1a) What should the BBC be for and what should be the purpose of PSB?

[french frank]

Well?

What should the BBC be for and what should be the purpose of public service broadcasting?

[french frank]

aeolium's comments on another thread are relevant:

The BBC falls back on its Charter, its public purposes and its service level agreements to justify its status as a public service broadcaster - and also the lack of agreement on what constitutes public service broadcasting. This runs into your DCMS question 3 thread. And here are the horns of the dilemma. On the one horn, if PSB is reduced to a narrow criterion, with information, education, and entertainment of a type that is not supplied elsewhere by the market, the risk is that much of the public will feel excluded from something for which they are paying. On the other horn, if a very wide interpretation of PSB is allowed, which allows generalised entertainment of a kind also provided by commercial broadcasting, and in which education and culture are required to be fully inclusive, then there is the risk that the quality of the broadcasting is so diluted that it alienates the natural supporters of PSB while not satisfying those who can find alternative (and sometimes better) provision of the entertainment they want. I think the BBC is balancing rather precariously on the second horn

As to the definition of PSB, I read a paper a few years back (Ofcom?) which (re)defined it more or less as 'giving the public what it wants'. That does seem to be pretty much what the BBC does - witness the £1bn that goes into BBC One alone.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

It should be about providing what the commercial sectors cannot. It should not be scared to take risks to introduce audiences to the unfamiliar, to draw attention to ideas and activities that may be unknown to the majority of its viewers and listeners. Its purpose should be the enrichment and genuine empowerment of the people who encounter it, bringing the best ideas from across the planet and from all periods of history in order to let people know that the world is a place of wonder and astonishment and that they (whether they're ten years old, or fifty, or ninety; fighting fit or fighting terminal illness) are a valued part of that world; receiving its riches and feeling able to contribute to it. It should, in the best sense of the word, entertain - providing experiences that enter and hold the minds of those who listen and watch; it should provoke discussion and argument; it should astonish. It should bring together people from greatly varying backgrounds and situations. And its standards (whether in producing a series on the ideas of Wittgenstein, or a concert of Ugandan traditional Music, or a Science Fiction series involving a character who travels around in a 1950s Police Call Box, or a documentary on the Venerable Bede, or a comedy set in a Sports Centre, or the broadcasting of the Annual Knurr-and-Spell Championships) should be magnificent.

[edashtav]

It should be about providing what the commercial sectors cannot. It should not be scared to take risks to introduce audiences to the unfamiliar, to draw attention to ideas and activities that may be unknown to the majority of its viewers and listeners. Its purpose should be the enrichment and genuine empowerment of the people who encounter it, bringing the best ideas from across the planet and from all periods of history in order to let people know that the world is a place of wonder and astonishment and that they (whether they're ten years old, or fifty, or ninety; fighting fit or fighting terminal illness) are a valued part of that world; receiving its riches and feeling able to contribute to it. It should, in the best sense of the word, entertain - providing experiences that enter and hold the minds of those who listen and watch; it should provoke discussion and argument; it should astonish. It should bring together people from greatly varying backgrounds and situations. And its standards (whether in producing a series on the ideas of Wittgenstein, or a concert of Ugandan traditional Music, or a Science Fiction series involving a character who travels around in a 1950s Police Call Box, or a documentary on the Venerable Bede, or a comedy set in a Sports Centre, or the broadcasting of the Annual Knurr-and-Spell Championships) should be magnificent.

Seconded, ferney - excellent stuff!

If every day that I tune to R.3 I get a feeling of awe & wonder then the station has done its job.

[french frank]

The BBC still takes the view (publicly) that its remit is to Inform, Educate and Entertain. Could we say how that should be apportioned - in terms of money, individual services or broad airtime? It seems to me that a hugely disproportionate amount in terms of output is given over to popular entertainment. Are EastEnders and Strictly Come Dancing (or Doctor Who, for that matter ) really programmes that commercial services couldn't provide? All they need is big audiences to bring in advertising revenue.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I think that, if you've got a legal requirement for anyone owning a television to pay a Licence Fee every year (see Threads passim) then "Light Entertainment" has to be a part of the remit. But I believe that programmes produced under this banner should be subject to the same quality standards as the rest of the Corporation - they should be equally astonishing and unexpected, whether it's a sitcom about a Torquay Guest House (would any commercial company dare commission a series based on such a premise?), a retelling of the Arthurian myths (possibly ITV or somebody else might have done this, but they didn't), or Dr Who, which, if one reduces it to "a Science Fiction series" rather underestimates what the series' achievement is (and the same could be said of The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy, to take the discussion away from television).

