BBC Creates Own 'Independent' Letter from 'Stars'

[Teddy Bear]

Most will have heard this week about the letter that was signed by 'stars' as the BBC likes to call them - you decide for yourselves, calling on the government not to diminish the BBC. The BBC tried to scam everybody that this letter was done independently of them by the stars themselves, who anyway earn massive amounts from the BBC bankroll and clearly have a self interest. Then some of the stars admitted that the request to sign this letter came from the BBC themselves. Now it turns out that the BBC penned the letter themselves as well, which for most aware of the devious mindset, will come as no surprise.

The plot thickens!

The letter, sent to Downing Street this week, reads:

Dear Prime Minister,

We have seen that the Government has pledged to modernise the licence fee, return funding that had been diverted to pay for broadband roll-out, and increase the licence fee in line with inflation in return for the BBC taking on the costs of Licence Fees for the over 75's.

The Government and the BBC are now entering the Charter Review.

We are writing to place on record at the very start of the process our concern that nothing should be done to diminish the BBC or turn it into a narrowly focused market-failure broadcaster.

In our view, a diminished BBC would simply mean a diminished Britain.

The BBC is a very precious institution. Like all organisations, it has its faults but it is overwhelmingly a creative force for good.

Britain's creative economy is growing and enjoying unprecedented success. The BBC is at the heart of this as the global showcase for our creative industries. The BBC is trusted and loved at home by British audiences and is the envy of the world abroad.

During the course of the Charter, we will continue to make the case for a strong BBC at the centre of British life and will be vocal in making the case for the BBC as it approaches its centenary.

Yours sincerely

Clara Amfo; David Attenborough; Clare Balding; Melvyn Bragg; Brian Cox; Daniel Craig; Richard Curtis; Judi Dench; Chris Evans; Stephen Fry; Nick Grimshaw; Miranda Hart; Lenny Henry; Gary Lineker; Michael McIntyre; Steven Moffatt; Trevor Nelson; Annie Nightingale; Graham Norton; Jamie Oliver; Michael Palin; Adil Ray; JK Rowling; Mark Rylance; Simon Schama; David Walliams; Rachel Weisz; Claudia Winkleman; Reggie Yates

Ex Labour minister behind the plot: £300,000-a-year executive James Purnell linked to celebrities' warning letter over BBC funding shake-up

By Andrew Pierce for the Daily Mail

Perched in his oak-panelled office at Old Broadcasting House, former Labour Cabinet minister James Purnell, the BBC’s head of strategy, was pondering how to fight back against Tory plans to reform the Corporation.

For days there had been a deepening sense of gloom in BBC executive suites over Culture Secretary John Whittingdale’s green paper, which he unveiled in the Commons yesterday, and which promises the biggest overhaul of the corporation in a decade.

One of the most powerful executives at the BBC, £300,000-a-year Purnell – whose first Cabinet post under Gordon Brown was Culture Secretary – was determined to launch a pre-emptive strike to try to overshadow Whittingdale’s announcement.

An overtly party-political figure, Purnell learnt the art of spin doctoring from Alastair Campbell as a special adviser under Tony Blair. He is no stranger to crisis management – or to fighting the Tories.

So it’s hardly a surprise his name has been linked to the BBC’s decision to put out a letter signed by celebrities warning that the Government’s plans to shake-up the Corporation risked damaging Britain’s global standing.

The letter, published on Monday, was presented as an independent protest against the Tories’ plans to change the way the Corporation is funded - only this week, its annual report revealed that no fewer than 81 of its managers earn more than the Prime Minister’s £142,000 salary.

The truth is that there was nothing spontaneous or independent about the letter, which the BBC leaked to two newspapers. It was in fact a clumsy and arrogant attempt by its bosses to win over public opinion, which has now spectacularly backfired.

What made matters worse was that when the letter was published the BBC press office denied the letter was anything to do with them.

It is possible that the directors who authorised the letter never bothered to keep the press office informed. Asked about James Purnell’s apparent involvement, they declined to comment.

But it wasn’t only Purnell who was implicated. Lord Hall, the £532,000-a-year director general, was also said to be in the loop.

When Hall started in the post in April 2013, he declared that one of his first tasks was to try to curb the size of the salaries bill for senior celebrity figures.

However, the BBC’s annual report revealed on Wednesday that the cost of overall talent at the Corporation rose last year by 7 per cent to £208 million.

Aware that there would be negative headlines from the report, the BBC took the crass decision to deploy the celebrity letter and directors were mobilised to secure the signatures of some of the talent on their books. One of the driving forces was Danny Cohen, the director of BBC Television, who secured the biggest names: Daniel Craig, the latest James Bond, and his wife, the actress Rachel Weisz.

