PDA

View Full Version : BBC has the best documentaries yet is state subsidized




USAFCapt
11-26-2011, 02:02 PM
The British Broadcasting Company, which is state subsidized by every citizen in the UK, has the best educational and interesting documentaries of any broadcasting company in the world. Civilization, Planet Earth, Life in the Undergrowth, The Root of all Evil. How as free marketeers can we explain this? Why doesn't any capitalistic company produce great work such as the BBC or PBS show on a consistent basis?

AlexAmore
11-26-2011, 02:20 PM
From some brief research into these documentaries you mentioned I see a pattern which is they have help from Animal Planet and Discovery. Richard Dawkins wrote The Root of All Evil. The documentaries seem to typically be commissioned by BBC. Any libertarian here would say the world would be stepping in the right direction if the government commissioned their projects.

So for example private roads a controversial idea and people get all the wrong ideas from it because they think they'll get robbed blind or not be able use it. The reality is companies would bid for the contract to build and maintain a specific road and then have the incentive to make it go fast for bigger profits. Now the question is who do we give credit to? The government for commissioning it or the private company for building and maintaining the road? Maybe credit goes to both parties for a taking a step in the right direction.

Obviously as a libertarian I'm against state sponsored television but I'm just explaining how it might have good or even great programming (according to who you ask and therein lies the fundamental problem with socialism). You said it was "great" but there are people who would disagree and yet they have to pay for it anyway.

That's my take on it. I'm open for corrections if I'm off base with anything.

Becker
11-26-2011, 02:23 PM
only anarchists and libertarians think that states can't produce good material.

these idiots need only look at the fact RT, their favorite internet channel, is subsidized by the Russian government's propaganda department.

Kords21
11-26-2011, 02:23 PM
I like the documentaries that Louis Theroux does. His best ones are the ones he did on the Westboro baptist church and the Miami mega-jail.

AlexAmore
11-26-2011, 02:29 PM
only anarchists and libertarians think that states can't produce good material.

these idiots need only look at the fact RT, their favorite internet channel, is subsidized by the Russian government's propaganda department.

"Good" material is subjective and open for opposing viewpoints. The opposing viewpoints shouldn't have to pay for opposing propaganda. If I'm a staunch bible thumping Christian, I shouldn't have to pay for Richard Dawkins to promote his views.

LawnWake
11-26-2011, 02:57 PM
What makes private enterprise better than state enterprise is competition, it's just that the BBC is also competing with private companies, hence quality docs.

Becker
11-26-2011, 03:09 PM
What makes private enterprise better than state enterprise is competition, it's just that the BBC is also competing with private companies, hence quality docs.

no, prime time and late night competition creates sensationalism, that's gossip, reality tv, and feel good tv shows with little education value, but it makes money :)

Private enterprise is good at making money, and BBC, RT are good at making programs which politically aware people enjoy, its very unprofitable. (there's a reason not all channels are fox news)

matt0611
11-26-2011, 03:31 PM
no, prime time and late night competition creates sensationalism, that's gossip, reality tv, and feel good tv shows with little education value, but it makes money :)

Private enterprise is good at making money, and BBC, RT are good at making programs which politically aware people enjoy, its very unprofitable. (there's a reason not all channels are fox news)

If people don't enjoy watching Fox News, how are they good at making money?
Private enterprise's seem to know what people "enjoy".

LawnWake
11-26-2011, 03:34 PM
no, prime time and late night competition creates sensationalism, that's gossip, reality tv, and feel good tv shows with little education value, but it makes money :)

It doesn't create anything. It responds to what people want and that's what they'll get. I don't really care. If people weren't entertained by it, they wouldn't watch it. Who am I impose on it? Should the government tax the majority to make content for the minority?

And Impossible Pictures, founded by Tim Haines who was part of the BBC for the Walking With Series, still creates quality docs. Walking With Monsters and March of the Dinosaurs for example.

Also, recently Sky 3D, also a private company owned by NewsCorp, created Flying Monsters, hosted by David Attenborough. It's an amazing documentary on the level as WWD.

So to say that the free market can't produce quality educational tv is simply false.


Private enterprise is good at making money, and BBC, RT are good at making programs which politically aware people enjoy, its very unprofitable. (there's a reason not all channels are fox news)

Yeah, except most politically aware people in the UK hate the BBC for their obvious pro-government, pro-Israel leanings, which they're forced to sponsor. Most of the radio of it sucks too. John Peel's show was respected and got critical aclaim for exposing people to underground music (breakcore, death metal, one of the first to play dubstep on air in 2003), but he got pushed into a worse and worse time slots. Despite his contributions culturally.

