The reliability and predictability of the licence fee has been a huge reason for the News Division’s success.
MarkDamazer ex R4 Controller
Andrew Marr, BBC journalist recently voted top political reporter by Press Gazette describes “we have become too powerful, too much the interpreters, using our talents as communicators to crowd them (politicians) out. On paper we mock them more than ever before and report them less than ever before. On television and radio, we commentators are edging them out ever more carelessly”.
John Lloyd “you have to ask the question: is it the purpose of the news media to make an impact or to report the news?”.
As our most powerful cultural institution, the BBC is increasingly drawn into fierce debates about politics and morality, as well as its growing dominance of Britain’s media.
The BBC has become a victim of its own incredible success. It has emerged as a hugely powerful player over the last 10 years across national and – increasingly – international media. During this time it has raced to increase its number of TV and radio stations and has managed to establish a dominant position in online news.
Emma Duncan, deputy editor of the Economist, highlighted the specific threat that the BBC’s online news service poses to newspapers: “The Corporation has a fantastic website. That’s hardly surprising since it spends £145m a year of licence-fee payers’ money on it. Britain’s national newspapers put together spend around £100m on their online efforts. If the BBC is allowed to go on dominating online news it will undermine other news providers’ ability to survive on the internet, and thus threaten the diversity of news sources that is crucial to a democracy.
As Emily Bell, Guardian News & Media’s director of digital content, noted last year…[The BBC is] on a path which could … squish dozens of other media businesses, from magazines to daily newspapers, to local radio stations, to rival terrestrial broadcasters. The ecology of some parts of the UK media is now so uncertain and fragile that it can be depleted by a single blow from the end of the BBC’s tail as it rolls over in its sleep.”
As respect for other national institutions (politics, church, traditional family hierarchies) recedes, the BBC has assumed more cultural influence. It has become the place where national debates about moral, political and ethical disputes are increasingly being aired.
So not just the ‘usual suspects’ complaining about the BBC…even the Guardian, and the Economist, recognise the danger of its dominance.
The other media groups realised the growing dominance of the BBC and complained vociferously about the licence fee funded monster:
Media groups unite against BBC
News International, Associated Newspapers and the Telegraph Group have taken the rare step of joining forces to demand that the government curtail the BBC’s “digital empire-building”.
Commercial media groups are worried about the BBC’s digital ambitions, outlined recently in its Creative Future policy.
The submission on the BBC white paper, draft royal charter and agreement is also signed by David Elstein, the chairman of the Commercial Radio Companies Association and David Newell, the director of the Newspaper Society. The group said it had a grave concern about “the extent to which the BBC is being given a public policy directive to build a digital empire”.
Mark Thompson admitted ‘there’s a big shock coming’...
Delivering the Royal Television Society’s Fleming Memorial Lecture this evening BBC Director-General Mark Thompson will say: “There’s a big shock coming…….The second wave of digital will be far more disruptive than the first and the foundations of traditional media will be swept away, taking us beyond broadcasting. “
“The BBC should no longer think of itself as a broadcaster of TV and radio and some new media on the side. We should aim to deliver public service content to our audiences in whatever media and on whatever device makes sense for them, whether they are at home or on the move. ”
Journalism
A new pan-platform journalism strategy, including mobile devices, is already underway, putting 24/7 news on the web, broadband, TV and radio at its heart for unfolding stories as well as analysis.
Current affairs will be reshaped and BBC News will work with the education sector to get BBC journalism into secondary schools across the country through initiatives like Schools Question Time.
So the BBC wants to spread its journalism into schools…why?
‘…unless the BBC worked harder to reach younger audiences and those that felt increasingly distant more effectively, the BBC could lose a generation forever.’
I guess they just want to keep their stranglehold on what people think…get ’em young and keep ’em.
