about proposed BBC budget savings, including a filmed report by Liz McKean, Paxman interviewing Sir Michael Lyons, Chairman of the BBC Trust and the best bit, a studio discussion with Stuart Murphy, former Controller of BBC3, Jeff Randall, former BBC Business Editor and Paxman.
Liz McKean’s package started off informing us that “[The BBC is] having to do so with less, £2 billion pounds less of the public’s money”, then a pause, then the truth, “than it wanted…”. This was followed by a snippet of David Cox, a former ITV executive, stating what is obvious outside of London W12:
The BBC’s priorities ought to be to do those things that commercial broadcasters don’t do. There’s no reason why single parents or old age pensioners should be forced at gun point to pay for something that could be perfectly well done by commercial broadcasters, supported by advertising or by subscriptions paid by the people who actually want to watch those things.
…followed by the heartwarming though ridiculous sight of five-thousand, sorry, five Beeboids ‘protesting’ half-heartedly on the street:
Save our BBC!
…which is of course part of the problem – they regard it as their BBC rather than the public’s BBC. Liz intoned gravely that “it’s expected that in news alone 500 jobs will be cut”, then a union rep. threatened strike action (bring it on!), then back to Liz: “the digital era is ushering in new platforms and the BBC is committed to occupying them all” – occupy, got that? And the sad news that “I understand that staff will be told tomorrow that the BBC’s vast website, six million pages, will be hacked back” – which I expect really means it just won’t grow so fast, so less of quality stuff like this then.
Liz then interviewed a BBC fan, followed by Mr. Richard D. North, author of Scrap the BBC!*, who is not a fan:
Mark Thompson can make all the reforms he likes and they are doubtless necessary and good reforms, but in the end, the game is up. There is simply no rationale for a compulsory fee funded BBC.
…then cut to a fluffy quote from noted broadcasting expert and recipient of BBC largesse, actress Joanna Lumley:
This is the gold standard. This is the one blue-chip company we’ve got in this country. The one!
…well, I guess turkeys don’t vote for Christmas Joanna, do they. We then headed back to the studio for the delicious irony of Jeremy Paxman declaring:
Well, at this point, the BBC has required me to declare an interest because I’ve spoken out about how the BBC’s cuts might affect Newsnight.
…before starting his interview with Sir Michael Lyons, which starts at exactly five minutes into the first video clip (I’m too tired to transcribe it in the early hours, so you’ll just have to watch it):
Liz McKean report & Paxman interviewing Sir Michael Lyons
The best part of Newsnight’s coverage was the studio discussion, see second clip, with Stuart Murphy, the former Controller of BBC3, deliciously and preciously defending his inconsequential and expensive little bit of the BBC against obvious barbs from Paxman and Randall. Randall, as ever, was on the money:
Stuart Murphy & Jeff Randall discussion with Jeremy Paxman
An illustrative excerpt:
Randall: “I think this requires some really big bold judgements from management, not asking every department to lose a little bit, forget Newsnight, let’s look at the Today programme, £5 million annual budget, that’s less than the BBC pays Jonathan Ross in one year, and that’s not to be nasty to Jonathan Ross, but it puts into perspective the kind of pressures that are on news”
Murphy: “But it’s really difficult making those comparisons, isn’t it, I mean, when you look at the talent cost of Jonathan Ross I think licence fee payers expect, the main thing is, licence fee payers expect there to be maximum value from the licence fee, licence fee payers also, won’t come to the BBC, unless the BBC has major talent they love, and it’s a balancing act, you need to pay big stars big wages or they won’t be at the BBC”
Absolutely classic Beeboid drivel Stuart – most folk couldn’t care less if Woss was on ITV or the BBC – the more so when they realise just how extravagant the BBC was in paying him so much over the odds for his so-called talent.
Please try not to weep too much (in mirth or despair) in the comments…
* available in hardback direct from the publishers, The Social Affairs Unit, for a bargain £4.00 plus £2.75 postage via Amazon Marketplace (look for seller omm-sau).
Thank you to Biased BBC reader Lurker in a Burqua for the Telegraph link.
