Over at the DT, James Delingpole brings these words of Sir Anthony Jay to our attention;
No, what really needs changing is the size of the BBC. All we need from it is one television channel and one speech radio station – Radio 4, in effect. All its other mass of activities – publishing, websites, orchestras, digital channels, music and local radio stations – could be disposed of without any noticeable loss to the cultural life of the country, and the licence fee could probably be cut by two-thirds.
For starters…
And definitely no BBC Overseas Service – give it away to Al Jazeera and see if anyone in the world notices any difference.
That’s ridiculous, of course people would notice the difference if BBC transferred their Overseas Service to Al Jazeera; the anti-Israel tone would soften for a start.
Defenders of the indefensible are understandably silent of late. Probably waiting for someone to say the BBC didn’t report something when in fact they might have barely mentioned it, sort of, if you squint hard enough.
Instead, BBC-NUJ is a global empire builder for itself.
BBC-NUJ is:
1.) politically biased to the ‘left’;
2.) financially extravagant in its own interests, at home and abroad;
3.) undemocratic in its methods.
-rather like its chums at European Union.
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with “global empire builder”. They can certainly shut down their US division and nobody would miss it, despite winning that award earlier this year and whatever US audience growth they claim. It’s neither particularly informative nor useful.
I think the Beeboid Corporation could be cut drastically and cost about a tenth of what it does now but I disagree with Mr Jay. We do need music on Beeboid radio. We cannot live on a diet of news and politics alone!
How about shutting down the news and politics and spending the money on Radio 3?
Excellent idea!
If the BBC were simply made to go subscription the problem would be solved. The BBC could charge everyone the same amount they do now and if as the BBC and the leftoids believe we all love the BBC so much we’d happily pay double (or more) then the BBC can continue to expand its services.
What gets me about the mentality of the BBC and the leftists is you’d think they would like to see the BBC go down the Sky route, it would give them a chance to compete on a level footing with Sky for live TV like football and the BBC thinks it’s so loved by the nation we will all pay.
I find it quite interesting that there appears to be no one at the BBC who actually thinks that a subscription based system would be better for the BBC.
They actually seem to think that charging people who are poor £150 a year just to own a TV is somehow justified.
I broadly agree with Anthony Jay, but I don’t think the BBC needs a full TV channel.
An evening channel like BBC Four could broadcast all of the BBC’s distinctive, quality TV. Two hours an evening would be sufficient.
As for radio, I think we should keep Radio 3 and 4, both of which do what the commercial sector won’t.
And I think a lot of BBC local radio is valuable too. It caters for older listeners, local sports fans and local ethnic minorities – all things which commercial radio doesn’t do. BBC local radio is real, unglamorous public service broadcasting, which perhaps explains why the audience figure, celebrity, soap opera, doctors/nurses/robbers, antique buying and selling obsessed BBC is so keen to make cuts to it.
I reckon all that could be done for a licence fee of about £25.
I’ve no objection to paying a tax if the money is used wisely, even if I don’t benefit from what it provides.
But I do object to paying a tax of £145 when most of it is wasted on junk TV and pop music radio already available in vast quantities from the commercial sector, plus a dodgy ‘liberal’ news/propaganda department.
For years I have been asking my former colleagues in the BBC a simple question: in the light of increasing expenses, what should the BBC NOT do? They find it difficult to answer because they have no vision – no mission statement. (“Nation shall play pop music to nation”?)
A little background: for years the BBC departments have been shrinking thanks to the ever increasing demands of the news and current affairs budget. In fact, internally news is the most unpopular department in the corporation. It eats money. And they are arrogant and sef-indulgent. I say let them have their empire.
The rest of them? Drama, “comedy”, documentaries etc can fight it out in the marketplace. (Let’s see how the “News Quiz” does when it has to compete for audience and we all now what happened when the agit prop “Upstairs Downstairs” went head to head with ITV’s “Downton Abbey”).
I agree with Sir Anthony Jay in general: fewer platforms: speech and news on the Home Service? OK. Speech and news (about Britain) on the World Service> Fine. A TV channel (mixed output) and a website. Enough!
This, of course, will never happen. The tiny number of upper-middle class people who fetishize Radio 4 are too powerful to cross. They need their warm comfort blankets like “Any Qustions?” to makes them think the whole world is like them. Radio 3 also has powerful friends. (Do you know how much R3 costs!?!) Politicians use the BBC as best they can: national news to build narional reputations and local radio gives every MP a chance to spout off in their own little pool. R1 and R2 have no reason to be subsidized but they give the BBC a reason to boast about audiences. And R5? I am at a loss to explain R5.
Things won’t change. The BBC is now part of the British welcfare system. It has strategies for defeating opponents and keeping things the same. It rewards some and punishes others. Gravy trains are difficult to derail. The only hope is a licence payers strike and that won’t hapen.
Radio 5 started out as a mostly sports orientated channel I think it was designed to stop the BBC clogging up Radio 4 and Radio 2 with sport. Then they decided to add more news to it, but then the ‘wimmin’ took over.
Now it’s basically a left wing white male bashing whining female radio station that broadcasts Nu Liebore and Guardian propaganda.
I don’t listen to it so what would I know? So I pulled up the schedule and hm…what women? There aren’t any! Scarcely any. It’s wall-to-wall men, with a heavy representation of sport – mainly football and boxing. I presume that’s male football.
What a surprise on the Beeboid Corporation. /sarcasm
Forgot the link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/5live/programmes/schedules
today was a case in point – first up anita and ? will be discussing Britain’s isolation in europe, then after ten, your recipes for peanut brittle.
How much does Radio 3 cost?
Some figures are given here, although they are from 2008, at the time of the Jay article.
According to Thompson, television then took 70% of the licence fee (most of that to BBC One and Two) and radio about 18%.
These figures are given by someone else:
Last year BBC1 was shown as gobbling up £1.2bn – not surprisingly, far more than any other service. BBC2, not much of whose output these days could be considered pure PSB, cost £440m. BBC4 cost only £47m. Radio 3 cost £37m and Radio 4 cost £81m.
You get a lot more PSB on either radio 3 or 4, or both combined, for a lot less than the cost of BBC One. In fact on those figures, both combined are a tenth of the cost of BBC One.
Forgot the link . http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/21/bbc.television
the BBC is full of gays and dykes, that’s the problem
Yes, it cunjures up a whole new meaning to being “out on a bender”…
Harrabin – A book at bedtime !
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/12/11/cmep-the-back-story.html
Cut by ony two thirds? I would have hoped Radio 4 and BBC 1 could be run for under 10% of the present fee.
Have faith in the market-place, folks.
If enough people want Radio 4 then let them pay for it. I keep hearing that it’s worth the license-fee alone. I happen to think it’s a steaming pile of cack.
As for the rest of the BBC output – not needed.