(follow-up to this post and this post)
At Harry’s Place (and in the BBBC comments – apologies – Ritter was there first !) they’ve been taking a look at the BBC editorial guidelines.
The Terrorism Act 2000
We have a legal obligation under the Terrorism Act 2000 to disclose to the police, as soon as reasonably practicable, any information which we know or believe might be of material assistance in:
preventing the commission of an act of terrorism anywhere in the world.
securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of a person in the UK, for an offence involving the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.
It is a criminal offence not to disclose such information, punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Any situation where BBC staff may be in potential breach of the Terrorism Act must be referred to Controller Editorial Policy and Programme Legal Advice.
I’m not sure how that squares with this:
Nasreen Suleaman, a researcher on the programme, told the court that Mr Hamid, 50, contacted her after the July 2005 attack and told her of his association with the bombers. But she said that she felt no obligation to contact the police with this information. Ms Suleaman said that she informed senior BBC managers but was not told to contact the police.
This prima facie looks very bad for someone – but if Ms Suleaman reported to the “Controller Editorial Policy and Programme Legal Advice” I’d say she was in the clear as far as following the Beeb guidelines was concerned. Who did she report to ? And did the BBC tell the police ?
(From the HP comments – producer Phil Rees, who now works for Al-Jazeera, gave a C4 news interview claiming that the conviction of “Osama bin London” meant that it was now illegal to criticise British foreign policy. And the video of “Don’t Panic, I’m Islamic” appears to have vanished from the BBC site)
More on Phil Rees, who doesn’t believe there’s such a thing as a terrorist. You can see why the BBC commission so much stuff from him.
tel:
If choice is the only aim, then the sell-off of the BBC would fundamentally change everything because it’s such a big player and would take many of the resources others currently depend on. Whether that kind of broadcasting chaos is a a good thing is another matter. The UK’s creative industries are major currency earners and an implosion in the business would put all that in jeopardy.
Most people do value the BBC and would probably resent having to pay subscriptions – inevitably at a higher level than the licence fee, because they have to return a profit – for services they get cheaply now.
The BBC dominates the national discourse, and does so impartially on very many subjects. The predominant complaints here are from special-interest groups – Israel and Islam predominant – but surveys consistently show a trust and appreciation of BBC journalism across far wider groups of people. Mess with that at your peril.
We can dispute the precise fairness and impartiality of the BBC, but its strength is that it is not driven by a need only to target those audiences its shareholders most value. ITV and Channel 4 have no interest, at all, in serving people over 55. Almost no advertiser wants them. The BBC does. Ditto pre-schoolers, and many other unattractive but important marketing demographics.
Throw them to the free market if you wish, but recognise what the vast majority of happy viewers, most of them outside the 16-34 year-old population, would lose.
I do not disapprove of populism at all. But it is, by definition, all you get when you allow unfettered competition fuelled by advertising and subscription (save for niche, high-earning fragments of the population.)
Subscription revenue is turning out to be a no-go area for internet content suppliers (again except for high-cost niches). It’s unlikely that a British TV market, used to a low, once-a-year fee and then unlimited viewing, would want it.
My point about Murdoch’s performance is that it is institutional. The News of the World, his biggest single earner for many years, is an international disgrace and its methods are deliberate, nasty, horribly cynical and deployed week in and week out. Ditto much of the other stuff he does. Your list of the BBC foibles – the odd DJ doing drugs, and date-rape allegations – are by and large the personal failings of individuals in a very large workforce (as I suspect you know).
In ye olde hillhunt’s world
“surveys consistently show a trust and appreciation of BBC journalism across far wider groups of people.”
Presumably quoting such as this from 2004
http://www.bjr.org.uk/data/2004/no4_marsh.htm
But its 2008 now, and this is the real world.