It wasn’t great tv though, was it? Much waffle not much illumination. Frankly with his job on the line you’d have thought Paxo should do a better job.
Nice to see Jeff so happy to defend Today and Newsnight… so obviously no room at all for these programmes to work harder and smarter? Hmmmm.
In pure business terms the argument that “Jonathan Ross gets £18M that could pay for the Today programme which only costs £5M” is of course false.
You might expect a business correspondent to get that right!
Mr Ross is certainly paid too much, but it’s an £18M production deal, not a salary. Graham Norton’s huge deal is the same, and if he doesn’t make any shows for the BBC he doesn’t get paid.
And while BBC Three does have a yearning for crass titles (full declaration I did work on the ill fated news programme – proof that politicians should never schedule channels) many of those documentaries are actually (whisper it) very good.
“Two Pints of Lager” etc gets good ratings, and when you think about it, who it providing comedy like that for that part of the audience? They pay the licence fee too of course.
So overall I thought the whole debate seemed a little bit loaded and not really what I expect from Newsnight. I think they could have asked some really searching questions of themselves and didn’t really.
12 BBC people at that Lib Dem presser? Really? Just 3 each for Sky and ITN? Hmmmm.
Still, busy day ahead, I’ll be filming on a farm all day, but will be interested to see what happens when I get back!
If people think Ross and Norton are so great let them pay for the privilege of watching them.
Why should the rest of us have to pay. Abolish the licence fee. Let Ross and Co earn their corn from people who actually like them and not from a Gestapo enforced poll tax which sees the poorest in society paying the biggest share of their income to a hateful organisation that threatens them with jail if they don’t cough-up.
>In pure business terms the argument that “Jonathan Ross gets £18M that could pay for the Today programme which only costs £5M” is of course false.
You might expect a business correspondent to get that right!
Mr Ross is certainly paid too much, but it’s an £18M production deal, not a salary.”
So Ross’s rubbish *show* could pay for Today.
i think this bloke gets it right..
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/politics/danielhannan/october/bbc-strikes.htm
There is a well-rehearsed and well-understood case against the licence-fee system: that it is incompatible with freedom of choice, that it is unfair to rivals, that it is a tax by another name, that it subsidises Leftist propaganda. I’ve made the case myself. But the whole argument is becoming redundant: the revolution in communications technology is making the BBC, and every other nationalised television company, irrelevant. It’s over, boys. I’m sorry, but there’s nothing anyone can do.
I have just watched that clip with Start Murphy and Jeff Randall.
Surely the great fallacy in Stuart Murphy’s argument is summed up in the bit where he says something like “If the BBC doesn’t do this that or the other, the licence payer will go away” OK fine but the point is (and this is what irritates most of us, I think) the licence payer’s money won’t go away!
The reductio ad absurdam of this BBC situation is that every single licence fee payer could go away – but in the medium term their revenue would be absolutely unchanged. (ok in the long term not even this Gov’s collection of charlatans could – or even possibly, would – continue with the media compulsory poll tax; but for two, three four years the money would keep rolling in)
That ain’t any way to run a business (or a Country)
It wasn’t great tv though, was it?
Oh dear. Is the stress of impending P45s causing the Beeboids to fall out with each other?
[The Moderator: Please don’t abuse other commentators.]
The BBC, the Government and also commercial channels wholly swallow the mantra that ‘more choice is better’. It is not better by default. Besides which there was already plenty of ‘choice’ on the previous 2 channel BBC.
There is nothing unique to the content of BBC3 and BBC4 that would have precluded it from being shown on the BBC1 or BBC2 of old. I believe it is a condition of the charter that the BBC is supposed to encourage migration from analogue, and these channels are two of the consequences.
The likes of News 24, CBBC, Cbeebies and the interactive sports coverage also provide content that persuades people to move to digital. So that condition of the charter is still satisfied.(And, News 24’s content aside, there aren’t many complaints about these digital channels so perhaps they are doing something right.)
The result of these cuts will be more repeats. Why not go the whole hog and have 3 & 4 as 1+1 and 2+1 from 7pm onwards.
