Cotty wrote: > > On 20/1/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: > [. . .] > > My point exactly. Except that the BBC is more than just Public > Television, as I understand the term as used in north America. The BBC is > there to provide a service of information and, overseen by 12 governors > who stand between it and the government of the day. It is funded by a > mandatory payment to anyone in the UK who owns or uses a television: > > <http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/purpose/> > > 'The BBC is financed by a TV licence paid by households. It does not have > to serve the interests of advertisers, or produce a return for > shareholders. This means it can concentrate on providing high quality > programmes and services for everyone, many of which would not otherwise > be supported by subscription or advertising.' > > The article about digital cameras was not what I would call a high > quality service, and as a license payer, I have the right to complain to > the BBC. If enough people complain, then things do get changed. I doubt > that article will, but the general policy is useful and does work. > Dumbing down of the Beeb is an ongoing saga, and even as an employee of > 'the opposition' (ITV), I still hold the BBC in very high regard and > wince when it falters. I'd dearly love to work for the BBC but I couldn't > stomach the drop in pay ;-)
Izzat right? I suppose so. The prestige of working for them is worth a lot, so they figure. Which brings up a question. Is it only BBC programming one pays for, or do you have to add a bit for ITV? I can't imagine ITV is free! keith whaley > Cheers, > Cotty
