Originally Posted by steveisfrowning
we've done this
To death Steve, you're right. But there's nothing new under the sun
Yes I am saying that, or at least it's current form should be dramatically changed. It wouldn't bother me if they have adverts as there are adverts everywhere else.
Sky make better programs, the F1 coverage for a start.
Yes we have to pay for that, but that is in addition to what we pay to the BBC. Doesn't seem very fair to me.
ITV make good programs, as do Ch4, occasionally Ch5 and there are loads of others on freeview.
If the BBC ever make anything worthwhile such as the Brain Cox wonders series I usually buy it on DVD or Blu-Ray anyway.
The BBC ditching the full F1 coverage is basically what has turned me against it.
So basically, your whole premise is that the BBC got outbid for the F1 coverage - you can't watch it on the BBC any more so why should you pay the licence fee?
There is very little difference in whatever channel gets to cover the F1. It's basically covering an OB event, you don't conceive, write and produce it, it's there and you turn up and cover it. It's not exactly the pinnacle of TV, is it?
And do you really think the ITV channels are free? Who pays for them - you do
. Every time you buy a bar of chocolate, every time you buy some soap powder, every time you take out a loan with Wonga, you pay for ITV, whether you like it or not. Not only that, there's no accountability and you have no influence over what gets made and shown, beyond pure ratings-led programming.
There isn't enough advertising revenue to go round, so the BBC having ads would kill off ITV, as well as itself. This would leave that fine upstanding figure of truth and integrity - Rupert Murdoch - to grasp the nettle of public service broadcasting for the greater good. For another example of his ethical ethos, take a look at his newspapers.
Ecclestone for DG.
After recent appointments, I can see why you would say that Chris