BBC Charter Review

[Gordon]

Well, yes, and it wasn't only Lord Birt who made the comment. The shocking thing is the total lack of consultation although the Green Paper and this HoL inquiry are effectively that, but how many people in the general public know the process and how many will respond? Those of us with long experience of these things are in a small minority. Should the BBC advertise this review process and encourage people to respond?

I joined the broadcasting world in 1974 and so have seen 4 previous charter reviews plus the several Black Spot events that lost large numbers of staff in the 90s and after. There has been a steady erosion of the BBC bulk over the last 2 reviews eg outsourcing of much of the production process and also loss of Transmission, which is now with Arqiva which is itself the remnant of the old IBA [dissolved in 1990] that regulated ITV and ran Ch4 - as well as Designs and Equipment Departments which were at Chiswick but no longer exist. Research Department at Kingswood Warren closed several years ago [and the site has been sold for high value property - salubrious Surrey - with a remnant now at White City but even some of that site is closing too.

The BBC of today is a small part of what it was - how much smaller can it get before it becomes ineffective and operates as a publisher? I think we shall find that out in the first few years of this new, possibly final, Charter when this government will continue its dismantllng. Someone in that HoL inquiry did suggest that the Charter, as a means of establishing the BBC has had its day - possibly Birt himself.

The notion that the BBC is independent of government - ie the Treasury - has become farcical. I know from experience that it is the Treasury that holds all the face cards and years ago both the old DTI and now BIS, DCMS, and Ofcom to some extent, have had to toe the line from the Treasury.

[french frank]

The BBC of today is a small part of what it was

Except in its broadcasting hours and what it broadcasts. How much more evidence does one need that its emphasis has been on ploughing resources into its mass audience content at the expense of the 'Reithian' bit??

[Gordon]

Yes indeed, but the smaller BBC has been able to do all that - so far - but will it still be able to do it if cut back even further? The trends in radio expenditure that you quote are evidence of a ratings chase in the most popular areas perhaps. It can't win: if it does "chase ratings", indicating that it is giving the populace, who pay for everything, what it wants, then it is accused of stepping on commercial toes. If it keeps to the marginal it is clearly elitist and in providing for minorities is wasting money on the inessential.

[Serial_Apologist]

Yes indeed, but the smaller BBC has been able to do all that - so far - but will it still be able to do it if cut back even further? The trends in radio expenditure that you quote are evidence of a ratings chase in the most popular areas perhaps. It can't win: if it does "chase ratings", indicating that it is giving the populace, who pay for everything, what it wants, then it is accused of stepping on commercial toes. If it keeps to the marginal it is clearly elitist and in providing for minorities is wasting money on the inessential.

People see education expenditure by state and taxpayer as indispensable; yet the BBC, one of whose functions is edicational, has this part of its function undermined by cuts of this kind. If, as I believe the late Tony Benn frequently remarked, instead of confined to childhood and adolescence education should proceed throughout life to ensure a well-rounded and socially engaged populace, these cuts must obviously be opposed.

[french frank]

It can't win: if it does "chase ratings", indicating that it is giving the populace, who pay for everything, what it wants, then it is accused of stepping on commercial toes. If it keeps to the marginal it is clearly elitist and in providing for minorities is wasting money on the inessential.

Hard to convince me that there's much that is 'essential'. News perhaps.

But yes, it looks like two stark choices and I don't like the one they've chosen. What I would point to, though, is the aspiration of the early Proms which aimed to create an audience among the general public for what was held to be worthwhile but not attracting a 'broad audience' (not writing it off as 'elitist'). You don't 'create' an audience for what is already popular.

My inclination is a brief dismissal of the government consultation, look at the Trust one which has been given a cautious thumbs up in some places and concentrate on the Select Committee's - because they're in the best position to provide some resistance.

[aeolium]

The BBC of today is a small part of what it was - how much smaller can it get before it becomes ineffective and operates as a publisher? I think we shall find that out in the first few years of this new, possibly final, Charter when this government will continue its dismantllng. Someone in that HoL inquiry did suggest that the Charter, as a means of establishing the BBC has had its day - possibly Birt himself.

