Taking licence

Posted by Jonathan Birch on November 26th, 2007

BBC

I never cease to be amazed by the incredibly poor value offered by the TV Licence Fee. £135.50 is a lot of money for anyone. When you think of it as what it is - an almost-compulsory annual subscription to BBC television - it becomes a shockingly high price. People are always eager to point out that it also funds radio stations and websites, but, if necessary these services could be funded by separate fees. In an age when digital technology allows us to subscribe to and unsubscribe from particular channels and services at the touch of a button, getting rid of this bizarre stealth tax should be a top priority.

Personally, I rarely use any BBC services. Admittedly the BBC News website remains very good (at least for those looking for something other than stories about how great Israel is), but £135.50 for a news website is pushing it a bit: Reuters and CNN are very good too, and very free. In fact, it concerns me that so much fee-payers’ money is clearly being pumped into the website: the abominable “Have Your Say” feature, for example, requires staff to spend all day sifting through lazy 150-word grab-bag rants, of which only a fraction are published. Of those, only a fraction are read, judging by the “recommended” line at the bottom. There is a further problem that state-sponsored news can perhaps never be wholly unbiased: sure, a Hutton-esque scandal may only come around once every few decades, but once is enough to cast doubt on the corporation’s editorial independence.

The best argument for the licence fee is that maintaining a well-funded public service TV channel drives standards up across all media. It’s certainly true enough that independent British channels can’t get away with the kind of incessant advertising prevalent in America, because everyone would switch to the BBC. But it’s a weak argument, because “standards” in broadcasting are inevitably relative, and in any case the BBC routinely prioritises ratings above quality. Panorama has been told to dumb down or be axed, Rough Justice has just been axed, and the content taking its place on the hellish BBC Three defies belief (see above).

As the “Internet generation,” we can stay happily connected with the world without the need to ever own a TV. Until the anachronistic licence fee is revoked, I hope and expect that people will increasingly take this route.

5 Responses to “Taking licence”

  1. “Admittedly the BBC News website remains very good ”

    If you are a lefty who enjoys bias, hates everything British and loves Islam the BBC is bloody great value

  2. I knew someone would take the bait. :)

    I’m not saying it’s completely unbiased, but it unquestionably provides lots and lots of news. Which the the #1 desirable feature in a news website.

  3. You’ve mentioned advantages of the BBC without really saying how we’d keep broadcasting and news quality high without it.

    £135.50 per year (around £11 per month) is actually not “a lot of money” for everyone. Rather than abolishing the fee entirely, wouldn’t it be better if this “stealth tax” was charged on an earnings-linked basis, like other taxes?

  4. Oh yeah and your comment that the quantity of news provided should be the measure of a news site prior to considering the bias of the news is pretty hard to swallow.

  5. I imagine all of us have twigged by now that if you look at a range of news websites you get a range of slants. Any website providing plentiful, accurate up-to-date news in an area you’re interested in (whatever the slant) deserves consideration.

    I think there are a range of high quality news providers. But whether the BBC provides high quality programming in general is a moot point. To me this seems to be increasingly not the case.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.