Post by Teddy Bear on Sept 23, 2007 21:14:34 GMT
For too long now, the BBC have been using its once well deserved reputation, to pander to corruption, promulgate ill-thought out views, as well as decrease quality and output.
A reputation, built up by an ethical and moral practise over many years and during hard times for this country, which once resulted in pride and enjoyment to its citizens. made it possible for them to be more readily accepted when they began to deviate.
Its understandable that people would take a while to come to the realisation that the BBC of today is not the same one of yesteryear. Never in its history has the matter of trust in this organisation been broached as much as it nowadays. this reputation has been severely tarnished, which must result in the BBC having its wings clipped, at least in the amount of damage it can do based on its once worthy reputation.
TRUTH WILL OUT!
A reputation, built up by an ethical and moral practise over many years and during hard times for this country, which once resulted in pride and enjoyment to its citizens. made it possible for them to be more readily accepted when they began to deviate.
Its understandable that people would take a while to come to the realisation that the BBC of today is not the same one of yesteryear. Never in its history has the matter of trust in this organisation been broached as much as it nowadays. this reputation has been severely tarnished, which must result in the BBC having its wings clipped, at least in the amount of damage it can do based on its once worthy reputation.
TRUTH WILL OUT!
Trust with the BBC is betrayed
David Elstein
Last Updated: 1:00am BST 23/09/2007
British terrestrial broadcasting has suffered an entirely self-inflicted catastrophe. Questions about the way TV premium line phone-in quizzes were run have exposed an iceberg of trickery, incompetence and fraud.
All the major commercial broadcasters – ITV, Channel 4, Five, GMTV – have lost viewer trust, and face fines and denunciations by their regulator.
Astonishingly, the BBC has also been fined by Ofcom, for announcing a fake winner of a Blue Peter competition, and failing to stop viewers wasting their money by calling in when the show was repeated.
There appears to be among the terrestrial broadcasters a collective contempt for the audience, who are invited to participate, only to be ignored, ripped off or deceived.
Those who urged, during BBC Charter review, that all external regulation of the BBC should fall to Ofcom, are now asking whether the replacement of the Board of Governors by a more arm's-length BBC Trust has solved the problem of BBC accountability.
With only a fraction of the regulatory experience and clout of Ofcom, the trust has found itself on the back foot all year.
Instead of requiring the BBC to abandon phone-in competitions as soon as Ofcom published its report on Blue Peter, the trust waited for the BBC's own internal investigation.
Damningly, just two days later, another BBC production, Comic Relief, mounted another fake viewer competition. It was only after three months – and a slew of further revelations – that the BBC finally called a halt.
What we have witnessed is not a function of lowly trainees lacking training, or irresponsible independent producers out to make a fast buck. Most of the BBC's self-admitted errors have been in-house.
One radio show that purported to be live, week after week inviting listeners to call in to competitions, was pre-recorded, and simply named fake winners.
Some defenders of the broadcasters protest that too much is made of relatively trivial matters, such as Alan Yentob's attempt to pretend he was present at certain interviews by inserting shots of him responding.
Perhaps they are what the BBC director general, Mark Thompson, with his Stonyhurst education, might call venial sins.
But what all of these incidents demonstrate is a culture of arrogance and immunity: it is astonishing that, in its 85th year, the BBC feels it necessary to put all 16,500 production staff through what it calls an "unprecedented programme of editorial training".
In my days as editor of Thames TV's This Week, I had one simple rule for my team: assume that everything you do will one day become public knowledge.
That stood them in good stead when the Thatcher government launched its fierce attack on Death On The Rock. After months of investigation by a former cabinet minister and a QC, the programme team was completely vindicated.
It was noteworthy that the main pay-TV platforms, Sky and Virgin, discouraged premium-rate quizzes. With their direct relationship to customers, they did not want to put trust at risk through poor-value propositions.
The terrestrial broadcasters, funded by advertising or the licence fee, lack such a relationship – and so act as if they are far less accountable. Even programmes like Right To Reply and Biteback have gone from their screens.
If fake quizzes are venial sins, loss of impartiality is – for the BBC – a mortal one. This summer, the BBC published a laudably honest independent report on impartiality, which exposed the prevalence of political correctness and "groupthink".
It revealed how despite all the BBC's efforts, its editorial processes were captured two years ago by the Make Poverty History lobby group, in the shape of a major drama, an episode of The Vicar Of Dibley, and a massive live concert, all promoting the same ideas.
