Post by Teddy Bear on Sept 27, 2008 22:29:49 GMT
A well written article with a fair perspective.
Make the BBC fight for the licence fee
By Neil Midgley
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 26/09/2008
With his poll ratings through the floor, the last thing Gordon Brown wants is to be accused of stealing off a cash-strapped old lady. But with Auntie BBC, 86 years old next month, that's exactly what he might have to do.
Yesterday Ed Richards, the chief executive of Ofcom, published a report that painted a bleak picture for the future of "public service" programmes on the United Kingdom's commercial TV channels. No longer is ITV a licence to print money - its regional news is under threat. No longer is Big Brother enough to subsidise the more savoury end of Channel 4's schedule.
Mr Richards's report had lots of suggestions for plugging that ever-widening hole in the commercial sector, which he estimated will be at least £145 million by 2012. He suggested, with a straight face, that Mr Brown could put a tax on iPods, blank DVDs and Sky+ boxes.
Another Ofcom suggestion is more plausible: to take some money from the BBC licence fee and give it to Channel 4. Or possibly to ITV, or to any other commercial broadcaster that can come up with a slate of programmes to make Andy Burnham, the Culture Secretary, slaver with culturally enriched delight. (My, what a fine channel you have in Sky Arts, Mr Murdoch. Care to install a dish at Downing Street before the next election?)
Mr Richards has identified £130 million a year that the BBC is currently spending on digital switchover - in other words, buying Freeview boxes for the needy. By 2012, digital switchover will be finished, and Mr Richards has work for that idle £130 million to do. And the BBC would not have to stop making a single programme.
Click here to see Ofcom's report on public service broadcasting
It's only a tiny bit of the licence fee; the BBC's annual income is more than £3 billion. But it could go a long way in the right hands (it would fund 30 series such as Cranford, for example). Commercial broadcasters might well use that money more creatively than the BBC. If they did, Auntie's whole bloated empire would suddenly be under threat.
It's hardly likely that Channel 4 would use hard-won licence fee money to make Homes under the Hammer. The dismal cookery shows on BBC Two would taste even more bland. BBC One's endless fly-on-the-wall paramedic documentary series would have to fight for their lives. If Channel 4 suddenly had licence fee cash and used it to provide superb programmes for teenagers, the justification for youth channel BBC Three would begin to look shaky.
There's a structural problem for the BBC, too. Either it has a monopoly over the licence fee or it doesn't. For even a tiny bit of that money to go to other broadcasters, a whole new mechanism will have to be created - possibly involving a new "Public Service Authority" to dole out the cash. Even now, the BBC is a pampered public-sector presence in an increasingly cash-strapped commercial market. Imagine how much more monolithic it might look in 2017, when the BBC Charter comes up for renewal - especially if the PSA has done a good job with its comparatively tiny budget.
Yesterday, Mr Richards was at pains to say that he had not yet made his mind up which of the report's funding options was his favourite. And the BBC's legendary lobbying machine, so far surprisingly quiet, will surely now spring into action. Yet even without the BBC's special pleading, it is by no means clear that sharing out the licence fee to all and sundry is a good idea.
Channel 4's ratings are down 15 per cent since its "creative renewal" last year - if audiences don't like its public service vision, it's hard to see why more money should be thrown at it. The idea of the PSA, another quango no doubt stuffed with Brownite bureaucrats, is also hardly appetising. But the harder the BBC has to fight for its income, the better it will serve the people who pay for it.
By Neil Midgley
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 26/09/2008
With his poll ratings through the floor, the last thing Gordon Brown wants is to be accused of stealing off a cash-strapped old lady. But with Auntie BBC, 86 years old next month, that's exactly what he might have to do.
Yesterday Ed Richards, the chief executive of Ofcom, published a report that painted a bleak picture for the future of "public service" programmes on the United Kingdom's commercial TV channels. No longer is ITV a licence to print money - its regional news is under threat. No longer is Big Brother enough to subsidise the more savoury end of Channel 4's schedule.
Mr Richards's report had lots of suggestions for plugging that ever-widening hole in the commercial sector, which he estimated will be at least £145 million by 2012. He suggested, with a straight face, that Mr Brown could put a tax on iPods, blank DVDs and Sky+ boxes.
Another Ofcom suggestion is more plausible: to take some money from the BBC licence fee and give it to Channel 4. Or possibly to ITV, or to any other commercial broadcaster that can come up with a slate of programmes to make Andy Burnham, the Culture Secretary, slaver with culturally enriched delight. (My, what a fine channel you have in Sky Arts, Mr Murdoch. Care to install a dish at Downing Street before the next election?)
Mr Richards has identified £130 million a year that the BBC is currently spending on digital switchover - in other words, buying Freeview boxes for the needy. By 2012, digital switchover will be finished, and Mr Richards has work for that idle £130 million to do. And the BBC would not have to stop making a single programme.
Click here to see Ofcom's report on public service broadcasting
It's only a tiny bit of the licence fee; the BBC's annual income is more than £3 billion. But it could go a long way in the right hands (it would fund 30 series such as Cranford, for example). Commercial broadcasters might well use that money more creatively than the BBC. If they did, Auntie's whole bloated empire would suddenly be under threat.
It's hardly likely that Channel 4 would use hard-won licence fee money to make Homes under the Hammer. The dismal cookery shows on BBC Two would taste even more bland. BBC One's endless fly-on-the-wall paramedic documentary series would have to fight for their lives. If Channel 4 suddenly had licence fee cash and used it to provide superb programmes for teenagers, the justification for youth channel BBC Three would begin to look shaky.
There's a structural problem for the BBC, too. Either it has a monopoly over the licence fee or it doesn't. For even a tiny bit of that money to go to other broadcasters, a whole new mechanism will have to be created - possibly involving a new "Public Service Authority" to dole out the cash. Even now, the BBC is a pampered public-sector presence in an increasingly cash-strapped commercial market. Imagine how much more monolithic it might look in 2017, when the BBC Charter comes up for renewal - especially if the PSA has done a good job with its comparatively tiny budget.
Yesterday, Mr Richards was at pains to say that he had not yet made his mind up which of the report's funding options was his favourite. And the BBC's legendary lobbying machine, so far surprisingly quiet, will surely now spring into action. Yet even without the BBC's special pleading, it is by no means clear that sharing out the licence fee to all and sundry is a good idea.
Channel 4's ratings are down 15 per cent since its "creative renewal" last year - if audiences don't like its public service vision, it's hard to see why more money should be thrown at it. The idea of the PSA, another quango no doubt stuffed with Brownite bureaucrats, is also hardly appetising. But the harder the BBC has to fight for its income, the better it will serve the people who pay for it.