Travlyr
11-26-2011, 03:58 PM
The British Broadcasting Company, which is state subsidized by every citizen in the UK, has the best educational and interesting documentaries of any broadcasting company in the world. Civilization, Planet Earth, Life in the Undergrowth, The Root of all Evil. How as free marketeers can we explain this? Why doesn't any capitalistic company produce great work such as the BBC or PBS show on a consistent basis?
What I love/loathe about BBC is their propaganda. They give their audience 85% -> 90% of the truth and leave out the most important information. That makes them believable enough for their audience without compromising their propaganda control. Controversy is key to discussion. Divide and Conquer. The BBC is very good at it.

When they come on TV with the constant mantra --- "End the Wars of Aggression" ... "End Central Bank's Control over People's Lives" ... "Live by the rule of law", then they will be worth watching. Until then, I'm not holding my breath.

Xenophage
11-26-2011, 04:27 PM
The British Broadcasting Company, which is state subsidized by every citizen in the UK, has the best educational and interesting documentaries of any broadcasting company in the world. Civilization, Planet Earth, Life in the Undergrowth, The Root of all Evil. How as free marketeers can we explain this? Why doesn't any capitalistic company produce great work such as the BBC or PBS show on a consistent basis?

"Best" is highly subjective, don't you think? That's a dubious claim. But the fact is that the airwaves in the UK were deregulated in the 1980's and the BBC has since had to compete with other content producers and broadcasters. The situation is highly analogous to the United States Postal Service.

Now the question really is, "Of what benefit to the populace as a whole is the state subsidization of the BBC?" Here I'd argue none. Under current conditions, the BBC can operate at a loss because it has guaranteed funding. You might argue, "That allows it to take risks on unpopular programming," but if that were the case then the BBC would lose viewership because there is no government authority in the UK that forces all citizens NOT to choose to view other networks. The BBC has high viewership today because it produces what the population demands.

If subsidization were removed the BBC would probably continue. If not, it would fail or adapt to market forces.

So what do the people of the UK really get for subsidizing the BBC? They get a corporation that is less than maximally efficient at allocating resources, and they get to pay for it whether some of them want to or not. On the one hand it's economically inefficient and unnecessary, and on the other hand it's outright immoral to force some people to pay for television services they either don't want or don't need.

It's supremely better than the BBC of the 60's and 70's that had very little competition (and comparing reruns of old Doctor Who shows to the new series should be evidence enough that the BBC has improved its content dramatically - or, comparing those same old Doctor Who shows to the original Star Trek paints a sharp contrast to the quality produced by socialized media and the free market), but the people of the UK could go even further and completely privatize the BBC to reap even more of the rewards of economic freedom.

Becker
11-26-2011, 04:39 PM
If people don't enjoy watching Fox News, how are they good at making money?
Private enterprise's seem to know what people "enjoy".

my point was, the market doesn't demand a 2nd one. because it's just that small.

AGRP
11-26-2011, 04:42 PM
This BBC?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc

Becker
11-26-2011, 04:42 PM
So to say that the free market can't produce quality educational tv is simply false.


I never said that. I also never said governments CAN produce profitable or quality education tv.



Yeah, except most politically aware people in the UK hate the BBC for their obvious pro-government, pro-Israel leanings, which they're forced to sponsor.
Most of the radio of it sucks too. John Peel's show was respected and got critical aclaim for exposing people to underground music (breakcore, death metal, one of the first to play dubstep on air in 2003), but he got pushed into a worse and worse time slots. Despite his contributions culturally.

cultural contributions are nice, is it profitable enough that he can buy better time slots?

I agree with an above poster, that good or best are subjective, but documentaries are generally unprofitable, this is a fact. This is why pro-profit producers tend not to make much of it. And there's always some leftover niche governments can fill, RT being a great example.

bluesc
11-26-2011, 04:55 PM
I never said that. I also never said governments CAN produce profitable or quality education tv.

The BBC is not profitable because everyone who watches TV -- even if they never watch the BBC -- has to pay a TV license to have the privilege, and the TV license revenues fund the BBC. The actual shows they air are typically not made by the BBC, but companies are commissioned to make them, and then they are aired ad free. The companies that MAKE the shows through commission make good profits -- the BBC doesn't. The main thing the BBC produces itself is the news, and that is basically 24/7 propaganda, with some surprising investigations into some controversial subjects. The private competitor to the BBC has decent ratings and is very profitable, and is expanding, while the BBC is cutting back because it is state run and the UK is in a recession.

