Before I make some statements of my own, I must say that I was inspired to start this thread after reading one of Stephen Fry's blog posts. Stephen Fry is a comedian employed by the BBC. The blog post which I have linked to is a speech given at the BBC's request. It is a long body of text, so I would encourage those with limited time to search for the word 'market'.I am English, and I do not pay a 'TV License'. This means I can not lawfully own a television for the purpose of receiving broadcasts -- even if I do not tune in to any of the BBC's channels.Reading Mr Fry's statements are certainly interesting. One must remember that he is not writing with the impartiality of a good economist.I wish to start a discussion on this subject, and will be happy to answer any questions you might have about my perception of the BBC.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
The nation's fireplace: a nationalist propaganda provider that you can't switch off.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
Stephen Fry : It turned out to be a magical and unimaginably wonderful time machine. My brother and I watched this drama in complete amazement. The first ever episode of Doctor Who. I had never been so excited in all my life. A whole week to wait to watch the next installment.
This I understand completely. Dr. Who is an amazing show. The new Dr. Who series is even better.
Stephen Fry :Radio Times was outsourced,
Not being British I do not know what this is. Is this like Big Finish, the people who put out the radio series like Gallifrey or U.N.I.T.? Who put out the original Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series? Was that them? I just don't have the context here.
Stephen Fry :But hell, there’s ways round that. Streaming? Hardly: anything that can be played on your computer can be stored on it and shared. A digital copy is a perfect copy. Once on the net it’s out there and will be bit torrented and Limewired and Gnutella-ed and otherwise P2P distributed.
The first time I watched the new Doctor Who series it was via Limewire. I am normally a supporter of IP (something I disagree with many in this forum about) but when I do not have a legitimate way to watch something that is a different matter. BBC America was too busy playing reality shows (I hate reality shows regardless of their nation of origin) to play Dr. Who at that point and The SciFi Channel had not yet picked up the slack. The only way I could watch it was Limewire.
Stephen Fry :Even the most immoderately free market media analyst or commentator I have heard or read would concede that there is a need for good impartial news coverage; that a nation deserves access to programmes that reveal truths about themselves and the world.
And why assume that the market cannot provide this?
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
Because only governmentally controlled media can be "impartial"!
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
ryanpatgray: Stephen Fry :Radio Times was outsourced, Not being British I do not know what this is. Is this like Big Finish, the people who put out the radio series like Gallifrey or U.N.I.T.? Who put out the original Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series? Was that them? I just don't have the context here.
The Radio Times is simply a TV (and radio) guide magazine. Hitchhikers was a BBC Radio 4 show.
ryanpatgray:The first time I watched the new Doctor Who series it was via Limewire. I am normally a supporter of IP (something I disagree with many in this forum about) but when I do not have a legitimate way to watch something that is a different matter. BBC America was too busy playing reality shows (I hate reality shows regardless of their nation of origin) to play Dr. Who at that point and The SciFi Channel had not yet picked up the slack. The only way I could watch it was Limewire.
I hope you do not think I am being argumentative if I point you in the direction of the Doctor Who DVDs which are available to an American audience.
ryanpatgray: Stephen Fry :Even the most immoderately free market media analyst or commentator I have heard or read would concede that there is a need for good impartial news coverage; that a nation deserves access to programmes that reveal truths about themselves and the world. And why assume that the market cannot provide this?
One does not have to delve too deeply in to the BBC to realize that it is not impartial any more than Fox is 'Fair and Balanced'. Obviously, Stephen Fry does not recognize this fact. Instead, he holds the falsehood that biased US news shows are the outcome of a entirely free market. Of course, by our definition -- there has never been a free market for TV broadcasting in the US.
Jon Irenicus: Because only governmentally controlled media can be "impartial"! -Jon
What the British do not seem to understand, is that the BBC is governmentally controlled.
We, as a nation, somehow believe that if a private corporation is granted special privileges by government then the corporation is not obligated to reciprocate.
On another note: here is a good example of the British attitudes to freedom.
Mr Jones: The Radio Times is simply a TV (and radio) guide magazine. Hitchhikers was a BBC Radio 4 show.
Thanks. It sounds like the TV Guide in the USA - but with a radio guide as well.
