BBC says 'irreversible' trends mean it will not survive without major overhaul

ChocolateGod

I refuse to pay the license fee and watch BBC content simply because how TV licensing is enforced is grotesque and the cover ups of child molesters committed by the BBC. Put it behind a subscription and give me a choice whether the BBC deserves its revenue, my current opinion falls firmly on no.

rvz

Sounds like cope.

blargthorwars

Imagine needing a government licence to look at a screen.

oxfordmale

I am happy to pay for the BBC licence fee if they stop harassing old grannies.

nephihaha

I have not paid for the TV licence in over twenty years. I refuse to pay for state propaganda and repeats from forty or fifty years ago.

dmix

> the corporation said 94% of people in the UK continued to use the BBC each month, but fewer than 80% of households contributed to the licence fee. That's a pretty good ratio no? Plenty of services survive with lower ratios than that. Do they really expect every household to pay? Or is the issue they have much bigger spending plans than they make from it.

xvxvx

Easy fix: make the BBC a paid subscription and let people choose.

pjc50

Personally I'd choose an arbitrary point like the year 2000, and split the BBC into "heritage" (nationalized body that holds all the archives, like the British Library or the British Museum), BBC Radio (taxpayer funded by DCMS, this is not very expensive) and "continuity TV" (commercial body that has to fund itself like any other). This does mean Doctor Who getting split in half, but that's not the worst that's happened to him/her.

yesfitz

The BBC's Annual Plan for 2025/2026[1] is an interesting read. They spend a lot of money (billions) on making and delivering content, but that's still not much compared to other large for-profit media companies[2]. The TV License has been the model since World War II[3], and the entire mass media landscape has completely changed since then. The proposals to replace the TV License with ads or subscriptions are enshittification. The BBC is not a for-profit media company and should not be treated like one. It is a soft-power organization (cynically: propaganda arm) for the British government. There isn't anything inherently wrong with spreading your government's/culture's messages, especially when it's as obvious as the BBC, but it should not be expected to make money. How much is it worth that Britain stays relevant throughout the Anglosphere and beyond? Or that British points of view are available everywhere with a shortwave radio or VPN? So fund it like it's defense spending. Maybe if the next leader of a foreign country has a fondness for Del Boy or Red Dwarf , negotiations will go a little more smoothly. As an American, I think I'd prefer having an official propaganda arm like the BBC instead of whatever quiet public-private partnerships (cynically: backroom deals) we have instead. I'd hate it, but it'd be good to have something concrete to direct my criticism at, instead of constantly wondering if NPR is really presenting unbiased facts or the movie about our Navy jet fighters being the best, most freedom-loving planes flown by handsome rascals is just a good time. 1: https://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/documents/bbc-annual-plan-... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_Century_Fox# 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Un...

comrade1234

I didn't pay the license fee here in Switzerland for a long time because I didn't have a tv or radio (I guess they didn't know about my car). In 2019 (I think) they just said 'fuck it, everyone pays' and changed it so you pay whether you have a tv or radio. I could say that I don't watch Swiss tv but then the tv series Tschugger came out and made a few years of payments worth it. Otherwise it's just watching endless Jass (Swiss card game) tournaments.

rich_sasha

People complain about the BBC's bias. And since everyone has a different idea of what "unbiased" looks like, it's almost impossible to please everyone. But it struck me how few serious, general, global news outlets there are left in the world that aren't tied to some major interest. Fox News, CNN, WSJ... So much stuff is owned by Murdoch or by some other mogul. The Guardian is pretty good IMO but does not even pretend not to have a lefty skew. I was thinking about the spiral of death that happens to so many media outlets where serious news doesn't pay the bills anymore, so they either have to rent themselves out to some deep pocket, or chase clicks for ads, losing veracity in the process. BBC is one of the few organisations left that's somewhat immune to that. I won't claim all their stuff is unbiased, but they're just as likely to publish something left- as right-biased. So now I'm rooting for them and hope they make it. Apparently it is the second most trusted news source in the US, right after the Weather Channel. So truly a global phenomenon: https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/52272-trust-in-media-2025-...

abanana

The BBC continually tries to convince the government that their problems are due to illegal action that must be stopped. They do everything in their power to distract from the real issue - that the landscape of television has changed beyond recognition since the tax was brought in. It's completely clear to everybody that the TV licence is an outdated model that makes no sense in today's world of competing commercial streaming services, but they're desperate to control the narrative to avoid losing their income stream. Which is understandable I suppose, from their narrow point of view. But for the country's point of view, we need a politician with balls, to step up and reform the system. But I'm not sure those even exist anymore.

tw85

This thread is quite eye opening. A lot of comments bemoaning the lack of agreement on what constitutes bias, mixed with claims the BBC is right wing and even a Nigel Farage fluffer (that's a howler). I didn't see anyone mention that, just a couple months back, two very high profile BBCers were forced to resign over the doctoring of Trump's Jan. 6 speech to completely alter its meaning. That simply doesn't happen unless it's a very serious scandal.