Privately run > state run.

Xenophage
11-26-2011, 05:01 PM
I never said that. I also never said governments CAN produce profitable or quality education tv.



cultural contributions are nice, is it profitable enough that he can buy better time slots?

I agree with an above poster, that good or best are subjective, but documentaries are generally unprofitable, this is a fact. This is why pro-profit producers tend not to make much of it. And there's always some leftover niche governments can fill, RT being a great example.

That leftover niche is fulfilled by the free market, as well, and governments are by no means assured to produce it. They are however assured to produced anything inefficiently, and it's certain they have different motivations and incentives. Just look at North Korea or China. Do they provide fair and unbiased programming? Good entertainment?

And documentaries are hugely profitable. That's just an absurd statement. How much money do companies make producing something like Cosmos, or How The Universe Works, or Through the Wormhole? These aren't inexpensive to produce, either. They're extremely well done.

But we weren't even talking about state-run television. We were talking about the BBC, in which case I'd direct you to my previous post about whether or not the public actually gets a good return on investment for their subsidies, and also whether or not it is moral to force some people to pay for what other people want.

Becker
11-26-2011, 05:06 PM
The BBC is not profitable because everyone who watches TV -- even if they never watch the BBC -- has to pay a TV license to have the privilege, and the TV license revenues fund the BBC. The actual shows they air are typically not made by the BBC, but companies are commissioned to make them, and then they are aired ad free. The companies that MAKE the shows through commission make good profits -- the BBC doesn't. The main thing the BBC produces itself is the news, and that is basically 24/7 propaganda, with some surprising investigations into some controversial subjects. The private competitor to the BBC has decent ratings and is very profitable, and is expanding, while the BBC is cutting back because it is state run and the UK is in a recession.

Privately run > state run.

there's a difference between subsidized and run too.

Ask the crowd here, is Alex Jones better than RT?
Is RT better than Fox News?
Is RT better than CNN?
Is RT better than al Jazeera?

Becker
11-26-2011, 05:09 PM
That leftover niche is fulfilled by the free market, as well, and governments are by no means assured to produce it.


correct, they are not assured anything



They are however assured to produced anything inefficiently, and it's certain they have different motivations and incentives. Just look at North Korea or China. Do they provide fair and unbiased programming? Good entertainment?


I am not knowledgeable about NK, but I will assume it's poor quality. China is hard to say, they have various agendas.
Is RT unbiased? Or biased in a good way?



And documentaries are hugely profitable. That's just an absurd statement.


LOL, not all documentaries are Bowling for Columbine and The Cove.



How much money do companies make producing something like Cosmos, or How The Universe Works, or Through the Wormhole? These aren't inexpensive to produce, either. They're extremely well done.


How profitable that I've not heard of them



But we weren't even talking about state-run television. We were talking about the BBC, in which case I'd direct you to my previous post about whether or not the public actually gets a good return on investment for their subsidies, and also whether or not it is moral to force some people to pay for what other people want.

I NEVER EVER DENIED PUBLIC GETS A BAD RETURN ON INVESTMENT, EVER.
Its moral to force criminals to pay for what non-criminals want, isn't it?

bluesc
11-26-2011, 05:13 PM
there's a difference between subsidized and run too.

Ask the crowd here, is Alex Jones better than RT?
Is RT better than Fox News?
Is RT better than CNN?
Is RT better than al Jazeera?

This thread is about BBC and that is what my reply was about. I have no idea about RT, the way it is run, the way it is funded, if the Russian government has any control over what is aired in the US, etc. With the BBC, the only reason there is high quality programming is because different private companies compete for contracts. I don't watch the news at all.

eduardo89
11-26-2011, 05:15 PM
The BBC is not profitable because everyone who watches TV -- even if they never watch the BBC -- has to pay a TV license to have the privilege, and the TV license revenues fund the BBC. The actual shows they air are typically not made by the BBC, but companies are commissioned to make them, and then they are aired ad free. The companies that MAKE the shows through commission make good profits -- the BBC doesn't. The main thing the BBC produces itself is the news, and that is basically 24/7 propaganda, with some surprising investigations into some controversial subjects. The private competitor to the BBC has decent ratings and is very profitable, and is expanding, while the BBC is cutting back because it is state run and the UK is in a recession.

Privately run > state run.

TV licenses suck! I never paid mine when I moved to London, then got multiple letters warning me to pay, then even had some tool try and force himself into my apartment to prove I had a tv.