Cohen is close friends with the couple. Miss Weisz was matron of honour at Cohen’s wedding three years ago to the academic Professor Noreena Hertz.

When he became the youngest ever BBC1 controller in 2010 at the age of 36, Danny Cohen was seen as the golden boy of broadcasting and a future director-general. But his star has waned, not least because of the £22million spent on The Voice, the Saturday-night talent and ratings disaster.

Paid more than £327,000 a year, he is in charge of an astonishing £1.3billion budget at BBC1.

Other directors ordered into action to secure support included Radio 1 controller Ben Cooper. He signed up veteran broadcaster Annie Nightingale – who let the cat out of the bag that the Beeb were behind the operation.

A number of performers never saw the text of the letter, but agreed to sign after being told the broad thrust of the missive.

Once it was published there was much backslapping among directors and BBC staff, since it was perceived as a job well done.

Now, there is an inquest within the BBC about the decision to allow so many celebrities who depend exclusively or predominately on the corporation for their handsome incomes to sign in the first place. They include chat show host Graham Norton, thought to earn more than £1million a year, and Chris Evans, the Radio 2 presenter who is about to front Top Gear, one of the BBC’s most lucrative exports.

One senior BBC source said: ‘The letter smacks of panic. It was too rushed, which is why the wrong names are on the list. They should have been more considered, and gone to Hollywood to get the likes of Ian McKellen, Daniel Day-Lewis, and Damian Lewis, who are not dependent on the BBC, but love it.

‘This is a spectacular own goal. And we will pay for it.’

[Teddy Bear]

Excellent article from Janet Daley

The BBC’s ridiculous threat: meddle with the licence fee and Strictly gets it
In wheeling out celebrities to spout the party line, the broadcaster demonstrates just how out of control it is

By Janet Daley

That open letter from an army of highly paid celebrities arguing that nothing should be done to “diminish” the BBC has turned out to be somewhat counter-productive. Indeed, it has provided a useful text for those the BBC regards as self-serving conspirators out to destroy it. Not just because this supposedly spontaneous, independent letter turned out to have been orchestrated by the management of the corporation itself, who then solicited signatures from the stars whose names were appended to it. That revelation would have been evidence enough that the BBC was no stranger to self-serving conspiracy. But it was the wording of the letter – the breathtaking conceit of it – that was most informative.

What the celebrities wrote (or, presumably, had written for them) was no less than this: “In our view, a diminished BBC would simply mean a diminished Britain.” Seriously? Is there any other institution in the country, apart from the monarchy, that could make such a claim without blushing at its own self-regarding hyperbole?

Perhaps the BBC executives, who flew into characteristically defensive hyper-activity in response to what they depicted as an existential threat (otherwise known as a demand for reform), should consider whether the corporation’s anomalous position is as much a problem for them as for the wider broadcasting culture of the country. And maybe they could proceed from that thought to questioning their own absolute refusal to consider ways in which they might continue to make a major contribution to British life without stomping all over every outlet that competes for airtime/digital survival/opinion-forming influence.

Oddly, for an organisation that defends the principle of benign monopoly as the undisputed “voice of the nation”, the BBC behaves in the marketplace like the most ruthless and unscrupulous competitor. No sooner does a new platform or technological possibility appear than the BBC goes for full-on invasion, inevitably offering all its wares for free, backed by the humongous subsidy it receives from the licence fee. Newspaper websites that must pay their way through subscription and advertising may have been the most vociferous critics of this but, in fact, the BBC’s imperial digital presence has expanded into less likely areas such as food, lifestyle and the environment. (It publishes recipes, for heaven’s sake. What next? A price-comparison site selling insurance to put the meerkats out of business?)

Many BBC apologists are comparing the corporation to the NHS as a totem that embodies the very nature of our national identity. Indeed, Labour’s culture spokesman, Chris Bryant, described the BBC as “our cultural NHS”. Not very helpful that, in a week when the NHS has been described in an independent report by Lord Rose as “drowning in bureaucracy”, suffering from a shortage of good leadership and possessing an administration that lacks common sense. In fact, Mr Bryant hit the nail precisely on the head. The BBC does, in fact, have a great deal in common with the NHS. Like the NHS (whose funding model is also an anachronism), the BBC has a stage army of self-interested loyalists that springs into attack whenever any change in its modes of operation is suggested. Like the NHS, whose champions insist it must be preserved in every aspect of its present incarnation because it saves many lives, so the BBC is defended in its sacrosanct existing form because it makes many excellent programmes. These analogous arguments embody precisely the same logical flaw.

