culture committee and the BBC Chair and DG Live

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/21006886

[french frank]

Thanks for mentioning that - I caught it a bit late. V. interesting. More after lunch ... :-/

[Russ]

Watched most of it, and it was a fairly easy session for Hall and Patten, except perhaps for a few difficult questions over the DMI fiasco and why Boaden and Van Klaveren are still being employed. What I thought was significant, in the wake of the previous appearance in front of the Committee, was the apparent acceptance of the BBC argument that OFCOM, whilst being a good regulator, could not be and did not want to be BBC's governors, i.e. the existence of the Trust, as the current BBC governance, was no longer being seriously questioned. In that context, the Committee seemed to be fairly content, at least at this stage, by Patten's statement that the Trust would be looking to:

- strip out unnecessary layers in the Trust;
- clarify better what the Trust does, including possibly doing more in public;
- clarifying the role of the non-executive directors.

Russ

[french frank]

OFTEL?

They did mention that the old Board of Governors was perceived as being 'subject to management capture'. As if the Trust is not, when it comes to editorial matters.

Yes, an easy ride, generally speaking: 'You're bringing up a very important point,' ' I am very sensitive about that.' 'I will be asking questions.'

Otherwise I was amused that Ld Patten did manage to get in a 'Before my time'; nevertheless, once alarmed, the Trust put in 'some pretty searching questions'. (They may think we're soft, but we're hard: damned hard.)

Watched most of it, and it was a fairly easy session for Hall and Patten, except perhaps for a few difficult questions over the DMI fiasco and why Boaden and Van Klaveren are still being employed. What I thought was significant, in the wake of the previous appearance in front of the Committee, was the apparent acceptance of the BBC argument that OFTEL, whilst being a good regulator, could not be and did not want to be BBC's governors, i.e. the existence of the Trust, as the current BBC governance, was no longer being seriously questioned. In that context, the Committee seemed to be fairly content, at least at this stage, by Patten's statement that the Trust would be looking to:

- strip out unnecessary layers in the Trust;
- clarify better what the Trust does, including possibly doing more in public;
- clarifying the role of the non-executive directors.

Russ

[Russ]

OFTEL?

I meant OFCOM of course! (Old habits die hard...)

[Post #3 duly edited.]

[french frank]

I missed the first part where they were talking about investing more realistically in the arts, classical music, classic drama, features &c, especially for older audiences.

What I heard was about children under 10, children over 10, young audiences in general, black audiences, national audiences (that is, in England, Wales, Scotland and Nothern Ireland), regional audiences, especially regional voices, but programmes for regional audiences as well as reflecting the regions on network services, and especially local radio. About getting away from the Metropolitan bias. I heard CBeebies mentioned, CBBC, BBC Three, Radio 1, Radio Merseyside. Brief discussion of Radio 4 (Today).

Oh, and there was live opera on BBC Three (Eh? Yes - you heard right).

"Massive dance routines from choreographer Honey Kalaria, an audience-fuelled flash mob and gripping drama re-imagine Bizet’s popular opera Carmen, Bollywood style. It’s set to pop song mash-ups and Kuljit Bhamra’s Bollywood adaptations of Bizet’s classic score, along with Bradford-based band RDB and British Asian music producers Bobby Wonda and Angel."

It was brilliant. The BBC was very proud of it.

As a listener to Radio 3, I appreciate the Metropolitan 'bias' because that's where there is so much first class music performance which otherwise I would not have a chance to hear (and I don't want a special emphasis on British music and British performers btw). I do not care what accent radio presenters have as long as they are talking about something they know and care about. I realise that the bulk of an arts station like Radio 3 will be made up of older people, but if it is sufficiently serious it will educate newer audiences who will then grow old with the station.

However, Radio 3 listeners, as a subset of the Radio 4 audience, have a great deal to listen to on Radio 4. Which is a bit like saying our local high street doesn't need a fresh fish shop because people already go to the butcher's.

[DracoM]

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/inquiries/future-of-the-bbc/

Parliamentary Select Cttee - CMS - setting up this portal for submissions as they conduct a review in advance of the Charter renewal. Worth inspecting closely.

[Russ]

Thanks, Dracs. Trouble is, having reached:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/inquiries/future-of-the-bbc/commons-written-submission-form/

there doesn't seem to be a clickable 'written submission form'.

Russ

[french frank]

http://www.parliament.uk/business/co...re-of-the-bbc/

Parliamentary Select Cttee - CMS - setting up this portal for submissions as they conduct a review in advance of the Charter renewal. Worth inspecting closely.

Crumbs, closing date is 6 December 2013

[DracoM]

Exactly.

Thinking caps on PDQ.

[french frank]

Exactly.

Thinking caps on PDQ.

It looks pretty comprehensive. Pity nothing members of the public say is ever considered.

1. a) What should the BBC be for and what should be the purpose of public service broadcasting?

1. b) How well has the BBC performed in the current Charter period in achieving its mission and public purposes?

2. Are the public purposes in the current Charter the right ones? How might they change?

3. What scope, scale and remit should the BBC have?

4. Should the BBC’s output and services be provided to any greater or lesser degree for particular audiences?

5. What balance should be struck in what the BBC produces in-house, commissions externally and leaves entirely to others to create?

6. How have the BBC’s commercial activities during the current Charter fitted with the BBC’s public purposes and have they achieved an adequate return for licence fee payers? What should be the aims, scope and scale of such activities beyond 2016?

7. What role should the BBC play in developing technology and new ways of distributing content?

8. How should the BBC be funded beyond 2016?

9. Is there a case for distributing funding for public service content more widely beyond the BBC?

10. What comparisons can be made with the provision of public service content in other countries?

11. How should the BBC be governed, regulated and held accountable beyond 2016?


Can we organise some kind of survey here? I can open a separate forum with threads for each of these points. Some we may feel most strongly about vis-à-vis Radio 3; others we may feel about the BBC in general; others we may feel quite indifferent to as licence fee payers. Where appropriate we might have polls?

[Russ]

I've submitted a fault report to the site about the missing 'written submission form'.

Russ

[Russ]

The dcms site now has a written submission form.

Russ

[french frank]

The dcms site now has a written submission form.

Russ

Never say you can't make a difference!

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

interesting comparison watching the news channels' coverage of the Home Affairs Cttee this afternoon ... Sky stayed with the plebgate hearings, BBC had talking heads sycophantically nodding outside the christening ceremony for the royal baby ..... the bbc is just tosh these days