Im all for an impartial national broadcaster, but I'm not sure we're getting that. There's the "people should be told the truth as we see it" streak in there, and depending on who "we" is depends on what you see or hear. I don't want an agenda, I want a balance of facts. If that can't be provided, then I might as well go pay for any other station bar the BBC.But then there's the conceit, and the arrogance: if people are paying for something, then give them what they want. That's what happens in the high street - you go into a shop and you pay for something that's worth the money.
With the BBC, increasingly, people are being forced to pay for what they don't want, while being told that they should be happy to do so.
There's a sneering and continuing oblique reference to populism. Flip that over, there's a continuing assertion that the organisation is safeguarding quality. Neither of those points stand up in the full sense. Populism needn't mean an absence of quality. At the same time, too much of what we get is skewed or dross.
I agree with some of those in The BBC that if we go down the voluntary subscription route we run some big risks. I just happen to disagree with them as to what those risks are. The risk as far as they're concerned is the loss of their self-satisfied/satisfying existence. The risk as far as I'm concerned is the loss of a national broadcaster.