Of course, the NHS saves lives. That’s what modern medical care is supposed to do: clinical staff manage to save lives and relieve suffering under a huge variety of healthcare systems around the world. In truth, some of those other systems have better outcomes than our own dear NHS. And to say that is not to cast aspersions on the doctors and nurses who work in our service but to raise legitimate questions about whether the delivery of care might not be improved with organisational changes.

To pursue the analogy with the BBC: of course the corporation makes many fine programmes. Given that it has generations of expertise and the budget of a small country, it would be surprising if it did not. But to claim that it is a unique generator of inimitable creative content is simply absurd. Not only has American television drama (The Wire, Mad Men, The Sopranos, Breaking Bad) far outstripped that of the BBC in originality, seriousness of purpose and, quite simply, quality, but the output of British independent television over the last generation has more than given the BBC a run for its money. Arguably, the two finest British drama series ever made were Jewel in the Crown (1984) and Brideshead Revisited (1981), both of which were produced by the independent company Granada. In popular drama, ITV has generally won out over the BBC as well: Inspector Morse was made by Carlton Television for ITV, and Poirot came from London Weekend Television.

It is certainly the case that the BBC does some splendid things: Wolf Hall was a triumph, Springwatch is a joy, the Proms are a treasure. But to claim that it is the only possible repository of talent or even of high-level intentions is outrageous. Sky Arts is broadcasting an opera every week. It is also commissioning original plays and importing superb foreign drama of uncompromising seriousness (The Legacy). The BBC might well be more entitled to its claim to the high ground if it stopped extending its hegemony over every inch of new territory and concentrated on what it might, in good faith, consider to be its proper remit.

But that is not what the BBC is prepared to contemplate. What it publicly threatens is its popular light entertainment, with which the largest number of people will be familiar: any meddling with the licence fee and Strictly Come Dancing gets it. But I gather that behind the scenes it is really considering axing its News Channel; this would mean that the corporation, which considers itself to be the most trusted and prestigious news organisation in the world, would withdraw its 24-hour TV news presence. BBC television viewers would be forced to return to the quaint expectation of being apprised of world events at three widely spaced intervals in the day and evening. The reasoning behind this is that management now believes that the future of round-the-clock news is purely digital. That may sound innocently plausible, but what it would actually mean is quite fiendishly calculated.

Instead of broadcasting all-day live breaking news coverage that involves the expense of a television studio and presenters, the BBC would simply run its correspondents’ recorded reports from main news bulletins on its news website. That’s the very same BBC News website now providing such grossly unfair, heavily subsidised competition to the newspapers’ websites. Do you see what happened there? This manoeuvre would have a distorting effect on the market in two ways: it would leave the UK with only one 24-hour television news provider (Sky News, which is certainly excellent, but will hardly need to bother maintaining its standards if it has no competitors) and it will enhance the ability of the BBC News website to beat its commercial newspaper rivals.

And talking of news coverage inevitably brings us to the matter of bias. So terrified is the BBC of being accused of partiality that much of its output is either anodyne or slyly tendentious. The truth is that the BBC is now such a huge, self-referring, inbred institution that it can no longer trust its own judgment. It is entirely possible – and very common – for its staff to spend their whole adult lives within its confines. For this reason alone, it needs to be reduced in size and scope – yes, “diminished” – for its own good.

[Teddy Bear]

Well, either by choice, or pressure from above, Cohen has decided to quit the BBC. What really annoys me is that he plans to go to the States and work there. After being part of the propaganda force that is daily ruining this country, he's decided he wants to live elsewhere.

Typical!

Exit stage left, metropolitan metrosexual luvvie who couldn't get BBC top job: ANDREW PIERCE on the departure of the corporation's high priest of political correctness

By Andrew Pierce for the Daily Mail

Every morning, Danny Cohen spends 15 minutes meditating. Such a luxury is rare, even in the pampered world of media luvvies which he inhabits.

He believes that such exercises can ‘purify’ negative karma and steel him for the rough and tumble of the day ahead.

But no amount of mind exercises could protect him when he was accused of deceit for orchestrating an open letter signed by celebrities which claimed that Government plans to reform the BBC ‘would mean a diminished Britain.’

Angry MPs reacted by demanding an investigation into whether Cohen, 41, had broken BBC rules.

Signatories – who included Judi Dench, Graham Norton and Stephen Fry – had been contacted by Cohen, after, it is thought, his Cambridge professor wife had suggested it as a useful lobbying tool.

However, the clumsily-organised campaign backfired amid widespread criticism. Indeed, Annie Nightingale, Radio 1’s longest-serving presenter, exposed the truth when she admitted she had not even read the letter but had signed it.

