Utilisateur:JackX84291

The British Broadcasting Corporation's services and products are used by 98% of the adults in Britain, every week1. Its website, mostly news and weather, is the most popular and highest quality of its kind and its natural history programs are the best.theguardian.com There are no adverts streamed on its TV channels nor on its website. It is a legal requirement to pay for the BBC License Free if you have a TV set, or some other device, that can view BBC TV content. It costs nearly £150 per year2.wikipedia.org It doesn't matter if you watch them, you still have to pay. TV detector vans occasionally prowl the streets, correlating those with sets with addresses with licenses. It's a serious business!


The BBC acquired £3.5 billion as a result of the license fee, in 20091. The fee is occasionally hotly contested by users and by other media companies, who obviously see the BBC as being subsidised competition. Although 37% say that the License fee is the wrong way to fund the BBC3, that is still, in a nation of the unhappy, quite a positive endorsement. But what are the possible alternatives? Scrap the license fee and let the BBC fend for itself through adverts, populist programming and paid-for services. This will damage quality, but will open up the market. Share the license fee so that it is paid to a consortium and spread between media companies who provide similar services, such as Virgin. This provides a form of market fairness.


It will mean that license-paid-for channels will (like the BBC) have to drop adverts (or at least, a portion of them), which may be more painful to some channels than having the BBC as competition. Reinvent the license as PAYG: now that TV is digitized new ways of charging for the BBC have been opened up. Services can be paid for monthly through the TV set and the like, and services can be provided strictly for those who pay for them. This is fairest on the consumer. "Magazine publishers and radio stations complain about unfair competition for audiences and advertisers. ] Newspapers point out that the presence of a giant free news website makes it hard to charge for online content.


Similar complaints forced ZDF, a German public broadcaster, to prune its website drastically last year. The BBC has reacted to these criticisms and in 2009 surprised many with a declaration that it would cut back on its website, remove a few digital radio stations, and reduce its spending on sport and imported shows1. "Magazine publishers and radio stations complain about unfair competition for audiences and advertisers. ] Newspapers point out that the presence of a giant free news website makes it hard to charge for online content. Similar complaints forced ZDF, a German public broadcaster, to prune its website drastically last year.


However, as we shall see later, there are substantial counter-arguments. 98% of the adults in Britain, every week, use some of the services of the BBC1. The five biggest providers of global news are Al-Jazeera (English), France 24, CNN, Russia Today and BBC World. Although of those 5, Al-Jazeera, CNN and Russia Today are all widely known to be biased and selective in their broadcasting. BBC World has been found by analysts to be the most impartial and trustworthy.6. Many worry about the reduced impact of the BBC given the rise of more-entertaining but less-informative news sources available online1, but for now at least, the BBC is still highly influential across the world.


British nationalist analysts consider it to be a great source of the UK's "soft power" around the world - meaning that the BBC is engendering positive attitudes towards the UK and the UK's interests around the world. It also does its part in spreading the use of reasonably well-spoken English. The BBC provides a quality service, with world-class news services and many informational programs. Polls have found that the BBC is trusted more than the police and civil servants; which are both in turn more trusted than other journalists in general1. It Works As It Is: It produces quality products in an era of trashy mass media. If it works, don't fix it!


Maintaining a Guaranteed Quality Service. "There are still some safe havens which we might be able to protect. Some of them are inside the BBC whose public funding gives it some slight protection against commercialisation. In other words, it provides a good service that provides services worldwide; benefiting many who live where there are no other good sources of global news, and even, helping sway the world towards democracy and civility. Even on its home turf, the BBC is a mass educator rather than an entertainer. It is certainly worth having a corporation that fulfils this role, no matter if the License fee is slightly unpopular, and slightly expensive. The BBC Worldwide made £1 billion in 20091 and has invested in cable channels and studios across the world.


It seems that if the BBC continues to hold out as it is, it will of its own accord become commercially viable and no longer need the License. As competence in English continues to increase throughout the world, things can only get better. But it is a matter of time (a decade) and it is not yet ready to shed the License. A National Public Asset: Some argue that the BBC is has the stature of a national library, or a national museum, whose role is tied in with national identify. Nothing compares to the size and organisation of the valued BBC Archive, for example. Although in 2009 a poll found that 47% thought the BBC License fee wasn't good value3, 98% of all Britons use the BBC, per week1.


I suspect that many view its programs and services without always acknowledging the BBC as the source. No-one else produces wildlife documentaries of the same quality, for example, and its radio stations are taken for granted. In 2009, the BBC voluntarily cut back on some services such as sports, which are more appropriate to the mass-market than to a news provider1. The Guardian. UK newspaper. See Which are the Best and Worst Newspapers in the UK? Respectable and generally well researched UK broadsheet newspaper. The Economist. Published by The Economist Group, Ltd. A weekly newspaper in magazine format, famed for its accuracy, wide scope and intelligent content. Economist for some commentary on this source. Flat Earth News. Published by Chatto & Windus, Random House, London, UK. Media Studies: The Basics. Published by Routledge, New York, USA. Cutting the BBC: No surrender (2010 May 06). P34-36. BBC Website's page on the Licence Fee says the cost has been £145.50 since 2010 Apr 01. The page iterates how this fee is broken up into the different areas of the BBC. The future of the BBC (2009 Jun 20). P32. The Economist references ComScore for some of its stats on the BBC, and Ipsos MORI for the stats on British trust of BBC versus other industries. Public-service broadcasting (2009 Jan 24). P32. ©2018 Vexen Crabtree all rights reserved.


