Consultations on the BBC

[Dave2002]

OK - it's political, but I think it'll get past ff!

HMG is holding "consultations" on aspects of the BBC, which are now active.

Like all "good" consultations they have been started, and while there were earlier announcements, it may have been a hope that by now everyone would have forgotten, and consequently would miss the deadlines. This is a standard way of a public body trying to massage responses so that they can do their own thing "we had a consultation ... " You know the form!

Some details are at this web site - http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/have_your_say

I was reminded of this by a post from 38 Degrees - which sometimes, but not by any means always, promotes things I agree with.

One "consultation" which may have been important did close a few days ago, and sadly I missed the deadline with other things to worry about.

[french frank]

The link you give is to the BBC Trust's consultation, not HMG's - and in fairness I got an email about it as being an individual who responded to the previous one. I think I checked out these questions and decided it might be better to respond 'as an organisation' .

[french frank]

I've just started looking at the BBC management document. Going to the last page (p 99) it sums up a new idea for radio: "Responsive radio to give audiences a personalised schedule of programmes ."

That troubles me because it seems (like much that the BBC does) to be doubtfully educational, though fine for popular/light entertainment where you select whatever pleases you to make the perfect 'MyRadio' station. The opposite of what Radio 3's ethos should be?

[Lat-Literal]

I've just started looking at the BBC management document. Going to the last page (p 99) it sums up a new idea for radio: "Responsive radio to give audiences a personalised schedule of programmes ."

That troubles me because it seems (like much that the BBC does) to be doubtfully educational, though fine for popular/light entertainment where you select whatever pleases you to make the perfect 'MyRadio' station. The opposite of what Radio 3's ethos should be?

Sounds like Noel Edmonds's "Positively Happy". Is it possible to be negatively happy? They have already tried to do a "My Favourites" thing linked to I-Player. It is technologically clunky and hardly anyone uses it. I am struck by how much of commercial radio has no appeal to the over 35s except for a few Noels. The BBC shouldn't join them. It's all a sham.

[Anastasius]

I've just started looking at the BBC management document. Going to the last page (p 99) it sums up a new idea for radio: "Responsive radio to give audiences a personalised schedule of programmes ."

.....

Oh Lord. "People who listened to this also liked this."

Spare me. I have a brain. I can decide for myself what I like.

[aeolium]

Last few days to respond to the govt consultation on the BBC (ends 11.45 pm Thursday 8 October). I'm going to have a go at a response if only to counter the - imv - decidedly pro-market and anti-BBC slant of a number of the questions (and the implication that the government should constantly meddle with the BBC in every possible way as well as seriously cut its funding)

[Dave2002]

Apologies for perhaps confusing a BBC consultation with one from HMG - though I have my suspicions ....

Thanks aeolium for bumping this again - I'll try to get a response in to the latest consultation by the deadline. I do wonder though, whether, such consultations are deliberately constructed so that either (a) the "obvious" answers will give those conducting the survey what they want or (b) the questions are so badly constructed/difficult to understand/time consuming to answer etc. that many who could contribute will give up, thus only allowing the truly determined pros and antis to bother.

[mercia]

is this what we've all been waiting for, or is this the wrong thread ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2015/submission-to-gov-consultation?ns_mchannel=email&ns_source=inxmail_newsletter&ns_campaign=bbcmediacentre_corporate__&ns_linkname=na&ns_fee=0

http://www.bbc.co.uk/corporate2/insidethebbc/howwework/reports/bbc_charter_review_dcmsreview_october2015

[MrGongGong]

Spare me. I have a brain. I can decide for myself what I like.

Why do you need a radio then?
Surely if you know everything about what you like all you need is a CD collection or a streaming service?

Aren't you curious about things you don't know about?

[aeolium]

I've only read the executive summary of the BBC's contribution so far. I can't honestly see in what way the household levy system which the government is keen on and which it appears the BBC is now inclining towards will redress the serious problems with the licence fee, particularly its inequality as a flat rate charge and the bureaucracy of its collection. One attractive feature for the BBC is that it will (if it resembles the German system) get round the delayed iplayer loophole by which people without a licence can legally watch BBC material if they watch on a computer not while the programme is being transmitted - indeed, the levy will apply to households which may not use any of the BBC services at all and where there is no television. I don't object to the principle of people paying for public services that they don't use but this should be done through progressive taxation - income tax - not regressive taxation or a flat charge that applies equally to the poorest and the richest. The household levy will simply move the harassment and court processes associated with the licence fee to the council tax collection (where they are already serious). So in my submission I opposed the government's proposed household levy and suggested a change to something closer to the Finnish system, with the total funding amount linked to the overall public spending level in any 5-year period (so cuts in public spending as a whole would be reflected in the BBC's share), and the tax to be hypothecated and not amendable by the government except by recommendation of a periodic review by a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament.

Here, for info, is the BBC's summary of the different funding mechanisms used for PSB around the world:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26546570

[Serial_Apologist]

I suggested a change to something closer to the Finnish system, with the total funding amount linked to the overall public spending level in any 5-year period (so cuts in public spending as a whole would be reflected in the BBC's share), and the tax to be hypothecated and not amendable by the government except by recommendation of a periodic review by a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament.

Thus putting the onus back on the general public not to vote in a government committed to socially harmful spending cuts.

[aeolium]

Thus putting the onus back on the general public not to vote in a government committed to socially harmful spending cuts.

If only, S_A

You can't - and shouldn't - insulate the BBC from cuts in public spending as a whole but you can at least insulate it from individual attacks on its funding by government as we have seen on two occasions in the last few years under the "independent" licence fee system.

[french frank]

but you can at least insulate it from individual attacks on its funding by government as we have seen on two occasions in the last few years under the "independent" licence fee system.

My response to their suggestion that the BBC's commercial concerns and BBC Worldwide 'should' be reformed was: "Hands off the BBC's cash cows unless you intend to take back responsibility for funding the World Service and TV licences for the over-75s. [Forgot about the licence fee freeze]

Amminauls

[Anastasius]

Why do you need a radio then?
Surely if you know everything about what you like all you need is a CD collection or a streaming service?

Aren't you curious about things you don't know about?

Do you deliberately seek to troll? To take out of context what people write merely to puff up your own sense of self-importance? You ignored the first sentence but then again I should have learned by now to expect nothing less.

[P. G. Tipps]

Last few days to respond to the govt consultation on the BBC (ends 11.45 pm Thursday 8 October). I'm going to have a go at a response if only to counter the - imv - decidedly pro-market and anti-BBC slant of a number of the questions (and the implication that the government should constantly meddle with the BBC in every possible way as well as seriously cut its funding)

Being an incorrigible cynic about government consultations, or BBC Trust's for that matter, I don't think one should worry too much. All this is purely a public relations exercise to give the impression that the powers-that-be are 'listening to the views of the man and woman in the street' to use a favoured phrase. 'A full and wide-ranging independent enquiry' is another one mostly employed to kick problematic issues 'into the long grass' for as long as possible. Pace Sir John Chilcot!

Whether one is 'pro-market' or presumably believes that it is magically-empowered Governments which create and distribute wealth, our individual opinions won't matter a scrap. The BBC will be permitted to continue in it's own sweet politically-correct way and the Government (or more likely David Cameron) will claim the credit for 'rescuing' it.

All so predictable and in the final analysis an utterly useless, time-wasting exercise. Apart from that, 'government consultations' are quite harmless, I suppose, and, needless costs notwithstanding, how could any reasonable person possibly object?

That's the clever part!