Unfortunately, the BBC is between a rock and a hard place. If it doesn’t chase ratings people will ask why isn’t it attracting audiences. If it chases ratings people will ask why is it spending our money doing what the commercial channels already do.
The solution has been to chase ratings on 1 and 2 while doing the non-commercial type content on 3 and 4. Why not have two channels that do a bit of both?
A very poor performance from Paxman, badly briefed and so concerned with special pleading that he failed to ask any decent questions of Lyons on behalf of licence fee payers.
Jeff Randall is a great journalist but I’m glad he’s not running the BBC. Thank God Stuart Murphy was there to challenge his and Paxman’s snobbery.
Ed Sturton on the Today Programme this morning was much better.
“If people think Ross and Norton are so great let them pay for the privilege of watching them.”
If people think Newsnight and the Today programme are so great let them pay for the privilege of watching and listening to them.
Ah, but they are, aren’t they, through a licence fee.
[The Moderator: Paid for *voluntarily*, Nick. That’s the essential point you BBCites always manage to somehow overlook.]
Jeff Randall’s point was simply that if you need to make savings of the order of £2 billion(?) then it’s a waste of time looking at the budgets amounting to £5 million.
If you delete bbc3 and bbc4 at £100 million(?) each then you are well on your way and with little effort.
Maybe you could even sell them off to the management and not just save money but make money. This has the added attraction of allowing the beeboids to put their money where their mouth is.
If people think Newsnight and the Today programme are so great let them pay for the privilege of watching and listening to them.
Ah, but they are, aren’t they, through a licence fee.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 18.10.07 – 11:16 am | #
I really don’t get your point Nick.
Your quote implies that Ed Stourton thinks people should be able to choose what they pay for.
Are you saying you agree?
Is your resignation in the post already?
I was responding to the previous poster, not saying anything about Ed Sturton.
The irony of this debate is that people say “I only want to pay for what I choose, and I only want to pay for Radio 4 and Radio 3”.
But both those services would not survive if the licence fee was abolished, as they are not commercially viable and if paid for out of taxes would soon be cut back or closed down to pay for other things.
Be careful what you wish for!
Nick, that’s the kind of straw man answer that bears no resemblance to the points being made.
There is a wide recognition that public service broadcasting has a place – but that £3.5 billion pounds does not provide that, it pays for Woss, Norton and the excesses of bureaucracy that exist at the BBC.
I think that a competitive tender for long franchises should be introduced. How about that? There’s £500m of public money available for a 10 year public service broadcasting contract.
Sky, ITV, C4, whoever, tell us what you can provice and let us choose what we want to spend the £500m on.
The other £3 billion? oh, maybe it would be better left in the real economy rather than the meeja?!
my figures are per year. I think £500m would go a long way to pay for a Radio 4, Radio 3, BBC2/4 combo, quality childrens programmes, news, education, science, etc.
BBC expenditure:
http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/6147/bbcspendic5.gif
The elephant in the room is BBC1 taking up almost half the cost.
How many people even knew about the now suspended BBC Jam? At more than 6 times the cost of BBC Parliament too!
>The irony of this debate is that people say “I only want to pay for what I choose, and I only want to pay for Radio 4 and Radio 3”.
>
>But both those services would not survive if the licence fee was abolished, as they are not commercially viable and if paid for out of taxes would soon be cut back or closed down to pay for other things.
So what? If someone who wants Radio 3 or 4 doesn’t like the subscription price of them on their own they won’t pay. Choice is never made irrespective of price, unless you’ve managed to force other people to subsidize your choice.
“If someone who wants Radio 3 or 4 doesn’t like the subscription price of them on their own they won’t pay.”
And so Radio 3 and 4 disappear. Is this what people on this board really want? If it is then by all means campaign to abolish the licence fee.
But be careful what you wish for!
“And so Radio 3 and 4 disappear. Is this what people on this board really want?”
Speaking for myself, yes. I can’t stand them. I’d gladly pay money to be rid of Radio 4. And there are lots of possible TV and radio channels and programmes that I would like to exist but which are never going to be funded by the license-payer. So boo-hoo to Radio 3 and 4.
