The Future of the BBC

[french frank]

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...

That's extrapolating what isn't written - not like you to do that, Zucchero!

The BBC has its defence ready for how it measures its 'distinctiveness'. But for starters, I don't think 'being mindful &c' would imply 'never, ever playing the same tune'.

[aeolium]

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."

I don't think these Commitments are "hopelessly wordy", ff & they seem better than the vaguely articulated public purposes. If anything I would make them even wordier I would split the two objectives contained within the first Commitment, as I think the requirement for plurality of views really needs emphasising as it is so important (and I agree with calum that it is an area in which the BBC fall down at present, particularly in representing the different ideas around economic alternatives where the BBC has been slow to catch up with developments). Again, the second Commitment conflates two different objectives and I would separate these out. The fifth Commitment is the difficult one and perhaps "not competing" needs to be replaced by "not unduly competing"; but to ensure that this went beyond vague aspiration, there would need to be a detailed elaboration of how this was to be achieved, possibly with quotas for innovative work and restrictions on purely derivative formulaic programming. As to the sixth Commitment, should the BBC be a leader in this or should it merely be adapting to use the new technologies that appear (this is a genuine question, as I am open-minded on it - I just didn't want precious resources to be diverted from the most important work of developing programmes)? And finally, does there need to be an additional specific Commitment requiring the BBC to take risks, both in its cultural and documentary provision, in the way that it certainly used to and which the commercial sector with its concern about ratings for advertising revenue might not? I think this is important since it is at the core of what is lacking in today's BBC where a fear of offending and risk-taking has resulted in a damaging blandness which may offend little but also may please and interest little.

[french frank]

Well, i) was supposed to refer to 'Inform' (which would include giving the plurality of views), ii) conflates 'Entertain' and 'Educate'.

Was iii) omitted ? Perhaps ii) should have been ii) & iii).

iv) was what remained of one of the current Public Purposes

and v) pace Zucchini's comments, was simply writing into the Public Commitments what was already in the Charter under General Duties §23 ('In exercising all its functions, the Trust must act in the public interest and, in particular, it must [...] (e) have regard to the competitive impact of the BBC’s activities on the wider market'); this is further detailed in the Agreement §66 Competitive Impact 3 a) 'In formulating its codes the Trust must have regard—
(a) to the extent that the Trust considers them to be relevant, to any fair and effective competition codes issued by Ofcom for the purpose of applying to any description of broadcasters other than the BBC'

vi) does depend on the BBC remaining a strong, well financed organisation

Added - on the 'risk-taking', yes! The BBC's defence of the current film made about the rape in India is absolutely what the corporation should be proud of.

[aeolium]

On v) I was not thinking so much of the competitive impact, though of course that is important (and was discussed in some detail in the report), but more of the committee's criticism that the BBC should not merely duplicate or echo programming that is being provided in the commercial sector, because it is the purpose of public sector broadcasting to provide what the commercial sector for a variety of reasons is unable or unwilling to. And this feeds into the "risk" issue, as well as the obligation to serve minority as well as majority audiences, something that the commercial sector does not have.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

aeolium if you check back i think you will find that i endorsed the changes to the Trust and financing arrangements proposed by the Committee; and indeed i characterised the report as worthy and technocratic .... but out of time and not to the point of the BBC ... the debate about what kind of BBC we might wish to have is prior in my mind to discussions of governance and financing [which are bedevilled by the toxicities of high salaries, abuse of power, sex scandals, mendacity and fraudulent or disproportionate expense claims - charges which do not only apply to the BBC but much of out political, commercial and industrial elites as well]

so the Cttee may well have done a half decent job on what they set out to do, but i think they in particular should not have done it; they addressed the subsidiary questions, they offer some welcome protection against political predation of the BBC by their governance and financing but its impact will be minimal post the election ... let me offer Leveson as an example of a public service inquiry or indeed Chilcott; where are we with them?

my essential point is that our present politics is incapable of determining public good or the virtues of common wealth or social ownership ... our politics struggles mightily with two major institutions, the BBC and the NHS, since it is incapable of uttering articulate and sound propositions concerning collective and public ownership, distribution, and rights ... it has no difficulty with private property, distributive justice and individual rights [responsibilities and accountabilities are much trickier since they imply a collective entity even if only the 'Crown'] ... they simply do not have the ideas language or intellectual practices to arrive at collective solutions .... alas our dear BBC is a collectively determined and derived entity .... i therefore do not expect nor hope for acceptable ideas from the presently constituted Parliament or Civil Service ...

viewing the world as entirely transactional and market based leads directly to the recent problems we notice in the press regarding Serco, inter alia ..... a transactional and market defined BBC is the last solution i would care to see ... never mind that Hall speaks of 'Binding the Nation' he and his cronies in Westminster are simply incapable of such an achievement

[aeolium]

so the Cttee may well have done a half decent job on what they set out to do, but i think they in particular should not have done it; they addressed the subsidiary questions, they offer some welcome protection against political predation of the BBC by their governance and financing but its impact will be minimal post the election ... let me offer Leveson as an example of a public service inquiry or indeed Chilcott; where are we with them?