Which might be one of the reasons why we get headlines like this today:
BBC website is ‘destroying’ local newspapers and harming democracy, warns Home Secretary Theresa May
The BBC is ‘destroying’ local newspapers by using its taxpayer-funded dominance to squeeze out competition, Theresa May has warned.
The Home Secretary condemned the BBC for using the licence fee to fund websites in direct competition with regional and national newspapers.
And she warned that as papers close, fewer sources of news will become ‘dangerous to the health of democratic politics’.
Though nothing new there….from 2006:
Tories attack BBC’s web dominance
The Conservative party will today launch an attack on the BBC, saying the corporation must be stopped from “abusing its privileged position and huge resources to crowd out smaller players” on the internet.
George Osborne saying:
“As new forms of media develop, I believe that the BBC must be very careful about not abusing its privileged position and huge resources to crowd out smaller players.
“I am concerned that in too many of its non-core activities, particularly on the internet, it is stifling the growth of innovative new companies that simply can’t compete with BBC budgets,” he will say, giving video downloading as an example.
“Another example is the BBC’s plan to launch programming for local communities – what it calls ‘ultra local television’. This might sound like a reasonable idea, but it could have a ruinous effect on local newspapers and local radio stations.
“This isn’t in the interests of the British public – who are denied new products and services, and ultimately, it isn’t in the interests of the BBC who need the competition.”
So I suppose the question is ‘Will the government have the bottle to do anything about it?’
Probably not.
unless the BBC worked harder to reach younger audiences and those that felt increasingly distant more effectively, the BBC could lose a generation forever.
“”So the BBC wants to spread its journalism into schools…why? …
I guess they just want to keep their stranglehold on what people think…get ‘em young and keep ‘em.””
Yep! Just like religion. Sunday school indoctrination and all that. Get ’em while their young and while they still have malleable minds. Brainwash ’em to the hilt! Mold them into your ideology.
Let’s be fair, everyone’s out to influence the youngsters!
By and large, once you have taught people how to read and write education is a crock of shit. People learn what they want to learn.
Most teachers are crap (indeed actively bad) because being a good teacher, rather than just doing something well, is a rare personality quirk. State schools manufacture bullshit. The BBC are happy to perpetuate this state of affairs because they are on the same gravy train.
I am not against money being extracted from people with talent realise their dreams, but the problem with State system is that most of the taxes get diverted into the pockets of Guardian readers – the quintessential bullshit artists.
To avoid a society run by and for Leftists the point of decision should be the user. That it seems is all the Left amount to these days – denial of choice. The BBC promoting the Labour Party is like a dog licking its own bollocks.
PS Of course infants need teachers but women are naturally better at this than men, indeed male primary school teachers (in my experience) are generally paedophiles, and so in my opinion fretting about the gender imbalance amongst Primary School teachers is misguided.
I am not against money being extracted from people [and redistributed to people] with talent realise their dreams, but the problem with [any] State system…
Thanks – we are screaming out loud for more physics and maths teachers – my son – a 4th year undergraduate received an appeal from the SCA for tutors – especially in maths and physics.
The truth is that STEM subjects are better taught by male teachers and lecturers as they have the appropriate non-lingual abilities. Branding all male teachers as paedophiles isn’t going to help.
I was talking about male Primary school teachers. I sometimes hear people worrying about a shortage of male teachers in Primary Schools. They shouldn’t.
You are right of course about the shortage of good maths and physics teachers. I have no doubt that you are also right that the best teachers in the exact sciences are generally male, but my point is that there will always be a shortage of good teachers because a) good teachers are a rare bird b) if you are good at maths there are lots of better things to do with your life than spending it teaching children who have little or no aptitude/interest in mathematics. It is a question of how best to pick out those with aptitude and link them up with the people who can help them. A minority of the population in each case.
I am not saying that a good teacher is not a wonderful thing, I am saying that most teachers are rubbish, and most State education hinders as much as helps people by passing on attitudes and skills that impair rather than facilitate your ability to contribute to society – as opposed live off everybody else and talk bullshit.