The BBC’s live shot even shows the building still standing in the background, while its collapse is being reported. Five major US television networks agree to self-censor their news broadcasts of statements by Osama bin Laden and his associates. [BBC, 10/11/2001; Rich, 2006, pp. ] Rice asks that, instead of automatically airing bin Laden videotapes, news executives should carefully review the tapes and remove any "inflammatory language" before broadcasting. ] The networks say they will now review them first, and edit or censor them as needed. A Silky Form of Censorship' - According to the New York Times, the five networks have never before consulted one another as a group and made such a collective policy decision about news coverage.


The executives deny that they were threatened or pressured by Rice or any other White House officials: "Ms. Rice made no specific request of news organizations, other than that we consider the possible existence of such messages in deciding whether and how to air portions of al-Qaeda statements," says an ABC spokesman. They also deny that the decision amounts to censorship. ] was very, very careful to talk about freedom of the press and not to suggest how we do our job." Matthew Felling of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a media watchdog group, has a different view. " one executive asks.


"The videos could also appear on the Internet. ] shooting, no bullet inside her body, no stab wound—only road traffic accident," al-Houssona says. "They want to distort the picture. I don’t know why they think there is some benefit in saying she has a bullet injury." Hospital staffers add that Iraqi military and civilian leaders had fled the area before the raid occurred. Another doctor, Anmar Uday, even speculates that the rescue was staged. "We were surprised," he recalls. There was no military, there were no soldiers in the hospital. It was like a Hollywood film. They cried ‘go, go, go,’ with guns and blanks without bullets, blanks and the sound of explosions.


Media Response and 'News Management' - The documentary shows how quickly American broadcast journalists and news anchors were to seize upon the story and sensationalize it even more. CBS anchor Dan Rather uses the phrase, "Saving Private Lynch," in a comparison to the movie Saving Private Ryan, a fictional treatment based on the actual rescue of an American soldier during World War II. Another news correspondent even refers to Lynch as "Private Ryan" in a segment. ], to the world’s press, was the way the Americans did it. Senior British diplomat William Patey, meeting with Prime Minister Tony Blair after returning from a tour of Iraq, tells Blair that Iraq is closer to civil war and partition along sectarian lines than it is to democracy. Patey tells Blair in a confidential telegram that "the prospect of a low intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy. ] The memo is soon leaked to the BBC.


Partly due to technological advances made during the First World War, radio became not only a means of receiving information, but also a medium for mass entertainment. In Britain, the Post Office controlled the use of radio under the 1904 Wireless Telegraphy Act, granting licenses to firms under the act. Some commercial firms that wished to exploit this new medium formed the British Broadcasting Company and obtained a licence from the Post Office. After results from the Sykes Committee report in 1923 and the Crawford Committee report in 1925, the government bought the company's shares and transformed it into a public corporation - the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).


The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) introduced the first television service on 2 November 1936. It was limited to the London area and the south east of England. Although only a few people could afford television sets, the technology and service was made available. However, the service was suspended in September 1939 due to the outbreak of the Second World War. Television service did not resume until 7 June 1946. During the late 1940s and early 1950s there was a great deal of debate over the future of broadcasting. This culminated in a White Paper that proposed breaking up the BBC television broadcasting monopoly.


The Television Act of 1954 introduced competition using a new Independent Television Authority (ITA) to manage commercial television, while the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) continued to be funded by a license fee. The BBC, however, continued to attract plaudits. As a result, the Corporation was awarded a second television channel in 1962 on the recommendation of the Pilkington Committee. In the 1960s, a number of 'pirate' radio stations (such as Radio Caroline) began operating illegally, catering for an audience the BBC radio monopoly had failed to reach. A fourth channel (Channel 4) wasn't added until the 1980s. In the 1990s and up to the present day there has been an explosion in the range of broadcasting available through the use of satellite, cable, and internet technology.


Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work produced by our essay writing service. You can view samples of our professional work here. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays. Why For So Much of its History was British broadcasting organised as a public service? By way of introduction, it is important that I explain about the British Broadcasting Corporation, known otherwise as the [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33844076 BBC], in order to get a better insight to what I will be explaining further on.


Being the first and the Worlds biggest broadcasting organisation, it has been known to be a public service broadcaster, which has been up and running since 1922, providing services on the internet, TV and radio. I should highlight the fact that when we talk about a "public service", we mean services which have been provided to us via the government. Though according to Ofcom, (Office of Communications) a problem lies when we define this term, as it has 4 meanings attached to it. Firstly, let me shed light on the word broadcasting. Broadcasting is the transmitting of programmes to be heard simultaneously by an indefinitely large number of people-is a social invention, not a technical one.


The BBC was to be financed by both tariffs and a licence fee, which after some time proved to be unsuccessful for the rapid expansion of the station. Listeners were building their personal sets with low-priced foreign components, and applying for new licenses. The BBC was not in favour of this and manufacturers were irritated that the production was not proving to be as cost-effective as it should have been.twitter.com As a result of this, the Sykes Committee was established to help out. There were certain reasons to why the BBC was regulated, which we can consider.


One of which, was that there was limited space on the frequency spectrum, which therefore meant that no organisations could appear freely without any government rule, so to limit this, the government had to step in. In other words, there were technological constraints. It was not technically possible to have numerous amounts of signals altogether, which could ultimately cause blockages.microsoft.com Further more, the Post Office were forcing all the electrical manufacturers to create a single system as it was finding it very difficult to control the private broadcaster who were transmitting messages freely without obtaining a licence from them. Following on, we can also take the example of USA into account.


The way in which the model of organisation was in USA was not accepted by Britain, as the Politicians thought it was inappropriate and were not fond of what they saw, and moved to other models. The way in which the BBC is funded needs to be examined as well. It is through the licence fee, under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, that enables the BBC to act in the public interest.twitter.com This fee is paid by households and is undoubtedly a reason to why the BBC is a public service, as the public are paying and therefore the BBC should be publicly responsible.