A Future For the BBC?
Posted by: u5227470736789439 on 19 July 2007
Dear Friends,
I am a tremendous supporter of the BBC, and like many no doubt, am saddened that the Corporation has apparently been shown as dishonest over game shows etc.
I have long held the view that with the freeing up of broadcasting in the UK the BBC's [former] role as the main entertainment broadcaster in the UK needs examination, with a view to significant reform of the organisation's remit. Why should license fee money be used to buy commercially made TV shows [or even make them in house], and broadcast them in competition to commercial broadcasting rivals who have to finance them without a captive "paying" audience? In other words, I would remove from the remit, the need to provide "entertainment" as such. It would be added to the remit that the BBC broadcast in the main and accessable means, such as DAB, DTTV, and satelite broadcasting, but, as I shall suggest, only on six main channels: Three televisual, and three radio. Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish versions of the Home channels would be essential I think.
The most important activity of the BBC is accurate and balanced [and well respected] news broadcasting, and in my view the organisation should withdraw entirely from all broadcasting that is not news or analysis of it, and reporting of Parliament [with Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish local, but generally available, services]. It should become something like the broadcast version of Reuters. There should be three TV channels. Two for Home consumption [Parliamnet and News, with regional variants] and one for World consumption [News], and likewise three radio services. I would scrap Radio Three, and all the pop and local channels, as these have more than adequate commercial counterparts now. There is absolutely no reason why the license fee should subvention orchestras nowadays, or even pay for more than the reporting of the main the main sporting results in the main news. These events and activities are essentially commercial operations, and are already moving away from the BBC without anyone seeming to worry very much.
I would strengthen the news gathering and journalism of the organisation, and base the whole operational headquaters in Broadcasting House for the Home Services, and Bush House for the World Services, with the centres in Wales, Northern Irelend, and in Scotland retained to maintain the regional news gathering [and Parliamnentary reporting] in UK. I would increase the number and quality of BBC journalists based as foreign correspondents. this would be the one area where no saving shoud be considered, financially.
I realise this is an austere view, but I would be grateful to read other's views, either slightly different, or completely opposed to this.
Kindest regards from Fredrik
Posted on: 20 July 2007 by Rockingdoc
A post of this length, at this time of night. You need to get more sleep mate. Early to bed, early to rise and all that.
Posted on: 20 July 2007 by rupert bear
Fredrik sounds a more convincing broadcasting chief than the Head of the BBC Trustees who was interviewed this week by John Humphries and managed to get his phone (skype) connection cut off. Lucky that.
The BBC's ability to do public service broadcasting is sadly thrown into relief by some of the US internet stations now available to us.
Posted on: 20 July 2007 by JonR
Fred is very much a "night" man, R'doc. I don't think I could spell that well at that time of night.
Posted on: 20 July 2007 by JamieWednesday
All I can say, whether it's down to licensing or not, the quality of similar programmes produced by the BBC is still usually far better than those on commercial sations, even those produced by 3rd party firms for the BBC or in conjunction with overseas broadcasters, somehow they are just better more often than not. And there's no adverts (apart from their own BBC marketing) unlike SKY for instance where not only do you have to pay subscriptions but you get ads too!!!
I like the BBC and am still more likely to trust them more than other media organisations or politicians.
So bravo BBC, I would pay the license fee even if it were £1000 a year and would gladly sell a kidney if it were to help them more.
Posted on: 20 July 2007 by Rasher
I've pretty much changed my view on the BBC lately and think they've made a serious improvement to the quality of their programmes over the dross they produced a few years back. Planet Earth was fantastic and I think the new Dr Who series proved that they can do drama again after all this time. If they can now just go the extra mile and drop the last of the 80's low point dross that should really be left for the maggots on C4, like Casualty & Eastenders - and the lottery show for that matter, then I think we've got something pretty special to be proud of.
Thing is, when there is a scandal like the current game show fixing, it only boils down to a few rogue producers who have abused their trust, but the difference is that, being the BBC, they get held to account and have to address the problem immediately and be seen to uphold the trust of the public above all else. Any other TV organisation would be making excuses or fighting the accusations, but the BBC have cancelled all phone-in competitions with one single stroke. My personal opinion is that these revelations underline the fact that the BBC can be trusted. Their actions following these mishaps have been honourable.
I don't watch Sky because I'm not bothered with TV enough to endure a 5 minute advert break every 10 minutes, and C4 is just tabloid TV for pond life, so I realise the value of what we have in the BBC and think we should support it fully. I still think the queen should apologise.
