Post by Teddy Bear on Sept 10, 2009 22:33:36 GMT
Well written article from today's Daily Mail that highlights quite a few points of what's wrong with the present BBC.
At last the bloated BBC admits they may have grown too big
By Harry Phibbs
Last updated at 1:20 PM on 10th September 2009
Many of us have known for some time that the BBC has become bloated, growing out of control - but such concerns have been arrogantly dismissed in the past as the Corporation secures ever larger licence fees.
At least with the poll tax you could vote in local elections to have some influence on the size of the bill. The licence fee is a poll tax with all the unfairness of hitting the poorest hardest - without any redeeming democratic accountability.
The BBC hasn't gone so far as to suggest it could manage with a lower licence fee but they have, at long last, conceded that they may have grown too big. That, rather than being cut off from the economic realities that the rest of us cope with, they should take a serious look at the scope of their operations.
Sir Michael Lyons, Chairman of the BBC Trust says: ‘Seismic shifts in the economy and in technology require us to think bigger, even though it may mean the BBC becoming smaller, and above all to ensure we really are delivering the BBC that licence fee payers want and are willing to pay for.’
No doubt Sir Michael is sincere. But he will come up against a BBC culture of utter disdain for the licence fee payer. This is not because the people employed there are inherently bad. It is just human nature that where an organisation income is guaranteed there will be a difference in how its staff operates.
The BBC behaves in the most self indulgent and extravagant manner because it can. If Radio Two took advertising then the listeners would be essential. Treating them with contempt by replacing Terry Wogan with Chris Evans would mean facing the consequence of a smaller budget if it caused fewer listeners as that would mean less advertising revenue.
The public service argument for the BBC was morally sacrificed by their decision to retain the highly paid services of Jonathan Ross. On a practical level that argument had already been underminded by the BBC's power-crazed determination to muscle in on areas where the market is already catering perfectly well. The nationalisation by the BBC of the Lonely Planet Guide was a particularly audacious example of empire building.
James Murdoch gave a strong indictment of the current system in his MacTaggart lecture last month. As the son of Sky TV owner Rupert Murdoch James is not, of course, a disinterested observer. But he made a powerful case that the world is moving on in broadcasting and the vastly privileged position of the BBC is an artificial arrangement.
‘As originally with news and sport, so now with the arts and drama. Sky now offers four dedicated arts channels,’ said Murdoch. ‘Original commissioning by channels that customers choose to pay for is expanding and will continue to do so, not just from Sky but from the likes of National Geographic, History, MTV and the Disney Channel, to name a few. Sky alone now invests over £1 billion a year in UK content.’
His point is that this growth would be greater still were it not for the BBC muscling them out whenever it gets a chance.
The debate is not just about whether we should save all, or some, of the £142.50 TV licence fee we are forced to pay for owning a television set. There are wider points about a free society.
As Murdoch asked: ‘Would we welcome a world in which The Times was told by the Government how much religious coverage it had to carry? In which there were a state newspaper with more money than the rest of the sector put together and 50 per cent of the market? In which cinemas were instructed how many ads they were allowed to put before the main feature? In which Bloomsbury had to publish an equal number of pro-capitalist and pro-socialist books?’
The sheer scale of the BBC makes it so powerful that the Government of the day is reluctant to take it on. There will be spats about editorial bias but cravenness over tackling the fundamentals. Some of our licence fee money is even spent by the BBC to lobby for a higher licence fee.
Our politicians must know that the overmanning at the BBC is absurd. They see the legions of BBC minions wandering around at Party Conferences with nothing much to do. They note the numbers of researchers and tripod holders hovvering around during TV interviews.
Yet they shrink from imposing the kind of changes that would bring the BBC into the real world. Whatever Sir Michael Lyon's good intentions that is the only answer.
By Harry Phibbs
Last updated at 1:20 PM on 10th September 2009
Many of us have known for some time that the BBC has become bloated, growing out of control - but such concerns have been arrogantly dismissed in the past as the Corporation secures ever larger licence fees.
At least with the poll tax you could vote in local elections to have some influence on the size of the bill. The licence fee is a poll tax with all the unfairness of hitting the poorest hardest - without any redeeming democratic accountability.
The BBC hasn't gone so far as to suggest it could manage with a lower licence fee but they have, at long last, conceded that they may have grown too big. That, rather than being cut off from the economic realities that the rest of us cope with, they should take a serious look at the scope of their operations.
Sir Michael Lyons, Chairman of the BBC Trust says: ‘Seismic shifts in the economy and in technology require us to think bigger, even though it may mean the BBC becoming smaller, and above all to ensure we really are delivering the BBC that licence fee payers want and are willing to pay for.’
No doubt Sir Michael is sincere. But he will come up against a BBC culture of utter disdain for the licence fee payer. This is not because the people employed there are inherently bad. It is just human nature that where an organisation income is guaranteed there will be a difference in how its staff operates.
The BBC behaves in the most self indulgent and extravagant manner because it can. If Radio Two took advertising then the listeners would be essential. Treating them with contempt by replacing Terry Wogan with Chris Evans would mean facing the consequence of a smaller budget if it caused fewer listeners as that would mean less advertising revenue.
The public service argument for the BBC was morally sacrificed by their decision to retain the highly paid services of Jonathan Ross. On a practical level that argument had already been underminded by the BBC's power-crazed determination to muscle in on areas where the market is already catering perfectly well. The nationalisation by the BBC of the Lonely Planet Guide was a particularly audacious example of empire building.
James Murdoch gave a strong indictment of the current system in his MacTaggart lecture last month. As the son of Sky TV owner Rupert Murdoch James is not, of course, a disinterested observer. But he made a powerful case that the world is moving on in broadcasting and the vastly privileged position of the BBC is an artificial arrangement.
‘As originally with news and sport, so now with the arts and drama. Sky now offers four dedicated arts channels,’ said Murdoch. ‘Original commissioning by channels that customers choose to pay for is expanding and will continue to do so, not just from Sky but from the likes of National Geographic, History, MTV and the Disney Channel, to name a few. Sky alone now invests over £1 billion a year in UK content.’
His point is that this growth would be greater still were it not for the BBC muscling them out whenever it gets a chance.
The debate is not just about whether we should save all, or some, of the £142.50 TV licence fee we are forced to pay for owning a television set. There are wider points about a free society.
As Murdoch asked: ‘Would we welcome a world in which The Times was told by the Government how much religious coverage it had to carry? In which there were a state newspaper with more money than the rest of the sector put together and 50 per cent of the market? In which cinemas were instructed how many ads they were allowed to put before the main feature? In which Bloomsbury had to publish an equal number of pro-capitalist and pro-socialist books?’
The sheer scale of the BBC makes it so powerful that the Government of the day is reluctant to take it on. There will be spats about editorial bias but cravenness over tackling the fundamentals. Some of our licence fee money is even spent by the BBC to lobby for a higher licence fee.
Our politicians must know that the overmanning at the BBC is absurd. They see the legions of BBC minions wandering around at Party Conferences with nothing much to do. They note the numbers of researchers and tripod holders hovvering around during TV interviews.
Yet they shrink from imposing the kind of changes that would bring the BBC into the real world. Whatever Sir Michael Lyon's good intentions that is the only answer.