BBC's main competitor, ITV, isn't doing too well. Just like the bbc it's lost a substantial amount of viewers particularly because of the huge amount of digital channels now available in Britain. Last I knew they were losing quite a bit of money.

Travlyr
11-26-2011, 05:19 PM
This BBC?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc

Yes. This BBC. See - The Smoking Gun. ;)

Becker
11-26-2011, 05:22 PM
This thread is about BBC and that is what my reply was about. I have no idea about RT, the way it is run, the way it is funded, if the Russian government has any control over what is aired in the US, etc. With the BBC, the only reason there is high quality programming is because different private companies compete for contracts. I don't watch the news at all.

and I was simply saying, there's always exceptions to the rule.

bluesc
11-26-2011, 05:23 PM
TV licenses suck! I never paid mine when I moved to London, then got multiple letters warning me to pay, then even had some tool try and force himself into my apartment to prove I had a tv.

Exactly. Very similar to the IRS. It's disgusting.


BBC's main competitor, ITV, isn't doing too well. Just like the bbc it's lost a substantial amount of viewers particularly because of the huge amount of digital channels now available in Britain. Last I knew they were losing quite a bit of money.

Well the recession is across the board, and advertising revenues are down, but by expanding I meant they are creating many new shows and "exporting" many of their current ones to expanding overseas markets. While ITV will ride through the recession, the BBC has been cutting back radio stations and their web service, etc. My point was that in comparison, the commercial channels (including digital) are doing much better than the BBC at present.

bluesc
11-26-2011, 05:24 PM
and I was simply saying, there's always exceptions to the rule.

Depends on how RT USA is run.

Xenophage
11-26-2011, 05:32 PM
correct, they are not assured anything



I am not knowledgeable about NK, but I will assume it's poor quality. China is hard to say, they have various agendas.
Is RT unbiased? Or biased in a good way?



LOL, not all documentaries are Bowling for Columbine and The Cove.



How profitable that I've not heard of them



I NEVER EVER DENIED PUBLIC GETS A BAD RETURN ON INVESTMENT, EVER.
Its moral to force criminals to pay for what non-criminals want, isn't it?

I guess I misunderstood you, dude, no need to get all capsy-boldy on me.

Anyway, how can you NOT have heard about Cosmos? YIKES!

Becker
11-26-2011, 05:36 PM
Depends on how RT USA is run.

ask the audience :)

Becker
11-26-2011, 05:36 PM
I guess I misunderstood you, dude, no need to get all capsy-boldy on me.

Anyway, how can you NOT have heard about Cosmos? YIKES!

i might've heard the name, I know nothing about it, thanks for reminder. sorry i lost it :P

Revolution9
11-26-2011, 06:03 PM
Let us not forget that TV is commercials and the programs are fillers for those commercials and it has been like that since its inception. Most of you are debating like it is the other way around.

Rev9

Xenophage
11-26-2011, 06:10 PM
i might've heard the name, I know nothing about it, thanks for reminder. sorry i lost it :P

The two greatest documentary series ever produced, in my less-than-perfectly-informed opinion: Free to Choose by Milton Friedman, and Cosmos by Carl Sagan.

The entire Free to Choose series is up on youtube. Just type'r in. Cosmos is on Netflix. They're both from the 70's, though.

Even if you're a complete Rothbardian and disagree with Milton Friedman on certain issues, you'll find a lot to love in Free to Choose.

Becker
11-26-2011, 06:44 PM
The two greatest documentary series ever produced, in my less-than-perfectly-informed opinion: Free to Choose by Milton Friedman, and Cosmos by Carl Sagan.

The entire Free to Choose series is up on youtube. Just type'r in. Cosmos is on Netflix. They're both from the 70's, though.

Even if you're a complete Rothbardian and disagree with Milton Friedman on certain issues, you'll find a lot to love in Free to Choose.

oh, that one, yes, i've seen bits and pieces of both.

heavenlyboy34
11-26-2011, 07:02 PM
The British Broadcasting Company, which is state subsidized by every citizen in the UK, has the best educational and interesting documentaries of any broadcasting company in the world. Civilization, Planet Earth, Life in the Undergrowth, The Root of all Evil. How as free marketeers can we explain this? Why doesn't any capitalistic company produce great work such as the BBC or PBS show on a consistent basis?
Probably the same reason the DoE (through Direct Loans) has lower payments and somewhat better service than Sallie Mae on student loans. They can pass the cost on to the taxpayer.