Features - QOTW: Do you pay the TV Licence fee?

[Spud1]

Yes Saracen, I am presuming intent - because with something like a TV licence it's reasonable to do so, and in fact pretty clear from the "what does it pay for" information provided by numerous sources.

It's much trickier when it comes to Tax law though..the same principle applies (only taking advantage of relief intended for that purpose) but often it's hard to tell.

Would i have taken the £80k tax break? Possibly (and if so they may well make my a hypocrite) depending on what it was/if I understood it ..I would likely feel more guilty than jubilant though (not that it would make any difference )

[crossy]

BBC News is sensationalist and bias and lies by distorting facts and misrepresenting information in order to "create" a story. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's an observation! And what makes it worse is that they hide behind this mantra of impartiality which people believe! If they don't know what they're saying is true, why are they saying it!?!?

It is in the nature of modern news coverage that you'll sometimes get something wrong, and yes the Beeb isn't immune to hysterical reporting either. Then again, they're staffed with people not robots, so any right-thinking person will assume that there will be a bias - even down to that of the individual reporter. What amuses me about the accusations of "BBC bias" is that there doesn't seem to be any consensus as to whom that bias is supposed to benefit - I've heard it accused of being pro-big business or "big government" at the same time that it's also accused of being a hot bed of Jeremy Hardy style leftyism.

And my dear sir, if the Beeb was guilty of the "always" misrepresentation charge then why, oh why hasn't someone called them out on it? And no, the "foil hat brigade" doesn't count!

I'm not saying the BBC is perfect - because it isn't. But look at the alternatives - either "don't panic style" tabloid "journalism" or the "happy clappy, aren't we pretty" nature of US news "coverage". I was in Florida for two weeks recently and was incredibly struck by how parochial their news coverage was - the major economic summit that was on at the time was in the "in other news" slot. It literally was down to that "in other news, thousands of people died in Asia somewhere in a natural disaster, but there were no US citizens involved, so it's not important".

Watch Charlie Brooker's Newswipe to give you a flavour of why our media is so awful.

Hmm, and yes, like Charlie Brooker is a unbiased level-headed appreciator of media output. I suggest checking out the meaning of the word "satire".

There's an old saying that a people get the journalism that they deserve - probably true to an extent, but if so then I've got to wonder what we did wrong to deserve the trend downwards towards "Hello" magazine.

[McEwin]

If you need examples I'd say:

Why do a program intent on discrediting Boris Johnson, but not Ken Livingston a la who is guilty of equal abuses? (Bias)

Why misquote Hilary Mantel commenting on Kate Middleton?

Why take a Mr. Nobodies quote that people taking part in a 2008 mountain event are irresponsible burden on Mountain Rescue when a large percentage of the participants were mountain rescue?

Then never correct the point or apologise but delete the content. Then when people complain, state that the reporting didn't fall below reporting standards! HaHa, that's because the "standards" are so low - hence awful.

I'd suggest you look at the meaning of "flavour".

Name a news reporting organisation that doesn't stoop to some degree of sensationalism or selective reporting of facts (and don't say 911 'truthers' or any other conspiracy nuts they're the absolute worst for selective use). The BBC is a lot better than most and is respected as such across the world, why do you think people in countries with a restricted press turn to the World Service? All media have some form of bias or agenda, it originates from the inescapable cultural discourse, nobody is truly 100% objective as all humans are influenced daily by our culture and personal history to see the same things in subtly different ways.

Don't confuse the old radio "World Service" that was highly respected with BBC TV News! (We're talking about TV licenses here after all). And unfortunately proper reporting is now in a minority but that doesn't mean that just because programs like the original News Night and Channel 4 News of 10 years ago has gone, that we should think modern day News is of any merit?

Why are people so keen to be fed misinformation now and not wait a day or two for the story to actually unfold?

When you say biased, you mean it doesn't colour the news just exactly as you think it should, according to your beliefs?

No, it's because it colours the news according to someone else's beliefs.

[Saracen]

Yes Saracen, I am presuming intent - because with something like a TV licence it's reasonable to do so, and in fact pretty clear from the "what does it pay for" information provided by numerous sources.

It's much trickier when it comes to Tax law though..the same principle applies (only taking advantage of relief intended for that purpose) but often it's hard to tell.

Would i have taken the £80k tax break? Possibly (and if so they may well make my a hypocrite) depending on what it was/if I understood it ..I would likely feel more guilty than jubilant though (not that it would make any difference )

You are also presuming, though, about what content is intended to be licenced, and why.

It could be that the licence deliberately doesn't cover non-broadcast catch-up content as the first move in a process of moving away from broadcast to net-delivered entirely. If so, anyone moving entirely to that delivery method is merely following the incentive deliberately laid down, in the direction it was designed to lead. This would be in the same way that many tax measures are designed to encourage behavioural changes. Some such measures are, of course, about as subtle as a slap in the kisser with a wet haddock, but others can be quite nuanced.

[crossy]

sorry folks!

If you need examples I'd say:
Why do a program intent on discrediting Boris Johnson, but not Ken Livingston a la who is guilty of equal abuses? (Bias)

Which one are you talking about - the Michael Cockrell documentary or the Eddie Mair interview? Consensus (Evening Standard, DM and others) was that the Cockrell documentary actually went pretty easy on him. Likewise, the impression I'm getting from non-Beeb reports was that Mair was told to "do a Paxman" BECAUSE the doc wasn't exactly a damning indictment. End of the day, BJ himself has been quoted as saying he's not unhappy with the way he's been treated - especially since his poll ratings went UP after the two programmes!

Why misquote Hilary Mantel commenting on Kate Middleton?

Others did that too - Beeb was lazy and "went with the flow". Being lazy (guilty BBC!) isn't the same as being biased.

Why take a Mr. Nobodies quote that people taking part in a 2008 mountain event are irresponsible burden on Mountain Rescue when a large percentage of the participants were mountain rescue?

Now if that's the one that I think you mean, then our local (BBC Scotland) covered that differently. Yes, they DID mention some "disquiet" with the event, then gave someone from mountain rescue (think it was the Cairngorm folks) a chance to point out that the event raised the profile of both mountain rescue and the dangers in the hills. Good choice of example - though I'll argue that it shows more the uneven standards that are being applied throughout the news department.

Then never correct the point or apologise but delete the content. Then when people complain, state that the reporting didn't fall below reporting standards! HaHa, that's because the "standards" are so low - hence awful.

Again they're not doing anything that Sky, Sun, Independent, etc don't also do. Leveson (to me at least) proved that the quality of "journalism" has fallen in the last 20 years. And the once-mighty BBC is not immune from that.

And here's my question - if the BBC are the lying, scum-sucking jackals you seem to think they are, then is there a more reputable/trustworthy source out there? I'd welcome the pointer to a "better" source of journalism.

BTW, if you answer that question above with "Sky News", then I'll feel obligated to ignore anything you say in future.

I'd suggest you look at the meaning of "flavour".

What the heck for? I fail to see the relevance - my suggestion to consult a dictionary was purely based on your assumption that Charlie Brooker is an unbiased commentator, whereas I was trying to point out that he's a satirist.

[wayn3h]

I don't pay. Why would I want to pay for a politically biased, money wasting extortion ring when I get all the entertainment I want (and more) from online subscriptions and gaming.

The license fee needs to go the way of the dinosaurs.

[Scotto]

I called TvLicense after repeatedly getting letters saying I need a tv license. I told them I dont need one, even thou I do have a tv, a mobile, and a laptop in my house. It clearly states that you need a tv license for viewing anything live as its shown on tv. The trusth is I dont really watch anything live. Catchup, on-demand, even the bbc iplayer isnt live nor as its showen on tv. At the end TvLicense sent me a letter saying I dont need a license and I wouldnt be bothered again for at least 18months.

This is the 21st century and its about time we do away with the illegal tax. Oh and one more thing, TVLicense has nothing to do with BBC. Even if you dont have BBC tuned into your tv and you never use it you still have to pay for a tv license if you watch anything live as its shown on tv. There is many other European countries that enforce the TV License as well.

[Saracen]

I called TvLicense after repeatedly getting letters saying I need a tv license. I told them I dont need one, even thou I do have a tv, a mobile, and a laptop in my house. It clearly states that you need a tv license for viewing anything live as its shown on tv. The trusth is I dont really watch anything live. Catchup, on-demand, even the bbc iplayer isnt live nor as its showen on tv. At the end TvLicense sent me a letter saying I dont need a license and I wouldnt be bothered again for at least 18months.

This is the 21st century and its about time we do away with the illegal tax. Oh and one more thing, TVLicense has nothing to do with BBC. Even if you dont have BBC tuned into your tv and you never use it you still have to pay for a tv license if you watch anything live as its shown on tv. There is many other European countries that enforce the TV License as well.

The TV licence has plenty to do with the BBC in that it is the source of the majority of it's multi-billion pound funding, the rest being commercial operations and that bit that does, or did, come from the foreign office budget for the World Service.

What certainly is true, however, is that whether you need a licence or not isn't dependent on whether you watch (or even just receive) BBC broadcast transmissions.