 |
SAVE THE BBC |
|
The BBC is arguably one of the last of the UK's fine institutions, and it is currently under threat from both political wings.
The last Conservative government and the subsequent Labour government managed to undermine commercial broadcasting , particularly and radio, in the UK to a point where, with the new Communications Act 2003, it was almost thrown to the dogs - i.e the media conglomorates. The 2003 act allows any foreign interest to take control of British broadcasters that had been previously protected from foreign take-over.
Perhaps commercial television and radio was, in some areas, never quite able to match the quality of the BBC but, compared to the rest of the world, it was of an exceedingly high standard and produced some memorable programming. I'll bet some of your favourite programmes have been produced by ITV. But that, it could be argued, counts for naught today as the free-for-all in broadcasting means, more and more, that the programme companies will be chasing ratings and generally 'dumbing down'.
With the Broadcasting Acts of 1990 and 1996, broadcasting had been gradually de-regulated. For example Independent Radio was rapidly expanded in the 1990's, with the new Radio Authority having few of the controls on programme quality, studio/audio quality and ownership that were available to the IBA, the previous regulatory body. As competition was allowed to spiral, stations merged, local output and quality 'public service' style programmes were gradually lost. Some 'local' licences now have as little as four hours of local programming per day, the remainder being networked from a remote studio.
With the Communications Act 2003, the large radio groups that have resulted from these mergers and take-overs are now fair game for the large American groups such as Clear Channel. These groups appear to have little or no interest whatsoever in the medium of radio or broadcasting - they might just as well be making paperclips! They are simply interested in the bottom line. What has happened to broadcasting as a public service? Those days are rapidly disappearing in the world of commercial radio. The big foreign radio groups would network all the, once local, stations together and play the music off a hard- drive, with no human intervention, if they could.
So the great idea of commercial broadcasters providing a local public service, which was carefully nurtured by the ITA in the 1950's and 1960's and then by the IBA in the 1970's and 1980's is rapidly coming to an end. The radio and TV companies possibly felt that they were being strangled by IBA regulations, but cannot be disputed that these regulations did produce high quality output that could offer real competition to the BBC. It has been said that the technical quality of Capital radio in London in the 1970's and early 1980's actually exceeded that of some BBC programming. Recent governments have gradually removed many of these requirements.
The BBC remains as the only broadcasting organisation that can and does continue to broadcast a vast range of high quality programming on television, radio together with an invaluable source of knowledge on the BBCi website.
Next in the politicians firing line seems to be The BBC. Some time ago the BBC was accused of being rather passive in it's news gathering efforts. It was suggested that the BBC's reporters should be going out into the field and aggressively digging for stories. That was interpreted by the BBC as indulging in more investigative effort and less standing on the sidelines observing, reporting and relying on stories gathered from the 'wires' (other news agencies).
The BBC's re-organised news department took up the challenge and today the news programmes on BBC television and radio bring us some of the finest journalism available, BBC radio and BBC television news working together more efficiently.
But now it seems they are doing the job just a bit too well. In blowing the lid off certain political stories it seems that the politicians are getting worried about the BBC's efficiency at getting to bottom of the rot occurring in todays society.
[SEE UPDATE BELOW] The Conservatives previously suggested that the BBC's funding could be slashed by as much as £1bn. In 2004, as relations soured between the BBC and the Labour government, the BBC's management structure, aims and objectives and funding via the licence fee came under threat during the government review of the BBC Charter. The Labour peer Lord Puttnam insisted that at least £500million should be cut from the BBC funding and possibly diverted to independent broadcasters to pay for public service broadcasting such as news, religion and education.
Would these be the same 'independent' broadcasters that the government will have been effectively sold down the river to foreign interests, I wonder? The suggestion seems unfair and unworkable.
Why, if independent public service broadcasting is so important to the politicians, did they oversee the dismantling of public service output from Independent Television and Independent Radio? Isn't the BBC now THE public service broadcaster? Is the will to undermine the BBC driven purely by political self interest and fat 'brown envelopes'?
Whatever the answers are, it seemed that we had been brought to a point where the Beebie could have be thrown out with the bathwater!
I'll bet some of your favourite programmes are on the BBC, and if you say I tend to watch satellite, I'll also bet that some of the best programmes on satellite were produced by the BBC. We scream that £120 is a high price to pay for the licence fee, but that's only 32pence per day!
We can pay four or five times that amount on satellite TV that produces the minimum of original programmes and certainly nothing approaching the quality offered by the BBC, despite massive incomes to Sky. We can happily spend much more than 32pence per day for a newspaper, perhaps 500 pence per day on cigarettes, 100 pence or more per day on beer - so 32pence per day for the BBC seems positively cheap.
