This is a guest post by Marcellus.
I have a suggestion.
I have much respect for the impressive work that Biased BBC is doing to expose the symptoms of BBC misuse of their immense power and influence.
I put it to you, however, that we have all shouted and complained long enough. We have listed, exposed, analysed, discussed for a very long time. We KNOW that there is a terrible problem.
We have talked enough. The time for talking is over. We now need to DO something about this menace.
My suggestion is this: that Biased BBC now develop an active campaigning arm to push for SPECIFIC reform.
I am not suggesting that you change anything that you are currently doing, and doing very well. No certainly not, I am merely suggesting that there is an ADDITION to your operations.
This suggestion would have been pointless just 10 or so short days ago, but now the Brown government has been removed. Now there are people in power who are more likely to listen to the complaints and have the power to be able to make the necessary changes. Jeremy Hunt is now in charge of this field of government and whereas (from personal experience) I have to be convinced that he understands the problem and knows what specific reforms are needed, he does at least have the power to act.
Perhaps Mr Hunt should be assisted by the blogosphere in seeing where reforms should be made.
I suggest that there is a set of specific proposals advocated by Biased BBC to reform the news and current affairs output of the BBC, which they then promote and demand to be effected by the government. I am suggesting therefore that Biased BBC should become a next generation campaigning site actively using the internet to put pressure on the government.
The greatest abuse is in the field of news and current affairs and so accordingly, although I am aware of the concern in connection with other output, I am suggesting that there should be an initial concentration on the production of news and current affairs, rather than aim at too many targets and become weak and diffuse.
Initially there could be a draft set of Proposals issued and publicised by Biased BBC and opened up for discussion and comment.
Accordingly here is a first effort, a very rough draft of such “Proposals for Reform of BBC News”.
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
It is astonishing in a modern information-based democracy that we allow a small clique of unelected, unrepresentative, self-appointed, uncontrolled and unaccountable people to control the most awesome mind-controlling and influencing power in the history of mankind and to shamelessly manipulate the only news that most people will hear.
Labour was famed for misusing power for party advantage and the BBC was no exception. By ruthlessly selective staff recruitment and promotion the BBC was turned into an immensely powerful Labour Party propaganda weapon. A political attack dog; trained to promote and protect the Labour Party at all times. Well, the master has now gone, but the attack dog is still there, and it is now completely out of control. (See article by Daniel Hannan about his recent experience with the BBC).
Indeed many would argue that this misuse of BBC power has been the critical means whereby Labour has been able to hang on to power for so long and be able to cause the damage to and corrosive degeneration of every aspect of our society that they have done.
For an indepth analysis of the methods used to promote Labour see here.
The BBC has been turned into a campaigning organisation selling political messages and supporting specific politicians. This is not an acceptable role for the BBC.
We must ensure that never again can the immense power of broadcasting be prostituted for narrow party advantage – any party.
The BBC must be made completely INDEPENDENT from politicians, for the politicians really cannot be trusted.
The BBC has always looked to the government for all things, who consequently have had much influence over the BBC. This must change. We need the BBC to look now to the people who pay the TV Licence fee for their authority, instructions and entitlement to operate, not the government – we are their shareholders and they must obey us.
The BBC is hugely influential and is pre-eminent in forming our culture. The moral and other values of society are being created every day by the BBC.
We should not allow this power to be in the unaccountable hands of a clique with unrepresentative and often extreme views. We should be sure that such immense power is in the hands of people worthy of the trust.
At present we have no influence or control at all.
The staff at the BBC seem to have developed the view that they are entitled to educate us. The problem is that they perceive this “educating” role as forcing their personal views on any subject and the discouragement of any alternate view.
These self-appointed “teachers” may consider that they are specially enlightened and above the vast majority of the public, but in reality they are human too – full of personal weaknesses and prejudices based on their upbringing and the hurts that life has inflicted on them. This causes them to filter out facts which do not fit the view they WANT to hold, giving them an imperfect and incomplete understanding of issues. They may have strong intellects but that does not guarantee wisdom. The frequent result of all this is that they display marked intolerance and impatience of the views of others if they differ from their own; they consider that their views should prevail on “their” programmes and that views differing from their own should not be given the oxygen of publicity. This does not make them bad people, merely human – but we certainly do not want these people to have total power over what we are told about and (almost as important) HOW we are told.
The limited and imperfect opinions of the “teacher” should not be passed on to the “taught” as unquestionable TRUTH. The dividing line between that and indoctrination (and even brainwashing) becomes uncomfortably narrow.
This Moses Complex of the staff at the BBC can lead to the enforcement of cast iron orthodoxies. The trouble with orthodoxies, is that they can be wrong. But these BBC people would try to stop us finding out they were wrong. This is particularly so in the field of politics and current affairs.
The point here is that no small group should have a permanent virtual stranglehold over information available to us – such power will ALWAYS be abused.
The best way to avoid this disagreeable monoculture is to ensure we have many sources of information equally available – and so get the benefits of best practice obtained through benign competition.
Armed with total power, Labour ensured that its party donors and close allies were appointed to the key jobs of Director General and Chairman.
(For a detailed listing of the many unhealthy links between the state broadcaster and Labour see here)
It is not reasonable in a modern democracy that the immense and unprecedented power of broadcasting is controlled by people who are appointed in secret. Why should these people be appointed in secret? Secrecy inevitably means corruption and abuse. After our experience of the BBC under Labour, we no longer assume integrity.
This secrecy enables the BBC to recruit only fellow “believers” and this perpetuates the BBC as a ghetto. Other excellent people with a great amount to offer are not given the opportunity to give their services, and the public lose the benefit of their contribution.