Mr Jones: I hope you do not think I am being argumentative if I point you in the direction of the Doctor Who DVDs which are available to an American audience.
I don't think you are being argumentative at all. But, at the time, DVDs had not come out and I only knew the new Dr. Who was out because of the Internet. I was also, at the time, not sure how long the show would last. After all, the BBC un-ceremonially canceled K9 & Company after only one show. I still have not seen the new Dr. Who cartoons that supposedly are out there somewhere. If you have not figured it out by now I am a bit of a Dr. Who fanatic.
Mr Jones: One does not have to delve too deeply in to the BBC to realize that it is not impartial any more than Fox is 'Fair and Balanced'. Obviously, Stephen Fry does not recognize this fact. Instead, he holds the falsehood that biased US news shows are the outcome of a entirely free market. Of course, by our definition -- there has never been a free market for TV broadcasting in the US.
Human beings are not androids. We have bias. Any news organization run by humans will have bias. The best thing for a consumer of news to do is to not look for "balance" or "impartiality" but look for many points of view and decide for yourself who, if anybody, is the most correct.
Mr Jones: On another note: here is a good example of the British attitudes to freedom.
From the link: "the right to housing, education and a healthy environment."
There are plenty of Americans who think those are "rights" as well. But I understand your point.
The BBC is the one state corporation which I absolutely adore, it's documentaries are incredible, they are of far higher quality than anything else. The only thing that comes close in terms of quality is ironically, PBS, which is also rather good judging by a few shows which I have seen.
BBC iPlayer is a great piece of kit.
For only £140 a year it is AMAZING value for money (no one is coerced into paying). To name a few shows like 'How we built Britain', 'Adventures in architecture', 'Coast' are simply inspiring.
The BBC also has no adverts. Watching the Olympics on BBC is pure pleasure, I have heard that on NBC it is apalling with adverts every 5 minutes.
I have to break my principles on this one, and am prepared to say that I am happy to pay more for the BBC, because it innovates much and has far higher quality programming than anything in the private sector.
For only £140 a year it is AMAZING value for money (no one is coerced into paying).
If you're referring to the TV licence, you're wrong. Or are you not referring to it?
So, you'd pay for it if it were a free market entity anyway, right? How does that violate your principles? It is a personal value judgement whether the BBC is higher quality or not, and in any market where people demand the type of service it provides there is a profit to be made. I somehow doubt it'd cost £140 though.
garagemc:The BBC is the one state corporation which I absolutely adore, it's documentaries are incredible, they are of far higher quality than anything else. The only thing that comes close in terms of quality is ironically, PBS, which is also rather good judging by a few shows which I have seen.
BBC's documentaries are something you enjoy. Don't try to act like it is an objective fact. PBS gets most of its funding from 'people like you' or the private sector.
garagemc:For only £140 a year it is AMAZING value for money (no one is coerced into paying).
Free is a better value. If no one is being coerced then no one would pay because why should they if they aren't being forced?
garagemc:The BBC also has no adverts. Watching the Olympics on BBC is pure pleasure, I have heard that on NBC it is apalling with adverts every 5 minutes.
I can watch 4 live events of the Olympics online at the same time with NBC and Microsoft's Silverlight partnership and there are no announcers. Does BBC iPlayer offer that?
garagemc:I have to break my principles on this one, and am prepared to say that I am happy to pay more for the BBC, because it innovates much and has far higher quality programming than anything in the private sector.
Do you not get National Geographic, Discovery Channel, or the History Channel? All of those are much better than the BBC and it doesn't cost me a single penny.
Mr Jones, you may consider £140 great value for money, but when at University - and like most students - I never, and consequently went without this infamous programming for three years; can you not see the outright ludicrousy of being legally denied access to a service whose industry creates so much surplus?
In any case, recent research showed that most people would be prepared to pay more for the BBC; like all Socialists and pop musicians you fall into the trap of thinking that privatisation will somehow harm the company or industry in question - and then subsequently the country - instead of liberating it to achieve even more (see 'Selling England by the pound - Phil Collins).
Consider SKY for a moment and their cascading packages, would it not be possible for the BBC to raise even more capital for their 'delightful' documentaries if they could amend appropriately their services to maximise income? Students, for example, might have just the basic package while the Stewie Griffins of the world indulge in the more expensive packages.