“The elephant in the room is BBC1 taking up almost half the cost.”
According to this BBC News page, it’s both BBC 1 and BBC 2 that take up the 50%.
Is that BBC guy for real?
The BBC completely ignores vast areas of legitimate public service broadcasting while jealously guarding what it regards as ‘creative’.
[The Moderator: I have changed “hwt ait regrads” to “what it regards”, as I assumed this was what it meant].
It is a self-licking lollipop
Business coverage virtually zero (hint: Dragon’s Den and a statement on the FTSE doesn’t cut it)
Science coverage has effectively ended unless it is in support of one of the BBC’s favourite obsessions (like GW)
Horizon is a shadow of its former self
Languages?
Minority sport?
Medicine?
Plenty of ‘culture’ though
And so Radio 3 and 4 disappear. Is this what people on this board really want?
yes please..
But be careful what you wish for!
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 18.10.07 – 1:14 pm |
i’m wishing really really hard.
NR: “But be careful what you wish for!”
I’m sorry Nick, but this is just another indicator of the standard BBC mindset that believes things like R3 and R4 are somehow special, wonderful and unique; a marvellous gift to the world from the wise, compassionate elite. Newsflash: they’re not.
Personlly I find R4 to be utterly execrable apart from In Our Time and maybe one or two other things. I enjoy R3 occasionally but this is besides the point. It’s nothing a commercial ststion couldn’t do.
Nick –
You really don’t get the free market do you? If there’s public demand for Radio 4, then Radio 4 will continue to broadcast as the market will provide it – at a profit. This point seems to escape the crew at White City.
The BBC license fee distorts the market as smaller media start-ups are faced with a media environment dominated by the BBC and it’s £3.5+ billion a year. It’s become an impediment to new, innovative media in this country.
It’s clear where things need to go. The BBC needs to switch to a subscription based service wherein consumers can decide what, if any, BBC content they wish to pay for. Many will likely opt to pay for some BBC content, and that will become the Beebs core programming. And before one assumes this will translate into more commercial dross: the BBC already sells, for a profit, its best content into foreign markets. It is likely this content (news, docs, select drama) that will be most popular here – not programming of the “two pints…” variety which is very low quality (poor scripts, poor acting) and abundantly available on other commercial channels.
Nick is offering “all or nothing” as his analysis of the options available.
Earth to Nick : more innovative solutions are available!
But the content that the BBC sells abroad is only as good as it is because of the public money invested in it.
I doubt if Sky or Virgin will be keen on the BBC adopting a subscription model. Last time I looked Sky came out albeit reluctantly for the licence fee.
Nick –
What has Paxman got wrong?
“The idea of a tax on the ownership of a television belongs in the 1950s. Why not tax people for owning a washing machine to fund the manufacture of Persil?”, Jeremy Paxman, James MacTaggart Memorial Lecture, Aug 24th, 2007.
Why not fund that public sector broadcasting on a tender basis, for a fraction of the cost? All the other stuff that is commercial can be provided outwith the tax system (obvious to anyone except BBC employees it seems)
Who cares what Sky or Virgin think
I would agree that the largesse of the licence fee has enabled the BBC to preserve coverage of non-comercially viable areas.
But it has also sheltered the BBC from the commercial realities
A large section of its output is self-indulgent dross – luvvie fests for luvvies and low-brow derivative ‘light entertainment’
“But the content that the BBC sells abroad is only as good as it is because of the public money invested in it.”
WTF??? We had John Reith on here a little while back swearing blind that BBC Worldwide’s commercial success was not in the slightest way subsidized indirectly by the license fee. Now you’re here saying, in effect, that it is.
They also ignore that many programmes that might be regarded as typically BBC are now jointly produced with commercial entities like the Discovery Channel
Nick –
The content that is in demand – and let’s be clear this is a small percentage of the BBC’s total output – is, in part, a product of funding…but it does not have to be funded the way it is (threats of fines and imprisonment to those who refuse to pay the BBC poll tax). Look, the vast majority of successful programs in the UK, those most lauded by the critics, originate in the United States. The Wire, The Sopranos, Heroes, South Park, Dexter…the list is long. These extremely successful programs were created sans public money. They were developed and produced by writers, actors, directors, producers and studios with vision – not through a singular, publicly funded, statist organization that believes its remit is to shape the perceptions of the masses to some bland politically correct vision of the world.