I appreciate what you are saying – regrettably too many primary school children come from single homes where the father has done a bunk (no mention of racial stereotyping but we all know that there is variation) so they have no father figure for the first 11 years if there are no male primary teachers.
Fair point.
Good debate above you two!
I`m a maths and science teacher who will hopefully be setting up my free faith school before too long.
But-as wild says-the calibre of teachers is abysmal…State ciphers, show ponies and refugees from having to think or work for themselves. I`ve yet to meet one with a PGCE(or current equivalent) who`d not rather be a childrens TV presenter or a Guardian Gloopie!
And big hearted Arthur above is right about the sinister removal of male influence in all but pockets of the curriculum…the Muslims know better obviously, and if we don`t wise up-then they will!
Time to get off the fence now, and get the splinters out of these corduroys eh?
ChrisH you are a great man. Anybody who has you as a teacher is getting a huge break right there. The education reforms are the best thing about this government.
Sounds like a variation on the old Jesuits saying “Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man”.
I’m pleased to say it doesn’t work. I attended schools fro 6 to 17 run by Catholic orders and all it did for me (and 99.9% of my fellow pupils) was to drive dogmatic religion out of me.
Still the feeble minded may be brainwashed…
Still the feeble minded may be brainwashed…
And there are plenty of feeble-minded. How else would Labour ever get re-elected with their historically, consistently appalling track-record!
Amen
(non religious usage)
The obvious observation is; Their funding is based on a television license and therefore the use of such funds for anything other than their core activity should be questioned.
The Government has a responsibility to rein in the BBC immediately for abusing tax payer funding. Clearly the amount of tax payer money being spent on Internet activity indicates that they have income surplus to their requirements and therefore the License fee should be reduced further.
I remember the telly being wheeled into my primary school for schools programmes back in the late 60s.
How the hell did we allow the BBC to develop its “Childrens TV” output , so we have the current parent-hating, family baiting, drug-taking, love-faking sewage directly injected into our kids cultural bloodstreams?
Wonder if Coca Cola would like my alliterations above?…the Now Show won`t be wanting it…there`s “edgy”,and there`s “f** me, I`ll lose my job if I say THAT!”
Weekend rebels all-what catalysts THEY turn out to be eh?
As has been often said on this site, the BBC is undermining British democracy by its constant and increasingly blatant left wing propoganda and needs to be stopped. Democracy needs a plurality of views and we don’t get this from the BBC.
I believe that any state funded broadcaster will slowly be sucked into a left wing view because their livelihood depends on a tax and spend philosophy. However, simply stopping the license fee and letting the public decide what to pay for, is politically too difficult, owing to the ferocious rear guard action that the BBC and their liberal left establishment friends would fight. The Labour party will defend the BBC to the last ditch because it provides them with so much positive influence.
So a first step that the liberal left will struggle to argue sensibly against , of course, they will still mount their usual self contradictory arguments, would be to share out the license fee to many more broadcasters. In the short and medium term this will provide a plurality of view that British democracy desperately needs, but be difficult to mount an attack against , because how could true liberals not support having more diversity of views?
In time, once several new broadcasters had been established in the public’s mind, the BBC can be dealt with, got rid of, or privatised, and the % income that the License Fee contributes to the other broadcasters can be reduced, until they become truly commercial and the public only pays for what it wants.
To discuss whether the BBC is undermining local press and democracy as Theresa May says, R4 PM has a discussion with a Guardian journalist and a former Labour Culture Minister. A diversity of views guaranteed then, and no-one likely to share the BBC’s news agenda.
It’s a good thing journalists like Nicked Emus no longer bother with us. They’d have a lot of words to eat regarding claims that the BBC has no such influence.
‘…unless the BBC worked harder to reach younger audiences and those that felt increasingly distant more effectively, the BBC could lose a generation forever.’
