The Future of the BBC

[french frank]

You seem to be forgetting the Poll Tax.

The point about the Poll Tax was that it was a flat-rate - same for everyone; whereas I thought the Finnish system/progressive income tax, on all those liable for tax, was fairer than what they're suggesting - the household levy.

And some, at least, of the local council provision IS the same for an entire household - weekly refuse collection, for example. Whereas the provision of television as a 'poll tax' provides n separate TV sets/devices, with each member of the household having their own choice of viewing.

The point about you having to pay for 'Strictly' &c is that in all the millions of people watching it are subsidising your 'consumption' rather than the other way round.

Soup warming - back to da Jazbo's post later (if I have a response ).

[french frank]

In fact, I don't have a response I'd like this thread to remain about the select committee's report. If nobody's read it there won't be much more to say about it here ...

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

they make their thinking transparent in their summary .... scope and scale should follow funding levels; competitive threats to other interests must be minimised ... now on a read of full report

until we are able to agree a purpose for the BBC which is not a tautology based on what it does how can we agree anything else?

at some £4bn the BBC is a small expenditure in relation to Education 90.1, Protection 29.7, Welfare [not pensions] 109.8, or Defence 45.6 [all £bn]

the pressure for change comes from the corporate lobbyists from the media moguls and their commercial empires [if you watched any of the committee sessions this would be immediately apparent] and their Pals and Allies in Westminster [not merely the Tories]

the pressure for change does not come from the people; the BBC along with the NHS is an asset of the British people who presently hold Parliament and its works in contempt

[teamsaint]

The pressure for change may come from corporate lobbyists ( and we know why), but they are able to use pretty high levels of public discontent with various aspects of the BBC to support their case.

http://www.whitehouseconsulting.co.uk/public-split-on-bbc-licence-fee-but-would-support-bbc-funding-itself/

More than 50% in a Comres poll support
"abolishing the licence fee and making the BBC fund itself, even if that means adverts during programmes, reducing the number of original programmes they can produce or scrapping their public service broadcasting duty".

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2012/11/13/problem-trust/

Trust in BBC journalists is still higher than for any other group, but has fallen dramatically, (from over 80% to below 50%) in a decade.


Polls and statistics need treating with great care, of course, and discontent may have been fostered by the corporate lobbyists, but if the BBC wants to remain the monolith that it is, it needs to win quite a lot of hearts and minds back, I suggest.

Edit: That is probably off topic again?

[french frank]

Polls and statistics need treating with great care, of course, and discontent may have been fostered by the corporate lobbyists, but if the BBC wants to remain the monolith that it is, it needs to win quite a lot of hearts and minds back, I suggest.

Edit: That is probably off topic again?

I think it's relevant. The BBC itself isn't a 'public good' - at least in the public's eye - in the way that the NHS is. Or Education. And £4bn is a lot of money for what is 'some' journalism/news' thrown in with a lot of popular entertainment.

If the BBC was providing only popular entertainment, it wouldn't merit public funding. At all. So there has to be a balance between what the last government termed 'the worthy' and the popular. Prof Charlie Beckett of LSE said the BBC 'needed to reconsider what it was doing in a more systematic way'.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

well i have read it all and the following thoughts occur:

the Charter Renewal will be conducted by a Government post May 2015 and i doubt that this Cttee's Report will influence the decisions of that Government nearly as much as any coalition agreements and the size of its majority in the House will dictate, and the requirements of whoever financed their election expenses

the Cttee has produced a worthy and technocratic report that is hard for me to disagree with as far as it goes

the report fails to prescribe advertising despite the unpopularity of it and its corrosive effect on editorial guidance [HSBC Telegraf]

the report fails to address [other than quote the existing six points] public service in terms of support for civil society [in the Gellner sense] ie how an institution such as the BBC can support institutions such as family, governance, education, justice, science, universities and so on ... these indeed may be capable of more specific definitions than the laudable generic aims


in discussing partnerships the Report does not address creative partnerships with e.g. local authorities and health and welfare providers, only publishers of local newspapers; e.g.the creation of Police Commissioners has entailed whole new body of work and oversight including Independent Advisory Groups - no one is discussing how such work might benefit from broadcasting partnerships to strengthen democratic and justice institutions

the regional issue is just addressed as newspapers; it is the major challenge of the future - how can the BBC take part in a decentralisation of government and help sustain the new regional political institutions? the BBC neglects the regions [except to move to Salford] .... it is still toxically London and Celebrity obsessed

no mention is made of Universities or Colleges such as RCM/RAM - partnerships are discussed as a purely technical/commercial phenomena ... in the USA there are intimate connections between NPR and Universities in broadcasting content and services; training and development is addressed as purely a sector provision by the BBC because the commercial broadcast entities will not pay for staff training

the Cttee does not address industrial or consumer democracy so no consideration is given to a BBC Workers Council or Audience Councils, the role and format such bodies might have ... this is a serious omission Correction: the BBC does indeed have Audience Councils run by a trustee

the Report does not address the BBC's role in framing national agendas and discourse, nor the pervasive mind sets that characterise the BBC, nor how alternative understandings could be originated and presented in a more genuinely 'open society of many minds' culture within and by the BBC

the report fails to notice that its criticisms of BBC management [Saville, Exec Pay and Pay Offs &c] are generic problems in the UK, Thompson's case for his defence was that he had to do what everyone else was ... and as to sexual abuse, mendacity, and greed we need look no further than the benches of the House eh?

the Report is right to conclude that the Trust has failed imho, but it sees this failure as constitutional ... perhaps so, but a case can also be made for the competence and character of trustees and it should not have shied away from addressing the essential insider nature of the Trust membership [ex execs]

the Ctte clearly listened favourably and showed sympathy to the FoR 3 case

the recommendations for oversight and funding are pragmatic and sound imv but the next Govt to deal with these issues will not feel at all bound by a Ctte from the last parliament

[french frank]

Just one thought that will generally cover much of the above: they have said that an 'extra' two years will probably be needed to draw up the new 10-year Charter, and I would assume that much of the detail would be thrashed out then. And some would devolve down to services, surely? R3 has developed 'partnerships', for example - with orchestras and festivals.

Since the current Charter doesn't end until (exact date?) 31 December 2016 (?), there was probably not enough time to have it all sewn up before the election anyway.

Anyway, it might be the time to think in detail/positively how it could affect R3 - and offer a few good suggestions :-)

Re FoR3: as I would have read it, we said a few things which chimed in with what some of the more influential contributors were saying, and we were quoted to add support

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

[MrGongGong]

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.

A but OT but sending children to school isn't a 'legal requirement'.
Education at school or 'otherwise' (hence the name of one of the organisations that supports those who don't send their children to school) IS.

[subcontrabass]

Speech by Tony Hall: http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/spe...c-internet-era

[french frank]

Speech by Tony Hall: http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/spe...c-internet-era

I was not wholly inspired ...

[Serial_Apologist]

I was not wholly inspired ...

I feel sure that, through the rhetoric, the generalisations and the non-sequiturs, he knows what he must be on about....

[teamsaint]

I feel sure that, through the rhetoric, the generalisations and the non-sequiturs, he knows what he must be on about....

WOW. and he can tell the future too. Apparently our society is going to fragment further. from ...er...how "fragmented" it is now...compared to....um...... where it used to be....to where it is...er..... going...and so on and so on. And that is just one line..

It sounds nice on his planet.

[eighthobstruction]

....and stuff is going to follow you around telling you what more stuff you want to know about....so don't accidentally log onto an accordian or musical saw website, because then you'll be bombarded by the same such STUFF....

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I was not wholly inspired ...

Nor was he.