Your point on advert-free programming is also unsubstantiated; where there is a demand for a particular service, there will be a supply, remember.
What is this Newspeak that people aren't coerced into paying? Why, then, do they employ a sexed-up Gestapo to sit on street corners masquerading as Ice Cream Vans with enough kit to make 007 blush in a quite sterling attempt to catch-out those haven’t paid the Victory tax? Get bored of feeding the ducks did they?
I will agree with you on the point that the BBC is slightly useful for some things, although certainly not the Olympics (Sue Barker going stir-fry crazy over a pathetic bronze in the Equestrian is enough to put anybody off what is otherwise a glorious example of the capacity of freemen and what can achieve on their own volition). It's shameless adoration of Obama-fest '08, Berlin, Paris, London for example, was the final coffin nail of this latest charlatan; yet another insufferable Socialist the mice in their million hoards will fall for, with Liberty lost for another generation.
I could go on and on, but surely even somebody at least nominally appreciative of the Classical tradition would see that the License Fee should be abolished post-haste, and I'm quite disappointed in you Jonesy for not seeing this.
garagemc:(no one is coerced into paying)
Not true, I am afraid. If you try to stop paying you will receive increasingly threatening letters, and most likely visits to check that you do not have a television. i.e. you cannot have a television and not have a licence.
garagemc:The BBC also has no adverts.
The BBC has plenty of adverts for its own shows.
Lee:Mr Jones, you may consider £140 great value for money, but when at University - and like most students - I never, and consequently went without this infamous programming for three years; can you not see the outright ludicrousy of being legally denied access to a service whose industry creates so much surplus?
Are you addressing me or garagemc here? I clearly do not consider £140p.a. "great value for money" -- since I never have, and never will pay for a BBC TV license.
Lee:I could go on and on, but surely even somebody at least nominally appreciative of the Classical tradition would see that the License Fee should be abolished post-haste, and I'm quite disappointed in you Jonesy for not seeing this.
I suspect you have gotten me mixed up with somebody else.
I share your disgust for the BBC and the prevailing notion that government enforced monopolies can be positive. However, I sincerely hope you do not go about arguing your point in the particular style you have displayed above -- as I fear you will gain no converts.
I think Mr. Jones and me have gotten mixed up.
I just love the BBC, and yes if it were a free market entity I would pay for it.
I am not prepared to switch it off just because I disagree with the way it is run.
Fortunately, the iPlayer doesn't need a TV license.
The BBC may advertise their own shows, but thats between shows, they do not break inside of the programming, which makes it far more pleasurable.
If you don't like it, don't pay for it. Period. If you continue to get threatening letters, go to the watchdog and Ofcom (and I say this in the friendliest of ways: will you not go to the regulators because you are against them by principle?)
The TV licence applies to anyone who owns a TV, no? With pretty hefty penalties for not paying. As for the advertising bit, most "private" channels I am subscribed to do the same - they do not break their programmes up with advertising.
I'm British and whilst I admit some of the quality of the BBC output is good (After all its easy to raise money for programming when you can use a gun) it is heavily biased in favour of the state ruling class, it claims impartiality based on the fact that it is regulated by law to not favour one political party over the other, but its obvious bias is in the direction of more government. For instance when the conservative party (much like the Republicans except minus the religious right) had a recent leadership election they had a choice between David Davis a traditional conservative (who recently resigned from the shadow cabinet over the conservatives lack of opposition to New Labours police state laws - like ID cards, detention without charge and the anti-free speech law against inciting religious hatred) and Dave Cameron a virtual clone of Tony Blair who accepts every statist act since Labour came into office in 1997. Predictabily the BBC went into a spin portraying David Davis as an out of touch looser with no hope and anointed David Cameron as a great leader. He was duly elected because of this positive coverage and will undoubetedly be elected next year on his 'moderation' i.e. acceptance of the status quo.
Simon Lote:I'm British and whilst I admit some of the quality of the BBC output is good (After all its easy to raise money for programming when you can use a gun)
There is more to it than that. The BBC is required to maintain a competitive standard of programming, and to draw a good sized audience. This is an important point to make, otherwise it would be harder to understand why they would feel compelled to make anything at all worth watching.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap