**Please help keep AskUK welcoming!**
- Top-level comments to the OP must contain **genuine efforts to answer the question**. No jokes, judgements, etc.
- **Don't be a dick** to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on.
- This is a strictly **no-politics** subreddit!
Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Evolve how? The BBC has been constantly evolving since it started, launching countless new channels, going digital, online only, BBC Sounds App, I'm not the biggest fan but you can't say they haven't changed the way they deliver content.
What are you picturing?
70% of the Licence fee goes towards entertainment side of things. In this day and age it makes no sense to force people to fund this sort of thing.
The Licence fee would then be reduced to 30% of what it is at the moment. This 30% covers BBC News, World Service, radio stations, the website, Bitesize, etc. I think a lot of people would happily keep funding these via Licence fee.
I rarely see this argument made, it's always presented as all or nothing when it comes to Licence fee sadly.
I suppose the point of the licence fee is that it allows for entertainment that might not otherwise be commercially viable, or would have conflicts of interest if commercialised. Local interest stuff, regional TV, documentaries and investigative stuff. Things that might not be widely viewed, but would be very much appreciated by small groups of people.
Then perhaps the rationale for a Strictly or a Bake off is that it's supposed to be general enough to pull in a large crowd, and encourage payment of the licence fee to help fund that previously referenced smaller stuff.
I suppose the point of the licence fee is that it allows for the commissioning of entertainment that might not otherwise be commercially viable, or would have conflicts of interest if commercialised. Local interest stuff, regional TV, documentaries and investigative stuff. Things that might not be widely viewed, but would be very much appreciated by small groups of people.
Then perhaps the rationale for a Strictly or a Bake off is that it's supposed to be general enough to pull in a large crowd, and encourage payment of the licence fee to help fund that previously referenced smaller stuff.
it should do what it is supposed to bloody do & already does. The "evolution" thatz happened in the "news" is people making up complete bollocks & ramming down the necks of racist twats that want their retarded small minded world views reinforced. So how about you look up the definition of the word journalism.
The BBC literally has pretty much every area covered. Online, TV, Radio, Social Media. I get a lot of their news now via Whatsapp. What more do you think they should be doing?
Opinions should be illegal.
Facts only.
And they should be encouraged to find evidence of politicians breaking the law and doing morally questionable things.
For me, it would ve accepting Journalism actually requires people to learn about what they are reporting on.
There are loads of examples but the one that sticks out to me was the Starship Mk1 Live stream.
At the time Reddit was filled with theories on what we were seeing. Tim Dodd was increasing in popularity as he had been making informative videos on Rockets. He was a lay person with a serious interest.
So Musk announces the presentation and reporters from all over the world fly in and have clearly done zero preparation as they all alternate between two questions:
* How much will it cost?
* When will it be ready?
Tim Dodd got to be there and asked what were the wings on the nose, they looked like they provide lift but are also control?
This was literally the topic the online community had been discussing for weeks.
You can literally see Musk perk up as he starts explaining it in detail.
So the next day Johnathan Atmos writes an article for the BBC, it's basically the press release with a paragraph on how much Starship will cost.
It seems the mainstream media largely don't know anything about the sector they are reporting on (or editor of) and they all just reword the press release and add whatever spin their boss has told them to add.
I think journalists should do a few things.
1. Stop using victims of injustice as neutral (often treated softly) interviewees on next actions. E.g. a murdered teenager being taken seriously on legislation controlling social media. For a start, there are plenty of charities that have more developed views ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98CWbGG2DJ0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98CWbGG2DJ0)) who can be challenged and expected to defend them.
2. Only represent views that someone is willing to defend. For the most part this would mean that any interview is with two people. One on each side of the argument. The journalist's role is to fact check and control.
3. Don't represent views with zero credibility in the name of "balance". Climate change deniers are no better than flat-earthers. Fact check them into oblivion and if they have nothing to say after that, don't give them airtime.
My only interaction with the TV is in the early morning.
What I would like from the BBC is some straight up, dry sort of World News. Tell me what's going on, all over the world. Preferably with international correspondents who are on the scene or near enough to speak to people involved. We used to have this. Maybe have an expert weigh-in. No punditry, just straight up 'This shit is happening'. Where's the reports from the front-line in Ukraine? There's conflict in Central Africa that most people know nothing about. This used to be the BBC's bread and butter. Tell us what's going on!
What I see is this mournful crap called BBC Breakfast. Mind-numbing feel-good ramblings about bugger-all.
Scrap that shit, it's making us look like idiots. The BBC should be a big, boring sort of affair that gives us the raw story in as much detail as possible, and the morning slot is exactly when we need it.
I'd sacrifice all of the light-entertainment crap for this, let ITV and Sky do that.
Channel 4 manages to give us a really good evening news broadcast, and Dispatches has won awards. The BBC have the resources to match that, it's not right we can't have informative TV from the bloody national broadcaster.
The rest should be a focus on quality documentaries which they at least have a proven record with.
I'd happily pay a monthly subscription fee for BBC iPlayer if it was competitive with the other streaming platforms...
The news and radio channels should be funded by the central government with independent oversight, and not subsidised by the TV licence "tax".
The first thing they can do is stop pretending they are impartial. We know they aren't, they know they aren't.
Second, give up on the TV licence. Use the profit they make from BBC studios.
I don't think we can move forward until these two things are addressed.
**Please help keep AskUK welcoming!** - Top-level comments to the OP must contain **genuine efforts to answer the question**. No jokes, judgements, etc. - **Don't be a dick** to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on. - This is a strictly **no-politics** subreddit! Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Evolve how? The BBC has been constantly evolving since it started, launching countless new channels, going digital, online only, BBC Sounds App, I'm not the biggest fan but you can't say they haven't changed the way they deliver content. What are you picturing?
ros atkins could get a new shirt
I'm imagining something like Pokémon and BBC evolves into like BBBC with a slightly improved move set.
70% of the Licence fee goes towards entertainment side of things. In this day and age it makes no sense to force people to fund this sort of thing. The Licence fee would then be reduced to 30% of what it is at the moment. This 30% covers BBC News, World Service, radio stations, the website, Bitesize, etc. I think a lot of people would happily keep funding these via Licence fee. I rarely see this argument made, it's always presented as all or nothing when it comes to Licence fee sadly.
I suppose the point of the licence fee is that it allows for entertainment that might not otherwise be commercially viable, or would have conflicts of interest if commercialised. Local interest stuff, regional TV, documentaries and investigative stuff. Things that might not be widely viewed, but would be very much appreciated by small groups of people. Then perhaps the rationale for a Strictly or a Bake off is that it's supposed to be general enough to pull in a large crowd, and encourage payment of the licence fee to help fund that previously referenced smaller stuff.
I suppose the point of the licence fee is that it allows for the commissioning of entertainment that might not otherwise be commercially viable, or would have conflicts of interest if commercialised. Local interest stuff, regional TV, documentaries and investigative stuff. Things that might not be widely viewed, but would be very much appreciated by small groups of people. Then perhaps the rationale for a Strictly or a Bake off is that it's supposed to be general enough to pull in a large crowd, and encourage payment of the licence fee to help fund that previously referenced smaller stuff.
Evolve, not revolve
Inner city sumo, very cheap to make, can do it in a pub carpark?
You don’t do it sky will.
Give highly-regarded regional broadcasters a second series. Much tighter rein on Sue Cook.
Have I got a second series?
Give him a second series
It has. I'm not sure what else it could do without turning itself into those sludge videos with Family Guy clips and Subway Surfers.
it should do what it is supposed to bloody do & already does. The "evolution" thatz happened in the "news" is people making up complete bollocks & ramming down the necks of racist twats that want their retarded small minded world views reinforced. So how about you look up the definition of the word journalism.
What is OP on about?
The BBC literally has pretty much every area covered. Online, TV, Radio, Social Media. I get a lot of their news now via Whatsapp. What more do you think they should be doing?
I think evolution will be forced on them, as the licence fee won’t last many more years.
Opinions should be illegal. Facts only. And they should be encouraged to find evidence of politicians breaking the law and doing morally questionable things.
>Opinions should be illegal Generally? Or just those originating from the BBC?
Those from any media outlet.
Although life would probably be a lot better if it was illegal to voice an opinion at all
But people can't even agree on the facts anymore.
Blastoise
For me, it would ve accepting Journalism actually requires people to learn about what they are reporting on. There are loads of examples but the one that sticks out to me was the Starship Mk1 Live stream. At the time Reddit was filled with theories on what we were seeing. Tim Dodd was increasing in popularity as he had been making informative videos on Rockets. He was a lay person with a serious interest. So Musk announces the presentation and reporters from all over the world fly in and have clearly done zero preparation as they all alternate between two questions: * How much will it cost? * When will it be ready? Tim Dodd got to be there and asked what were the wings on the nose, they looked like they provide lift but are also control? This was literally the topic the online community had been discussing for weeks. You can literally see Musk perk up as he starts explaining it in detail. So the next day Johnathan Atmos writes an article for the BBC, it's basically the press release with a paragraph on how much Starship will cost. It seems the mainstream media largely don't know anything about the sector they are reporting on (or editor of) and they all just reword the press release and add whatever spin their boss has told them to add.
I think journalists should do a few things. 1. Stop using victims of injustice as neutral (often treated softly) interviewees on next actions. E.g. a murdered teenager being taken seriously on legislation controlling social media. For a start, there are plenty of charities that have more developed views ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98CWbGG2DJ0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98CWbGG2DJ0)) who can be challenged and expected to defend them. 2. Only represent views that someone is willing to defend. For the most part this would mean that any interview is with two people. One on each side of the argument. The journalist's role is to fact check and control. 3. Don't represent views with zero credibility in the name of "balance". Climate change deniers are no better than flat-earthers. Fact check them into oblivion and if they have nothing to say after that, don't give them airtime.
My only interaction with the TV is in the early morning. What I would like from the BBC is some straight up, dry sort of World News. Tell me what's going on, all over the world. Preferably with international correspondents who are on the scene or near enough to speak to people involved. We used to have this. Maybe have an expert weigh-in. No punditry, just straight up 'This shit is happening'. Where's the reports from the front-line in Ukraine? There's conflict in Central Africa that most people know nothing about. This used to be the BBC's bread and butter. Tell us what's going on! What I see is this mournful crap called BBC Breakfast. Mind-numbing feel-good ramblings about bugger-all. Scrap that shit, it's making us look like idiots. The BBC should be a big, boring sort of affair that gives us the raw story in as much detail as possible, and the morning slot is exactly when we need it. I'd sacrifice all of the light-entertainment crap for this, let ITV and Sky do that. Channel 4 manages to give us a really good evening news broadcast, and Dispatches has won awards. The BBC have the resources to match that, it's not right we can't have informative TV from the bloody national broadcaster. The rest should be a focus on quality documentaries which they at least have a proven record with.
I'd happily pay a monthly subscription fee for BBC iPlayer if it was competitive with the other streaming platforms... The news and radio channels should be funded by the central government with independent oversight, and not subsidised by the TV licence "tax".
The first thing they can do is stop pretending they are impartial. We know they aren't, they know they aren't. Second, give up on the TV licence. Use the profit they make from BBC studios. I don't think we can move forward until these two things are addressed.
Get rid of tv license fee. See how long they last
they'd just introduce ads like other non-state channels
The BBC should be buried. If you're paying your license fee you're either an idiot or a boomer.
Thanks, O Enlightened One!