The Future of the BBC

[teamsaint]

see, I read something like this......

"This is the start of a real transformation – the myBBC revolution. How to reinvent public service broadcasting through data. But we’ll always be doing it our way – not telling you what customers like you bought, but what citizens like you would love to watch and need to know."


and I have alarm bells, sirens, and flashing warning lights just going crazy.

Because, I really, really don't want the BBC having my data.
... and being really very careful with it, honest we will.

( I know, I know, my data is all over cyber space anyway, but I don't want to pay £150 a year for the privilege, thanks Tony.)

Edit: And I also really don't need the BBC to tell me what I " Need to know". I have read novels where that happens......

[french frank]

And I also really don't need the BBC to tell me what I " Need to know". I have read novels where that happens......

Not a very happy choice of phrase! (though in context it had a certain amount of sense: if you want this kind of thing, you'll need to know this).

I'm old-fashioned, I expect in thinking that an element of 'paternalism' is needed: not just 'people' deciding what they want and 'other people' being willing to push it at them - in spades, ever more and more. But experts deciding what, in particular fields, is worthwhile (not the same as determining what people must have), in the way that teachers do.

[eighthobstruction]

'experts'....algarithms to you....<thumb on nose emoticom>

[french frank]

'experts'....algarithms to you....<thumb on nose emoticom>

'Specialists' if you prefer There are people who know a lot more about Things than I do - and I appreciate them sharing their knowledge with me!

[Bryn]

'experts'....algarithms to you....<thumb on nose emoticom>

Sure you don' mean Elgar rhythms?

[aeolium]

I have read the committee's report and think it is a good one, even allowing for some of the justifiable criticisms that calum makes. I don't think it is right to attack the report for taking the BBC to task over issues (like Savile/sex abuse/executive pay) that are clearly more widespread: the report was commenting on the shortcomings of the BBC and those were undoubtedly shortcomings. And I disagree with calum in his assertion that the public are not dissatisfied with the BBC, and particularly with the licence fee. There is concern, as ts pointed out, and surveys have shown that there is far higher support for the licence fee among AB social groups than those below these - hardly surprising, as the licence fee in its regressive nature benefits the higher earners. Also it is not good enough to exempt the BBC from criticism on the grounds that some of its critics are those with special interests or axes to grind - if criticism is solely left to these groups then we will be in a much worse state.

The recommendations of the committee I agree with are:

1) The need to look at alternatives to the licence fee, which the committee thinks is nearing its end as an acceptable form of public service funding. I have long thought it a bad and regressive form of funding, the only area of public service funding which is not linked in some way to ability to pay. And it has a wretchedly bureaucratic, petty and persecutory collection system. The committee's recommendations for a household levy akin to the German system, but with some form of means testing as in Finland, are worth pursuing.

2) The abolition of the BBC Trust, with the separation of its responsibilities so that the governance can be moved back within the BBC and the oversight in respect of complaints, financial probity and efficiency etc is made completely independent. The BBC Trust was set up to fail and it has, neither providing effective governance nor effective and independent oversight.

3) The recommendation that the BBC should concentrate on its public service imperative, and not try to do everything, particularly where it is merely aping what the commercial sector provides. The committee was right to criticise the vagueness and generality of the six public purposes as presently defined, in that it is almost impossible to measure any programme against these in a way that it might fail. Public service broadcasting must be more precisely and narrowly defined - but there is the problem and it is one that the committee (perhaps inevitably given the range of views) ducked: it is almost impossible to get agreement on what constitutes public service broadcasting, what should be excluded from it and what included. The BBC will note the general and non-specific nature of the report's criticism in this area and simply come back with the claim that they must provide something for all audiences and whenever they try to withdraw a particular service there is an outcry. Perhaps the only way is for the new Public Service Broadcasting Commission, recommended to be set up in the report, to define more precisely what PSB constitutes and monitor the BBC's performance in delivering it.

[french frank]

Thanks for that informed response, aeolium - I'd like to comment further (hope to find time later on today).