Calum, you keep saying that this committee should not have done this report without saying who you think should, or why you think whoever should would be better qualified to as representatives of the common weal. You refer elsewhere to the BBC being a collective entity, but we as "the collective" cannot express a collective opinion on it like some gigantic chorus. There are only individual and representative opinions which have in some way to be taken into account and conclusions drawn. Some body is needed to do that. It could have been through a public inquiry though, as you have shown, these are lengthy and expensive and not necessarily the most effective way to come to conclusions.

my essential point is that our present politics is incapable of determining public good or the virtues of common wealth or social ownership ... our politics struggles mightily with two major institutions, the BBC and the NHS, since it is incapable of uttering articulate and sound propositions concerning collective and public ownership, distribution, and rights ... it has no difficulty with private property, distributive justice and individual rights [responsibilities and accountabilities are much trickier since they imply a collective entity even if only the 'Crown'] ... they simply do not have the ideas language or intellectual practices to arrive at collective solutions .... alas our dear BBC is a collectively determined and derived entity .... i therefore do not expect nor hope for acceptable ideas from the presently constituted Parliament or Civil Service ...

I disagree with this. I don't think the "ideas, language or intellectual practices" required are of such an Olympian nature that they cannot result in practical and achievable suggestions for change - after all, most people have an opinion about the BBC and most people want to see it continue as a publicly run institution. Also yours is a counsel of despair which I think would lead to an even worse outcome for the BBC: namely, that the powerful commercial and ideological predators who want to see the BBC enfeebled and perhaps dismembered would have even greater influence. The committee has I think done a reasonable job in resisting that pressure and standing up for the idea and institution of public service broadcasting. I see nothing in the report to reflect a world view that is "transactional and market based".

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

and i see nothing in their efforts to protect us from a world view that is "transactional and market based".

but enough for and from me on this

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

except i feel this is noteworthy as a good example of public service

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31834927

[french frank]

except i feel this is noteworthy as a good example of public service
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31834927

Yes, as a collaborative effort. I just hope all these projects (like 'Ten Pieces') aren't one-offs - they benefit one year, but how do you continue?

[eighthobstruction]

....of course they will have to be scanned for lefty leaning/ manipulating spy-ware before being sent out....

[teamsaint]

....of course they will have to be scanned for lefty leaning/ manipulating spy-ware before being sent out....

don't you just love stats that appear out of nowhere, apparently....1.4 million in the next 5 years. wonder where that came from?

and the list of partners including BT, ( worst of breed 2015) and Google isn't too encouraging.

priorities, priorities. fill our digital skills gap...there may be a job for you one day. Maybe.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

....of course they will have to be scanned for lefty leaning/ manipulating spy-ware before being sent out....

... and bad tempered boozy bullying members of the Chipping Norton Stables Set will not get one in the post .... will they be hacked orf?

[teamsaint]

looks like the plan to charge for iplayer is full steam ahead.
or was it already?

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/05/osborne-accuses-bbc-of-imperial-ambitions-and-calls-for-savings

a disastrous idea, IMO.

Edit: what does this mean?

In return, the BBC would be able to charge for the use of its iPlayer service to recoup some of the revenue lost by a decline in live TV viewers, the paper said.

Does it mean there are fewer people buying licence? there aren't.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-licences-facts-and-figures-AB18

does it mean lower viewer numbers account for falling revenue? it can't , for very obvious reasons.

[french frank]

Edit: what does this mean?

In return, the BBC would be able to charge for the use of its iPlayer service to recoup some of the revenue lost by a decline in live TV viewers, the paper said.

Does it mean there are fewer people buying licence? there aren't.

What the BBC will need to recoup is the £650m lost revenue because the government will no longer (so it appears) fund the free licences for the 4.5m over 75s. Though it is to be given the option, apparently, of scrapping the system so that everyone will pay.

The BBC started reporting the story a couple of hours ago.

[johnb]

Well, it is widely reported that the Chancellor intends to make the BBC bear the cost of the free TV licences for the over 75s. This amount (£650M) is equivalent to the total cost of all BBC Radio for the financial year 2013/14 (or a shade more than the total cost of BBC TWO and BBC THREE combined for the same period).

This is in addition to the alleged £150M shortfall in expected revenue which has been announced this week.

Also I've seen it reported that non-payment of the license fee no longer being a criminal offence could add a further shortfall of around £200M.

Taking all that together the BBC is now in "tear it all up and start again" territory.