Look, I hope the BBC will always exist. Indeed, I believe it always will, likely as a subscription service. It will hold a corner of the market – not corner the market – in a more diverse, interesting media environment. But the BBC can no longer be allowed to grow, “occupy” and dominant all media sectors, it’s to the detriment of creativity and innovation throughout the sector.
Let’s face it, the “beeboids” want a free ride. They ignore the BBC Charter which was quite specific as to the Corporations actions, to inform, educate and entertain and above all to be impartial. They do not understand the meaning of the latter requirement. The core values could be provided on two TV and three, possibly four radio stations. They are not empowered to stick their finger in any and all other areas. There are far too many repeats now, what will happen when he cuts back. As to the praise for “digital”, it should have been fully proven before being launched, it wasn’t. The digital equivalent of “Ceefax” is a disaster, lousy spelling, even worse syntax and not enough information. Ceefax was not brilliant except by comparison to this. But it all comes back to a system that takes money under threat from all, and that is plain wrong.
The govt has missed a trick over the digital switchover
The arisings from the subsequent analogue frequency auction could have been placed in a fund for the BBc releasing the population from the BBC’s poll tax
This isn’t about subsidy.
Public money is invested in programmes. Then those programmes are commercially exploited abroad and released on DVD etc in this country.
Obviously, without the public service BBC, Worldwide would have nothing to exploit.
Nick, that’s exactly the point, which you don’t seem to get. BBC Worldwide would be nowhere without the license fee that is extracted from us. So BBC Worldwide’s success depends upon the license fee. And that’s exactly what it means to say that it is indirectly – not directly, but indirectly — subsidized by the license fee.
(That’s why John Reith was bending over backwards and tying himself into ridiculous knots trying to deny that BBC Worldwide gained any advantage whatsoever from being part of the BBC).
I heard some muppet ringing into 5 lite stating that the BBC shouldn’t be cut as the rest of the world (I think he was African) see the BBC as a gold standard.
I have a simple comment. I couldn’t care less what the rest of the world thinks about the BBC. If they like it so much, PAY for it.
The TV tax must go and if that means a few thousand Guardian reading BBC types losing their jobs, so what? It happens in the private sector every day (the company I work for got rid of 25% of the workforce) No one gave a stuff when Rover went to the wall, least of all the Guardian reading luvvies at the BBC.
Oh how the house prices in Islington will drop. Shame.
Well I wouldn’t deny that Worldwide gets no benefit from its connection with the BBC. Of course it does. That’s not quite the same as a “subsidy”.
Nick (BBC),
I’m struggling to see why the BBC needs public money in order to produce ‘quality programs’. HBO seems to be able to produce series of the calibre the BBC cannot match on a subscription model. And it’s not just HBO, can you imagine the BBC managing to create something like Showtime’s ‘Dexter’ for example?
Funding aside, my biggest problem with the BBC (which is the worst culprit though I could include most UK commercial programming) it simply isn’t very good, and has little to no imagination.
Andrew Paterson
Actually HBO can’t produce series of the calibre you love without input from the BBC;
The Gathering Storm, Band of Brothers; Rome; Extras are all BBC/HBO co-productions.
Delighted you admire the best of HBO, but be aware it’s the best of the BBC too.
“That’s not quite the same as a “subsidy”.”
That’s why I called it an *indirect* subsidy. The money doesn’t go directly to BBC Worlwide, but BBC Worldwide benefit from it all the same by being part of the BBC, whose other (domestic) arm does receive the subsidy.
Anon,
The BBC boxout splits up regional TV along with infrastructure and transmission from the cost of terrestrial TV. A large portion of that is attributable to BBC 1.
Check out the link I posted for the detailed picture. BBC 1 accounts for 46.5% of all “spend regulated by service license”.