Look at what's happened in the US, where the is effectively no regulation: As long as you have enough $dollars you can buy any frequency, and simply aim your station at the biggest market. That means the majority of stations are Top40 or cheap chat. US listeners could at one time rely on PBS, the quality public service broadcaster, but this network has lost coverage to religious and other highly funded stations, who have bought many of their local frequencies. PBS is losing out to big money, so no Radio Four or even Classic FM style stations in the US - supposedly the land of choice, but where broadcasting is brought down to the absolute lowest common denominator. Do we want that to happen in the UK?
That's my rant over. The BBC has a fine heritage of eighty years of world beating radio and television. I just urge everyone not to let it slip away for the sake of 32pence and a politician's self interest.
|
This is what the meddling mandarins at
Whitehall have in mind for the BBC:
By Robert Winnett and David LeppardBBC threatened with break-up
THE BBC could be dismantled and its editorial independence curbed in the wake of the row over Iraq, according to leaked government papers. The Whitehall documents, drawn up by senior civil servants, suggest that the BBC could be split into “separate entities for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland”. The papers signal a policy which corporation executives fear would end its 80-year existence as a national institution. The break-up plans form part of a wider review of the BBC’s future and come at one of the most vulnerable moments in its history after the resignations last month of its chairman and director-general. The internal documents also reveal that the government is considering a wider role for Ofcom, its new media watchdog, with greater controls over BBC services and output. The governors could be stripped of their job of overseeing the BBC’s “impartiality and accuracy” with the task handed to the quango. Other ideas, which are likely to form the basis for a green paper on the BBC’s new charter, include: Taking the governors “outside the BBC” to make them more independent; Increasing parliamentary scrutiny with an annual review of the BBC’s performance; Sharing a portion of its £2.6 billion a year licence fee revenue among other broadcasters; Closing new services that fail to fulfil the corporation’s role as a public service broadcaster. Although the 30 pages of drafts, headed BBC Charter Review, appear to be at an early stage, the disclosure of the documents will be embarrassing. Critics will claim that the government is gearing up to exploit the fall-out from the Hutton inquiry in which the BBC was savaged for the quality of its journalism and management. In the most contentious section — entitled The BBC’s Constitution — the papers say there could be more scope for national and regional autonomy “to reduce perceived metropolitan bias”. But then officials ask: “How far is it essential for the BBC to be organised on a UK-wide basis? Is there a case for separate entities for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, or at least a more federated approach than now?” The disclosure will alarm Lord Birt, former director-general of the BBC and one of Tony Blair’s closest advisers. He described any such move as one which would eventually turn the BBC into “a weak, federal institution”. In his autobiography he said this would mean the BBC being “broken up with an English Broadcasting Corporation . . . and its status as the world’s most successful cultural institution much diminished”. Any such move could mark an end of UK-wide news bulletins and nationwide scheduling. Each regional and national station would commission and broadcast its own shows. The document raises the prospect of the post-Hutton BBC having its radio and television networks divided up, further undermining its national status. In a section on regulation and governance it also questions whether to “shift” the balance of editorial controls, for example through a “wider Ofcom enforcement role”. There could be “new controls on quality, fair trading and cross-promotion” and an extension of Ofcom’s remit to oversee the “impartiality and accuracy” of the BBC’s output. “Is there some way of measuring compliance?” the papers ask. “Would it be right to do so?” Ofcom was set up under the latest Communications Act as a single regulator of the entire broadcasting and communications industry. However, the quango has been criticised for being too close to government. Another radical idea is to take the governors outside the BBC “to enhance their status as independent regulators” and change the credentials required and way they are appointed. The move follows criticism of the governors when they robustly defended Andrew Gilligan, the BBC journalist, against government criticism without first checking the truth of his reports. The documents question whether the BBC should retain its royal charter status guaranteeing its independence. Despite ministers having publicly insisted the structure will not change, the papers ask: “Reconstitute BBC as statutory body? Give it NDPB (quango) status? Should it (the charter review) leave the BBC with an effective power of veto as at present?” An alternative, say the documents, could see it being regulated and accountable to parliament via an annual review of its performance. BBC governors and executives could also face “full scrutiny” from the public accounts committee. The papers question whether new services such as the digital channel BBC3 should continue: “Do new services continue to fill (public service broadcasting) criteria? (If not they should be closed).” Some of the BBC’s licence fee money could be handed to independent broadcasters to help pay for their public service commitments such as news and education. The papers indicate ministers wish to make BBC programmes more upmarket and educational. They suggest it could be run as an “arts council for the air . . . wholly or mainly devoted to areas where commercial broadcasters are unlikely to provide the required level of service, irrespective of audience share”. The documents say a clearer definition of the BBC’s public service obligations might be needed so that its performance could be more easily assessed.