So said Paxman, he didn’t fel any peril. So did the YouGov poll showing half do not trust the television (the BBC definitely included) to tell the truth.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/aug/24/bbc.politicsandthemedia
and this scandal
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article2067252.ece
the head of the bbc agrees there is a crisis of trust he went to a meeting with the heads of ITV and channel 4 on just that topic
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/08/26/cntv126.xml
and there has been fakery after fakery, scandals of individual failings, wasted spending, obscene individual salaries and bonuses, the list goes on and on…
WoAD 28.02.08 – 3:43 pm
“Here was a man who told you that he knew those individuals who, as I understand it, were still at large for what on the face of it was the attempted bombings of the transport network a fortnight after it happened, and he was telling you he had some knowledge of them? There was a worldwide manhunt going on, wasn’t there?”
Let’s just examine that a mo.
a fortnight after it happened…..
If Hamid’s conversation with Suleaman took place a fortnight after 21/7, then all the suspects were already in Police custody.
In fact, all were arrested within eight days.
Yasin Omar, was arrested at 4.30am on 27th July in Birmingham. Hussain Osman was arrested in Rome on 29th July and the other two • Muktar Said Ibrahim and Ramzi Mohammed, were arrested in Dalgarno Gardens, also on 29th July.
So no, there was no ‘worldwide manhunt’ going on ‘a fortnight after it happened’.
In fact, the Police only ever issued the names of two of the men they were hunting: Muktar Said Ibrahim and Yasin Omar were named on 26th July. The names of the others were never released until after their capture.
They picked up Omar within 36 hours or so of DAC Peter Clarke releasing his name to the press.
So, the only person known to be wanted and who was on the run for more than two days after being named as a suspect was Muktar Said Ibrahim, who was the subject of a public manhunt between the afternoon of 26th July and the morning of 29th July.
It looks like the prosecutor got his facts wrong.
/
|
|
(above)
More meretricious denial from John Reith.
“In fact, the Police only ever issued the names of two of the men they were hunting: Muktar Said Ibrahim and Yasin Omar were named on 26th July. The names of the others were never released until after their capture.”
Shiit. And I mean fuuuuccckk. I think that increases Hamids guilt. He knew who the bombers were, personally, all four of them. Because he trained them.
Maybe this has more impact:
Ms Suleaman met the evangelical preacher in the aftermath of the failed attempt to blow up the family planning clinic and shoot the doctor who performed abortions there. The preacher said “I know who the bombers are, and I’m afraid they’re going to call me, because I indoctrinated them.” Ms Suleaman failed to call the police.
Hiya Reathy.
Safe to come back into the water?
Disinterested Bystander | 28.02.08 – 6:05 pm
Hello Disinterested Bystander.
What was your old moniker – the one you used before the run-in with the blog authorities?
John Reith | 28.02.08 – 6:13 pm |
You’ve guessed already you old charlatan you!!!!
But don’t give the game away.
By the way, the ‘Safe to come back into the water?’ remark was directed at you, not a question about whether I’d stay afloat or not.
@john reith – 3.43 pm
you are twisting the truth reith.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3001102.ece
what the prosecutor was saying that the attempted bombings had been made two weeks after the actual bombings.
“Ms Suleaman said she was not aware that Ramzi Mohammed and Hussein Osman, two of the July bombers, had joined Mr Hamid at the Tonbridge paintball centre on July 3, 2005.
Ms Suleaman said that Mr Hamid was agitated after the July attack. She said: “I think he was worried that perhaps the men might call him because they were on the run at the time. I think he was very, very shocked about the fact that the men he knew were accused of this.”
Duncan Penny, for the prosecution, asked Ms Suleaman if she had told Mr Hamid to go to the police or contacted the police herself. Mr
Penny asked: “Here was a man who told you that he knew those individuals who, as I understand it, were still at large for what on the face of it was the attempted bombings of the transport network a fortnight after it happened, and he was telling you he had some knowledge of them? There was a worldwide manhunt going on, wasn’t there?”
reith,for your benefit, the important phrase in that quote is
“on the run at the time ”
Next !
sorry reith @5.03 pm i mean
John Reith:
WoAD 28.02.08 – 3:43 pm
“Here was a man who told you that he knew those individuals……..subject of a public manhunt between the afternoon of 26th July and the morning of 29th July.