News is not entertainment. Broadcast news programmes are a service to the public provided as part of a broadcaster’s obligations under their Licence or Charter, not another entertainment show. The use of the Political Correspondent (presented as totally honest and a friend of the anchor) and other sources of “expert opinion” is being abused to give the BBC the final word on a political story in order to influence the viewer into adopting the BBC’s view on it; that is not the BBC’s function.
Working in broadcasting is a privilege not a right. It gives a person immense power and opportunity for mischief, manipulation, abuse and personal financial gain – just as working as a solicitor, doctor, midwife or accountant does. Such work should be recognised as important and be elevated to the level of a profession.
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
The digital broadcasting infrastructure should be opened up to many other independent news providers – as the BT infrastructure was opened up.
The technology is there to transmit many simultaneous programmes at any one time. A sufficient sum should be allocated out of the TV Licence money received by the BBC from us to make any necessary adjustments to the broadcasting infrastructure to enable the broadcasting of many independent news programmes at the same time as BBC News programmes. We choose which news programme we want to watch by way of a remote. It is a better use for the Licence money than chauffeur-driven cars or air trips for the senior staff.
Since the BBC is owned by the nation and we pay the running costs by means of the TV Licence, the BBC must use its broadcasting infrastructure in accordance with our requirements. And we require that it is used in this way.
The BBC Trust and the Director General should be elected, not appointed – just as Chief Constables are now to be elected.
The term of office should not exceed two years in length.
Procedures should be set up to allow and enable people from outside the BBC to stand for election.
We should have the right to see the manifestos of the candidates wishing to be the new Director General or a Trustee. We should then have the ability to ask the candidates what their policy and view was on specific matters.
The BBC’s procedures for appointing staff to key posts should be opened up to public gaze and scrutiny and made more accountable to the electorate.
For key and sensitive jobs in the news and current affairs department, it should be possible for the public to add candidates to the short list. We do not accept that “only insiders know best” – it is the insiders who have abused the system.
Advertisements for ALL posts should also be on the web. The people who compile the shortlists and members of the appointing panel should be named and their own posts disclosed together with any financial or personal interests. Reasons should be given for the inclusion of any applicant on the shortlist for any senior post and this should be published on the web.
Full reasons for any appointment should be disclosed in writing.
Procedures should be set up to allow and enable people from outside the BBC to apply for any post with provision for redress for any such person if treated unfairly compared to an existing BBC employee.
Opinion should not be confused with information. Broadcast news programmes should not contain opinion from BBC journalists or from “experts” or “random” members of the public or from anyone; merely the facts. We are able to form our own opinions. There should be specific Comment programmes with safeguards as to balance, and then specific news information programmes.
Each individual member of staff is, by contract of employment or engagement, to be made PERSONALLY responsible for the truthfulness, fairness, honesty and accuracy of what they write, do and say – with sanctions imposed against them PERSONALLY for any breach.
These professional standards should provide, inter alia, for the following:
1. All staff are to comply with a CODE OF STANDARDS; this will cover such things as-
(1) Personal ethics and behaviour
(2) Professional competence
(3) A legal duty requiring fairness, honesty and openness
2. A REGISTER OF INTERESTS (published in real time on the web) where all financial benefits received or given and membership of or affiliation to or association with or assistance given to any political organisation (such as a political party, pressure group, trade union, campaigning charity or indeed Common Purpose) have to be disclosed.
3. DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES for dealing with any breach with powers of imposing monetary fines and/or dismissal and/or subsequent prohibition (temporarily or permanently) from being employed by or being a contractor for, any broadcaster broadcasting to this country.
The disciplinary procedures of the Law Society and the Institute of Chartered Accountants give an excellent precedent or template. The members of the disciplinary tribunal should not be employees of the BBC.
Any member of the public should be able to initiate a complaint.
Fantastic article !.
Hi, I didn’t have time to go through all of this but I read all of the first half and it contained good observations.
At the end of the day internet sites can catalogue the many examples of BBC bias, but the only thing that is going to restore impartiality, recover the deserved reputation for integrity that the BBC once had in the world, is through action in the real world.
What is needed is a membership organisation with a paid spokesman from subscription fees and donations. This would require the right approach to get it off the ground, and needs more thought than I have given it so far before I start making suggestions.
Just to address one of your proposals about an elected BBC Trust and Chairman and DG etc. Prior to New Labour stacking the BBC with cronies to ensure its unparalleled political bias, it had been the tradition for a Labour Govt to appoint a Tory Chairman and vice versa to ensure public confidence in HMG’s commitment to an impartial BBC. The Tories wantonly failed to raise the Hullabaloo when Labour appointed Party hacks like Greg Dyke as DG and Gavyn Davies as Chairman. What we need is to restore a political climate of integrity and morality whereby Government dare not usurp such a democratic convention for fear of the response at the ballot box to such abuse of power.
The reason for such endemic BBC bias is the Tories’ worse than useless response to it. It seems the more biased the BBC gets the more Cameron wants to suck up to it.
The only realistic chance I see of engendering the Parliamentary action necessary to restore BBC impartiality is a democratic alliance across the political spectrum to bring it about. The concrete measure needed to restore impartiality is a wholesale cull of bent broadcasters like Paxman, Humphrys and Naughtie and their Gramscian backroom staff.