Who else could make Planet Earth, Coast, How We Built Britain etc?
And I haven't even started on radio; Bob Harris Country Show - 5 Live - Radio 4....
Posted on: 20 July 2007 by Guido Fawkes
Dear Fredrik
I'm not really in agreement with your post - although it is very well written and argued. However, I'm not particularly interested in news and journalism and have almost no interest in politics or politicians. I believe a service like Ceefax adequately covers the news.
What I want from the TV is for it to educate and entertain - so I like music, comedy, sport and science programmes and some films and Dr Who - I also like the vintage programmes that are often on BBC4. I don't like modern adverts at all.
If the BBC were a news only channel then I would not want to pay for it.
I don't know if my views are extreme, but I always turn off reality shows, news programmes (don't like question time, panorama, business/finance programmes or stuff like that) and soap operas - not all that keen on period dramas either though somebody else in the house likes them. Consequently, I spend more time listening to music.
I agree with totally that local radio stations are a waste of time and I'd axe Radio 1. Most of Radio 4 is dire in my view - though there are exceptions. I'd keep the Shipping Forecast, of course.
ATB Rotf
Posted on: 20 July 2007 by Rasher
quote:
Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
....in my view the organisation should withdraw entirely from all broadcasting that is not news or analysis of it, and reporting of Parliament [with Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish local, but generally available, services]. It should become something like the broadcast version of Reuters.
....I would strengthen the news gathering and journalism of the organisation, ..... I would increase the number and quality of BBC journalists based as foreign correspondents. this would be the one area where no saving shoud be considered, financially.
The way the BBC is funded, being essentially a tax on receiving equipment ownership - it is state funded. I know this is disputed, and that's for another discussion, but it presents a problem that the sole purpose of the state run tax funded BBC was for broadcast of news, which could now be viewed as propaganda. How much do you trust the output of certain governments newsagencies? I think it would be a mistake to put the BBC in that role and expect it to retain respect worldwide and not be a puppet of the government of the day. It couldn't survive. Too much would be at stake and once there was a problem, such as this queen sulk business, the whole of the BBC could find itself in a very difficult position and it's existence threatened.
Also, many dramas are shown the world over for many many years, which provides the BBC with a good propotion of it's income. I'm not sure it make financial sense to axe entertainment as the reputation of the BBC as a programme maker has an enormous value.
Posted on: 20 July 2007 by BigH47
Nobody does it better.
When did it become a crime to make an error.Please tell me any man made product that does not suffer the occasional hick up. Some are bigger than others train/plane/shuttle and car crashes. Others require a 3 pin reset.
Now of course the major thing a human makes a mistake.
Just as well we did have mistakes and errors when I was a boy eh?
Roll on the error free human I'm sure there's one out there. Probably reads this forum too.
Posted on: 20 July 2007 by Frank Abela
The point of the BBC is to provide a higher standard of programming quality on all broadcast media, not just TV. I do not have digital TV yet and therefore only enjoy the 5 terrestrial channels. My watching habits change with time, but it is rare that I can be bothered to watch decent programming such as Planet Earth or How We Built Britain. At the end of a long day, all I want is some escapism, preferably laced with humour, and this is more usually available on channels 4 and 5. Sunday mornign, I appreciate watching Countryfile and sometimes the Politics Show. there are exceptions of course, and lately my TiVo has been filled with Rome, Medium and Dr Who, all BBC.
That said, my license fee is as expensive as most subscriptions I believe, and I must say the programming on the likes of Sky are very tempting - and not BBC channels - so I do wonder occasionally why I should be forced to pay for the BBC as well as the other providers were I to invest in one of those broadcasters' services. Furthermore, I don't see why i should pay for a set-top box to convert to digital broadcast when I have been paying my license fee diligently for all these years. In the same way as the fee paying for the BBC's programming, it also pays for the BBC's development programmes - and this should include the broadcast network.
Posted on: 20 July 2007 by JamieWednesday
Frank, I have SKY. It is virtually, totally sh*t and I personally wouldn't miss most of it. However, there is a great deal of sport now shown which I would miss. And it comes with the larger packages of sport and kiddy TV which my daughter would miss too. Don't see the point of paying for the movie channels when you can select what you want to watch and when, via DVD instead. That said when and if we finally get Freeview here in the wilds of a Cambridgeshire metropolis, I will consider giving it up 'cos I'm not sure it's worth paying the subscription for the occasional chance I get to watch the cricket, the weekly Saturday Night football in season and Nick Jr! SKY + is very useful but this time delaying is of course available with many set top boxes.