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

it is my impression [and i stand open to correction] that the BBC can and does regularly quote high levels of public satisfaction/approval in its annual reports based on reasonably conducted independent surveys e.g.

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/howwework/reports/pdf/bbc_report_trust_and_impartiality_report_may_2013.pdf

in 2004

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/18579/response/78001/attach/23/RFI20091352%20disclosure%20HC%20report.pdf

but since Saville [and other events]

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/dec/18/public-trust-bbc-jimmy-savile

latest report

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/pdf/2013-14/bbc_annualreport_201314_bbctrust_understandingaudiences.pdf

my main point remains that it is a worthy technocratic and ultimately pointless report by a body that could not withstand such scrutiny itself; it is largely within a media marketing mindset, mumbled about public service, and took no evidence, or notice, of ideas for a more community and academically embedded organisation ... noting that the six psb values are a tad general [AUNT does take them seriously in her Reports though] they applied no thought to their replacement leaving it for Charter Review [ok but why no suggestions?]

there are inherent difficulties in ascribing purpose to such a large and fissiparious and tribal institution as AUNT [see Carpenter] ... for one is there anything to suggest that the BBC can really address 'music' across all channels and media as an integrated strategy? why no consideration of separate radio and TV organisations?

of course they are right in their conclusions on the Trust, but their views of governance are entirely in the Westminster Village Mind Set and Constitutional Bodge School of Opportunistic Reforms ... both of these furies will return with a vengeance in May, until then the Westminster Gang are too busy not frightening the natives [i.e. us]

and i repeat the same kind of people will produce the same results, in Westminster and the BBC

on a national scale there are two challenges we face: economics and environmental change .... in both there has been consistent and justified criticism of the BBC by informed academic and independent researchers [cf the nature of 'dialogue' and 'balance' in presenting the environmental issues; the complete reliance on non academic economists [i.e. City Bank Economists] in presenting issues within the 'macroemedia model'] .... the Cttee spent no time on these as far as i can see, but spent a considerable amount of time listening to corporate spokespeople worried about grannies being arrested for non payment of the license [another Mail fiction as it turned out]

[french frank]

noting that the six psb values are a tad general [AUNT does take them seriously in her Reports though] they applied no thought to their replacement leaving it for Charter Review [ok but why no suggestions?]

We had suggestions which we called 'Public Commitments' rather than 'Public Purposes', referred to by the report which enclosed our amended suggestion in double quotes . I've forgotten what they were ... other than that it seemed baffling to think of the BBC having any 'purposes' at all, other than to provide 'Public Service Content' - and that revolves round a definition of what that might mean.

As for the Trust, I feel a certain affection for an organisation which has twice agreed to allow us to address their representatives when they were reviewing Radio 3. They have carried the can for Mark Thompson's acceptance of the diabolical 2010 licence fee settlement ('they should have stepped in to oppose it - in the interests of the licence fee payer')

corporate spokespeople worried about grannies being arrested for non payment of the license [another Mail fiction as it turned out]

We didn't mention grannies: we did mention the disproportionate number of women, among the prison population, for non-payment of TV licence fines ['Although women are 3 per cent of the prison population, they are a third of the jailed licence evaders.'] Given that the government of the day is empowered to freeze the licence fee, I can't see why Tony Hall is so wedded to the idea.

And, accepting that the economic situation and climate change are hugely important issues, I don't think the future of the BBC should hinge on how far their coverage is considered unsatisfactory. Nor do I agree that the report's validity is compromised because the committee is 'unable to withstand such scrutiny itself'. Trying to encompass everything is a way of achieving nothing.