A huge stumbling block I see at ever getting anything off the ground is the amount of people who would put their ideological agenda of privatising or dismantling the BBC ahead of restoring its impartiality. These are two separate issues and the latter cannot help but be undermined by people insisting upon linking the two.
hippiepooter
I am disappointed that you did not read the article. If you only read the first half you missed all my proposals
When you have read the whole article, I should be very interested to hear any constructive comments you may have.
Errm, Marcellus. I refer you to the suggestion I made to you at 20;17 today.
I am sorry hippiepooter, I just cannot find your post of 20:17 today that you refer to. I can find the one timed at 19:17 where you kindly refer to me as having inadequate “moral authority and good will”. If you can direct me to the one you refer to I should be interested to read it.
I’m posting from Spain old man, That would be the hour time difference between us.
hippiepooter, I should genuinely be interested in your thoughts on the five proposals, as your initial comment was promising.
You are quite right about the Tories. They were like rabbits in the headlights. They had no strategy for dealing with such a tremendously powerful force such as the BBC. They therefore appeased it. I too think this was a terrible mistake and I told shadow ministers so but to no avail. By not complaining like h*ll they gave credibility to the BBC’s ridiculous claim to impartiality.
I am afraid I made a mistake with this guest post. It is roughly three times too long. I really thought people would be interested in the reasoning behind the proposals, but I fear all I have done is distract from my main points. On my own blog I have stated the five main points only, and I think this is clearer.
The five proposals are of course the main point of the whole article.
That sounds a lot of stuff to do. I have a life.
Isn’t it easier just to agitate for one easily explained thing:
Scrap the BBC POLLICENSE TAX, and let the market decide?
No Jack, scrapping the licence fee just leaves all the same people in charge and they have complete market dominance.
Proposal 1 is to introduce many more independent news providers. As you say the market could then decide.
This is good stuff.
However I think there is one important strand that also needs to be considered. The sheer size and empire building nature of the BBC together with the amont of money and resources it has access too.
This leads to a detached and arrogant mentatliy. It means that BBC is unfairly knocking out private sector competition.
BBC output should be tested on the grounds that it provides additionality ie. somehting that it is not reasonable to expect could be provided by another organisation.
Interesting post with some very useful ideas but rather lengthy and there is rather a lot to digest.
A couple of initial thoughts:
– I think that it is extremely difficult to change or reform the BBC properly without significantly reducing its size, scope and vast budget.
– If Biased BBC is to campaign, it needs to look at where to direct its efforts and where there is leverage to be had. It might be through other organisations or an alliance with others who share a similar interest. There are a few around.
Thank you Millie Tant, that was an interesting and useful perspective.
What are the other organisations that you had in mind?
There are several around who monitor or comment on BBC -Google and posters here will no doubt bring up more. There is an association called something like Listeners and Viewers or Voice of the Viewer and Listener (I did have a link to it but lost all my data and can’t recall the name exactly). Also various blogs and anti-licence fee sites. Others here have posted links from time to time to bloggers and individuals who campaign on e.g. anti-Israel bias. Someone else has mentioned the Taxpayers’ Alliance. What about specialist media commentators and writers? There is someone on most national newspapers – also the Evening Standard has one who writes on a particular day of the week. Politicians and our own individual MPs have been mentioned also. And there is the BBC consultation that sue posted here the other day. There may be various petitions up and running already. It’s a question of researching what is out there and planning some sort of strategy: how to tap into anything useful that already exists; how to frame a campaign and whether a separate specific campaign site would be required. The format of this type of blog is okay for posting but it is a bit limited. It’s free of course and there may be some cost involved if we were to go for something with greater flexibility and functionality.
Many thanks. Useful contribution.
A campaign is definitely needed to press for specific reforms. All these five proposals will stay up on my blog for the time being.
The organisation I was thinking of is VLV, the Voice of the Listener and Viewer:
http://www.vlv.org.uk/vlvaboutuspg.html
On looking at its website just now, I am wondering how active it is. Some sections of the website look to be a few years out of date.
If they were to implement proposal #4 only I would be satisfied.
Actually I take that back, as mere reporting of isolated facts does not in itself guarantee unbiased reporting.
AndyUk06
The five proposals are a package, I personally do not think adopting just one of them would be enough.
Millie Tant is spot on, the current draft, though worthy, is rather wooly !
I have previously had a mild rant about the lack of effectiveness of this site, owing to its restricted posting ( brought in to eliminate 1 troll !) and its failure to link to sites with more oomph – Tax Payers Alliance & Guido are obvious examples.
To move things forward, the aims need to be reduced to a page of bullet points, which can be sent to individual MP’s by constituents. Then the site to down load the letter needs to be circulated to all like minded blogs and, some press comment needs to be generated.
There have been countless attenmpts by posters over the years to get people to ‘act’ rather than ‘chat’ on this site. Unfortunately you will find that many of the posters here – for all their bluster – would rather remain as anonymous keyboard warriors than actually take action against the thing that annoys them most.
When you consider that there are already a large majority of posters here who continue to pay their license fee in spite of their contempt for the BBC, you are unlikely to find much of a pro-active backbone to rise up and fight.
All it takes to slaughter the BBC would be a mass refusal to pay the license fee. Regardless of all the nay saying you get up here by those that DO pay, that the government would intervene and continue to fund the BBC, this would be the only way to suffocate them swiftly.
I don’t pay my license fee and never would because of BBC bias. I am already risking prosecution for doing so. To be asked to fight alongside a bunch of hypocrites who wouldn’t even do that would be an insult.
Some of us would love to do this but are in positions where the state hols some sway – for example where a profesional body is involved and expulsion would be caused by any form of prosecution over a ‘debt’ for example.