David Gregory.
“The Gathering Storm, Band of Brothers; Rome; Extras are all BBC/HBO co-productions.”
Band of Brothers was co-financed rather than co-produced and iirc still not put on BBC1.
Rome was the first co-production and the critical acclaim was lukewarm. I’ll take Sopranos, Six Feet Under and Sex and the City instead thanks.
Blue Planet is a NHK and Discovery Channel co-production yet most people would rightly say it is largely BBC programming, ditto Extras. So, please don’t try and kid us that the HBO shows that originate in America wouldn’t get produced without the BBC.
I’d gladly lose Radios 3 and 4. Radio 4 has dumbed down considerably over the years, and Radio 3 plays ever more jazz, folk and experimental pop music. The only part of the BBC I’d miss is football commentary on Radio Manchester, but there are ever more local alternatives that I’m sure I’d come to like.
If Sky hadn’t started up with their live football I’d have done away with my TV by now, so those whining BBC types can thank Mr Murdoch for the £130 they get from me.
The BBC and a good sized majority of the staff there are playing the same game as the government do.
All we’ve heard recently are about how news and documentaries will be cut back, ie. the things people look on as what the BBC should be providing and actually can do very well.
Whenever the government mention cuts in spending they go on about ‘schools n ospitals’.
Same scare tactics in different arenas.
“Actually HBO can’t produce series of the calibre you love without input from the BBC;”
The Sopranos? Six Feet Under? Deadwood? Sex and the City? The Larry Sanders Show?
Where’s the BBC “input” in these?
The Sopranos? Six Feet Under? Deadwood? Sex and the City? The Larry Sanders Show?
Where’s the BBC “input” in these?
They bought Larry Sanders and showed it at half past midnight on a Sunday. Just after Seinfeld. So nobody would watch them and see how much better they were than their own miserable sitcoms, presumably. (This is probably the reason everyone thinks The Office was so innovative, incidentally.)
“But the content that the BBC sells abroad is only as good as it is because of the public money invested in it.”
Is that why the BBC are going to be showing ads on BBC Worldwide then? First OUR licence extortion fee pays for it and then the ads make you some profit which you use to keep the gravy train and Sneerboy Frei’s lifestyle going!
An accurate if grumpy observation Dave T. The commercial income helps support the licence fee.
What does it mean to say that anything “helps to support the license fee”? On the face of it, this sentence just makes no sense.
You could mean “the license fee would be bigger if we didn’t have this income also coming in”. But that it is to presume that you’re entitled to make the license fee as big as you like to pay for everything you want it to pay for. In reality, you are given an enormous warehouse of money extracted from the license-payer, and you find that you still need more to pay for everything you want to do, and this extra income helps you to bridge that gap.
The level of the licence fee is set up the government not by the BBC.
Your second sentence like Dave T’s, is grumpy, but broadly correct. But I think it’s the other way around. Like any organisation, the BBC works out what it wants to do. Then sees how much money (licence fee plus a small amount of commercial income) it has got coming in. Then it adjusts its plans in the light of how much money is available. Hence what is happening at the moment.
“The level of the licence fee is set up the government not by the BBC.”
Yes, I know that. But talk about commercial income supporting the license fee creates the impression that the BBC is entitled to be funded for everything it wants to do.
As for my second sentence, it doesn’t really matter how you express the situation. The fact is that your claim that “the commercial income supports the license fee” — and I’ve heard other BBC people here use similar phrasing (perhaps it was your good self) — was at worst meaningless and at best misleading.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 19.10.07 – 5:18 pm
“Like any organisation, the BBC works out what it wants to do. Then sees how much money (licence fee plus a small amount of commercial income) it has got coming in.”
A competant organisation would also produce reasonable and well considered income forecasts. The BBC does not. It merely expects successive inflation busting rises, budgets accordingly and then crows about cuts and wails about repeats when it doesn’t get it’s own way.
At least that is the way it appears when the BBC lay it on thick about having to make do with £2billions less then it demanded.
If the BBC were a bank it would be Northern Rock. An worthwhile asset book but being badly managed.