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?