The notion that the BBC is independent of government - ie the Treasury - has become farcical. I know from experience that it is the Treasury that holds all the face cards and years ago both the old DTI and now BIS, DCMS, and Ofcom to some extent, have had to toe the line from the Treasury.

I take the point about the BBC in its technical and production departments being smaller, but it still must appear to the public as bigger than it used to be: more channels on both TV and radio, plus the substantial online services and the many layers of management (surely much more extensive than they used to be), the massive coverage of major events like the Olympics, etc. To the public there is no obvious difference between something that the BBC originates in its own production division and something that it buys in from independents, if it appears as BBC output.

Doesn't the BBC mainly appear smaller simply because the alternatives have got much bigger and numerous? We cannot compare the BBC of the 1980s - pre-satellite TV, pre-internet - with the media world now. Should we be trying to do the impossible, restore the BBC to a prominence that the currently available digital competition effectively precludes?

[Gordon]

I take the point about the BBC in its technical and production departments being smaller, but it still must appear to the public as bigger than it used to be: more channels on both TV and radio, plus the substantial online services and the many layers of management (surely much more extensive than they used to be), the massive coverage of major events like the Olympics, etc. To the public there is no obvious difference between something that the BBC originates in its own production division and something that it buys in from independents, if it appears as BBC output.

Doesn't the BBC mainly appear smaller simply because the alternatives have got much bigger and numerous? We cannot compare the BBC of the 1980s - pre-satellite TV, pre-internet - with the media world now. Should we be trying to do the impossible, restore the BBC to a prominence that the currently available digital competition effectively precludes?

I agree!! Surely we should be celebrating that it does more with less? It's crime appears to be that it is too resilient!! The BBC brand is what is apparent to the viewing public regardless of where the content originates. It is however BBC production values that infuse the output and that judgement and experience is what is at risk. That is not to say that there is no talent in the commercial sector - that talent is constrained differently. Indeed the talent has been flowing between to the two sectors forever. A bit like the NHS there are now layers of managers who are there just to tick the boxes of regulation when many years ago this was not needed. The sad part is that governments have succeeded in getting an idea launched that the BBC cannot be trusted and unfortunately some recent events have not helped that.

This is 2015 and there does need to be an evaluation of what role the BBC plays now and in the future. Sentiment plays no part in that and a fickle public is not going to throng the streets over the Charter. I just hope that good sense prevails but somehow I fear that the odds are against a rational and objective review.

[Cockney Sparrow]

Mrs CS is in receipt of an email from a friend, pointing out that the government consultation on the BBC Charter review ends at 11.45 pm tonight.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/bbc-charter-review-public-consultation

So if you need to add your voice to the review, you need to respond in the next 2 hours or so. (I haven't noticed any reference to this on the forum recently, but if I missed something, apologies.......I'm just about to turn to and enter a response myself....).

[aeolium]

There's a thread on various consultations re the BBC including the govt Charter Review one here:

http://www.for3.org/forums/showthread.php?14016-Consultations-on-the-BBC

[MrGongGong]

Maybe in the wrong thread?
but any thoughts ?

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/i-have-a-question-for-the-bbc-why-do-you-need-five-orchestras-a6684636.html

[french frank]

Maybe in the wrong thread?
but any thoughts ?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a6684636.html

Five orchestras we know. What are the three choral groups?

[MrGongGong]

Five orchestras we know. What are the three choral groups?

Wibble, Wobble and Womble?
I dunno ?

[french frank]

Wibble, Wobble and Womble?
I dunno ?

Yes, but which are Wibble and Womble?

I'm just asking why BBC radio needs 5 popular music stations, which also cost an average of £30m each (£149m in total). An answer to that might provide an answer to the first question.

[subcontrabass]

What are the three choral groups?

They were listed in the article: "the BBC Singers, the BBC Symphony Chorus and the BBC National Chorus of Wales"

One professional, two amateur.

[french frank]

They were listed in the article: "the BBC Singers, the BBC Symphony Chorus and the BBC National Chorus of Wales"

One professional, two amateur.

I thought that would be the case: the existence of the two amateur choirs can hardly be accounted a questionable charge upon the licence fee payer, as is implied by the tenor of the article ("Why does the BBC need … ?").