The Future of the BBC

[french frank]

Getting back to the DM's version, I find this quote from the committee up on screen at the moment:

"We have already touched upon the sequence of well-publicised incidents over the last few years which uncovered failings at the BBC and indicated a culture at the top of the Corporation that appeared out of step with serving the public interest and a public sector ethos. Coverage of these has undeniably dented the broadcaster’s reputation. Yet some caution that the debate around the BBC is too often led by its detractors and that recent events and the ensuing criticism ought to be kept in context."

[DracoM]

Emboldened quote - Hear! Hear!

[teamsaint]

Not really, no

of course it is.
It doesn't illuminate the discussion at all, about real demand, actual use, value for money, BBC expenditure , questions about platforms, " What the BBC does best", or anything else at all.

A big chunk of those might be people who see news 24 in the doctors waiting room,, have R1 on in the background at work, or whatever.

I'm sure we could between us find questions about access that would be more illuminating.

[french frank]

of course it is.
It doesn't illuminate the discussion at all, about real demand, actual use, value for money, BBC expenditure , questions about platforms, " What the BBC does best", or anything else at all.

A big chunk of those might be people who see news 24 in the doctors waiting room,, have R1 on in the background at work, or whatever.

I'm sure we could between us find questions about access that would be more illuminating.

Well, I would be inclined to think of public service broadcasting as a 'public good'. I don't whinge about having to pay towards schools I don't use, social services I don't use or any of the other publicly provided services which I pay for but don't use. I pay what I'm asked to pay: and would pay for BBC services if I was obliged to.

Think of the people who pay their subscriptions to Sky &c rather like those who send their children to expensive public schools and resent having to pay for schools for poor kids.

[antongould]

Well, I would be inclined to think of public service broadcasting as a 'public good'. I don't whinge about having to pay towards schools I don't use, social services I don't use or any of the other publicly provided services which I pay for but don't use. I pay what I'm asked to pay: and would pay for BBC services if I was obliged to.

Think of the people who pay their subscriptions to Sky &c rather like those who send their children to expensive public schools and resent having to pay for schools for poor kids.

IMVVHO well said ff.

[teamsaint]

Well, I would be inclined to think of public service broadcasting as a 'public good'. I don't whinge about having to pay towards schools I don't use, social services I don't use or any of the other publicly provided services which I pay for but don't use. I pay what I'm asked to pay: and would pay for BBC services if I was obliged to.

Think of the people who pay their subscriptions to Sky &c rather like those who send their children to expensive public schools and resent having to pay for schools for poor kids.

you might think of it as a public good, and I might, but many people might not. And watching TV isn't a legal requirement, unlike sending children to school, for example.

Using misleading and pointless statistics really doesn't help the BBC's cause , IMO.
If the BBC wants to retain public support, it might do well to remember that not everybody sees broadcasting issues the way that the BBC might want them to. This might especially be said of funding for R3.


Edit: Just a couple of further thoughts. Re TV, there is a lot of free to air , non BBC TV, which requires a licence.

Re other services, I would think we all complain at some time about some public services that we don't want, don't use, don't approve of, think are too lavishly provided for, (or under provided). That is part of a healthy debate, surely? And if we are obliged to pay for the BBC, (perhaps via tax) then of course we will have to pay. One good reason, possibly, to retain the voluntary licence.

anyway, I don't want to divert this, so please send this elsewhere if you wish, FF.

[french frank]

you might think of it as a public good, and I might, but many people might not. And watching TV isn't a legal requirement, unlike sending children to school, for example.

But that was my point - many things are not legal requirements for us to use, but are still legal requirements to pay for. Technically, the 'licence' is for using the receiving equipment to watch live programmes on television, and that applies to receiving commercial stations as well as the BBC. In this sense it is a flat-rate, hypothecated tax.

Using misleading and pointless statistics really doesn't help the BBC's cause , IMO.