We cannot refuse to pay, but we can act in other, democratically sancioned ways. Letters of protest, substantive and fair complaint, or the joining of a single issue group to demonstrate a view point (by weight of membership).
For your plan to work, you would have to get a huge majority not to pay to insulate those people in delicate positions from prosecution, for we would be used as a blunt instrument to teach the others a lesson.
You’re rather setting yourself on a pedestal here Travis. People can only be hypocrits on this site if they have advocated others not to pay their license fee while still paying it themselves. You’ve made a decision not to pay it even though there is not mass organised boycott, and we must respect your motives for doing so, but please dont be sanctimonious about people who dont share the same approach as you, it diminishes the respect people otherwise might have.
Okay, I agree with your point hippiepooter. You are correct in saying that they can’t be hypocrites because they haven’t advocated not paying the license fee themselves. I am however sick of reading endless excuses as to why they DO pay.
Look at it this way, this site has opened a lot of peoples eyes to the way the BBC attempts to brainwash the public into following it’s own agenda. Nobody here is any longer hypnotized by the BBCs nonsense.
However, why are there so many that still believe all the bullshit that’s been propagated – mostly by the very same corporation – about what will happen to them if they don’t pay the license fee?
The risk of you ever being prosecuted by Crapita is so slim as to be insignificant. You practically have to turn yourself in before these scumbags can prosecute you. Yet still I keep reading the same old fears and excuses about what could happen if you don’t pay.
Sorry if I sound like I’m setting myself on a pedestal hp, I’m not trying too. But I haven’t paid the TV license in 20 years and never had a problem, so to be instructed by those that do pay about the risks I’m running does anger me somewhat.
I hope you understand my point.
One last point I have to make. I have always found it strange that most of the posters who publish their articles on this site, never offer up an e-mail address, contact number or suggestion of what should be done to complain about each of the individual points make. Why not?
And when one of it’s posters makes an overly sicophantic apology at the first hint of legal action for an article, again, you’re trying to make an army out of tin soldiers.
Of course some of us can’t risk the consequences of gaining a criminal record, and some of us don’t seek personal notoriety.
I’ve always felt it’s wrong to accuse people of hypocrisy if they complain of bias and still pay their telly tax.
Travis’s holier-than-thou remarks are unhelpful. There are several contact details on this website for those that care to look.
Some of our contributions take considerable time and effort to put together, and although we have the privilege of venting our spleen, don’t forget – so do you. If you want to put up email addresses or a contact number or a suggestion of what should be done to complain, feel free to do so. Why do you think it’s our responsibility? I’m not your bleeding mother.
When Marcellus submitted his article I ran the idea by the other B-BBC contributors. David Vance was his usual enthusiastic self, and Geoff the allseeingeye’s reservations were of a practical nature. I haven’t heard from the others so far.
My own reaction was similar to Millie’s in that I agree with many of Marcellus’s comments, but unless we settle on some any specific proposals we don’t know what we’re letting ourselves in for. We need a plan.
My own complaints concern endemic antisemitism at the BBC, and for that reason I would like transparency regarding the appointments of key staff as in Proposal 3, and I think standards and discipline should be raised as per proposal 5.
As Hippiepooter says, the undeniable anti-Tory bias could have been addressed by the tories themselves, but it wasn’t, and I would prefer the BBC’s impartiality to be restored rather than to have the BBC wiped off the map.
“Travis’s holier-than-thou remarks are unhelpful.”
LOL. Holier than thou? I’m not the one who just posted a 2,300 word agenda onto this blog on behalf of somone that reads like a graduation paper.
Nobody will take this seriously Sue and there have been far better suggestions for taking action against the BBC than this.
We don’t always have to agree with every word you publish and you seem to be the only main contributer who acts like a snippy soiled teenager every time anyone dares to disagree. This is why I always avoid your protracted postings and skip to something relevant instead.
But brevity never has ben your strong suit has it Sue?
>>eyes roll<<
I think you have already clearly established Mr Bickle that you are not untroubled by ego problems. If your primary concern is to do good instead of make yourself look good I suggest a more collaborative, respectful approach is needed if one day we may be able to get something in place that will build upon the bedrock of data here to make inroads into ending BBC bias. This is the cause this site is about, not worshipping at the altar of anyone’s ego.
Ditto HP. I think we found that during the election with your good self. Either way I mostly respect the way you disagree with those that oppose your views.
“there have been far better suggestions for taking action against the BBC than this.”
Such as ?
“But brevity never has ben your strong suit has it Sue?”
No.
Touche.
Travis Bickle
You speak loud. What would you do?
Hmm. I dunno. Maybe post a few more than 3 times before asking a friend to whack a wordy manifesto onto the front page of this site.
Seriously, there’s nothing that I WOULD do Marcellus. As I’ve explained, what I’m already doing is enough as far as I’m concerned. The BBC cause me considerable less stress because I am not funding them.
If you are not concerned about reforming the BBC, why do you bother to comment on this thread at all?
Travis, many of the posters here have connections in media or business or some other aspect of life which makes them vulnerable to BBC retaliation. David Vance recently stood for election in Northern Ireland and was subject to BBC on air assault regarding his involvement on B-BBC.
Yeah, DV is someone who truly puts his money where his mouth is and doesn’t look to laud it over anyone for doing so. He and I have had differences before but ever since he took over this site he has consistently dealt with monitoring and conduct issues in a very measured good humoured way. I think Mr Bickle (I’m assuming that’s not his real name?) could learn from DV’s humility and circumspection.
