hus keeps it insulated from the marketplace and commercial interests, but not necessarily government influence. In fact, the larger the increase in license fee it demands, the more politically vulnerable it probably renders itself. Researcher William Maley counters the BBCs claim that the license fee places it irrevocably inside the public sector, but insulated from government, by saying that no institution in our society is insulated from government (MacCabe, 37). And while it may be an extremist view, Maleys point is well grounded when he insists that what we pay for in the licensee fee is a stream of sexist and racist effluence interspersed with testimonies to the freedom of our society (MacCabe, 38). Rather than existing as a corporation that is determined to make a profit for its shareholders, the BBCs primary concern should seemingly to provide a public service to the people of the nation. However, what incentive does a person have to pay for a license fee that may not in actuality be giving them a legitimate representation of British society and additionally may not even be catering to their own programming interests.One potential solution for this problem might be to make the BBC a service that will be paid for via subscription. In effect the BBC was actually funded this way during its first three decades in existence, because a person only had one choice; before ITV, if someone desired to watch BBC they paid for a license. Once ITV emerged, followed by the other terrestrial channels, a person had to pay the license fee to watch any television at all, even though they may have not been at all interested in BBC programming. Subscription would also alleviate pressure on the BBC to provide a public service for everyone, which it seems incapable of doing anyway. Additionally, a subscription could potentially increase the quantity of minority programs by alleviating the need for the BBC to have to consistently pursue a major...
