I am reminded by a Biased BBC read that there is a Select committee gathering evidence on the future of the BBC.
“I don’t believe that this has been covered before, but the select committee is currently gathering evidence which it will put before the government in a report sometime in September. The remit is wide and includes issues of Bias, monitoring, who should oversee the complaints, the licence fee, and many many other areas of concern to us.
People can submit their thoughts at the Culture Media & Sport web page on a section named ‘Future of the BBC’
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/future-of-the-bbc/
The more we are able to represent our position, especially in well written cogent form then the more chance we will have to influence the outcome positively.”
“The more we are able to represent our position, especially in well written cogent form then the more chance we will have to influence the outcome positively.” Do everyone a favour and get some of the regulars on here to pull something together, but just remember not to overdo the use of random bolding of text.
‘on here’
Not sure who that presumptively inclusive ‘everyone’ may include, but don’t forget when there’s nothing good, or indeed on topic, or frankly anything to say, space can still be filled with a bit of generic grammar policing.
The submission page of course can be used to submit bouquets as well as brickbats, so maybe regular Flokkers could get cracking before its closed for comments, unless less positive commitments here preclude.
I think I could write a book to submit, but I wonder if it is best to submit all the issues in one enormous whinge, or to separate them in the hope of greater impact.
You have a point, but the parameters laid out may not favour such an approach. They do separate out things like editorial bias, governance, funding, etc (and so far, sadly, the importance accorded by the committee has been in reverse order. It has mostly been about how they secure their unique £4Bpa in the digital age, a little about on how OFCOM might be OK if the Trust is no longer trusted, ensuring no one gets near being held to account still, and near nothing on vast breaches of professional accuracy, objectivity or integrity).
What has been interesting is how some of the BBC submissions at the start clearly breached these parameters yet still got published.
And boy did theirs fall under the category of ‘whinge’, which I would venture to suggest can be an unfairly self-deprecatory term when describing legitimate concerns of licence fee payers.
I’m considering making a submission but before I do so, I’d welcome any comments. I think my submission only has to say the following :
1. Privatise the bbc and make it subscription only; so, it one doesn’t want to watch the bbc, one is not prevented from watching other live broadcast tv stations as a consequence.
2. Make Ofcom responsible for the bbc in the same way that other tv stations are monitored and regulated.
Do these two things and all other concerns will naturally be addressed.
and
3. Abolish all state broadcasting; there is no longer a need for us to fund government propaganda machinery.
If you don’t mind my suggestion John.
Judging by your contributions here you have many reasons to want to see the BBC privatised, as most of us here do.
While I think it would be counter-productive to list all of your reasons, it might well be worth while to select the most grievous and explain just why the existing system fails in this regard, and just how privatising them would offer a better solution.
Give them the ammo and do their thinking for them. 😉
My view is that the best line of attack is on funding and domination of the media in the UK.
All our concerns about leftist bias will be viewed as matters of opinion and the left will come up with examples of the BBC, in their view at least , favouring the right, so the committee will take the old cliched easy way out, that claims of bias from left and right must mean the BBC ‘has got it about right’. We must recognise that politicians are scared to death of the BBC and we need to find them a way of getting rid of it , or at least cutting it down to size , that they feel able to support.
The domination of the BBC is a weak spot. Everyone , including the BBC , agrees that if there were the same level of domination by one provider in any other industrial sphere something would have to be done to reduce it. They also agree that allowing a privately owned media group to have a % share higher than 20% is a ‘bad’ thing eg Murdoch. So a good question is, if it is so important to have a great diversity of view in our democracy, why is the BBC not subject to those competition rules? Basically the more sources of news and opinion we have the better for our democracy.
On funding, the fact that the BBC is now so large and mainly sustained by a universal non progressive poll tax, is anachronistic in the 21st century. The state funded BBC blocks the emergence of new commercial rivals as there simply isn’t enough space for them to grow and flourish . This denies the British people diversity of entertainment , news and views. Also it forces people who do not wish to watch or listen to the BBC to pay for it. There is no reason why the BBC cannot become a subscription channel and those who use it can pay for it.
If the view is that lack of state funding will reduce the ‘quality’ of what is broadcast then the LF should be divided up amongst a much wider pool of companies and not just given to the BBC. Perhaps there is a role for something like to Arts Council to commission programmes from different providers.
Finally, new technology means that TV sets will soon be a thing of the past. So the LF model will have to be replaced and quickly. New Technology allows all sorts of companies to create and sell content. We should be encouraging this and must not allow the BBC to dominate and shade out the new ventures by allowing it dominate new technology as it has done in broadcasting for the past 80 years.
