Same story…..completely different take:
From the Guardian 13 Sept. 2013:
Ofcom could easily regulate BBC, says chief executive
Ofcom boss Ed Richards says it would be ‘comparatively easy’ to oversee corporation, but parliament has ultimate responsibility
Ofcom ‘should not govern’ BBC, says regulator
Here’s another story that you might keep an eye on to see the BBC reaction to…none so far:
MPs try to muzzle media regulator: Fears that ‘sinister’ plans to transfer powers from Ofcom to Government will put diversity and quality in jeopardy
Not what you might think from the headline…in fact it seems to free up the commercial broadcasters….but the Independent seems to think this will adversely effect the BBC:
The Order has potentially damaging consequences for future quality standards at public service broadcasters (PSBs) ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5. Under the plans, these channels would only be subject to reviews every 10 years, instead of in the current five-year-cycle.
It is feared that such infrequent assessments will make it impossible to properly judge the value of the BBC’s provision of key public service programme areas – such as news and current affairs and children’s programmes – because of the lack of information about the other PSBs. Peers believe this could affect the BBC’s new Royal Charter and licence fee settlement, which is due at the end of 2016.
We need to go back to 1649, to modernise Britain, and abolish all media licence fees, as well as an undemocratic House of Lords that supports an undemocratic power that subverts parliament, and then have some debates in Putney, about replacing the House of Lords with direct democracy using the internet.
Quality at the BBC is already in the pits of intellectual infantilism.
On Radio 4 Analysis, Jeremy Cliffe studied the Philosophy of Russell Brand.
The BBC seems to have lost faith in Marxist-Leninism, and has now found its beliefs in the Anarcho-Populist ideas of Russell Brand.
I would say that for the BBC, Russell Brand is the Brian character in the film “Life of Brian”, as Brand’s attitude towards the BBC can be described as “I haven’t got any answers, Jeremy, and I don’t understand why you think I have”
This Philosophy can be compared to the Phythonic teachings, in the film “Life of Brian”
(1) Brand = Brian
(2) The BBC = The Followers
(3) The Labour party = The Church
(4) The BBC listeners = The Python fans
I’ll have to read in detail, but it was my understanding that OFCOM was reluctant to even think of an enhanced BBC oversight role, if maybe on a ‘who, me… We couldn’t possibly..’ faux basis. What could possibly appeal in vast extra funds to operate a hugely expanded quango?
Meanwhile, Mrs. Merton may have a question to probe the appeal of the BBC to the ex-Labour, DG-aspiring head of OFCOM.
The real regulation the BBC needs is the requirement to sell product to customers who want to pay for it rather than people forced to pay.
Until that happens it doesn’t matter which ‘independent’ state controlled body oversees the BBC, be it Ofcom or the sinister and pointless BBC Trust.
Exactly.
Unfortunately, as long as it’s moreorless given carte blanche to do whatever the hell it wants by each successive government, there won’t be any improvement. The only justification for the BBC even existing in the first place is to reflect the views and consensus of the public – not necessarily agreeing with it, but representing it correctly – while any challenging of said consensus (which is entirely necessary and right as long as it’s done in a balanced way and for the right reasons) has to be based on impartial communication of facts and not the childishly naive ideologically deranged bullshit that is currently being produced on all fronts. People who say the BBC is veering to the left in order to ‘redress the balance’ of the mostly centre-right tabloid media conveniently ignore the fact that the BBC is state-licensed and tax-payer funded by threat of prosecution. Nobody is forced to pay for Murdoch’s (often crap) output if they don’t want to, but they ARE forced to pay for the BBC. And that funding is only justifiable if the BBC is impartial as stated in the charter. Of course, the intellectually lazy in the far left claim that the BBC IS impartial by the very fact that it isn’t overtly right-wing, but the evidence doesn’t back this up. It in fact backs up the theory that the BBC has become an echo chamber of liberalism, a means by which the public is forced to pay for its own propaganda if they want to use a television they already own, even if they never watch the BBC itself. Those that endorse this are beyond unethical and are clearly politically deluded. It doesn’t matter which party you support, if you think it’s right that the BBC is state-funded on the back of a pretext that it clearly isn’t meeting just because you happen to agree with it then you cannot be trusted to be impartial or reasoned on the subject.
