Greg Dyke: I will say this: in the summer before last—as someone who is interested in and always concerned about the BBC and as I looked forward—I thought this would be a very good time for the BBC. I thought the combination of a brilliant Olympics and the damage that had been inflicted on the Murdoch organisation, who are our long-term enemies, I think you could say, or certainly opponents of the BBC, meant that this could be a good period for the BBC. It just shows you how wrong you can be, really. A series of things, all coming one after the other, has led to a pretty dismal 12 months.
Why would damaging Murdoch be ‘good for the BBC’?
The Culture, Media and Sport Committee is holding an inquiry into the BBC ahead of its current Royal Charter ending in December 2016. The Royal Charter is the constitutional basis for the BBC. It sets out the public purposes of the BBC, guarantees its independence, and outlines the duties of the Trust and the Executive Board. It is supplemented by an Agreement with the Secretary of State that sits alongside the Charter, which provides detail on many of the topics outlined in the Charter and also covers the BBC’s funding and its regulatory duties.
The Committee will consider the BBC beyond 2016 and invites written submissions on any of the following questions:
- What should the BBC be for and what should be the purpose of public service broadcasting?
- How well has the BBC performed in the current Charter period in achieving its mission and public purposes?Are the public purposes in the current Charter the right ones? How might they change?
- What scope, scale and remit should the BBC have? Should the BBC’s output and services be provided to any greater or lesser degree for particular audiences? What balance should be struck in what the BBC produces in-house, commissions externally and leaves entirely to others to create?
- How have the BBC’s commercial activities during the current Charter fitted with the BBC’s public purposes and have they achieved an adequate return for licence fee payers? What should be the aims, scope and scale of such activities beyond 2016?
- What role should the BBC play in developing technology and new ways of distributing content?
- How should the BBC be funded beyond 2016? Is there a case for distributing funding for public service content more widely beyond the BBC?What comparisons can be made with the provision of public service content in other countries?
- How should the BBC be governed, regulated and held accountable beyond 2016?In a constantly evolving communications environment, does a 10-year Royal Charter and Agreement with the Secretary of State, together, provide the most appropriate constitutional framework for the BBC?
The recent sessions (click on headings for link to video of session):
Future of the BBC 14th January
Witnesses
- David Elstein, Chairman, openDemocracy.net and Broadcasting Policy Group, Claire Enders, founder, Enders Analysis Ltd, and Steve Hewlett, Guardian columnist and presenter, BBC Radio 4 Media Show
Future of the BBC 11th February
Witnesses
- Gavyn Davies OBE and Greg Dyke
- Lord Birt and Lord Grade of Yarmouth
If only Murdoch offered real opposition to the BBC! Sky is every bit as biased to the ‘progressive’ Left. Even Murdoch’s newspapers are often squishy – notably his flagship, The Times.
Alan, are you really saying that those were Geg Dyke’s words? If so this is almost unbelievable from an ex DG, and indicates an actual agenda that should have no place in a publicly funded BBC. I hope that the Comittee take note and consider how this suggests a mind set at the BBC that needs to be cleansed.
‘…the damage that had been inflicted on the Murdoch organisation, who are our long-term enemies, I think you could say, or certainly opponents of the BBC, meant that this could be a good period for the BBC”
I agree with Deborah. If these words were spoken and that transcript is faithful, my gob is well and truly smacked.
It may be honest and accurate as a belief set, but that is simply deranged to be placed on public record… by an ex BBC-DG… well, golly-gosh.
We’re talking industry (not even commercial) rivalry at best here, if with ideological differences in the mix, but a force-funded £4Bpa state media monopoly’s top tier seeing their mission as crushing opposition in such terms (‘damage inflicted’? ‘enemies’? If ever a Downfall spoof needs firing up in the bunker again, this it, with a £15,000 oil painting hanging on the wall) is downright freaky.
Alan, my apologies for the caveat.
Oral evidence: The Future of the BBC, HC 949
Well, knock down wiv’ a fevvar…
I may even be minded to drop a line to: Members present: John Whittingdale (Chair); Ben Bradshaw; Angie Bray; Conor Burns; Tracey Crouch; Philip Davies; Paul Farrelly; John Leech; Steve Rotheram; Jim Sheridan and Gerry Sutcliffe
No time to read it in full to gauge their reactions and further questions, but frankly I’m amazed they were not needing help back on their chairs after such a statement.
A bit of heavy reading beckons later.
I assumed Alan had done a parody. He actually said that? Jesus wept!
Never mind. Agent Sith will tell us why it is just fine, no doubt.
Jesus wept?…the shortest line in the Bible?
I thought that was ‘Whoops!’ – near the beginning of Genesis.
Yep…helpfully it’s right at the start of the video (no 2)…and is on the transcript.
Yes. Tx. Posts crossed in the mail:)
You will gather I am, for once, really shocked, I tell you… shocked!
This is the person who complained that the bbc was ‘hideously white’, if my memory serves me well. I must never have occurred to him that we are a white nation. What’s more bizarre is that at times, watching the bbc one could conclude that we are a predominantly ethnic nation with a few token whites thrown in to meet minority concerns.
I can’t see the obvious question that should be asked; namely, why does the bbc have to continue to exist?
And a follow up question:
If it should continue to exist why should it be funded by a compulsory television licence fee? (a commercial advantage not enjoyed by its main competitors)
Enemies, Frank, enemies, the BBC consider it has enemies not competitors and enemies it will go to any lengths to force out of business to maintain as great a monopoly position as they can get away with.
And another obvious question:
With a guaranteed budget and 70% of news and current affairs coverage (and growing) is the BBC, through it’s capacity to exert disproportionate influence, a threat to our democratic and free market media ?
