Firstly, to quote your own comment back at you...
.... The BBC used to be excellent, but we never watch it any more.....
If you never watch the BBC, then it seems that you are hardly qualified to be able to give an informed opinion on its output. Most of the output you
do watch seems to be 10 years old and on other networks.
It used to be that all the channels offered pretty good documentaries. ITV has never been quite as down market as most people remember. They are all pretty bad now.
You illustrate my point perfectly, The output of ITV and most other channels are governed by their investors and advertisers. They go for the lowest common denominator - soaps, game shows, 'reality TV' etc. The lowest effort and expenditure for the maximum financial return. The result - low end crap. A possible exception is the Channel 4 / Film4 etc umbrella, who do finance film projects, though not as much as they used to (they are relying on imported US shows and 'reality TV' more and more though). The BBC has none of these restrictions (other than the amount of money available from the license fee).
BBC news, both its UK and World Service forms, are completely disconnected from reality. World Service TV was OK when it was launched, but it pretty dreadful now.
What about BBC World service Radio? You should maybe ask international readers to comment on the world service, there are many in more 'troubled' parts of the world who rely on listening to the World Service to find out what's actually happening in their own countries. In the worst countries, governments make listening to it a punishable offence! I suspect that the BBC probably has more foreign correspondents than any other news network.
With regard to news in general. The BBC represents that ideal of a state broadcaster that is owned by the
whole population, not the government (how many around the world would, and do, die for such principles). It is an organisation that can, and does, hold to account the government, of whatever flavour (and even utility companies for polution etc.), without the bias of proprietors or advertisers (show me a newspaper that doesn't have a proprietor bias either). In these days of government spin and twitter output over integrity, it is an institution that we should defend at all costs. Yes, we would all like the licence fee to be lower, but it is a small price to pay for independence. The only flaw in the system is that the government can 'punish' it for telling the truth as Benta mentioned previously.
We typically watch a couple of hours of news and current affairs in the evening, the news at 6pm for UK and main international, and then over to the BBC news channel for Open Source to get a bit more in depth on the international situation.
These days
far to many get their 'news' from clips social media, complete with all the hidden agendas, misinformation, and conspiracy theories, an then have the nerve to proclaim themselves knowledgable about what is happening in the world. That's how you suddenly get the mobs turning out.
and actually quite a lot of really good drama series.
Not like there used to be. As I said before, I've watched a few older BBC made dramas on other services in the last couple of years. Really good stuff. All of it at least 10 years old.
Strongly disagree (both are good). That smacks of a 'kids of today' mentality. Also, who else other than the BBC makes decent Radio dramas.
[/quote]
How else do you think they sell so many programs to other international broadcasters?
They do well in international sales with children's programs and natural history. You don't see as much BBC drama, comedy and other material around the world as you did in the 90s.
[/quote]
What evidence do you have for that? I understand that BBC world is quite popular in the US.
P.S. I forgot to mention the obvious one - no advertising or commercial breaks.