Criticism should be balanced by proposing alternatives.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

I don't think the future of the BBC should hinge on how far their coverage is considered unsatisfactory

but that will be how the politicos will be moved to reform

Nor do I agree that the report's validity is compromised because the committee is 'unable to withstand such scrutiny itself'

perhaps not the validity of the conclusions it does reach, but there are many areas it does not consider and not all are to do with such as Saville .... their agenda is suspect not their inferences

i am not trying to encompass everything; the Cttee is just not much use, the Charter Review is where the action will be ... and Hall is just another menu juggler

i regret that the BBC is reduced to causing dismay by its mistakes ... in earlier days it was criticised and attacked for its provocations and it is that kind of organisation and those kinds of broadcasters i would prefer to see engaged with public service broadcasting in this country

[french frank]

or revolution

Is that the solution to Life, the Universe and Everything? Or just the future of the BBC?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

check the edit ff

meanwhile

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/13/hsbc-files-rona-fairhead-declines-answer-queries-activities-swiss-subsidiary

revolution is not the solution to anything, just needed to open the doors to new life in the ecosystems of our existence .....

a revolution that has had the life improved out of it by technocratic mediocrities

The network was broadly cultural, a Leavisite experiment dedicated to the discerning or "high-brow" listener from an educated, minority audience. Its founders' aims were seen as promoting "something fundamental to our civilisation" and as contributing to "the refinement of society".[1] Its musical output provided a wide range of serious classical music and live concerts, as well as contemporary composers and jazz. Voice formed a much higher proportion of its output than the later Radio 3, with specially commissioned plays, poetry readings, talks and documentaries. Nationally known intellectuals such as Bertrand Russell and Isaiah Berlin on philosophy or Fred Hoyle on cosmology were regular contributors.
The network became a principal patron of the arts. It commissioned many music works for broadcast by the BBC Music Department, playing a crucial role in the development of the career of composers such as Benjamin Britten. Particularly notable were its drama productions, including the radio plays of Samuel Beckett, Henry Reed (the Hilda Tablet plays), Harold Pinter, Joe Orton and Dylan Thomas, whose Under Milk Wood was written specially for the Programme. Philip O'Connor discovered Quentin Crisp in his radio interviews in 1963. Martin Esslin, BBC Director of Drama (Radio), was associated with the network's productions of European drama, and Douglas Cleverdon with its productions of poetry and radio plays.
The Programme's contribution to contemporary poetry and criticism was outstanding, under producers and presenters such as John Wain, Ludovic Kennedy, George MacBeth and Patrick Dickinson; here it promoted young writers such as Philip Larkin and Kingsley Amis, as well as the "difficult" work of David Jones and Laura Riding. The Third Programme was for many years the single largest source of copyright payments to poets.
The decision to close down the Third Programme was opposed by many within the BBC, some of them senior figures. Within the music division, a 'BBC rebellion' gathered force, with its most vocal members including Hans Keller and Robert Simpson. Ultimately, however, the attempt to prevent the culture-conscious Third being replaced by what Keller called "a daytime music station" proved unsuccessful.

what these people want is 7X24 Soma for the Gamma Delta Epsilon dopes they think we are ... that is what the media market mind set dictates ... such nonsense was unheard of outside dystopian novels in those revolutionary and aspirational days in 1946 - who now has such courage or vision?

[aeolium]

it is my impression [and i stand open to correction] that the BBC can and does regularly quote high levels of public satisfaction/approval in its annual reports based on reasonably conducted independent surveys....

Maybe, but that has not translated into unqualified support for the continuation of the licence fee, and trust has certainly been weakened over the issues of executive pay, celebrity pay, the Savile story inter al. Look at this comment on a survey re support for the licence fee back in 2008:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/aug/18/bbc.television3

Note especially the waning support as you go further north, including Scotland, and among less well-off social groups. And with declining audiences among the young since then with increased use of social media it's hardly likely to have improved.

my main point remains that it is a worthy technocratic and ultimately pointless report by a body that could not withstand such scrutiny itself; it is largely within a media marketing mindset, mumbled about public service, and took no evidence, or notice, of ideas for a more community and academically embedded organisation ... noting that the six psb values are a tad general [AUNT does take them seriously in her Reports though] they applied no thought to their replacement leaving it for Charter Review [ok but why no suggestions?]

