitter.com/GabbyLogan/status/762947992437526528">August 9, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<twitterwidget class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered" id="twitter-widget-0" data-tweet-id="762947992437526528" style="position: static; visibility: visible; display: block; transform: rotate(0deg); max-width: 100%; width: 500px; min-width: 220px; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"></twitterwidget>
<script async="" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script><iframe id="rufous-sandbox" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden; display: none; width: 0px; height: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none;"></iframe><iframe id="rufous-sandbox" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden; display: none; width: 0px; height: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none;"></iframe>

 

What gets me is Claire telling us they are trying to show us as much of the games as possible while constantly showing film of Cop Beach, the fan park, gassing with ex Olympians, footage from London games etc plus the constant changing of channels each time showing their open programme vid they`ve made, plus the how we can watch it online etc vid.

Less yakking more coverage of the actual sports, got MOTD format written all over it.

 

The Beeb could certainly have put on the same show with much fewer pundits on the payroll. More prudence and they might have been able to afford to keep more sporting events. Take the Swimming as an example. There's TWO high profile pundits analysing with Helen Skelton, TWO more in the commentary box and ONE interviewing poolside. That's TWO unnecessary people in my opinion. There will be similar extravagance when it comes to the Athletics and why do we need James Cracknell and Steve Redgrave both giving views at the Rowing. With many more examples across the entire coverage, there's far too many former stars having a beano at the licence fee payers expense.

 

People are always extravagant spending other people's money.

 

Way I look at it is

the BBC might be a worthwhile organisation that is actually worth the money BUT the world has moved on and whether I should choose to pay that money or just not bother with it should be down to me not them.