Parliamentary Inquiry: CFM lets rip

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

No-one has yet commented on my query about the text.

Are others not seeing this?

http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/...ps206eaacd.jpg

Yep; me, too. (I thought it was the nearest thing ClassicFM got to broadcasting Plus/Minus!)

PS: thanks for the transliteration, frenchie.

[Don Petter]

it's one more example of a stupid lockin to a proprietary format - this time to Mickeysoft word - the text has been converted to html (my guess by MS conversion within Word judging from the poor quality of the HTML) - you may be on a Mac which probably hasn't got the desired font and the substitute has the Greek characters

No. I'm PC with IE8.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

Absolutely endorsed.

And, btw, akum Calum Da jabo, attending evensong is elitist only in the sense that unfortunately these days, with the music of usually a very high standard and excellently performed, it might be considered as elite music-making i.e. top quality music-making.

i am sure that is the case, but the metaphor holds if you keep the dinner in hall at an Oxford College in the parcel ... however i am not that concerned except to point to the illogical and actually unsustainable accusation of elitism outside the spheres of class and politics where it has a far clearer and acceptable use as a concept

it occurs to me that the use of elitism by RW to discredit us and his other detractors confounds the nature of power and authority ...power is elitist when held by the few; authority is nullified by being enforced, it is all about permission and consent ... having the requisite authority is not determined by violence and power but reason and agreement as to what must be done and the competence to do it ... critics tell RW that he has walked away from any authority [and could we all please have it back] in enforcing his arbitrary changes and acting autocratically - but he then accuses his critics of elitism fogeyism toffness and goodness knows what else [he does not actually know who we are does he?]

in the end he is merely a bullying commercial exec copying his main rival ...to have brought the controller-ship of R3 to such a low pass is disgrace enough; but the name calling, spin doctor tactics, and duplicity are intolerable in a senior public servant .... RW can neither do his job, nor get his tactics accepted but imposes his misguided will upon us all .... he has lost all authority and should depart instanter before his mischief wreaks greater havoc with R3, its core audience, and its role in our national life and culture

[french frank]

I had an email from someone else saying it 'didn't make sense'. I didn't realise there was a problem. I'm on a Mac (with Word) and had no problem. The Cttee particularly said that submissions should not be in pdf format - don't know why. Do I assume that the FoR3 file is all right?

Looking again, this seems to be an alternative pdf format

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidencePdf/4505

All submissions are listed here

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/future-of-the-bbc/?type=Written#pnlPublicationFilter

[Don Petter]

The pdf seems fine. Not sure where the FoR3 file is to check that.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I had an email from someone else saying it 'didn't make sense'. I didn't realise there was a problem. I'm on a Mac (with Word) and had no problem. The Cttee particularly said that submissions should not be in pdf format

The cynic in me thinks it might be something to do with pdf's being difficult to tamper with. But it may just be the format's inflexibility.

[french frank]

Not sure where the FoR3 file is to check that.

pdf here http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevi...idencePdf/3981

url here http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevi...denceHtml/3981

[Don Petter]

Confirm both look fine to me.

[Don Petter]

While I am fully in support of the view that R3 should never have considered trying to ape CFM, I would like to ask a possibly naive question.

Is there anything inherently wrong in a BBC channel imitating/resembling/overlapping a commercial channel? Radio 1, for instance, was instigated as a copy of the then pirate stations, and presumably even now quite closely resembles many of the commercial pop music channels (Kiss, Heart, etc)?

[french frank]

While I am fully in support of the view that R3 should never have considered trying to ape CFM, I would like to ask a possibly naive question.

Is there anything inherently wrong in a BBC channel imitating/resembling/overlapping a commercial channel? Radio 1, for instance, was instigated as a copy of the then pirate stations, and presumably even now quite closely resembles many of the commercial pop music channels (Kiss, Heart, etc)?