Excuse the re-post, but before I included a bunch of URLs to sub-link transcripts from that main committee site, which saw the post held up for modding all day. I’ve removed most here in hope it will appear immediately:
The focus seems more on the in-person oral evidence from various selected, guests, experts and witnesses, many of who seem to either owe the BBC a living, depend on it for their pensions or simply appear smitten.
And almost all seem to be pretty clear that the BBC does a great job so the only real issue is making sure it keeps getting its unique funding via compulsion, and maintains that ‘we only hold others to account’ accountability epitomised by the Trust’s recent ex-chair, whose unexpected departure has managed to throw a few spanners in a few works whilst bringing spotlights on dark corners some clearly thought would get away with anything if those darn kids could be kept occupied elsewhere.
Let’s have a quick look at what has been run up the flagpole, and then saluted, thus far:
-5368.html
Potentially promising start, but stacked from the off like a BBC QT panel and audience either side of the table.
The only dissenting voice David Elstein, and even then he opens by saying he’s ‘a great admirer and strong supporter of the BBC’.
This was the session that already caused my concerns when Steve ‘no conflict of interest at all’ Hewlettt suddenly chimed in on 28Gate (see Qu10) professing not to know much about it but then having an awful lot to say in the BBC defence.
Which MP Angie Bray was trying to amplify upon before being told to shut up.
There was also an insight to the mindset and priorities of the rest of the committee:
Q22 Mr Leech: The reason for my argument is that you started off with quite a lengthy contribution, starting off by saying that you were a big supporter of the BBC but then gave numerous reasons as to why you did not really like the BBC at all.
David Elstein: Honestly, Mr Leech, you can’t have been listening to me very carefully. I am a strong supporter of the BBC. I wish it were a bigger, better, bolder, braver, richer organisation than it is, funded voluntarily by citizens of the UK and elsewhere. That’s all I have to say about the BBC.
Mr. Farrelly also seems a fan.
We also get to hear from Ben Bradshaw:
Q47 Mr Bradshaw: a number of other countries with strong public service broadcasting traditions have moved away from a licence fee, either to funding their public service broadcasting by general taxation or to funding it by household charge. Would that not overcome some of your objections to the licence fee without jeopardising the funding stream or the BBC’s independence?
He does seem to view this more in terms of how to keep things going as is rather than any question on how well it manages on the current £4Bpa compelled funding less the loophole opt-out losses they are all trying to plug and drag those with real issues with BBC professional performance back into doing so by force.
Jim Sheridan seems a fan, too, and keen to share interesting facts it may have been of value to see less BBCphilic committee members or experts in the mix to challenge if in error:
Q64 Jim Sheridan: The figures that I have seen are that the popularity of the licence fee is increasing in the last decade. I think it is up to 47% compared with 31% just a decade ago. What I am intrigued by is that the costs of collecting the licence fee are relatively low. Would there be any significant change for the alternative method, subscription?
Paul Farrelly then chimes in again to try and put words in David Elstein’s mouth. He also refers to lack of time and wanting to get on governance.
Handed to BBC groupie Claire Enders to mea gulp a lot, but basically waffle the time away until Steve Hewlett kills off the rest in his best ‘it was another time’ manner.
Governance opinion barely afforded the sole vaguely BBC critical witness there.
Philip Davies’ question was facile and the answers lost in the rush to close. Job done.
-6170.html
A hideously white male session asking a bunch of guys just how much they’d like their index-linked golden pensions to stay golden and any dodgy activities taken kept under wraps for ever.
Like that was going to go any other way.
Again Mr. Sutcliffe being more than undertstanding that no one knew anything about Saville then, or now, and this was understandable.
Then of course there’s Mr. Farrelly:
Q89 Paul Farrelly: Greg, you mentioned the BBC has enemies, both ideological and commercial. In one area, News Corp probably would dearly love to restrict that website, the BBC being a free source of online news.
Not sure Murdoch or the DM had much to do with McAlpine though, Paul. That seemed pretty much all BBC.
But mostly it’s about keeping the money spigot open, on full:
Q99 Mr Bradshaw: Could I ask you for your views on the desirability and sustainability of the licence fee as the long-term funding mechanism for the BBC?
Angie Bray a lone voice trying to delve a bit deeper. And again some claims being bandied about I’d have liked an actual informed, impartial guide on, as the BBC big-wigs clearly only read BBC PR. And it is, also, very well funded to tell the BBC story often enough.
Anyway, at least governance was again popped at the end for a quickie:
Q114 Mr Bradshaw: Why not just change it into a more normal-looking board with a chairman and give the regulatory responsibilities to Ofcom?
That would be under DG-applicant Ed Richards, friend and colleague once to Ben, James Purnell and so many others in the revolving door between Labour and the BBC, now overseen by the Trust in interim by a Labour Minister’s adviser.
-8328.html
More insiders and academics. Public interest, what public interest?