OK, so lets try another tack. In the parts of the above article reporting where the BBC wishes to spread it’s all pervading tentacles, especially when it comes to the indoctrination of school children and attempting to monopolise new forms of information outlets lets try some substitutions.
Instead of BBC shall we insert News International? How about Daily Mail? Coca Cola? MacDonalds? Fox News perhaps? Anybody want to guess what the glorious b-BBC would have to say if any of those tried making the same claims as the BBC or suggested spreading their influence as widely, especially when it comes to the BBC’s attempts to force it’s way into the classroom in order to indoctrinate our children so they will not ‘lose a generation forever’.
Does anybody remember when computers first entered the home with the Sinclair and the Commodore? What was the BBC’s reaction to this new tool? They rapidly introduced the BBC Computer and, with the connivance of the Teaching Unions, had it placed in schools for “Educational Purposes” whist doing their best to push parents to buy them for homes, in preference to other makes, and all for the benefit of their children so they had the same computers at home as they used at school. They even trued to create a link, long before the internet, from TVs to their BBC Computers.
There was little doubt the BBC were intent on monopolising that form of communication also but, thank heavens, modern PCs came along with more user friendly systems and developed far faster then the BBC could keep pace with.
Ever since the rival commercial Independent TV Stations were suggested as far back as the 1950s the BBC first attacked the concept as an horrific attack on their monopoly position and, having lost that fight, have fought a rear-guard action, often using malicious propaganda, against any competition, especially those who do not follow the Party Line.
As soon as somebody moves into a niche market or opens a new form of outlet the BBC immediately use their Tax Funded monopoly financing to flood that area to swamp the newcomers and drive them out.
The reports of the BBC’s comments above show that they are now preparing to move into, monopolise, and thereby control any new form of information outlets. It is time the BBC had their wings clipped and their feathers thoroughly plucked by restricting them to the position they were in prior to there being any alternatives. Radio Broadcasting should be reduced to Radios 3, 4 and 5, the World Service and the Regional Stations, which have little commercial competition due to their nature. With TV the BBC should retain Channels 1 and 2 plus the News and Parliament Channels, the last, especially, never likely to be of and Commercial Interest due to it’s narrow audience interest. Audiences for Radios 1 and 2 are already well catered for by Commercial Music Stations across Britain.
If the BBC then want’s to move into other areas it should do so on a purely commercial basis with absolutely no funding from the TV Tax and no connection to the administration or staff employed by that part of the organisation paid for by the TV Tax. Any BBC commercial activities should be made to compete on a level playing field with their commercial competitors instead of their current unfairly biased financial advantage.
I would drop Radio 5 – but keep Radio 4 Extra, the archive channel (stuff from the heyday of broadcasting) – with the proviso that it could be devoted to sport when absolutlely necessary.
And drop the Regional radio channels – they are helping to kill local newspapers, their output is mostly dross.
The World Service ? Judging by what I hear late at night – dump the whole thing,, it has lost the purpose of presenting Britain properly.
On TV – why should the BBC have the Parliament Channel ? That could be a free-standing entity like C-Span in the US – separately funded. And the News Channel ? Close it down, there is enough news available elsewhere.
On Channels 1 and 1 – continuing both of them should be contingent on the BBC greatly improving its programming. If necessary BBC 2 should be restricted to evenings-only, they don’t have enough material to run round the clock.
This is a “bottom-up” approach – what separate elements of the BBC might be justifiable. It should be coupled with a top-down approach – maximum licence tax £50, let the BBC work within that. If they want to do anything else – it should be subscription-based. And for the longer-term, there should be further cuts in the tax, forcing the BBC to rely increasingly on subscription.
All this is on the assumption that the BBC cannot be closed down completely.
Pergaps the best approach – but it might not be politically possible – would be to force the BBC straight to subscription.
I don’t see privatisation as an answer – we don’t want to keep a bloated BBC that squashes the competition, This is dangerous for democracy. But it might be possible to privatise parts of the BBC. For instance Radio 5. Or even the World Service.