John Reith | 28.02.08 – 5:03 pm | #
Reith we’ve heard it all before.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/3721989577720589941/
Nothing new here from liberal “journalists”.
Few years ago, American anchormen Peter Jennings and Dan Rather were queued if while embedded or speaking with “insurgents” they came upon information about an attack or ambush on American soldiers they would notify the military.
They answered: “No, they would not take sides?”
As the interviewer sat in confused bewilderment, Rather realized what he and Jennings had just revealed on national TV. They quickly started started hmm and haaaa, but the sickening mindset is evident.
LogicalUS | 28.02.08 – 7:19 pm |
I share your distaste on this issue.
If such actions could be compounded any further by any employee of the BBC, it is that they receive their remunerations from the British taxpayer who is compelled, by law, to fund such traitorous acts.
jr once tried to palm off to us a similarity in role between the UK armed forces and the BBC.
All of us were perplexed by his reasoning.
It looks like the prosecutor got his facts wrong.
John Reith | 28.02.08 – 5:03 pm | #
You posted this attempted defence of the story back in December.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/3721989577720589941/#376975
You were wrong then…
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/3721989577720589941/#376984
…and you’re still wrong now.
As Ms Suleiman said, in court, “I think he was worried that perhaps the men might call him because they were on the run at the time. I think he was very, very shocked about the fact that the men he knew were accused of this.”
Hillhunt’s argument, for once, is more interesting. He proposes that the senior management did in fact forward the information to the authorities as a distinct possibility.
All the more reason why they should grant my Freedom of information request.
I don’t, however, buy his argument that it is in nobody’s interest for this to be revealed to the general public.
I disagree completely. If the BBC is, on one hand, making deliberately appeasing propaganda programmes like ‘Don’t panic, I’m Islamic!’, and on the other shopping terrorists to the police there is a distinct case of corporate schizophrenia. The license payers should be told!
However, having seen the BBC producer of the above programme, Phil Rees, on Tuesdays Channel 4 News ranting (the only way I can possibly describe it) about the fact that the UK was now a police state; Mr Hamid was completely innocent and that there are no such things as terrorists, I would very much doubt Hillhunt being right.
Let’s not get too side-tracked with the charming “Ms Suleiman” – diabolical though her admission was. The BBC have been found unequivocally to have subsidised terrorists whilst (mistakenly? or knowingly?) white-washing them as wacky cockney Muslim jokers. It’s part of a pattern, and they show no signs of wanting to own up, apologise or change their pro-terrorism policy.
bob | 28.02.08 – 7:50 pm |
Quite agree.
Part of the pattern.
Hamas terrorists now being palmed off as harmless rocketeers.
Hillhunt:
tel:
If choice is the only aim, then the sell-off of the BBC would fundamentally change everything because it’s such a big player and would take many of the resources others currently depend on. Whether that kind of broadcasting chaos is a a good thing is another matter. The UK’s creative industries are major currency earners and an implosion in the business would put all that in jeopardy.
I’ve often wondered,Sticky, what (if anything) you believed in – other than just slinging the odd casual insult.
These couple of paragraphs have finally made it clear – and I must say it’s just a tad disappointing.
You’re really just a boring old student lefty with sub A Level economics aren’t you?
What the f*ck does “…it’s such a big player it would take many of the resources others currently depend on.” mean?
Whose “resources”? Who has the right to allocate them? Why should any organisation have a right to “depend on them”. How would withdrawing state handouts cause “..an implosion in the business” – experience throughout the whole of the developed world has shown exactly the opposite.
This is the sort of economically illiterate ’60’s marxist rubbish that faded out of the national debate in the 1980’s – except for the pickled brains of Tony Benn and George Galloway.
Hillhunt (AKA Sticky Fingers) – Wolfie Smith lives.
JRSG: nicely rumbled!
Hillhunt: better to litter the threads with puerile sarcky sneers and be THOUGHT an idiot than leave a serious post – and be PROVED one
Reith spins:
Whose “resources”? Who has the right to allocate them? Why should any organisation have a right to “depend on them”. How would withdrawing state handouts cause “..an implosion in the business” – experience throughout the whole of the developed world has shown exactly the opposite.