Except its even worse than that. The BBC’s argument against the subscription model is that fewer people would subscribe, therefore they would have to pay more.
So not only do they think they have had an inalienable right to exist, they also think they have the right to four billion pounds per year. The they really do think that if the number of “subscribers” was halved, then the licence fee should double, all to protect the BBC in their cosy little highly paid salaries and pension bubble.
“Our long-term enemy” – astonishing that Dyke feels comfortable speaking in such a manner in a public forum. It reveals so much about their thought processes and theirarrogant sense of entitlement and narrow “we know best” attitude.
Judging by the subscription figures millions of people are perfectly happy with Sky, if only the BBC were put to the same test of having to actually earn their money by people paying for it voluntarily.
And in what way were the Olympics a “success” for the BBC? All the events and ceremony footage was provided by the Olympic Committee’s own television department. BBC input was limited to presenters and occasional interviews. It struck me as very average at best, some of it was dreadful.
These short words are great given that they really add up
for your score inside the end and they also also limit the
words your attacker can build off on. He was offered an chance to cheat
with no fear of getting caught, so he took advantage with
the situation. Note to my fellow teachers: implement the appropriate cellphone
restrictions during test-time.
Now what in the BBC charter could possibly make Murdoch ‘the enemy’ of the BBC?
Shows perfectly how openly the BBC have strayed from seeing they need to adhere to it.
I love the way the BBC wriggles and squirms to avoid the very thought of being obliged to become “commercial” and exist without being propped up by an enforced Broadcast Reception Tax whilst also availing itself of a “Commercial Arm”. Seems like they want both their cake and ha’penny and are using their preferential position when it comes to funding to obtain an unfair advantage over those they wish to destroy, their “enemies”.
If the BBC are so determined to cling to their TV Licence Extortion Racket they should be given a choice, retain the licence fee and give up all commercial activities and close their commercial arm or retain their commercial activities and abolish the TV Licence Extortion Racket. Having it both ways should not be an option they should be allowed to continue getting away with.
In terms of how our society will be shaped in the future, the issue of BBC being a state funded near monopoly and its consequent duty to be impartial, is without doubt the most important. Yet none of those submitting evidence to the committee seemed to believe that the BBC was biased in any way.The most they would concede is that it ducked important question it found unappealing. I simply do not believe that there weren’t submissions from those who think that the BBC is a creature of the liberal left. A substantial proportion of the British public think this, why weren’t they allowed to give evidence? We only heard form those who thought that the BBC was a good thing and did a good job. Couldn’t they find anyone who thought that the BBC was rotten to the core and should be closed down.
All issues about quality etc are as nothing to compared to the way the BBC manipulates and undermines the democratic process with its never ending stream of leftist propaganda.
Of course almost any other funding arrangement than the License Fee, would reduce its effectiveness as a liberal left mouthpiece. So its true to reduce the bias you need to change the funding. As no one seems to have the guts to close it down the key thing to do is stop it getting into new media. If it is confined to its current role it will wither on the vine within 10 to 20 years.
It’s increasingly looking like the ‘powers that be’ are recognising the problem(s), but are so horrified by the short term solutions, and fallout, are engaged in a classic exercise in looking like acting when in fact doing all in their power to fudge or kick into the long grass. Hence debates get framed in comfortably vague areas of tinkering whilst core abuses don’t even get a mention.
The political hit of tackling ‘Aunty’ will/would be huge. There’s already £4Bpa and 20,000 staff (hold that thought) ready to scream, plus a large chunk of the print media, and a legacy of nice docos and addictive soaps to rally the metro and sofa brigades.
And should that 20k market rate army not be as market rate as claimed, the bill on the taxpayer will be vast. It can be no coincidence that the ‘too expensive to fail’ state media monopoly is still populating executive positions hand over fist, with doubtless ironclad contracts despite Lord Tone’s assurances.
So these enquiries are all smoke and mirrors at best, to make nasty reality go away, at least for a while.
Trouble with this is the same as screwing down the lid on a pressure cooker. If the fire remains, all that happens is the pressure builds and, when released, the result is even messier.
Not a situation the calibre of public sector mandarin or Minister we have today is equipped to handle.
I have a certain respect for Greg Dyke and was surprised when he became DG as he really doesn’t come across as BBC material. He tells things as they are, and thankfully for us it exposes the mindset of the upper BBC management.
A classic quote by YENTOB on his position as a top Beeboid:-
“With his often-quoted £6m pension pot and his stake in the family firm, Dewhurst Dents, why has he carried on when he might have retired?
” ‘I love that whole egalitarian thing about the BBC.'”
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/feb/16/alan-yentob-bbc-compete-google-apps?
This is just and internal review on ‘presentation’ to a reverential committee (Culture Media and Sports) is well briefed on how the BBC operates. The Ministry would not exist without the BBC ‘mutual support’ of media propaganda. How comforting to find Lord Birt on the panel, he has history, as they say: ‘1987 John Birt became Director General. Praised for fundamental changes and cost savings that changed the ‘nature’ of the BBC from news commentator to an influential left wing lobby group employing core Labour sympathisers such as: David Aronovich (journalist Independent, The Times), Poly Tonybee (journalist Guardian) and Greg Dyke (LWT and future BBC DG for BBC). ‘ My own view is that Culture Media and Sports Ministry should not have any contact with the BBC at all. Ofcom should oversee the BBC via a much smaller ‘rump’ and sold off for £1 (to Labour). It is our biggest public liability (after the NHS and without any welfare bit or any financial responsibility). Tony Hall (Lord) is also connected to the Labour elite and part of the problem of ‘invested ‘ interests to maintain a media ‘monopoly’. i.e The Charter 2016