I admire DV as much as yourself hp. Believe me. But NRG appears to be using DVs bravery as a reason to why people SHOULDN’T act against the BBC.
David Vance has never tried to hide how he feels toward the BBC bias and nor would he ever exaggerate the risks of doing so. I don’t run a blog and therefore I can never be as effective as he can at tackling them. He’s done more than I ever will to rid us of the bastards. But like I say, I honestly feel I’m doing my bit – no matter how small – by not paying the license fee and I’m sorry if this sounds like I’m bigging myself up. I’m just trying to encourage others to do the same. Perhaps I’d be better off at one of the anti-TV licensing forums, but they seem pretty dead to me at the moment.
Uhm, yes NRG, I work in media and I run my own business and believe me, I’m almost certain that my not paying the license fee puts me at more risk than either yourself or Sue. Either way, I will not under any circumstance pay the license fee.
Forgive me if this seems utterly pathetic to yourself. I know Sue would just laugh at it. But I will not put one cent toward the BBC regardless of what it means to myself or my livelihood. These are the principles I stand by, if they conflict with your own, fine, but like I say I feel like I’m already doing my bit and just writing to my M.P to demand more isn’t going to make any difference.
I don’t need to ask someone to take action for me, I just do it myself.
I have a suggestion too.
Proposal 1. Scrap the licence fee so people who want the BBC’s trash can buy it if they want it, leaving the rest of us alone.
If that’s all you want, why don’t you just write to your MP and say so?
There is a fundamental difference between those who simply object to being compelled to pay the license fee and those who fear the pernicious influence of bias and dumbed down values. For me it’s the latter.
Phil
I am not against looking at the licence fee, but I do not think that scrapping would counter the bias, do you?
Do you really want to leave these people in control of all the news possibly 60 % of the population will ever hear?
Anyway Cameron seems intent on keeping it, so it really is not a practical way forward.
I’ve been thinking about how the message can be ‘got out there’ to a wider community than those who stumble upon biased-BBC. At the moment I spend some time commenting whenever I have the time about BBC bias as well as either scrapping the BBC or there being a form of opt-out of the Licence Fee on YouTube.
As many BBC programs are easily ripped I have been thinking about how alerts on BBC bias can be spread on the internet and on YouTube, because I don’t watch all that much TV and even less BBC. At least on YouTube friends can share videos of bias and then be able propagate to a wider audience. Until there are enough people behind changing or scrapping the BBC nothing will be done – a whisper needs to become a shout.
http://www.youtube.com/user/WinstonSmith46
Jeremy Hunt is the guy we should be badgering:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/19/wed-abolish-bbc-trust-hunt
I think he is damn right to target the BBC Trust first, rather than the BBC itself. They are just far too far up the backside of that which they are supposed to be regulating!
Thompson, Yentob, et al and their cronies should all be press-ganged into finding an equivalent opportunity in the private sector.
I’m sure ITV must be gagging to hire them.
What Millie Tant said.
Now that the conservatves are back in government, the need to deal with the BBC will become a low priority. The need to do something will not be realised again untill it is far too late (when they are next out of government).
Scrappydoo
i do not agree. Now is the time to deal with it. The BBC are in full attack mode right now
You can’t reform the BBC, personally I don’t care if these drugged up rent boy abusing twats spout endless leftie crap, I just don’t want to be forced to pay for it.
Rather like the Guardian newspaper if you were to take away the teat of public money that it needs to survive it would either have to appeal to normal people or die.
That should be the fate of the BBC.
Agreed. The Licence Tax for television is just wrong. Cut the BBC’s life blood and watch it wither.
It is beyond reform. The composition of the workforce has seen to that. 30 plus years of recruiting like minded Gramscian worker bees means that the hive is fully manned and operational. That the hive is deluded and doomed to failure is an increasing probability. Starving it of funds makes the most sense and is the one thing the hive fears.
The BBC hive along with the companion hives infesting our public life have probably overplayed their hand in defying the natural order of things. Reality in the form of a real economic meltdown is looking very likely. The BBC along with much else and even many of us will not be able to withstand what is coming down the road.
Meanwhile we should just keep giving them a hard time. Deserved or not the powerful need constant disaproval and scorn. it is the only weapon we really have.
I agree – the BBC is incorrigible, beyond repair. Because it is utterly infested with one stream of thought, one worldview.
Better to cut it back severely – chop radio stations, chop most of the regional stuff, halve the size of the website, drop BBC 3 and BBC 4, sell off BBC Worldwide, merge News 24 with the Parliament channel, close any other marginal channels, force it to sell off unnecessary buildings to help with funding – and look for a drastic one-off reduction in costs and the licence fee, plus year-on-year real-terms reductions in costs. Chop senior salaries, decimate or triple-decimate the management ranks.
…………….
Demand this sort of action plan now – and then switch to a funding by usage (now technologically possible) and abolish the cushy licence fee.
Dave
How, pray, are you giving them “a hard time” now?
Marcellus, you’ve just been given acres of valuable space to set your stall out on the BBC. Maybe you owe the site a bit more than such a snide response to a thoughtful reply like this?
hipplepooter, attacking one another personally, and thus avoiding the issues, helps the BBC.
What do you think should be DONE about the reforming the BBC?
If anyone thinks that reform is not needed and that the BBC is about to be wound up or starved of funds to such an extent that it stops its political activities, then with respect they are not living in the real world. That approach is in the same category as “I do not pay the Licence fee so I do not care what they do”.
You do not have to agree with me, but in my view, it must be reformed, for it is not going away and it will continue its subtle form of brainwashing.