The BBC has to make a choice if it’s to survive – get its house in order, clear out the hand-wringing neo-Marxist chaff and get a quota that actually matters instead of one based on looking superficially diverse while having no variation in its core. Or, become a commercial broadcaster and fund itself. There’s only so much more the public are willing to put up with.
The function of the BBC for the Left is to ensure and justify the distribution of money and power to themselves i.e. they use the same approach as they do to every other other problem.
The Left do not believe in free speech (except for themselves) they do not believe in freedom of choice (except for themselves) nor do they believe in democracy (unless people vote for the Left) and so expecting the Left to dismantle the BBC (which is both a cash cow and undermines our democracy by pumping out Party approved thinking 24/7) is never going to happen.
The Left have destroyed or are destroying our education system. They dislike the idea of advancement. They have created or are creating a dependent underclass. They oppose independent thought, and have restricted free speech to an extent barely imaginable only a couple of generations ago – except for the Internet which they will no doubt attempt to regulate.
So long as they get power they care not the slightest bit about truth. They hug and kiss themselves with pride if they can subvert the voting system or exclude alternative voices from any position within the establishment.
Marx speaks to them because they have his same degraded sense of morality – everything is about their own envy and greed. If it were not so destructive it would be as sad as it is contemptible.
These days the BBC is the jewel in the crown of the Leftist establishment. It is run by and for the Left – by which I mean Guardian readers and the Left dominated public sector unions.
Guardian readers despise the aspiring working class. The public sector unions despise the aspiring middle class. Their name for them is “Sun Readers” and “Daily Mail Readers” respectively.
In short they despise anybody or anything which takes power away from themselves and gives it to the serfs. In the past this was called Feudalism – which is the default position of the Left.
They hate the “private sector” and “private enterprise”. Their fantasy is an elite (namely themselves) telling the serfs what to do. The English culture of freedom and enterprise is the epitome of everything they hate.
Their ultimate hate word is “Thatcher”. They applaud mass immigration (especially Muslim immigration) because they see it as a way for them to destroy this Country. THey are sick in the head.
You can either have a free society or you can have the BBC. Do not expect them to give you the choice. They will (if they can get away with it) ALWAYS decide (via appeals to the “public interest”) to distribute power and money to themselves.
The sooner the BBC Is scrapped the better.
Another excellent post on this topic. My only disagreement is that I simply don’t believe that the BBC can be reformed unless most of the employees are sacked and we start afresh with a new set of people who don’t hold passionate liberal left views. But having anything state funded means that over time it will become a supporter of big government and of maximising state spending. No matter how strongly such an organisation is regulated, it will become progressively more biased in favour of the left. So that even with a fresh start we will eventually end up back with a left wing state broadcaster. Therefore, I think that the second solution offered above , of a commercial broadcaster, is the only way to safeguard British democracy. I do think that there is still room for a License Fee that is used to promote good quality broadcasting. But this must be shared amongst several different fully commercial companies to commission specific types of content and it must never be their major source of funding nor ever used for News and Current Affairs content.
I take this entry to be about governance of the bBC. Today Caroline Thomson was being grilled about a £100m waste project. She was moved to a post concerning technology that she knew nothing about. So digging into thew background of the bBC lifer; wiki shows the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Thomson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Liddle,_Baron_Liddle
Notice the connection to Labour and the EU enthusiasm.
Correction the select committee was held on the 3rd Feb, they were showing it on the Parliament channel this morning. The subject is the ‘Digital Media Initiative’ project failure.
The session is compelling viewing. In it Caroline Thomson says she was made redundant, but another bloke took her position. The whole thing stinks as a post is made redundant not a person, so Thomson should not have been paid redundancy money. The top management in my view is criminally corrupt and Parliament should take action against it, they won’t of course.
I’m sure the fragrant Lucy Adams and the other 4 or so HR Directors on 100K+ salaries will have borrowed Hugs’s legal team to make sure no breach of Employment Law, just business as usual – all in a Common (and money sharing) Purpose – they do do a lot a good work for charidee no doubt – bit like Saville!
The jobs were functionally the same, but I did notice they had changed the job title to make it look legal. Take it to court and I their very thin veil of legality would fall apart.
The session is compelling viewing. In it Caroline Thomson says she was made redundant, but another bloke took her position. The whole thing stinks as a post is made redundant not a person, so Thomson should not have been paid redundancy money. The top management in my view is criminally corrupt and Parliament should take action against it, they won’t of course.