Here is another guest submission, this time from Biased BBC contributor Guess Who? It’s on the issue of the Parliamentary Discussion into the future of the BBC. It is lengthy, detailed and astute analysis and I commend it you.
“The remit is wide and covers issues like bias, accountability, size, licence fee etc.’
Well, in theory all of the above. But mostly so far the last, best I can see.
The initial submission posts did cover a fair spread, and the process is in theory ongoing:
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
However, that is a wee bit tucked away (last back in March), and 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:
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/culture-media-and-sport-committee/future-of-the-bbc/oral/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.
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/culture-media-and-sport-committee/future-of-the-bbc/oral/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:
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/bbc-spending-slick-pr-condemned-after-website-reveals-220-press-contacts
One wonders if they ever post elsewhere under rotating nicknames?
Anyway, at least governance was agin 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.
What follows is a bunch of Lords a-leaping. Add Hall & Patten and the number of Lords seems to exceed anyone actually capable of operating on a day-to-day basis.
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/culture-media-and-sport-committee/future-of-the-bbc/oral/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?)…
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/culture-media-and-sport-committee/future-of-the-bbc/oral/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….
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/culture-media-and-sport-committee/future-of-the-bbc/oral/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:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10813893/The-future-of-the-BBC-is-at-stake-and-David-Cameron-must-take-control.html
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/may/08/howard-stringer-bbc-trust-chairman-martin-sorrell-wpp?
I’ll leave the last quote to a poster responding to one of those odd BBC-supportive one line posters in no way connected to the special projects PR budget who see even discussing the future of a £4Bpa broadcast monopoly as something to be contained:
Vlad_the_Inhaler
No-one is taking about banning views. But you seem to think it’s fine that we should all be forced to pay for an organisation that voices only your views?
bbcs coverage of the euro elections tonight has been described as shambolic and disorderly,not my words but the words of the labour mp tony mcnulty.
A many-layered onion this site isn`t it?
I myself have no interest in the details of the BBC as it relates to Parliament…and rarely complain at the BBC slurry via its approved sluices like websites or MPs etc.
Reckon we`re way beyond that.
But I do appreciate those like yourself that do use the approved channels and DO care what select committees say.
AS St Nigel of Albion said-some of us are warriors, others are necessary speakers to rally around…was it fixed bayonets as opposed to assassins?
Again as he might have said-the UKIP fox is already in the Westminster duck house…all he need do isabolish the BBC License fee in the coming manifesto, and he will sweep the board here in the UK(what`s left of it by then, anyway).
Won`t his party have to change its name if the Scots vote for independence?…”how queer” as the Fast Show says?
Thank you for that.
‘use the approved channels and DO care what select committees say’
On the former, one can tilt at windwills all one likes, but when the ‘game’ rules are set by a very small minority in control of ball, ref, linesmen, pitch, stadium and sponsors, the temptation is great to try and avoid ‘approved’ channels, but doing so is a route to early disappointment.
Of course the whole thing is rigged, by the BBC to make sure the BBC answers to no one, on anything. Hence a labyrinth guarded by conscience-free drones versed in the art of attrition, denial and deflection.
The trick is to play their game, if possible better than they play it themselves. They often can’t resist engaging, and with great engagement comes great opportunity for errors to creep in.
Akin to getting Flokkers like the current on-station irony-free zone apoplectic about the rules of trolling. Always a giggle.
Of course it consumes time, requires a cheery nature and a thick hide.
But it does need doing.
All it takes for CECUTT to prevail is that good folk give up at the first comfort in belief that the BBC has got it about right.
Currently the BBC is overseen by the BBC, which takes special skills all round, but especially in Westminster, to not notice the potential for conflicts of interest or abuse.
A bit like when a senior political editor lets an entire bag-lady’s worth of cats out of the ‘professional enough to leave their politics at the door’ bag ((c) Boaden. H, et al) and is merely popped on side-step duties until things blow over, while Mary Hockaday pens a ‘don’t get caught’ memo. I think at least three posters here have shared their responses from CECUTT, where titles and signatories have varied, but the template has been identical.
It will be interesting what comes back if any feel this may not be the level of trusted transparency and desire to hear views so often claimed, and boots it up through ECU or even as far as the..’Trust’. This being the entity so rarified that the Pollard Review noted they mostly had no clue what was actually going on even internally as the staff below filtered their briefings like BBC Editors and Producers oversee what vox pops and story lines go through, or get dropped.
Hence my interest in select committees.
These can matter, even to the BBC, as they can’t tell such folk that it’s ‘all their little secret’ (though a few, like Chris Patten, did their best) and get lids put on. Of course they can still slap that all-purpose ‘for the purposes of journalism’ get-out-of-answering-free card even on our highest elected representatives.
But it doesn’t look good. The MPs feel dissed and moan, and even the MSM notices when that happens.
Hence the attempt to keep stuff like this inquiry low key.
One good way is to adopt the same attrition practices that get CECUTT so many passes.
Look at the reams and reams of guff already out there.
I have read it all, but a little part of me died doing it.
That’s what they rely on.
They are hoping 99.9999% of the population, and especially time-poor politicians and rushed editorial staff (even media beat specialists) won’t read it, much less between the lines.