If it needs reforming, what do you suggest is DONE?
Dave S, while the BBC not only has its tanks parked on the Tory Party’s lawn but is sleeping with its wife in its bedroom while it lies besides her, I dont think the BBC have too much to worry about.
If the financial knives are taken out against the BBC in some extremely unlikely event, they’d just get funding from some Marxist millionaire like George Soros to go private and they’d be just as toxic as ever.
I think you make an excellent point at just how much control the Gramscian bees have got over the BBC hive in the last 30 years and how hard it will be to fumigate them, but I still think its possible.
Personally, if a campaigning organisation did get off the ground I think a good starting point would be to demand the BBC’s ‘worst offenders’ (ie Humphrys, Naughtie, Paxman, Wark and Quinn in my estimation) are fired and then if that gets traction, go from there. There’s a plethora of evidence against them to compile irrefutable bias dossiers.
Yes, hippiepooter, the Gramscian tendency is obvious – that is not an issue. That is the reason why reform is needed.
But what are you going to DO about it?
I am suggesting just such a campaigning organisation as you refer to. I am also suggesting specific reforms.
What are YOU suggesting, apart from saying that certain people should be fired and “go from there”. Go where? What criteria are you to use to justify your decision to fire these people? I agree with you of course that they are biased, but who is going to ACTUALLY do the sacking? What new rules would enable you to fire them? What specific reforms are you actually suggesting? How would you get the necessary power to enable you to fire the people you do not like? Who is going to compile these “irrefutable bias dossiers”? Are you?
Marcellus old chap, please take a good piece of advice and get out from up yourself.
Sorting out the BBC is going to take a collection of people coming together who possess considerably more moral authority and good will than you evidently do. Think about it.
hippiepooter
You have not answered any of my questions.
Do I have to conclude that you cannot do so?
Marcellus, I’m not able to take you anywhere nearly as seriously as you take yourself. I think you’re someone from the BBC having a laugh.
hippiepooter
You still have not answered any of my questions.
Your childish abuse and diligent attempts to create discord reminds me of “John Reith” who was a BBC troll on another anti BBC site.
And you are still way up your rectum. I’d call the fire brigade if I were you.
Wonderful. How do we start this. Should we lobby politicians, post a vigil in front of broadcasting house, ask the Muslim Council of Great Britain for advice? Please tell us
Edward Bowman
Thanks for your response
I was hoping that the Proposals I have made would have started such a movement. I must say though that I am pretty disappointed by the negativity from people who for years have been complaining about the BBC.
Anyway here are some suggestions for specific reforms
FFS !!! One post after mine and the thread degenerates into a Judean Peoples Front vs Peoples Front for Judea squable.
Its simple , starting point, open the thread up, link it actively to other like minded sites, produce format material and encourage people to download and send bias complaints to their Mp’s. Take a stall at the party conferences and hold fringe meetings.
The above takes organisation and some finance. Suggest you talk to the Taxpayers Alliance about how to achieve it !
Backwoodsman
I could not agree more.
These are very helpful suggestions.
I wish the TPA would take it up.
I think a link to this would have been a better idea rather than nuking the whole site with it.
I’d like to make some lower-level, more specific, suggestions.
The BBC must be completely apolitical. To that end:
No BBC employee may be a member of any political party (except for undercover work) or do any work – even unpaid – for any political party.
No BBC employee may be a member of any union that makes political donations.
No BBC employee may make a political donation.
Henceforth prior employment by a political party will be an absolute bar to employment by the BBC.
Quentin
“The BBC must be completely apolitical”
I agree, that is why I am suggesting “professional” standards, a Code of Standards and disciplinary action for any breach – see Proposal 5
Travis @ 23:19
Marcellus is no more a friend than you are. You’re free to comment as much as you like, and you’re also free to prepare a counter-manifesto, wordy or not.
Dave S , “Meanwhile we should just keep giving them a hard time.”
As if. How are we giving anyone a hard time?
John A @ 01:02
I like BBC4. I think BBCs1 and 2 should be merged as they’re both as dumb as each other, and BBC3 and 4 could be paired down and merged. There’s certainly far too much padding, and it needs to be slashed and pruned.
Hippiepooter mentions the rift between those who want to abolish the BBC and those who think it could be salvaged. The majority think it’s beyond reform, so they’d be lobbying for abolition. If we were to get a campaign together, we’d argue over the aim.
edward bowman,
“.… ask the Muslim Council of Great Britain for advice?”
Many a true word spoken in sarcasm; perhaps you’d care to be the first martyr?
Bupendra,
“…..nuking the whole site with it.”
Don’t worry. It’ll disappear off the page soon. The aftermath will probably be short lived.
The Marcellus agenda is a sort of counter-Gramscian – or, rather, Gramscian – proposal to start a long march through the institution of tax-funded broadcasting in the UK. Unless you’re prepared for a 2 or 3 generations struggle don’t even start. The short-cut is to strangle the BBC where it hurts – in the licence fee. As always it’s “follow the money”. Stop the £3.4 billion – or most of it – and the BBC problem is solved.
OTOH advocating another kind of legal framework to enforce an “impartial” BBC or “value-free purely fact-based” bulletins is an impossible objective: it’s been tried and no longer works (why was B-BBC created anyway?). No single broadcasting organisation can do this. The most it can do is give an airing to opposing views which, with luck, might put most of the facts into the public domain. The only way IMHO is to have competing broadcasters – in the same way that the printed press has competing papers – and maybe that will create a marketplace in fact-based broadcasting. Unfortunately, you only have to see the standard of public discourse on AGW fanaticism to recognise that even that might not work since the MSM is bound hand and (most of a) foot to the AGW bandwagon.
