Survey

[french frank]

The Culture, Media and Sport committee is now inviting submissions from the public for consideration before the negotiations begin for the new BBC Charter in 2016. The questions are here.

I thought we could have a new thread for each question and rather than flood the forum with all eleven at the same time, we could look first at some of the more straightforward ones which don't need any background information or explanation. There will be scope for polls in some cases.

Some questions can be related particularly to Radio 3/us, others not. I hope forum members will come up with ideas and discussion points .

[mercia]

is that different from this survey ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/whoweare/wherenext/wherenext_survey.html

[french frank]

is that different to this survey ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/ins...xt_survey.html

Yes. That one is the BBC's own survey based on the DG's speech about what he wants the BBC to do/be. The other is the survey launched by the government to find out how the general public would like the BBC to be run - more administrative than programming.

[George Garnett]

It isn't actually DCMS or "the government" though that is inviting these submissions, is it?

It is Parliament, in the form of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee. It's to aid them in their task of holding DCMS to public account, not something that goes directly into the Department (although they will see it too as part of the process). The Select Committee will use the material submitted as evidence for their report and may also use it to inform their questioning of DCMS Ministers and officials when they come before them. It's worth bearing in mind therefore that it's a slightly different audience from DCMS itself.

[french frank]

It isn't actually DCMS or "the government" though that is inviting these submissions, is it?

It is Parliament, in the form of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee. It's to aid them in their task of holding DCMS to public account, not something that goes directly into the Department (although they will see it too as part of the process). The Select Committee will use the material submitted as evidence for their report and may also use it to inform their questioning of DCMS Ministers and officials when they come before them. It's worth bearing in mind therefore that it's a slightly different audience from DCMS itself.

Good grief! It's Mr Garnett. That smoked you out!

Thanks very much for the correction. Let me know if you have any thoughts about it all. I've just realised we're only allowed 3,000 words, not 30,000. Tight.

[Padraig]

This is the best Survey I ever came across! It revealed to me that George Garnett is continuing to contribute with his legendary precision. May his wit and humour follow in time. Greetings from another era. Patrick.

[french frank]

This is the best Survey I ever came across! It revealed to me that George Garnett is continuing to contribute with his legendary precision. May his wit and humour follow in time. Greetings from another era. Patrick.

It must be a record for the longest time between registering and making a first post - 6 years and 8 months.

Actually, although in the back of my mind I did know what George said, now he's laid it out so clearly it puts a whole new complexion on who any submission is supposed to be addressed to (or 'to whom...')

[George Garnett]

It must be a record for the longest time between registering and making a first post - 6 years and 8 months.

Sole purpose of exercise . I just wanted to beat my previous personal best of 5 years self-denial on The Archers board before they went and closed it.

Actually though, I'm sure I've posted here before, but admittedly not for some time.

[BBMmk2]

Well I would like more of the old style Radio 3 brought back. none of this 'Classic Fm'(or trying to immitate' it) style. More on the minority genres, such as world Routes and Brass Band. Moree on the brass bands more serious music side be great, with perhaps commissioning new music etc.

[french frank]

Well I would like more of the old style Radio 3 brought back. none of this 'Classic Fm'(or trying to immitate' it) style. More on the minority genres, such as world Routes and Brass Band. Moree on the brass bands more serious music side be great, with perhaps commissioning new music etc.

Unfortunately, Radio 3 looms exceeding small in the great Universe of Parliament, Public Service Broadcasting and the BBC. If it illustrates some larger BBC-wide pattern of behaviour which is against its current Charter and for which a number of different examples could be cited throughout the BBC, Radio 3 might merit a footnote. And it might very well - in the gym this morning they had Radio 1 on instead of Kiss FM (if I'm completely honest, though, they were distinctive - Radio 1 was more frenetic and thoughtless).

But I'm afraid, this enquiry won't touch directly on the Radio 3 schedule, the excellent/atrocious presenters or the declining lack of substance.

I'm working on how some things might be touched on indirectly ...

[Stanley Stewart]

A real curiosity in yesterday's (17 Nov) Sunday Times Culture magazine. Paul Donovan's Radio Waves column wrote about the cancellation of a performance of Britten's War Requiem on 4 Extra:

"In total these events (radio swamped by anniversaries at present) are marked by dozens of programmes - though it does seem absurd that one of them, about Britten's War Requiem has been scrapped simply because Paul Gambaccini was presenting it. Even if it is true, as the BBC says, that he has asked for all his shows to be dropped following his arrest by Operation Yewtree detectives, why should the corporation accede to this request, thus depriving listeners of some interesting programmes that have already been paid for?..."