But as with Al Capone and his taxes, often the most innocuous missed snippet can offer the humble Padawan the vent hole to reprise swamp rat strafing on the most indestructible of Death Stars.
Worth a try anyway.
The Farce with the BBC strong is:)
My local MP is a national figure of some renown…and a good bloke, exceedingly bright.
But he could do nothing to deal with an NHS quango with who I was locked in dispute…I have not come across such a bunch of evil. lying money grubbers( the NHS quango, not the MPs!).
The letters that they sent the MP in my case were dripping with scorn and contempt-democratic process and appeals procedures , my arse being the drift from their £2000,000 “CEO” and his ciphers.
What I`m saying is that we are now post-political and post-democratic…if such people who Labour left in post can treat my MP…or indeed Andrew Mitchell etal with such indifference or nastiness…then all my 1970s notes on Government and Political Sciences are redundant.
The world doesn`t work this way any more-and much as I respect anybodys rights to use the approved channels of complaint…they only seem to respond to media scorn, mockery and comedy stunts.
UKIP are part of this…so good on `em!
You raise an important point, about proxies, powers, mandates and how, amongst other issues, they can relate between our elected representatives and the currently unelected in perpetuity, self-regulating, unaccountable national broadcaster.
My MP is a ‘rising star’, and destined for bigger things, currently biding his time campaigning and getting his picture in the paper on things like closing post offices.
He certainly is a back bencher with clout already.
However I soon learned that any proxy afforded him to speak on my behalf on big issues was an illusion, and on specifics he had all the power of a copy typist.
Though he has, once, voted on conscience, he is as whipped to party as most of them. So my mandate was frittered to nothing the first time his leader was in a fix.
And like you, in dealing with errant corporations or quangos, his only function has ever been to forward or cover note a letter to a CEO or Minister which has then taken a month to come back telling us to get knotted.
So why vote for him? He simply facilitates his party, whose policies and leader I mostly despise. Ironically they are the least awful of a very awful lot, so come the GE dilemmas abound. As another here has pointed out, splitting the vote sees Miliband in. Tempting as a bit of a purge may be needed to flush the system, but can I inflict him and his GOAT-reruns on my kids. Not sure I am enough of a nihilistic anarchist to wish that on them.
The only ones I actually have time for are my town council. I know them and I know who works hard and gets results, and who is a blowhard. Nominally they are tied to rosettes, but not too much. Frankly all did themselves no favours campaigning for their MEP colleagues locally, purely on party loyalty. Roland D tipped it for me, or at least had me prepared when I saw the ballot. Over half a dozen names bunched. The local MEP I like and has retained her seat, but they are all congratulating her. But the box was simply to tick through a whole region of bozos I’ve never heard of, simply because they share a party. Nuts.
So the whole political set-up is either hopelessly stuck in an ‘always been that way’ rut, bent, or venal. Even the few honest ones with integrity are hamstrung.
Say UKIP won every seat in the UK. Given what the BBC is likely to be pulling from now to the GE if the EU elections are a guide, they’d be entitled to shut the place down the next day. It would be like leaving a fifth column of Goebbels-trained and still loyal saboteurs in charge of the nation’s broadcast system following VE-Day.
But of course, now, they could not.
20,000 basically useless civil servants on the dole, albeit already gilded pension-protected to the day they die? Unthinkable.
Then there would be the howl from other quarters. Luvviedom would erupt. Without the BBC the Graun’s influence would barely reach anyone, but it would suddenly see voice from SKY through C4. Few broadcasters are not Aunty’s alumni.
So the probable best option is the drip-drip exsanguination of a thousand cuts.
The BBC actually self-harms more than any exterior force. All the cock-ups, waste, eye-watering pay deals, scandals, etc. Then TVL/Capita. Their excesses are highlighting in complement what literal forces there are to uniquely fund what is mostly a shambles.
It is slowly registering. And the internet is slowly showing how anachronistic the BBC unique model is, as well as patently unfair in the global village of 2014+.
200+ BBC footie fans funded off to Brazil soon to bring those that want it what all other countries can deliver, actually free, probably also concentrating on actual football than a slew of ‘while I’m here’ personal projects in name of information and education.
These are vast sums, taken by compulsion, no questions allowed to be asked, or if barely answered, by a BBC spokesperson citing FoI exclusions.
Now all this falls under the inquiry’s remit.
However, to date, it has barely gone near these, preferring instead to wheel on endless BBCphiles to see just which method best ensures the fee gets imposed without choice without a hitch.
And accountability stays in a safe pair of hands.
That said, the apparent favoured option, OFCOM, may just have just hit a slight road bump:
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/its-ofcom-wot-won-it.html
James’ roomy Ed when both were planning Tony’s genius direction for the country may be in the doghouse.
The committee may need to reponder.
The written submissions do not seem to be available yet. I believe that they could include the dynamite that has already caused a decision by the committee, to abolish the Licence fee, news which was actual reported in a small piece in the Daily Mail were John Whittingdale told the BBC that it would not survive, I have already seen one of those submissions by the Space Special Interest group of Mensa to the committee were the chairman just happens to be the only Mensan Parliamentarian and who also studied Astronomy at University. I also know that Philip Davies is a good egg, who would also be helpful with the abolition of the licence fee.