In summary, a wholesale refusal to pay the licence fee is the only effective weapon at the public’s disposal. BTW AFAIAA being fined for not paying the licence fee does not give the refusenik a criminal record: refusal to pay the fine does.
Umbongo
“The only way IMHO is to have competing broadcasters”
I agree, and that is precisely what I have proposed in Proposal 1
The action to be taken should be:
“The television licence fee is a regressive compulsory poll tax and it must be immediately abolished.”
All else will follow from this revolution.
This article is meaningless without that commitment first as it only attempts to reform the unreformable, glasnost and perestroika did not save the Soviet Communist state and these “reforms” would not save the BBC.
No commitment to that abolition? Then no support from me.
Kittie Shaw
I am not against ending the licence fee. But if you did abolish the licence fee, are you sure that would get rid of the bias? And getting rid of the bias was the reason for my proposals.
Marcellus,
The license fee enables the nominal independence of the BBC from the government. Even so, it’s still the official state broadcaster, with a deep, multi-generational connection to the public. The BBC also trades on this official status in spreading its World Service, which is partially subsidized by the Foreign Office, thus blurring that line of separation. The creation of channels targeted specifically at markets in foreign countries – such as the US – is enabled by this status. Matt Frei wouldn’t be able to have his little propaganda show without it.
As the state broadcaster, with generations of trust and comfort already established, the BBC has a deeper connection with and influence on the public, which no private broadcaster could hope to achieve. This is the real danger, and the only answer is to sever that connection.
If the license fee is abolished, the government – even under Ant & Dec….sorry…Dave & Nick – would simply fund it straight out of your taxes, like they do on the Continent and elsewhere. You’ll still have an official state broadcaster, which will automatically have more gravitas and credence given to it simply by that association. That’s the real problem.
Unless the entire thing is demolished, except for perhaps the arts and educational programmes (but not including CBBC), you’ll still have the problem of a state broadcaster with an undue influence on the public. The only solution is to eliminate the status of official national broadcaster, which would by default end the need for a license fee and this site.
Thanks for that, David.
I too see no reason for getting rid of the Licence if that is only an angry reaction to the bias of the BBC. The bias is the problem not really the funding method. I too do not see abolition of the Licence Fee being effective to control them. Nor do I think that closing them down, as some have suggested, is a remote possibility, given Cameron’s statements, nor incidentally do I think that even desirable. They are a marvellous national asset (particularly radio). But they have their wires crossed at the moment and they need some help in realignment. There is a new Zeitgeist of cooperation in the country with the Coalition but the BBC are in still in the old mind set. They are frankly run by the wrong people put in place by Labour.
In my opinion, reform is the way forward, not abolition of the BBC or taking away the Licence Fee.
They need some income and the Licence fee seems better than money direct from the Exchequer.
My aims for reform of the BBC as set out on the Marcellus blog are as follows:-
1. Make the BBC totally INDEPENDENT of Government and make them answer DIRECTLY to the Licence Fee payer.
2. Stop the BBC being a monoculture controlled by an unrepresentative and unaccountable clique.
The five Proposals are set out on the Marcellus blog. They will stay there.
I am looking for partners to take this forward.
Marcellus,
On paper, the BBC already is totally independent of the Government. That’s what the Charter and Agreement and license fee are for. The BBC answers directly to the Trust, which is not independent, or worth much at all, from what I can tell. But it was never created to be otherwise, really.
It’s literally impossible to make the BBC truly independent of the Government without withdrawing the status of official state broadcaster. If you’re going to maintain that status quo, the only way to reform the bias is a complete – and I mean 100% – purge of the News Division, and a cessation of most, if not all, light entertainment programmes. Sell off the intellectual properties, shut down half the channels, etc. However, that would still require constant vigilance and real oversight, which is a lot of work. Instead of diversity and political correctness compliance officers, you’d have hundreds of impartiality compliance officers, endless forms to fill out, review boards, etc. I just don’t see that happening.
The only way the BBC would be accountable to the viewers who pay for it would be to do what others have suggested and make it a subscription service. Of course then the BBC would have to give up its status as official state broadcaster. The institution itself would have to disappear.
But once this is done, there’s no more need to complain about the bias. If it’s a private business, they can be as biased as their customers can stand, and nobody is forced to pay for it. The only way this can happen is if not only the license fee is abolished, but the BBC itself ceases to exist as it is today as the state broadcaster. Reform would no longer be necessary.
The BBC is a critical propaganda weapon for the Left. If it went to a subscription service it would be underwritten by someone like George Soros to maintain as much of its broadcasting hegemony as it can to influence people’s thinking with its ‘impartial reporting’.
Marcellus: I too see no reason for getting rid of the Licence if that is only an angry reaction to the bias of the BBC. The bias is the problem not really the funding method. I too do not see abolition of the Licence Fee being effective to control them.
==================================
I disagree. I see the funding method as a fundamental problem and a reason why so many things are wrong with the BBC. It is in effect like a government department but without even the level of accountability of a government department and we know how arrogant and remote from the public government can be – and relatively immune from public criticism and pressure, except when coming up to election time.
Government departments are given a sum of money; they do not earn it and they have an incentive to spend it all, so that they can then go back and ask for even more for the following year. The BBC is the same. The licence fee always goes up, no matter what else is happening. It grows fat, rich and arrogant and we have no real sanction against it.