It was only after two senior BBC executives earlier this month protested in public that a similar event relating to environmental issues – Planet Relief – was abandoned.
How can trust be restored to the BBC? Certainly not by calling in former executives to investigate, which is how the mis-edited footage of the Queen is being handled.
What is needed are wholly independent adjudicators, with a wide remit and access to email traffic.
In addition, any fines inflicted on the BBC by Ofcom should be a charge on the executive board, not the licence payer. Meanwhile, the BBC Trust needs to galvanize itself if it, too, is not to be damaged by the wave of distrust that has affected so many public institutions.
David Elstein is a former chief executive of Channel 5, and a former head of programmes at BSkyB.
David Elstein
Last Updated: 1:00am BST 23/09/2007
British terrestrial broadcasting has suffered an entirely self-inflicted catastrophe. Questions about the way TV premium line phone-in quizzes were run have exposed an iceberg of trickery, incompetence and fraud.
All the major commercial broadcasters – ITV, Channel 4, Five, GMTV – have lost viewer trust, and face fines and denunciations by their regulator.
Astonishingly, the BBC has also been fined by Ofcom, for announcing a fake winner of a Blue Peter competition, and failing to stop viewers wasting their money by calling in when the show was repeated.
There appears to be among the terrestrial broadcasters a collective contempt for the audience, who are invited to participate, only to be ignored, ripped off or deceived.
Those who urged, during BBC Charter review, that all external regulation of the BBC should fall to Ofcom, are now asking whether the replacement of the Board of Governors by a more arm's-length BBC Trust has solved the problem of BBC accountability.
With only a fraction of the regulatory experience and clout of Ofcom, the trust has found itself on the back foot all year.
Instead of requiring the BBC to abandon phone-in competitions as soon as Ofcom published its report on Blue Peter, the trust waited for the BBC's own internal investigation.
Damningly, just two days later, another BBC production, Comic Relief, mounted another fake viewer competition. It was only after three months – and a slew of further revelations – that the BBC finally called a halt.
What we have witnessed is not a function of lowly trainees lacking training, or irresponsible independent producers out to make a fast buck. Most of the BBC's self-admitted errors have been in-house.
One radio show that purported to be live, week after week inviting listeners to call in to competitions, was pre-recorded, and simply named fake winners.
Some defenders of the broadcasters protest that too much is made of relatively trivial matters, such as Alan Yentob's attempt to pretend he was present at certain interviews by inserting shots of him responding.
Perhaps they are what the BBC director general, Mark Thompson, with his Stonyhurst education, might call venial sins.
But what all of these incidents demonstrate is a culture of arrogance and immunity: it is astonishing that, in its 85th year, the BBC feels it necessary to put all 16,500 production staff through what it calls an "unprecedented programme of editorial training".
In my days as editor of Thames TV's This Week, I had one simple rule for my team: assume that everything you do will one day become public knowledge.
That stood them in good stead when the Thatcher government launched its fierce attack on Death On The Rock. After months of investigation by a former cabinet minister and a QC, the programme team was completely vindicated.
It was noteworthy that the main pay-TV platforms, Sky and Virgin, discouraged premium-rate quizzes. With their direct relationship to customers, they did not want to put trust at risk through poor-value propositions.
The terrestrial broadcasters, funded by advertising or the licence fee, lack such a relationship – and so act as if they are far less accountable. Even programmes like Right To Reply and Biteback have gone from their screens.
If fake quizzes are venial sins, loss of impartiality is – for the BBC – a mortal one. This summer, the BBC published a laudably honest independent report on impartiality, which exposed the prevalence of political correctness and "groupthink".
It revealed how despite all the BBC's efforts, its editorial processes were captured two years ago by the Make Poverty History lobby group, in the shape of a major drama, an episode of The Vicar Of Dibley, and a massive live concert, all promoting the same ideas.
It was only after two senior BBC executives earlier this month protested in public that a similar event relating to environmental issues – Planet Relief – was abandoned.
How can trust be restored to the BBC? Certainly not by calling in former executives to investigate, which is how the mis-edited footage of the Queen is being handled.
What is needed are wholly independent adjudicators, with a wide remit and access to email traffic.
In addition, any fines inflicted on the BBC by Ofcom should be a charge on the executive board, not the licence payer. Meanwhile, the BBC Trust needs to galvanize itself if it, too, is not to be damaged by the wave of distrust that has affected so many public institutions.
David Elstein is a former chief executive of Channel 5, and a former head of programmes at BSkyB.