Posted on: 20 July 2007 by Rasher
Me too. I have 150 channels of utter crap. If it wasn't for the children wanting Nick Jr & me the Arts channel (which I could live without), I wouldn't have it. If I could disable Chav4 & C5 too, I would.
Posted on: 20 July 2007 by u5227470736789439
Dear Friends,
When I was younger I debated at quite a high level for the Young Farmers. It was great fun as well as teaching me how to construct a good arguement that was entirely the opposite of my view!
The original post is not quite my actual view, but something close to it, which I have pondered for probably ten years. I wanted to set a base-line for people to defend the BBC.
I do not think that the current funding system can continue as it is after the next major revue where the option is still open, and it is crucial to the credibility of the BBC as a News Organisation with independance of the Government that a suitable alternative is found.
I had this particular debate with a Media Studies Professor at Coventry [where I was reading, but could not finish, Civil Engineering] in 2002, and he disagreed with the proposition I put above as well, but even he found it hard to actually justify the existence of anything except the News output, as the BBC is currently funded, given that this gives BBC a singular advantage over the commercial rival broadcasters in general entertainment programming.
Thanks for your posts, and perhaps people might like to say how the BBC might be financed in the medium term, if we accept the notion that the cuurent fee is not likely to be generally acceptable in future as the proportion of people who actually watch the BBC TV output falls with increasing numbers of channels from other senders.
I shall be away for the weekend, and so shall not be able to add anything myself till Sunday evening.
Kindest regards from Fredrik
PS: Dear Doc, I am a bit of a night owl sometimes. I still managed seven hours of sleep, and was at work this morning at seven am sharp! Having an early finish before the drive across the country! Thanks for your concern. There are only two night owls in my familly. The other is my Norwegian Aunt, and we can talk till dawn on the right day/night!
Posted on: 20 July 2007 by JamieWednesday
I suspect the rest of the worlds' nations would quite like to have a BBC?
Posted on: 20 July 2007 by BigH47
You miss so much by being so dismissive of Sky/C4/C5 etc.ER,West Wing,CSIs various,Law and Order various,Criminal Minds,Scrubs and Bones. All from the US admittedly but well made and much more thought provoking(except Scrubs) than most TV stuff on offer via satellite.
I have not even mentioned the documentary channels with new and repeated from BBC and ITV programmes.
We record what we want on the Sky+ box and have a couple of hours a night watching what we want. Then listen to music. So TV serves us not controls our lives. Offspring of course have the TV as wall paper.
Howard
Posted on: 20 July 2007 by PAAS
Fredrik,
As a fellow classical music enthusiast, how could you possibly advocate scrapping R3? If there is a "more than adequate commercial counterpart" I've yet to hear it. Surely you can't be referring to Classic FM? How can you possibly take seriously a classical music station that has Simon Bates as a presenter? "Today's 'Our Tune' is the first 3 minutes of a bit of Ravel" anybody???? "Tonights 'concert' is where we play a complete recording of Beethoven's 9th, rather than just the last 15 minutes like we usually give you". Thank God they got rid of Henry Kelly. If there were no R3, there would be no Proms, one of the greatest annual festivals of music on the planet. Where's the commercial equivalent of R4's Today program or the numerous quality comedy programs that have broken on R4 before moving on to TV for greater fame and fortune? Where's the commercial equivalent of "Just a minute" or "I'm sorry I haven't a clue"? You've been drinking too much Wyborova!!!
The job of the BBC is to provide programs for people with a bit of intelligence to listen to or watch, so that we don't have to put up with the moronic drivel that the likes of ITV provide . Of course there is some (rare) quality programming on some of the commercial stations, but to reduce the BBC to a news provider would be a huge loss to the social fabric of this country.
Rant over.
Best wishes!
Paul.
Posted on: 20 July 2007 by Chillkram
I'm with James and Rasher. I barely ever watch any of the channels on Sky which are mostly made up of utter dross in my opinion and only really watch the sports channels.
The American programmes Howard mentions don't appeal to me in the slightest bit, although I concede that, of their type, they are well made.
I never even consider ITV and channel 5 may as well not be there. 4 has lost it's way in the last few years and used to contain some good quality programming that was sometimes challenging, sometimes entertaining. Now it's just mostly shit like 'Big Brother'!
