I’ll be honest here, I don’t watch TV at all – I follow written news feeds while I’m writing and working, and I find that just works more efficiently for me than sitting down and enjoying the spoken prose of someone.
Now the question I have is this, if the resource is so valuable why aren’t people willing to pay enough for it to be on pay-per-view? Surely, if it is adding such an important view to peoples lives they will be willing to put funds towards it.
The common argument against this is that it has other social benefits, such as educating the public. But I was under the impression that the viewing numbers were very low – how can it be educating the public if only people who have either already set their opinions or would get the information from other sources are the ones viewing it?
Now I’m sure its very good, and that the information it provides is superb. But unless people are willing to put their money where there mouth is, the point of view I’ve expressed here makes it understandable that the government is keen to scrap it. Now, I would be more than happy to be convinced otherwise – and to be shown significant and important social benefits. However, if anyone mentions the GC their comment is not going to be treated seriously 😉