The Times Online |
If this is allowed to happen, then Andrew Gilligan may (unfairly) go down in history as the unwitting Catalyst that allowed the wholesale destruction of the BBC to commence. The politicians and civil servant must have been rubbing their hands with glee as the storm over Mr Gilligan's ill advised report hotted up. The anti-BBC brigade was provided with a nice helping hand when Lord Hutton published his myopic, one-sided, whitewash of a report - but no surprise that he came down on the side of the government. When has a law lord ever criticised his masters? Just what Tony ordered, no doubt!
| UPDATE: BBC MAY BE SAVED - - FOR NOW
Overview of The Government Green Paper The
BBC's governors are set to be replaced after 78 years with two new
bodies, the government has proposed.
The governors, whose dual role as regulator and cheerleader of the BBC has been criticised, would be replaced by a BBC Trust and an executive board. The proposals were announced by Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell with the publication of a Green Paper into the corporation's future. But the licence fee would be kept for at least another 10 years, she said. The main plans in the Green Paper are: - BBC governors to be abolished and a new trust established to "speak up" for the licence fee payer - Licence fee to remain - but a review will examine other funding methods - BBC told not to "play copycat" or "chase ratings for ratings sake" - More programmes to be made by independent companies The
governors' current role was "unsustainable" and lacked "clarity and
accountability", Ms Jowell told the House of Commons. Instead, the BBC Trust
would be the voice of the licence
fee payer, make sure the corporation fulfilled its obligations and have
powers to approve or veto budgets and strategies.
The
executive board, headed by director general Mark
Thompson, would carry out the BBC's day-to-day management and be
accountable to the trust. Explaining
why she
favoured keeping the licence fee, Ms Jowell said it retained "a high
degree of public support". "And
although not perfect,
we believe it remains the fairest way to fund the BBC," she said.
But
rapid changes to technology and viewing habits meant
the government would review the system of funding during the next
decade. It would also examine
whether public money, including
licence fee funds, should be given to other broadcasters for public
service activities.
The
BBC was "one of the two great institutions of British national
life" along with the NHS, she said.
The public will be consulted on the Green Paper, with firmer recommendations set out in a White Paper due to be published in late 2005. The
resulting changes will be brought in with the BBC's
next royal charter, setting out the corporation's role, functions and
structure, at the start of 2007.
BBC
chairman Michael Grade, who will chair the new
trust, welcomed the proposals but said it was "regrettable" the BBC's
own reforms of the governors had "not had time to prove themselves".
'Cosmetic changes' "For
the first time in the BBC's history, there is now a
clear distinction and appropriate separation between governance and
management," he said
Shadow culture secretary John Whittingdale told the House of Commons the Green Paper's plans did "not go far enough". He said they were "largely cosmetic changes to the structure and oversight of the BBC". A White Paper on the BBC's future will be published later in 2005. The BBC's first royal charter came into force in 1927 and is renewed every 10 years. The current charter expires on 31 December 2006. |
|
||||
 |
||||
 |
||||
 |
||||
 |
||||
 |
||||
 |
||||
 |
||||
 |
||||
 |
||||
 BBC NEWS 24 |
|
COMMENTS
From Martin of Devon:
I'm so glad your site has a section defending the BBC. It is of course a shadow of its former self in terms of programmes, but we have so many friends who really resent paying the license fee, and to whom it cannot be explained that radio and TV are difficult to fund in any other way without the price rising to Sky levels. Most of them buy the Telegraph and Mail (on continuous order) but their gripe seems to be that they can't choose on a particular day whether to "buy" the BBC or not. If it cost the same as a quality paper I'd have a little sympathy, but it is FAR cheaper, does not carry advertising to supplement its income, and has no political axe to grind. I could not agree more Martin. I am sure that we all rely on the BBC in one form or another whether it be BBC national or local radio BBC television or BBCi, it is a very precious resource and I cannot understand why it is not generally appreciated that it is such amazing value for money. Nothing ANYWHERE can match it.
|
| Neil also writes on the subject: I'm as worried as you about the threat
to the BBC. My TV will be going through a window somewhere if the BBC
is dismantled. The Americanisation of the UK will be complete. God help us
all! I am wondering if you know of any established group anywhere who may be
coordinating a campaign to fight for the Beeb before it is too late.
Thank you Neil. I am very worried about he fate of the BBC, especially after the Hutton fiasco. I am certain that the government engineered the Hutton report to absolve itself of all responsibility, while putting all the blame and therefore the spotlight of scrutiny onto the BBC. This has now given them the chance to potentially dismantle the BBC in its current form. I am sure that the intention is for the BBC to loose at least some of its independence and possibly its licence fee revenue. It may then be forced to take advertising, or rely on hand-outs from central government tax revenues. Either way could be a disaster. Tessa Jowell contests that the government has any intention of removing independence from the BBC. I fear that the fact that she has made that statement must mean that they have EVERY intention of doing so! I do not know of an organised campaign to save the BBC - perhaps some research on the internet is required to find one. Time to fire up Google! Can any one help? |