No, just give me the BBC over all the others every time. It's mine, I pay for it and I can tell them when they get it wrong. The others I'll just switch off.
Mark
Posted on: 21 July 2007 by Earwicker
The BBC should be disbanded. We're all FORCED to pay for a load of PC dumbed-down po-mo pile of arse and tosh aimed at plebs idiots and morons. Okay so the other terrestrial channels/stations are shit too, but they're free. Being corrupt is the east of their worries. They rip us all off anyway. The problem the BBC has is it is shit.
Posted on: 21 July 2007 by BigH47
Yet another well reasoned argument.
Posted on: 21 July 2007 by Earwicker
quote:
Originally posted by BigH47:
Yet another well reasoned argument.
It's very well reasoned: we are OBLIGED to PAY for RUBBISH. Other purveyors of garbage do so on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Own a TV and you HAVE to pay the BBC for a load of shit.
Posted on: 21 July 2007 by JamieWednesday
quote:
Other purveyors of garbage do so on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Own a TV and you HAVE to pay the BBC for a load of shit.
And much of the dumbed down, do everthing for LCDs via TV
and radio is somewhat forced upon them by third parties in the name of quantity and apparent choice, rather than quality, to justify that licence fee.
I still maintain that pound for pound the Beeb to a better job for my money than SKY does at five times the price with ads too. And the website is one of the best around too.
And let's not forget that far more programmes are comissioned from other production companies these days and they still turn out better on the Beeb! I think that eighty odd years of experience shows through and that the oldies do sometimes know better...Apart from Steve Wright, who's a tit.
Posted on: 21 July 2007 by Earwicker
I think I could live quite happily without TV or radio now. The BBC's TV news programmes are now so dumbed down its very irritating to watch them. I swear to God one evening George Alagiah is going to say, "today, let's look through the round window" as he smiles at us in that ridiculous manner nursery school teachers use for babies.
Radio 3 used to be okay, now that's mostly shit too.
Most if not all the content of the BBC's website is bettered elsewhere.
I hate Easterners and all that crap, and I'm not remotely interested in what Mrs Mangles chickens are up to on Corronation Farm.
I am grateful for my hi-fi!!
EW
Posted on: 21 July 2007 by Guido Fawkes
quote:
Originally posted by Earwicker:
The BBC .... we're all FORCED to pay for a load of PC dumbed-down po-mo pile of arse and tosh aimed at plebs, idiots and morons.....
That's its appeal, it caters specifically for me.
Posted on: 21 July 2007 by chaliapin
I feel sorry for Auntie; she has to produce 'oven chip' television such as East Enders because people are always saying that she has to have universal appeal, and then we turn and cricitise her for it. Unfortunately, those programmes that appeal most widely tend to be the ones that satisfy the least. Look at the viewing figures for East Enders and Yes, Minister. I know which I'd rather watch, but I'd be in the much smaller audience.
There is also a degree of hypocrisy about the other major broadcasters bleating on about the licence fee. Although they don't admit it, they'd hate it if the Beeb could advertise because it would attract advertisers away from them. There is a lot of kudos and reputation attached to the BBC (just listen to foreign luminaries talking about the World Service) and those are qualities that appeal to advertisers.
Lastly, let's ask ourselves who would cover local events if Auntie didn't. Commercial radio operators such as GCAP and EMAP are moving ever further away from local programming in order to secure advertising numbers.
Yours, somewhat misty eyed, raising a glass to Auntie.
Chaliapin
Posted on: 21 July 2007 by Steve S1
quote:
I still maintain that pound for pound the Beeb to a better job for my money than SKY does at five times the price
Agreed. The BBC is a fantastic organisation, given it's sheer size and output. It continues to be responsible for some of the best programming available on TV, Radio and on-line. It has also played a leading part in the technical development of infrastructure that is routinely used by others.
Many of the quality individuals (in front or behind cameras) in other broadcasting organisations, were BBC trained.
Yes there are problems. The high demand for crap tabloid output these days (even in news bulletins). The fickle media (usually Murdoch owned) who whinge about too much or too little elitism. Regulators who complain about chasing ratings and in the same breath chunter on about poor viewing figures.
Anyone who thinks the BBC are high on the list of UK problems should be sent to the USA and forced to watch the crap they spew out 24/7.
Steve
Posted on: 21 July 2007 by BigH47
The reasoned bit being that ALL BBC O/P is shit? You need your bumps felt IMO.