Furthermore, the rich and the poor pay the same amount – wasn’t that the objection to the hated poll tax? All those in the media who are forever defending it and saying that it is peanuts and is value for money are people who have no idea at all what it is like to be a pensioner living on £100 a week (about half of pensioners do. You have to be aged 75 or over to get a free licence, unlike the free bus pass which is given from the age of 60 or 65) or a working person on minimum wage or in part-time work and constantly juggling bills for all the usual living costs. These are likely to be the people who rely most heavily on TV for leisure, entertainment, information and link to the outside world since they may not have as much scope or wherewithal for going to social events, restaurants, etc.
And the enforcement of the licence fee…don’t get me started. Suffice to say that it relies on intimidation and harassment, with scary and misleading letters and visits with deliberate wording and imputations of illegality and criminality for actions and activities which are perfectly legal. This means in effect that people are frightened and deterred from exercising freedom of choice even when they would like to make the choice not to watch TV and not to have a TV licence.
Making the BBC a subscription service was well mapped out in proposals put to the last Royal Charter/licence fee review. It is eminently more practicable now – and the new review starts shortly.
It would give political cover for abolition of the licence (which some would portray as abolition of the beloved BBC). And yes indeed – it removes the extreme regressiveness of the licence fee.
Better to strangle the BBC financially, if outright abolition is not politically practicable. Subscription would force it to cut back sharply on output, take an axe to the sprawling empire.
Elaborate measures to require poltical neutrality from the BBC would, I fear, be sidestepped, the bias is too ingrained.
Far better to release ALL channels from requirements of political balance. Let editorial freedom reign – as in the print media.
At present, the BBC argues “We are required to be neutral – therefore by definition our output is neutral”. Utter lie of course. If there was no requirement to be neutral, it would be easier to persuade people that the BBC is biased.
John Anderson
“Far better to release ALL channels from requirements of political balance. Let editorial freedom reign – as in the print media.”
I have some sympathy with that, but are you really going to allow the present people with their virtual monopoly to remain in power with no constraints at all?
That is why I am suggesting that the broadcasting infrastructure is opened up to many independent news providers (Proposal 1)
Hi All
Been away but have been catching up with this thread. Some very interesting comments. Very thought-provoking.
Jacqui Smith adjusts to life after election defeat
When I jokingly asked whether any press would be invited to her farewell constituency party she answered without hesitation.
“Only my sister.” (Her sister works for the BBC).
Diane Abbott enters Labour leadership contest
Ms Abbott, the Hackney North and Stoke Newington MP, who in recent years has been a fixture on the BBC’s This Week programme, said: “So many people have asked me to stand.
’nuff said.
This discussion is a perfect illustration that the best is the enemy of the good.
Sure we’d all (well, most of us commenting on this blog anyway) like to see the BBC dissolved or (magically) compelled to be genuinely impartial – but it ain’t going to happen. That is why I would recommend a concentration on getting rid of the licence fee. If the government then rejects both the licence fee and a subscription service and opts to finance the BBC openly and directly from taxpayers then we – and everybody else – would recognise that the BBC for what it would become. It would be the official state broadcaster and anything broadcast would eventually be viewed by the general public in the same way as most of the other crapola dribbled into the public domain by government PR hacks. Perhaps this is preferable to having the BBC enjoy a credibility and regard which is entirely undeserved.
The use of a hypothecated tax – the licence fee – currently gives the BBC a spurious aura of “impartiality” although, as is recorded here daily, this “impartiality” is non-existent when issues close to the heart of the BBC’s apparatchiks are dealt with. Furthermore, if the BBC becomes an official organ of the state it will be under pressure to respond properly to all those FOI requests which it now airily dismisses.
I’m not saying that having an official state broadcaster is good or even “not bad”. All I’m saying is that, at least, the nature of the BBC will be clarified and its credibility judged accordingly. As to the “crowding out” issue it may be that the public (and those politicians seeking to represent the public) will not tolerate the reality of a broadcasting outfit costing £3.4 billion annually to transmit government propaganda via all media available. This would be especially intolerable when competing broadcasting organisations would be compelled (as they are today) not only to create attractive programming but to devote much of their energies to financing those programmes.
I’m afraid demanding reform on the grounds of bias and even waste is too easy for the BBC and its supporters to bat away.
A broad argument must be constructed to show that the BBC does not function, does not work, by the standards of its peers.
Those who defend a “national treasure” should be made to confront the evidence that the BBC is actually not very good at what it does.
It is a lazy, ineffectual bureaucracy that tolerates low standards among its staff, who sit in their jobs for years, without being held up to any standard of competition or criticism. Sorry, even the criticism on these pages is deflected by the circular logic and aptly-named Moses Syndrome within the BBC.
That’s becasue the BBC looks upwards, not downwards, for its validation. As a bureaucracy it must satisfy its Westminster paymasters first and foremost.
When I was interviewed (successfully) for a job at the BBC back in 1987 I was asked to name their correspondents: who’s media corro, who’s education etc.
I named them.. Baker, Higham, Simpson etc. Remarkably, 20 years later many of the same people were still in those jobs.
I cannot think of any major television network or newspaper in the world where the bulk of correspondents – not one or two, but most – stay in their jobs effectively for a working life!
No wonder they are set in their attitudes, reflecting the views of a cosy club, smug and narcisisstic on camera, and generally uninformative. They are too close to those on whom they are meant to report. Even if the BBC were an independent, commercial operation, such reporters would not be considered capable of objectivity.
Most global television networks finance general news as a loss leader. It costs them dearly but it creates their reputation.
Judged by this standard, the BBC does not take its public reputation very seriously.