Compare certain other Sci-Fi series created by the commercial sectors: a "Captain" in charge of a squad of space travellers boldly seeking out and killing non-terrestrial life forms in their efficient space ship. Contrast that with a character who can't control his machine (which has a mind of its own) and Who as often as not, needs others to rescue him from danger - and who empowers them with the ability to do so. (At least, in the pre-Pertwee incarnations - but I'm drifting.) As there has to be a Light Entertainment aspect of the Corporation, let it at least explore and deconstruct formulae to offer something as rich and strange as the remaining PSB content.

[aeolium]

Ferney, what you have outlined is very impressive but almost utopian. What broadcasting company, churning out programmes day after day and virtually 24 hours per day like a factory can match those requirements? I think we forget, thinking back to the Third Programme (which I was only really know through archive and others' recollections), the early decades of R3 and some memorable TV series, how much dross there was even there. No composer, no author, no film-maker could consistently turn out brilliant imaginative stuff day after day.

I wonder whether the BBC is now too large, too weighted down by expectation, charter obligations and SLA targets, too buffeted by political and media hostility and public hypersensitivity to "offensive" material to be an effective public service broadcaster. Might it be better if it were separated into constituent parts each of which was set up to fulfil a particular PSB remit - still publicly funded but not operating as a huge bureaucratic organisation? There could be separate channels, such as News and Current Affairs, Entertainment, Sports, Arts etc. They need not have massive management structures as the present BBC does, and indeed they need not all be part of the BBC; they could be separate publicly funded bodies. There could even be public service broadcasters whose remit was to cater for particular neglected communities of interest, as I think Channel 4 was originally intended to be. I just think that the BBC is suffering with the burden of being a universal provider, trying to satisfy everyone with everything it does and as a result drowning in compromise and blandness.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Ferney, what you have outlined is very impressive but almost utopian.

Well, "almost" - I don't expect people to display themselves naked to their partners before they get married, "astonishing" though that may be

I think that at the planning stage at any rate (and whilst the Beeb is going through its mid-life identity crisis) idealistic mission statements should be the starting point. If we start with an attitude that gives up on ideals before it's even started, there's no hope for it.

Failure and dross is inevitable: the important thing is to set off with the intention to astonish. No single film maker, author or (Bach aside) composer can hope to turn out brilliantly imaginative stuff consistently day after day - but a Corporation pooling the services of many composers, authors, film makers, authorities, journalists, architects, linguists, philosophers, historians, artists, sculptors, performers, comedians et al has a better chance of producing such material, given imaginative management worthy of their skills. Such management is what is seriously lacking in R3 (and in News coverage, too) - as I think is also implied in your

I wonder whether the BBC is now too large, too weighted down by expectation, charter obligations and SLA targets, too buffeted by political and media hostility and public hypersensitivity to "offensive" material to be an effective public service broadcaster. Might it be better if it were separated into constituent parts each of which was set up to fulfil a particular PSB remit - still publicly funded but not operating as a huge bureaucratic organisation? There could be separate channels, such as News and Current Affairs, Entertainment, Sports, Arts etc. They need not have massive management structures as the present BBC does, and indeed they need not all be part of the BBC; they could be separate publicly funded bodies. There could even be public service broadcasters whose remit was to cater for particular neglected communities of interest, as I think Channel 4 was originally intended to be. I just think that the BBC is suffering with the burden of being a universal provider, trying to satisfy everyone with everything it does and as a result drowning in compromise and blandness.

... with which I completely agree. "PSB" does not have to be synonymous with "BBC" (although it would be convenient if it were) and, if the Beeb fails to honour its remit, then programming could and should be outsourced to bodies that don't.

I've just used the word "outsourced"! - THEY'VE GOT ME, TOO!!!

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

it is too big now; why not split it into BTV, BRadio, BNews Service, and possibly BDigital; and make them all subscription - the license fee funding is now a curse ... in any case it must ripped out of the grasp of the present great and good gangster cult ...