This is the sort of economically illiterate ’60’s marxist rubbish that faded out of the national debate in the 1980’s – except for the pickled brains of Tony Benn and George Galloway.
Rumbled at last. Of course…the BBC as British Leyland, that’s what I must mean…
Oh, wait…
Could I possibly have meant the global amount of advertising/subscription revenue likely to be required to fund the services currently offered by the BBC should the licence fee disappear? Or would people just, like, buy more stuff so that the advertisers can spend more to keep BBC plc afloat?
Or perhaps there’s an untapped reservoir of people willing to throw more money at TV in subs to allow BBC plc a profit? People who have been resistant to subscriber TV for some years, and the kind of people worrying many internet content providers because they expect digital services to come free?
If not, what would the economic consequences of shrinking the creative economy, a significant currency earner and employer, be? Which services would have to fold to cope with any shortfall? Would they be those most enjoyed by non-advertiser friendly demographics like the over-55s and the pre-schoolers (Answer: yes)?
And how is the licence fee – a charge linked directly to the use of a TV set – a state handout, rather than a charge whose level happens to be set by the state?
.
“Could I possibly have meant the global amount of advertising/subscription revenue likely to be required to fund the services currently offered by the BBC should the licence fee disappear?”
The usual Marxist economic illiteracy,that the pie has a fixed size.
If not, what would the economic consequences of shrinking the creative economy, a significant currency earner and employer, be?
Ah – we’re getting down to it now Sticky aren’t we?
The first consequence would be that 30,000 underemployed statist drones like you and your mates could be put to work in the real economy – and might even create some wealth for a change.
What services would have to fold to cope with any shortfall? Would they be those most enjoyed by non-advertiser friendly demographics like the over-55s and the pre-schoolers (Answer: yes)?
Do you ever venture outside the kremlin walls? Have you ever been to America? Older people are far better served by American TV – they actually have female anchors over the age of 35 and the sort of family orientated comedy and drama that doesn’t make oldies cringe or throw up.
And how is the licence fee – a charge linked directly to the use of a TV set – a state handout, rather than a charge whose level happens to be set by the state?
It’s a handout to the BBC – which means it has zero motivation to provide the ouput most of it’s customers want.
The fact that it’s confiscated by legal sanction from the same “customers” only makes it more iniquitous.
Can’t you get it into your head that the idea of a state monolith having the lion’s share of the information and entertainment industry is a fascistic totalitarian anomaly which has no place in a modern democratic state?
Don’t you realise that we stand alongside only China, Cuba and North Korea in the scale of our state media operation?
On second thoughts – that probably only gives you a warm glow.
Hillhunt | 28.02.08 – 9:44 pm | #
Reith spins:
The first consequence would be that 30,000 underemployed statist drones like you and your mates could be put to work in the real economy – and might even create some wealth for a change.
Y-e-e-e-s. Economies work like that all the time, redeploying 30,000 people in an instant, with no consequences for the overall economic well-being, tax income and third-party suppliers.
drones like you and your mates could be put to work in the real economy – and might even create some wealth for a change.
As there is a constant switching of staff from the BBC and back, to internationally-successful commercial companies, I suspect your vision of a separate elite of BBC-ers is ever so slightly wide of the mark. The BBC, ITV, Five, C4 and several leading indie companies have all swapped execs in the last year. It’s commonplace at junior levels, too.
Older people are far better served by American TV – they actually have female anchors over the age of 35 and the sort of family orientated comedy and drama that doesn’t make oldies cringe or throw up.
You and I must watch different TV in the states. Read the stuff the commercial broadcasters supply to indepedent production companies – their overwhelming interest is in shows for 16-34 year-olds. Same goes in the States. If the oldies like the material, good, if not…tough.
Can’t you get it into your head that the idea of a state monolith having the lion’s share of the information and entertainment industry is a fascistic totalitarian anomaly which has no place in a modern democratic state?
That’s one way of putting it. If you think the BBC has anything in common with fascism and totalitarianism.
