Harriet Harman was talking the other day about limiting the market share of news organisations to 15%, which is about the most sensible thing she's ever said. News Corp, despite the media (BBC) wanting us to believe is the big bad guy has 11% or so. The BBC has 45%. Four TV channels when only two are needed.7 radio stations and countless local variations, again not required. BBC Alba where three sheperds and their dog can watch Inverness v Ross County with commentary in Gaelic? **** right off. (Look forward to more of this diddy output if we go independent).
Quite apart from the absurd notion that we are taxed for BBC whether we watch it or not, if we didn't pay/weren't forced to pay how much good would 30m x £145 do for the economy? £4bn being spent over and over again isn't insignificant.
I've been watching Vice documentaries on YT recently. Clearly low budget compared to BBC but no less interesting for it. I'm sure there are many others doing similar things in other areas.
Don't get me wrong, the BBC does good stuff. Comedy, drama and documentaries are often top notch. But it also churns out all manner of shite like anything on BBC3, the entire daytime schedule on BBC1/2 except politics/news, etc etc. If it were funded ANY other way the shite would get pared back. Not that there isn't a place for shite, Saturday night says there is but it's got to be popular shite or really what is the point?