Last night Cohen – who as director of television was on £327,800-a-year – announced he was quitting the corporation in order to move to America.

With speculation rife that he will now end up at either online streaming service Netflix or Amazon, Cohen said he was leaving so he could consider US job offers ‘in an open and transparent way’. Sources close to him insisted he resigned of his own volition – dismissing suggestions that Cohen jumped before he was pushed.

For the luvvies’ letter was not the first blunder by the man seen as the BBC’s high priest of political correctness. A few months earlier, Cohen had found another opportunity to parade his liberal credentials.

He was much less willing than some colleagues to tolerate the ‘boorish’ Jeremy Clarkson, who had again got himself into trouble after punching a young Top Gear producer in the face.

This was the perfect opportunity for Cohen to tackle Clarkson – for many years a hate-figure on the Left. Indeed, he had wanted to suspend or sack Clarkson last year, after the Top Gear presenter had used the racist word ‘slope’ (a derogatory term for people of Asian descent) during an episode of the show in Burma.

A BBC executive told me: ‘Cohen wouldn’t even speak to Clarkson. He prefers liberals and intellectuals, not right-wing petrol-heads.’

However, Cohen was overruled by the BBC’s director-general Lord Hall, who forced him to let Clarkson off with a ‘final’ warning. And so, after this humiliation, how Cohen must have relished the idea of banning Clarkson from the BBC for good after it was revealed that he had punched a junior colleague.

Another key player in this drama was Cohen’s close friend, James Purnell, the BBC’s £295,000-a-year director of strategy and a former Labour minister.

At the height of the row over Clarkson’s punch, BBC ‘insiders’ briefed against the Top Gear presenter, comparing him to serial paedophile Jimmy Savile. Clarkson’s outraged friends believed the absurd comment came from a source connected to Purnell’s office, a claim the BBC denied.

Unsurprisingly, Purnell was said to have helped Cohen with his cack-handed lobbying letter from 29 celebrities about the BBC’s future. It was the worst kept secret at the BBC that the hyper-ambitious Cohen hoped to succeed Hall as director-general but the letter fiasco, it now seems, led to a fatal rift between the two men.

Never shy of wearing his political colours on his sleeve, he’d also made too many enemies in government. Senior ministers had made it clear privately that Cohen would never get the Number One job.

But then this was the man who, earlier, as boss of BBC3, was responsible for ‘yoof’ shows with trashy titles such as Snog Marry Avoid, F*** Off, I’m A Hairy Woman, and Hotter Than My Daughter.

But then as an Oxford and independent school-educated member of the liberal, London metropolitan elite, Cohen is cocooned from the real world where the majority of BBC licence fee-payers live.

Soon after taking over BBC1, where he became the youngest ever controller at the age of 36, he axed popular middle class shows such as My Family (the long-running sitcom starring Robert Lindsay and Zoe Wanamaker) and the family drama series Outnumbered.

But there were some successes, including Call The Midwife, Poldark, Last Tango In Halifax (about a widowed couple in their seventies) and the crime series Happy Valley. One notable debacle during his time as the BBC’s director of television was the poor ratings for its Saturday night TV talent show The Voice which cost £22 million.

In August, he had to apologise to singer Tom Jones, one of the judges, who discovered he was sacked only 24 hours before the new line-up was announced. Jones complained of ‘sub-standard behaviour from the executives’.

Cohen makes much of the fact that he is part of a ‘power couple’. Intriguingly, his economist wife, Professor Noreena Hertz, had earlier put her name to a political petition similar to the one from the ‘29 BBC luvvies’.

Hers was sent to the left-leaning Guardian newspaper and described the Lib Dems as ‘today’s change-makers’ and the Conservatives as ‘opposed to the deep democratic reforms the country needs’. The opportunity to ‘reshape politics’, declared the letter, ‘must be seized’.

Hertz, who regularly appears on the BBC, shared her husband’s passion for the Corporation to bring ‘more culture to the world’. (Though how Hotter Than My Daughter fits the bill is unclear!)

Certainly, their vision for the BBC did not mean tamely acquiescing to a Tory government’s drive to reform the BBC’s bloated £5.1billion-a-year budget.

Characteristically for a man who loves trendy open shirts and designer stubble, Cohen hired PR firm Taylor Herring to manage the news of his departure.

In media circles, there is speculation his next job will be with Netflix or – most ironically – with Amazon, which would mean him linking up again with his bete noire Jeremy Clarkson, who recently signed a £10million-a-year deal to make a new version his Top Gear series.

How the metropolitan, metrosexual Leftie luvvie will fare is anyone’s guess.