Is it the uniforms? The internment camps? The eugenics? The death squads? Or all of them.
Biased BBC: They really think Graham Norton and Jeremy Paxman would go down well in Pyongyang
“Is it the uniforms? The internment camps? The eugenics? The death squads? Or all of them.”
No,it is the uniform thinking and a news policy worthy of Dr Goebbels.
The BBC is a phony as a Blue Peter phone in.
“Biased BBC: They really think Graham Norton and Jeremy Paxman would go down well in Pyongyang”
It should certainly be given a try.
As there is a constant switching of staff from the BBC and back, to internationally-successful commercial companies, I suspect your vision of a separate elite of BBC-ers is ever so slightly wide of the mark. The BBC, ITV, Five, C4 and several leading indie companies have all swapped execs in the last year. It’s commonplace at junior levels, too.
Hillhunt | 28.02.08 – 11:09 pm | #
Evidence???????????????
Biased BBC: They really think Graham Norton and Jeremy Paxman would go down well in Pyongyang
Hillhunt | 28.02.08 – 11:09 pm | #
I’m led to believe that Graham Norton certainly goes down well!
Hillhunt: “Or would people just, like, buy more stuff so that the advertisers can spend more to keep BBC plc afloat?”
Well, they’d all have their license fee money to spend. Or is the BBC the only publicly run organisation that distributes resource more efficiently than the market? More to the point, though, what exactly is the objection to the BBC shrinking and a smaller license fee being retained to provide only those services the market won’t.
“Older people are far better served by American TV – they actually have female anchors over the age of 35 and the sort of family orientated comedy and drama that doesn’t make oldies cringe or throw up.”
All – and I mean all – the best comedy over the past 20 years has come from the USA – Frazier, Cheers, Friends – and has been shown on Channel 4. I haven’t laughed at a BBC sitcom since Gordon Brown became an MP. “The Office”? Give us a break.
Oh, and Channel 4 does proper documentaries now and again.
“Nation shall hype unfunny Lefty stand-ups unto nation”.
Anonymous:
Evidence???????????????
Peter Fincham from Talkback (indie) to head BBC1 and this week appointed programme controller, ITV. His predecessor at BBC1, Lorraine Heggessy, now runs Talkback, which makes The Apprentice, The Bill and Never Mind the Buzzcocks among many others.
Jay Hunt went from BBC Commissioning to Five and is now back to head BBC1
Michael Grade, who’s headed the BBC and Channel 4, is now i/c ITV
Julian Bellamy went from Controller E4 to run BBC3 and is now controller C4. Danny Cohen replaced him as head of BBC3 after running E4.
C4’s chief exec Andy Duncan is ex-BBC management; Mark Thompson, now BBC DG, was his predecessor at C4.
And so on…. list of producers, researchers and production assistants only on payment of research fee.
Hugh:
More to the point, though, what exactly is the objection to the BBC shrinking and a smaller license fee being retained to provide only those services the market won’t.
Because the BBC’s unique status allows it a creative and commercial freedom denied to other broadcasters (for considerably less per person than costs of commercial subscription services). Because the risk-taking enabled by British TV’s mixed economy has made the country the biggest player in worldwide markets other than America, earning great packets of foreign currency. And because a telly tax imposed upon those who had no need of the BBC’s remaining services – the 16-34 year-olds beloved of adland – would be more unfair than the one we currently pay.
“earning great packets of foreign currency”
Great! If there’s a market somewhere out there for the BBC product then I’d be happy to invest in it if there was a prospect of a decent return. At the moment I’m investing in it regardless of whether I want to or not, and getting third-rate programming and dim agitprop in return. Oh, and the right to be patronised by the Roneos.
Hillhunt: “Because the BBC’s unique status allows it a creative and commercial freedom denied to other broadcasters…”
Er, that would be maintained by a smaller license fee for the only areas it’s needed: those where a commercial return are doubtful.
“Because the risk-taking enabled by British TV’s mixed economy has made the country…”
See above.
“because a telly tax imposed upon those who had no need of the BBC’s remaining services – the 16-34 year-olds beloved of adland – would be more unfair than the one we currently pay.”