It's your insistence that the stats are misleading, but your reference to people watching TV 'in a doctor's waiting room' doesn't show great understanding of how the figures are collected - otherwise there must be an awful lot of people spending their days in doctors' waiting rooms ...

If the BBC wants to retain public support, it might do well to remember that not everybody sees broadcasting issues the way that the BBC might want them to. This might especially be said of funding for R3.

They certainly won't get 100% support - look at the Daily Mail readers ... But independently gathered data suggest that the general public is supportive of the BBC (as they are of the Royal Family!). That also may not please everyone. Sadly people in general are much more moderate than people as individuals ...

[teamsaint]

I accept that I don't know how the figures are collected. But I don't accept that 96% means anything very much at all, other than the BBC has an enormously powerful position, in part because of its finances, which means that it is in many cases really a default option.


Anyway, the licence fee has been kicked around many times before.......

Not much comment here on the controls soon to be placed on iplayer, which I thought might be controversial.

( And as a side issue, does anybody know if it is illegal to view a live unauthorised stream of a sports event without a TV licence)?

[Old Grumpy]

Slightly off topic - I do wonder how many DM readers listen to R3

Probably too much foreign music played...

OG

[Serial_Apologist]

Emboldened quote - Hear! Hear!

Not to sure I judge it thus!

One interpretation could be including those of us who criticise R3 for dumbing down among the BBC's Daily Wail detractors - an easy generalisation designed to get them off the hook!

BTW, that quote imho ends with another howler for our Pedant's Paradise: for "In context", read "in proportion". It never IS in context - hardly anything is, in the way pundits present it.

[french frank]

One interpretation could be including those of us who criticise R3 for dumbing down among the BBC's Daily Wail detractors - an easy generalisation designed to get them off the hook!

Possibly, though one reason why I feel it has been important to call ourselves Friends of Radio 3, regardless of the jeers from OUR detractors is that we try to criticise constructively and reasonably (more jeers from the other side!).

And we are quoted twice in the committee report, in contexts where it suggests that what we were saying was being considered seriously. The point about the BBC not having 'something for everyone' ties in with our point that the 'public service' responsibilities needed to be more precisely defined. (Another view was quoted that under the current definition, it was almost impossible to produce a programme that didn't satisfy the definition). We also said that it was our opinion that funding went disproportionately towards the content that drew in the biggest audiences. They quoted that. It shouldn't (in my view) be what a public service broadcaster should consider the most important factor when allocating funding ...

[Beef Oven!]

Well, I would be inclined to think of public service broadcasting as a 'public good'. I don't whinge about having to pay towards schools I don't use, social services I don't use or any of the other publicly provided services which I pay for but don't use. I pay what I'm asked to pay: and would pay for BBC services if I was obliged to.

Think of the people who pay their subscriptions to Sky &c rather like those who send their children to expensive public schools and resent having to pay for schools for poor kids.

But for many people, using the BBC services means entertainment, and mostly, it is just that. You may draw the line differently, I suppose. It's not the same as health services, social care, education etc.

And regarding your view that you could agree the German approach, but would like to see assistance or exemptions for people who had difficulty paying, I think that is less a practical help, and more a political stance, given that at 39p per day it's hard to know who would need any help (btw, have you deleted that post, or can I not see for looking?)

[french frank]

(btw, have you deleted that post, or can I not see for looking?)

You can't see for looking

[Beef Oven!]

You can't see for looking

Ah, yes post #3 - you beat me to it!

[french frank]

Ah, yes post #3 - you beat me to it!

The point that we made in our submission was less about the actual cost but about the social consequences. This was also what the committee said: "Our view is that the justification for criminal penalties for non-payment of the TV licence fee and the way TV licensing enforcement is carried out is anachronistic and out of proportion with responses to non-payment for other services. "

We said:

"The licence fee has served the BBC well over the years but the inescapable fact is that it is an inherently regressive mechanism for raising funds, with the burden falling disproportionately on the poor/women who bear the brunt of prosecutions, fines and ultimately imprisonment if they cannot pay the fines."

So 'only 39p a day' didn't come into it.