Why is is a body that could not withstand such scrutiny? It is a cross-party committee of democratically elected public representatives - what body could be more suitable for inquiring into the future of the BBC? One chosen from the "great and the good" in a non-democratic way? And if there was no evidence of ideas for a more community and academically embedded organisation then it was not for the want of the committee soliciting such ideas since submissions were invited in a public consultation I think? I agree with your criticism that they could have tried to be more specific about the public purposes but presumably decided to leave these for the Charter Review. That isn't surprising as it would have been extremely difficult for the committee to reach consensus on those ideas - it's hard enough to get any consensus on them on this forum!

there are inherent difficulties in ascribing purpose to such a large and fissiparious and tribal institution as AUNT [see Carpenter]

There are difficulties but it still has to be attempted. What other public service, especially one receiving £4bn in public money, does not have its purposes defined?

of course they are right in their conclusions on the Trust, but their views of governance are entirely in the Westminster Village Mind Set and Constitutional Bodge School of Opportunistic Reforms ... both of these furies will return with a vengeance in May, until then the Westminster Gang are too busy not frightening the natives [i.e. us]

But a moment ago you were criticising them for NOT coming up with ideas for reform, and now they have come up with ideas for reforming governance and accountability you rubbish them without presenting your alternatives. There must be a structure which simultaneously ensures good governance of the institution as well as proper independent accountability in such a way as the BBC is safeguarded as far as is possible from political interference. The committee imv has made a good stab at such a structure - what is yours?

on a national scale there are two challenges we face: economics and environmental change .... in both there has been consistent and justified criticism of the BBC by informed academic and independent researchers [cf the nature of 'dialogue' and 'balance' in presenting the environmental issues; the complete reliance on non academic economists [i.e. City Bank Economists] in presenting issues within the 'macroemedia model'] .... the Cttee spent no time on these as far as i can see, but spent a considerable amount of time listening to corporate spokespeople worried about grannies being arrested for non payment of the license [another Mail fiction as it turned out]

But was it in the committee's TOR to review editorial questions in detail in that way? I don't think so. The committee was trying to suggest a framework in which such criticisms about editorial decisions could be given proper independent scrutiny - not looking at the decisions themselves. That to me was the right approach.

If you simply dismiss the report as another loaded attack on the BBC by a bunch of politicos then I think you do it a disservice as a serious piece of investigative work which has come up with reasonable suggestions for the way forward, quite an achievement for a committee made up of such diverse views. I think the report also shows a strong belief in the value of public service broadcasting and a desire to see it sustained not diminished.

[french frank]

I can't remember what stages there are still to go through: the committee's report goes to the Commons; then I think the DCMS(?) drafts the Charter. Do we then go through Green and White Papers before it's all signed and sealed?

The committee invited submissions from all organisations and members of the public, as well as calling 'corporate witnesses'. In our own small way we had a similar process, since we invited forum members to respond to each of the individual questions which formed the structure of our response.

I know this is hopelessly wordy, but this was our suggested for Public Commitments, rather than Public Purposes:

"We sacrifice the admirable succinctness of the Public Purposes to offer these expanded Commitments:

i) To deliver international, national and local news in an accurate, balanced and impartial way; to provide informed analysis and a plurality of views to promote an intelligent understanding of UK society and world affairs, both to UK and world audiences (through the World Service).

ii) To provide a broad range of mainstream entertainment, from the UK and the world, to serve all ages; to provide cultural and educational programming at all levels, including specialised programmes aimed at extending tastes and interests, and deepening knowledge and appreciation.

iv) To recognise and provide for the needs and requirements of a demographically, culturally and geographically diverse public.

v) To be mindful of the BBC's position in the ecology of UK broadcasting, not competing with what the commercial sector is already providing.

vi) To be a leader in developing and using new technologies and new ways of delivering output for the benefit of the public."

[Zucchini]

v) To be mindful of the BBC's position in the ecology of UK broadcasting, not competing with what the commercial sector is already providing.

So BBC1 has to go for starters because it encroaches on ITV and steals its audience. And Radios !, 2 etc have to go because they do what Capital, Heart etc are doing. And Radio 3 might as well go because it plays the same tunes as Classic FM. That should save enough money to build a BBC Entertainment Emporium for Rattle...