A brief top-and- tailing editing session would have instantly resolved any dilemma. Is a puzzlement!

[Gordon]

George is right to point out who is requesting this response and where they stand in the hierarchy of accountability. They are the ultimate overseers of broadcasting and have powers to call people to account as we have seen with Patten recently. They are highly influential so it is important that they get a wide range public views about the BBC in general. It is clear that they are preparing the ground for the full review which will happen much later so this is just a toe in the water but nevertheless presents an opportunity to get a few points home. It is encouraging that the main parties seem committed to the PSB model - Maria Miller and Harriet Harman and Tessa Jowell have made recent public statements of support - but how they see the detail, expecially the role of the BBC in that model, may emerge later.

If you value the BBC, and not everyone does, then it needs your support but it also needs constructive criticism at this time. There are clearly things that have gone wrong at the BBC of late and they need addressing - the executive management has flaws both systematic and human but so has the governance and some of the responsibility for that rests firmly with government [the Trust was set up last time around] although they have to keep out of it for now and let the Select Committee deal with problems and then advise.

I agree that specific issues like the quality of R3 content are not what are required here.

I note that of the 13 questions the responses on these boards has been uneven, the major interest being in funding - ie licence fee etc - and purpose, both essential issues in a PSB discussion. Remember that you don't know what you're missing till its gone. The Consultation is open until December 6th.

[Gordon]

A real curiosity in yesterday's (17 Nov) Sunday Times Culture magazine. Paul Donovan's Radio Waves column wrote about the cancellation of a performance of Britten's War Requiem on 4 Extra:

"In total these events (radio swamped by anniversaries at present) are marked by dozens of programmes - though it does seem absurd that one of them, about Britten's War Requiem has been scrapped simply because Paul Gambaccini was presenting it. Even if it is true, as the BBC says, that he has asked for all his shows to be dropped following his arrest by Operation Yewtree detectives, why should the corporation accede to this request, thus depriving listeners of some interesting programmes that have already been paid for?..."

A brief top-and- tailing editing session would have instantly resolved any dilemma. Is a puzzlement!

Agreed SS, somewhat bizarre action by the BBC. As you say PG's voice could easily be removed from the file and either left for continuity or have a new voice over added. Over-reacting out of loss of confidence perhaps!! Or are the lawyers worried about PG's rights as presenter? As he has not been convicted of anything yet, just pay him anyway; what does his contract say?

[french frank]

It is encouraging that the main parties seem committed to the PSB model - Maria Miller and Harriet Harman and Tessa Jowell have made recent public statements of support - but how they see the detail, expecially the role of the BBC in that model, may emerge later.

On the other hand, one of the most depressing paragraphs from the 2006 White Paper was:

“Entertainment is a vital part of the BBC’s mission. The Government sees no conflict between the new arrangements and entertainment. In line with the view of the special Lords Select Committee on Charter Review1, we do not subscribe to the idea that public service broadcasting should be confined to the “worthy”. Indeed, in most cases the BBC’s output will achieve its maximum impact only by entertaining its viewers and listeners.”

Well, the BBC certainly took that to heart. 'Worthy'? I wonder what that included.

[Gordon]

On the other hand, one of the most depressing paragraphs from the 2006 White Paper was:

“Entertainment is a vital part of the BBC’s mission. The Government sees no conflict between the new arrangements and entertainment. In line with the view of the special Lords Select Committee on Charter Review1, we do not subscribe to the idea that public service broadcasting should be confined to the “worthy”. Indeed, in most cases the BBC’s output will achieve its maximum impact only by entertaining its viewers and listeners.”

Well, the BBC certainly took that to heart. 'Worthy'? I wonder what that included.

I've no doubt that they mean "popular" when it comes to Entertainment. Actually I have no real quarrel with that if it doesn't detract from doing the "Worthy" either where it is appropriate. Bandying these words about without clear definitions makes them looking glass words that mean everything to everyone but that's politics! We shall never pin down those meanings.

So to continue the bandying with words, the great Huw Weldon used to say that the aim was to "make the Popular Good and the Good Popular". One could ask that the Entertainment be popular - ie attract audience - but also that it be good too - the audience chooses to watch it and continues to come back for more. Do ratings actually tell us anything about the balance of Good and Popular??

As for making the "worthy" popular we have a problem - R3 have failed to square that circle; they have made the worthy commonplace. The BBC should be doing what others cannot, not necessarily in terms of specific content genre but in quality, and that means setting the standard not following it. Nobody is saying it is easy but the BBC needs to learn how to meet challenges again, it's lost its way under some rather uninspired leadership.