The Agreement (that is, the Agreement between the BBC and the Secretary of State) has a section on Fair Trading and Competitive Impact. Overall, the thinking is that since the BBC receives public funding it is anti-competitive to enter the same areas as commercial services which having to 'earn' their funding have no chance to compete on a level playing field. Whatever they do, the BBC can outspend them. This applies particularly where, as with Classic FM, the commercial service was already in the market, deliberately providing a different service from the BBC.

Having a look at RadioCentre's submission, they do have a few things to say about Radio 1 and Radio 2 as well! The BBC appears to have no compunction about doing anything which will boost its ratings.

In the case of Radio 1 and the pirate stations, I suppose it could have been argued that as the pirates were operating illegally (paying no tax??) they therefore did not merit legal protections (?)

The Royal Charter outlines the general duties of the Trust:

(a) represent the interests of licence fee payers;
(b) secure that the independence of the BBC is maintained;
(c) carefully and appropriately assess the views of licence fee payers;
(d) exercise rigorous stewardship of public money;
(e) have regard to the competitive impact of the BBC’s activities on the wider market; and
(f) ensure that the BBC observes highstandards of openness and transparency.

In response to all of which [hollow laugh] ...

[amateur51]

A nifty edition of Radio 4's The Media Show with Steve Hewlett being quite forceful ...

The Culture, Media and Sport Committee has begun an inquiry into the Future of the BBC, ahead of the corporations current Royal Charter ending in December 2016. It will look at the role of the organisation, how it's funded, and discuss alternatives to the present licence fee. Steve Hewlett speaks to the Chairman of the Committee, Conservative MP John Whittingdale about the scope of the inquiry and what he's hoping to achieve. Also in the studio is John Tate who, as a former Head of Strategy of the organisation, was instrumental in the last licence fee settlement. He tells Steve why the independence of the BBC needs even greater safeguarding in the course of Charter renewal and licence fee negotiation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03pjfbd

[french frank]

He tells Steve why the independence of the BBC needs even greater safeguarding in the course of Charter renewal and licence fee negotiation.

Reading the BBC submission, they didn't even consider whether the BBC should be funded out of general taxation; only subscription, advertising and licence fee were mentioned. And no one has yet explained how having the government set the amount of general taxation the BBC should receive, rather than having the government set how much the licence fee should be, differs in terms of BBC 'independence'.

[aeolium]

Reading the BBC submission, they didn't even consider whether the BBC should be funded out of general taxation; only subscription, advertising and licence fee were mentioned. And no one has yet explained how having the government set the amount of general taxation the BBC should receive, rather than having the government set how much the licence fee should be, differs in terms of BBC 'independence'.

I suspect this is because it is not possible to do so coherently. It is also convenient to those setting the terms of the debate to exclude an option whereby public service broadcasting might be more fairly financed, preferring the status quo by which the poorest pay as much as the richest.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

the BBC's independence is a complete myth; first the politicos agree a charter and then meddle incessantly, they pick at it like a scab .... because they hate the people who work for it amongst other reasons .... the BBC elite is a self selecting collective of narcissistic [self-regarding] Oxbridge cronies who fully reflect the decline of British society and politics [and the capture of our political system by their siblings and chums]

Baron Birkenhead is an absolute prototype of the membership of this caste

nothing much good will come of it all ... just the collective narcissism of cronies and chums of chums having a chat and a bit of a competitive scrap on the side ..... but imagination, vision, resolution nah no chance

[french frank]

Yes, the first 13 minutes or so of the Media Show are worth a listen, Steve Hewlett very acute in his questioning, Whittingdale pretty fair (), the former BBC strategy man, mmm, judge for yourself.

Quote from Whittingdale: "The BBC is very good at commissioning opinion polls in which the public says the licence fee is fantastic value for money." But the question of the government using it as a dipping-in fund, even for welfare issues, was mentioned. We did say that the Agreement should include obligations on the Secretary of State, not just the BBC.