It would be smaller, so I doubt you’d get more complaints and it would be just like any other tax. I don’t need elderly care services right now, but I might one day and, more immediately, my parents might. It’s for this reason that people tend to complain about the level of tax and how the burden is spread rather than that they don’t use all the services it funds.
Hillhunt- your argument that no advertiser wants to touch anyone over 55 is a curious one, as this is (becoming) the largest demographic. Over 50s accounted for almost 30% of the population in the UK 2005; according to the Wellcome Trust over 65s are are around 16% of the current UK population- hardly a niche segment. More importantly, wealth is concentrated in this age group, with the 55-65 bracket having the highest median wealth in the UK (from National Stats). This is an incredibly lucrative market. I doubt the Beeb would have any trouble finding companies eager to advertise to them. Indeed, in the US, advertismnents catering to this segment are very conspicuous (drugs, financial services, insurance, health care, luxury travel…). And lest you oppose advertising on moral or other grounds, if any segment would be able and willing to stump up a subscription fee, I suspect it’s this one.
tel:
I couldn’t agree more about the older age group and its quality. But they don’t splash their income around the way that kids do, and that’s why the ads migrate down the age scale. Talk to anyone who runs ITV, Four or Five. They’re constantly worried about bringing their demographic down the age scale to bring in the real ad money.
Case in point: The History Channel is an American success story, earning decent income by appealing to well-educated older men (largely) with well-made films about archaeology and WW2. Last year it discovered that it could make much more money by running endless docusoaps about hairy-arsed truckers or computer-graphic-laden whizzbang specials. Both appeal to much younger viewers, and suppliers have been told to forget the oldie-appealing history stuff and make more teen-friendly docusoap instead.
There are undoubtedly some TV niches where admen like to target older, richer viewers, but these are few and far between. The stuff you see in daytime – chairlifts and medicines – is hardly worth the broadcasters’ time.
Don’t agree on subscription money. This is a generation used to high quality broadcasting which is free to air once you’ve paid your (relatively small) TV tax. They’re more resistant to Sky, Virgin and all the others selling telly as a sub.
“Because the BBC’s unique status allows it a creative and commercial freedom denied to other broadcasters”
To see just how ludicrously unfair this is,simply apply it to others.Artists ,musician,craftsmen,authors would all benefit from a levy on the general public,along the lines of “You must pay for piano lessons even if you don’t play the piano”.
I’m sure,with an income of £3 billion a year someone would get round to writing the Great British Novel.
Peter:
To see just how ludicrously unfair this is,simply apply it to others. Artists ,musician,craftsmen,authors would all benefit from a levy on the general public,along the lines of “You must pay for piano lessons even if you don’t play the piano”.
I’m sure,with an income of £3 billion a year someone would get round to writing the Great British Novel.
Must have been dreaming when I read that the Arts Council hands out funds approaching the BBC income for just those purposes.
Hillhunt | 28.02.08 – 11:09 pm |
Y-e-e-e-s. Economies work like that all the time, redeploying 30,000 people in an instant, with no consequences for the overall economic well-being, tax income and third-party suppliers.
Your neo-Marxist slip is showing. Economies most certainly do absorb 30,000 workers in a short period of time (nobody said anything about it being instantaneous – that’s a straw capitalist pig). There are, of course, consequences for the overall well-being. But why do you assume they would be automatically negative? There’s no logical reason for that. It’s possible that 30,000 ex-Beeboids would be unemployable in the private sector, but highly unlikely, as evidenced by so many of them that end up working for, well, you know where.
Contrary to neo-Marxist thinking, economies are not zero-sum games. Well, not real ones anyway. The bogus economies of totalitarian states like Cuba and North Korea don’t count. Although I think you’ll find that the black markets in both countries do function rather like the real world. Wealth can be created, not just redistributed.
Consequences involving tax income? Well, yes, most of the ex-Beeboids probably won’t be contributing so much to the taxman as the private sector doesn’t offer fat pay packets to people for many of the same jobs as the BBC does.