Professor Beckett: I will start. In terms of its actual performance, most people’s experience of the BBC is of services that have improved generally in terms of quality, usability and so on.
Most people being his gilded, ideological circle?
They are clearly trying to wear folk out and grind them down by attrition.
These clowns are paid no matter what to deal in this guff.
Who else, out in the real word, has time to wade through all this?
Let me skip to one exchange on the done deal of funding options:
Professor Barwise: I am still in reasonably amicable dialogue with Elstein and—
Chair: You cannot say nobody disputes your findings.
Professor Barwise: What I meant is that no economists dispute my findings.
Showing just how wild the claims are and how often goalposts get moved if you take the eye of the ball for a split second.
And… yet again… governance is tacked on in a rush at the end, with editorial supposedly overseen a non-issue by now.
And frankly the answers were pure partisan or waffle, with near zero challenge from a committee that always seem keener on lunch than anything.
Next (which is what they are banking on- near every utterance of witnesses and committee deserves a fisking. Who, anywhere, supporter or critic, MP or activist, could put hand on heart and say they have read through all this?)…
-6881.html
Old boys and girls arguing over pie shares, not how well the pie is prepared and served, or the ability of the audience to not be fed it and/or pay no matter what.
I simply cite this one ‘question’ to show how this committee seems set up:
Q159 Mr Bradshaw: You go on about the things that you think the BBC should be doing, but do you not at least acknowledge the argument that the only way the BBC can do these things—the public value, the distinctiveness—is because of its funding through the licence fee, which is only justified because of its universal appeal, including Radio 1 and Radio 2? You are nodding, so you do agree with that.
It’s like listening to a Today or watching a Newsnight ‘interview’, with the person being interviewed mainly existing so the BBC view can be pushed.
So, again, near zero on actual calibre of service delivery or oversight. Just industry insiders jockeying for a slice of public pie or worrying about turf.
Next….
-8476.html
Sorry, they have worn me out.
It’s pure attrition.
The BBC will get its money, and a toothless oversight system, and blanket immunity from being held to account, because vast public funds have been spent paying public sector professional committee wafflers to generate vast reams of guff so those who want the gravy train to continue can simply get it signed off by their mates.
I’ll stay with this showcase of Yes Ministerial ushering a national treasure into a new, comfier, more secure age, but if the core issues of the BBC failing across the board on accuracy, objectivity and integrity of editorial are actually addressed I’d better not blink, and likewise with governance also being a neat little old-boys’ club stitch up with censorship of critics kept as a given, little secret, like Jimmy & Stuart’s activities.
Meanwhile the rest of the media estate, even those tasked with checking out each other, will quickly scan a BBC press release and spout as their tribal hearts’ desire based on the executive summary.
If you look at the original, written submissions, you can see who has had what to say and who has been called in to ‘submit’ more in person.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/future-of-the-bbc/?type=Written#pnlPublicationFilter
So far, all insiders, and no public.
Here’s the last, on specific topic, so far none that I can see reflected at all in the committee’s deliberations:
Written evidence submitted by Peter Ward [FBB00116]
Overall summary:
The ‘Licence’ is in fact a Tax.
It is illegal under EU law
It is preventing competition
It is immoral and outdated
It is but a view, but it is not a lone one, and should be heard and discussed.
As someone recently suggested, those who ask questions should be accorded the respect of considering them properly.
Even if the BBC SOP is to ignore or in some cases try and erase any that don’t suit.
Although I concur with the above (Guest Who) there are however those of all parties who seek limp favor with the BBC. Gratitude and Grandeur as exemplified by Cameron (who is clearly influenced by such corporate liberal values). The BBC is indeed bloated ‘bad value’ but it is valued (by the same political elite) as the Crown Jewels. The Liberals having the upper hand in the Lords will ensure the BBC Titanic will limp into port (having lost some passengers along the way) including most of it’s own staff who seem wiser after they’ve left the selfish corporate embrace. Cash in hand with gagging order intact. Hate is the wrong word for corruption but without doubt it is the most politically incestuous corrupt and biased display of supposed ‘news’ – lacking any real value. The BBC is the (subset) political party reliant on public taxation and EU handouts. It does quite well on the fat of politicians alongside a history of fostering sexual perverts as celebrities. It cannot ever be trusted.
Christopher Booker: today’s ‘Sunday Telegraph’ (£):-
“The BBC is beyond hope.”
[Excerpt]:-
“Arguably, the biggest betrayal of all, because it so flagrantly defies the BBC’s statutory obligation to ‘impartiality’, has been the way its output has become dominated by that all-pervasive political and cultural bias that gives it such a recognisable ‘party line’ on pretty well every issue of the day.”
“Bye bye, Patten”
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4933/bye_bye_patten