The smoking ruins at White City…

13 Responses to The smoking ruins at White City…

1. Patrick B says:

   January 29, 2004 at 6:00 pm

   BBC-itis (principal symptoms: inflation of the ego and distortion of perception) is evident in Canada at the CBC as well. As Canada is, in effect, a one-party state ruled from a sinlge province (Quebec) the temptations for the broadcasters and the danger for citizens are all the greater.

   My solution for the state broadcasters’ bias problem is to break them into regional crown corporations. They may share some central functions like foreign bureaus (rather like the old ITV model) but the centre would have no editorial control. Regional broads of governors with strong powers would be needed. An oversight body (not the hopelessly over-manned OfCom in the UK, nor the totally compromised CRTC in Canada) that had powers to investigate complaints, and that controlled the distribution of licence fee money (in the UK) or the government allocation (as in Canada), would be needed. That body should be all-party, all regions, and appointed by a balanced parliamentary committee.

      0 likes
2. Paul says:

   January 29, 2004 at 6:08 pm

   Interesting to see if Mark Byford gets to keep the job. He lost out to Dyke last time. Will Wyatt describes him in his book the Fun Factory as “Obedient, too prosaic, long-winded, needs to lighten up.”

   On the Iraq war coverage he said
   “We must never be afraid of asking tough questions of those in power. During the war, it would have been all too easy to stick to a formula of Bush and Blair statements and live press briefings with Tommy Franks, followed by a clip of an Iraqi minister. However, not many listeners in Cairo or Amman
   would have thought that sounded impartial or balanced, and they would have been right. It certainly wouldn’t have presented a full, comprehensive and accurate picture.”

   Plus ca change …

   http://media.guardian.co.uk/top100_2002/story/0,12156,743683,00.html

   http://lists.stir.ac.uk/archive/media-watch/msg00314.html

      0 likes
3. Rob Read says:

   January 29, 2004 at 6:42 pm

   “not many listeners in Cairo or Amman”

   I wasn’t aware it was the Egypt-Jordan Broadcasting Corporation I was paying 110GBP per year for.

   Maybe they should pay some attention to their U.K. based payees? Then again why should they listen they get the money anyways.

   Plus ca change!

      0 likes
4. JohninLondon says:

   January 29, 2004 at 7:23 pm

   Byford looks and sounds a lightweight.

   Give the job to someone like Andrew Neil. A real journalist/editor, right back from his days at the Economist. Plus plenty of executive ability. He would have sacked Gilligan in the flash of an eye. Probably wouldn’t have had him hired in the first place.

   And tell him to line the BBC up for some form of privatisation, with licence-fee payments being sharply reduced on a tapering basis. To nil after 5 years.

      0 likes
5. stevejones says:

   January 29, 2004 at 11:53 pm

   > I wasn’t aware it was the Egypt-Jordan Broadcasting Corporation I was paying 110GBP per year for.

   you’re not. that’s funded by direct funding from the foreign office

   BBC World Service is a public service funded by the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

   It is financed separately from the UK licence fee and cross subsidies are forbidden.

   http://db.bbc.co.uk/info/channels/bbcworldservice.shtml

      0 likes
6. wretchard says:

   January 30, 2004 at 1:02 am

   SteveJones,

   Is the tax money that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office spends for World Service broadcasts derived from a different set of taxpayers than those who pay the BBC license fee? Is the BBC then not effectively charging fees under another title?

      0 likes
7. stevejones says:

   January 30, 2004 at 9:34 am

   > Is the tax money that the F(CO) spends for World Service broadcasts derived from a different set of taxpayers than those who pay the BBC license fee?

   Yes. The World Service’s funded by general taxation, and is therefor entirely involuntary, and every taxpayer (not TV-owning household) in the country pays, just like, say, hopsitals or schools are funded. It’s funded by the FO, reflecting its roots broadcasting to Nazi occupied Europe, and later to the Eastern Bloc countries.

   The domestic output of the BBC is funded (partially) by a fee payable per TV-owning household, enforced by penalty of law. The BBC doesn’t make the law!

   > Is the BBC then not effectively charging fees under another title?

   No. The BBC isn’t charging any ‘fee’, or making any decisions about how it’s funded – the UK government is (successive UK governents since 1926) has chosen to allow the BBC to be funded in part by the licence fee.

      0 likes
8. Otis says:

   January 30, 2004 at 9:58 am

   Surely the point is that it is still funded from a source that has no choice but to pay, and thus the corporation is under a weightier duty than most to remain unbiased.

   Incidentally, I wonder if the (WWII) wartime broadcasts were equally fair to the Axis as the Allies?

      0 likes
9. Lyn says:

   January 30, 2004 at 10:37 am

   Mark Byford is old friend with Geoff Hoon http://www.leeds.ac.uk/alumni/html/news/review/issue6/markbyf.htm

      0 likes
10. StinKerr says:

    January 30, 2004 at 11:22 am

    We have Public Broadcasting in the U.S. and it has a liberal dose of liberalism. The nice thing is that it’s survival is dependant on vuluntary contributions from viewers and the private business sector. They get feedback that way and are directly responsible to their viewers rather than from forced payments from television owners and taxpayers who’s opinions they don’t care about.

       0 likes
11. ken says:

    January 30, 2004 at 4:37 pm

    StinKerr from the US has bought the funding line peddled by Public Broadcasting: “We dont’ receive government funding!” Bull&^%#.

    Taxpayer billions are laundered to the local affiliates all over the country and they in turn “buy” the programming back from PBS. It’s a shell game.

       0 likes
12. StinKerr says:

    January 30, 2004 at 7:14 pm

    I’d like to see some references for that, ken.

    Thanks

       0 likes
13. Insufficiently Sensitive says:

    January 31, 2004 at 12:28 am

    “We have Public Broadcasting in the U.S. and it has a liberal dose of liberalism. The nice thing is that it’s survival is dependant on vuluntary contributions from viewers and the private business sector.”

    The NOT NICE thing is that it was wholly funded by taxpayers (both from the Feds, and skimmed off the Universities whose facilities their studios occupied) all through its establishment years.

    All those lefty-liberal contributors who now have their names intoned ever-so-sensitively during NPR broadcasts are merely paying some operating costs on a system whose capital costs EVERYONE (not just the current lefties who monopolize it) forked over, beginning in 1965. There’s no diversity of ideas on the PBS system, and the sooner it’s privatized the better.

       0 likes