[aeolium]

I think that at the planning stage at any rate (and whilst the Beeb is going through its mid-life identity crisis) idealistic mission statements should be the starting point. If we start with an attitude that gives up on ideals before it's even started, there's no hope for it.

Actually I think I'd prefer modest claims underpinned by strong ambitions. We have become so weary with organisations promising the earth and delivering a sod that anyone coming up with a string of idealistic mission statements would simply prompt the cynical response "Oh yeah?" When hyperbole is the common currency of description every promise is devalued.

I agree about the failure of management, and suggest it is above all a failure of confidence and imagination, an unwillingness to believe in a better audience. Intelligent and highly educated managers put out rubbish that they would never think of watching or hearing but with the defence that this is what people want.

in any case it must ripped out of the grasp of the present great and good gangster cult ...

The "great and the good" will never let broadcasting or any other part of the mainstream media out of their grip, calum - its power and influence is too great.

[french frank]

Is there a case (or would it be a good thing?) to rethink the BBC's purpose as regards the provision of music altogether? It would need a brave person to suggest it, but it seems to me that this would be an area where the remit of Radio 3 could actually come into its own.

I know there are classical downloads, but is that very much different from when the average record shop, many of them independent, would provide a very good service in supplying LPs, for example? But how long will it be before an older audience has the same interest in using all the available internet sources of music? [Including radio, of course]. But if Radio 3 concentrated on providing music which was harder to to find on the internet ... what am I struggling to get at here? Right ...

There seems to be a conspiracy of silence over the way Radio 1's content spend has crept up and finally overtaken Radio 3's (R1 £40.7m v. R3 at £38.3m last year, with 1Xtra getting another £7.5m). The BBC 'uses' Radio 1 to keep hold of that young demographic which is precisely the one that has so many other commercial sources for accessing popular music. Is it what a PSB should be doing? Is it fair competition? How can one argue that Radio 3/BBC provides something which no commercial provider - broadcaster or other readily available source - is providing? There's another question coming up where this will be relevant.

I fear this will continue with Lord Hall announcing with a flourish whatever this new 'visual radio' service is for Radio 1 too.

[VodkaDilc]

it is too big now; why not split it into BTV, BRadio, BNews Service, and possibly BDigital; and make them all subscription - the license fee funding is now a curse ... in any case it must ripped out of the grasp of the present great and good gangster cult ...

Good idea. I'd go for BRadio and ditch the others - much as I do at present, despite paying for the whole caboodle.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Actually I think I'd prefer modest claims underpinned by strong ambitions. We have become so weary with organisations promising the earth and delivering a sod that anyone coming up with a string of idealistic mission statements would simply prompt the cynical response "Oh yeah?" When hyperbole is the common currency of description every promise is devalued.

Excellent point.

I agree about the failure of management, and suggest it is above all a failure of confidence and imagination, an unwillingness to believe in a better audience. Intelligent and highly educated managers put out rubbish that they would never think of watching or hearing but with the defence that this is what people want.

I entirely agree.

[french frank]

Anyone got any further thoughts on this point?

What should the BBC be for and what should be the purpose of PSB?

Would it be a general view that the BBC has got the balance wrong? I'd calculate that close on 88% of TV content spend goes on BBCs One, Two and Three (that's about two thirds of total content-related spend - TV, radio, orchestras) ... What percentage of that would people estimate as 'public service broadcasting' (in the stricter sense)? Is that too much on light entertainment?

[VodkaDilc]

Anyone got any further thoughts on this point?

What should the BBC be for and what should be the purpose of PSB?

Would it be a general view that the BBC has got the balance wrong? I'd calculate that close on 88% of TV content spend goes on BBCs One, Two and Three (that's about two thirds of total content-related spend - TV, radio, orchestras) ... What percentage of that would people estimate as 'public service broadcasting' (in the stricter sense)? Is that too much on light entertainment?

My consumption of those three channels consists of a handful of BBC2 documentaries or Proms throughout the year; nothing on BBC1 or 3. Add to that occasional listening to R3, 4 and 5, nothing on the BBC's online content and rather more on BBC4. My personal use of the BBC (and I admit that I'm not typical) amounts largely to the Proms and the various orchestras and choirs.