The only consequences to third-party suppliers (I assume you mean production companies who supply content to the BBC, and not the factories that manufacture DVDs and BBC coffee cups) would be that they would have to flog their products elsewhere. If by some chance the real world doesn’t think they’re any good, well that’s life. The government really shouldn’t be in the business of assuring that a special elite group is guaranteed employment.
If you think the BBC has anything in common with fascism and totalitarianism.
The intellectual fascism of certain quarters of the BBC is on display rather often.
“Must have been dreaming when I read that the Arts Council hands out funds approaching the BBC income for just those purposes.”
No,just confused. The BBC poll tax applies to everyone who owns a television,specifically to fund the incomes and output of its employees.Arts Council grants go to those who fulfill the agenda of the political elite.It this case the AC is the consumer.Now if we all got Arts Council grants to allow us the freedom to produce what we wished, irrespective of consumers desires, we could all be the BBC.
David Preiser,
There would be savings on the index linked pensions of the Beebiod.
If the media sector of the economy could not absorb the surplus,then that would be a good indication that the BBC is a make work institution like so many Socialist and Fascist edifices.
Hillhunt- we must agree to disagree as to the relative merits of a free market vs publicly funded broadcaster. I would expect that everyone working at the beeb would share your sentiments and would be positively disposed to a greater degree of government intervention in the economy than a liberal would be. You believe that the state should be involved in the provision of a service that the market is capable of providing fairly to those who demand that service. It seems to me therefore that at the very least we can agree that the beeb is biased against the classical liberal stance. Lest you argue that this bias is somehow kept in check and does not manifest itself in reporting, let me remind you that you suggested that a core function of the beeb was to act as a champion against big buisness (let’s leave aside for a moment that all beeb employees by virtue of their pensions are direct beneficiaries of big buisness). Ergo, I think we can agree that in matters of the economy, the beeb is suspicious of big buisness and in favour of government intervention and regulation. Isn’t this bias?
Peter | 29.02.08 – 3:27 pm |
There would be savings on the index linked pensions of the Beebiod.
If the media sector of the economy could not absorb the surplus,then that would be a good indication that the BBC is a make work institution like so many Socialist and Fascist edifices.
You’re probably right. I assumed the pensions would either be rolled over to the scheme of their new employers or that the unions would have guaranteed them otherwise. In which case they probably would have gotten a government guarantee, i.e. Brown doing for them what he did for Northern Rock. Oh dear, then hillhunt would be right about the damage to the economy.
At least the office workers, IT folks, and facilities managers would have marketable skills. Any talking heads left out can always go to Al-Jazeera. Certainly the 200 employees of BBC Arabic TV will have done so.
tel:
let me remind you that you suggested that a core function of the beeb was to act as a champion against big buisness
Not at all. Consumer journalism is a distinctive feature of the BBC, but not a core function. I work in the free market and am happy with that, but just as the media are useful bulwarks against an overmighty state, so a good medium can keep in check the unequal balance between big business and small consumer.
You don’t have to be suspicious of big business to produce fair consumer coverage.
Arts council etc.
By randomly and unexpectedly withdrawing funding from deserving causes, and, in the case of the visual arts, funding certain galleries conditionally so they have to show work no-one wants to see, the Arts Council does its bit towards stifling creativity. It often hands out funding to sterile art and undeserving artists as long as they satisfy the P.C. criteria of the day.
A good idea, but the theory’s better than the practice.
So, not unlike the BBC in some respects.
I have little interest in exploring the comparative merits of commercial broadcasting versus the BBC. I want an authoritative, knowledgeable creative BBC, not the biased ratings-chasing version we have today. I want one that has not decided, for whatever reason, to embrace one set of people and vilify another whilst telling us, and reassuring each other, that they are not.
“a good medium can keep in check the unequal balance between big business and small consumer.”
So where is the balance between the BBC and the License tax victim?
Hillhunt: “You don’t have to be suspicious of big business to produce fair consumer coverage.”
No, but the BBC frequently is, and has been taken to task for concentrating solely on consumers’ concerns.