Post by Teddy Bear on Mar 6, 2010 20:13:08 GMT
Simon Heffer at The Telegraph makes a valid point about another positive benefit from downsizing the BBC.
There is a little worth saving at the BBC
A drastically reduced BBC would eliminate much of the Leftist influence that dominates it.
By Simon Heffer
Published: 7:09PM GMT 05 Mar 2010
The BBC was one of the greatest institutions in our modern history. It is easy to make fun of Lord Reith, whose vision as director-general from 1922 to 1938 made the corporation’s formidable reputation: but his commitment to the ideal of public service broadcasting, and his belief in it as a means of education and enlightenment, made a contribution to our culture that lived long beyond his time at the BBC. With the wider potential of technology, that was inevitably going to change.
It is a long way from Reith to the situation that the present director-general, Mark Thompson, found himself having to address this week. He acknowledged that the BBC is too big, does too much, and (by inference) takes too much of the public’s money. He proposed some cuts: but they were largely irrelevant to the philosophical problem the BBC now presents. They were merely tinkering with an engine too thirsty and too inefficient to last. The real question of the viability of the corporation remains to be addressed.
Sir Antony Jay, who wrote Yes Minister and is one of the most thoughtful critics of the corporation for which he once worked, would have it closed down save for one radio and television channel. Sir Antony argues, with some justification, that the market would provide almost everything the BBC does. He finds it offensive that people should be forced to pay for services that they don’t want and that they will never want, and that the corporation feels obliged to provide mediocrity for those not interested in quality. I am almost with him.
There is little the BBC does that by any objective standards is worth doing and that the private sector would not provide. The single radio and TV channels he would want would provide the sort of programmes Lord Reith would have wanted: news, current affairs, documentaries and culture. Since such a radio channel would, effectively, be Radio Four, I feel there would be a necessity for one more – Radio Three. If anyone is tempted to argue that the private sector already provides classical music through Classic FM, it is an argument that collapses the minute a serious comparison is made.
Radio Three is the most seriously educational and enlightening broadcasting network in the country. It provides not just a catholic selection of recorded music, with intelligent and informative presentation, but also relays some of the finest live performances of classical music from Britain and around the world. It has speech programmes of exceptional quality. We have yet to have a culture of subscription to such channels (though I would happily pay the equivalent of my licence fee for Radio Three alone). Until we do, in the interests of our civilisation, a cultural channel such as Radio Three must be maintained.
It is impossible to make such a case for anything else the BBC does, other than Radio Four and a public service television channel that is an amalgam of BBC 1, 2 and 4. Its commercial interests have no place in a broadcasting organisation. Its local radio stations seem pointless, and merely duplicate what the private sector does. Its internet operation should echo what its small residual broadcasting operation would do, to offer iPlayer and Listen Again facilities for those channels, and to offer a form of archive.
Most significantly, a drastically reduced BBC would eliminate much of the Leftist influence that dominates it. Socialist dramatists, reporters, editors and presenters could take their chances in the private sector. Oddly enough, I suspect that might be the last we would hear of them: which is precisely why the BBC will fight like a hellcat to retain as much of its present functions as it can.
There is a little worth saving at the BBC
A drastically reduced BBC would eliminate much of the Leftist influence that dominates it.
By Simon Heffer
Published: 7:09PM GMT 05 Mar 2010
The BBC was one of the greatest institutions in our modern history. It is easy to make fun of Lord Reith, whose vision as director-general from 1922 to 1938 made the corporation’s formidable reputation: but his commitment to the ideal of public service broadcasting, and his belief in it as a means of education and enlightenment, made a contribution to our culture that lived long beyond his time at the BBC. With the wider potential of technology, that was inevitably going to change.
It is a long way from Reith to the situation that the present director-general, Mark Thompson, found himself having to address this week. He acknowledged that the BBC is too big, does too much, and (by inference) takes too much of the public’s money. He proposed some cuts: but they were largely irrelevant to the philosophical problem the BBC now presents. They were merely tinkering with an engine too thirsty and too inefficient to last. The real question of the viability of the corporation remains to be addressed.
Sir Antony Jay, who wrote Yes Minister and is one of the most thoughtful critics of the corporation for which he once worked, would have it closed down save for one radio and television channel. Sir Antony argues, with some justification, that the market would provide almost everything the BBC does. He finds it offensive that people should be forced to pay for services that they don’t want and that they will never want, and that the corporation feels obliged to provide mediocrity for those not interested in quality. I am almost with him.
There is little the BBC does that by any objective standards is worth doing and that the private sector would not provide. The single radio and TV channels he would want would provide the sort of programmes Lord Reith would have wanted: news, current affairs, documentaries and culture. Since such a radio channel would, effectively, be Radio Four, I feel there would be a necessity for one more – Radio Three. If anyone is tempted to argue that the private sector already provides classical music through Classic FM, it is an argument that collapses the minute a serious comparison is made.
Radio Three is the most seriously educational and enlightening broadcasting network in the country. It provides not just a catholic selection of recorded music, with intelligent and informative presentation, but also relays some of the finest live performances of classical music from Britain and around the world. It has speech programmes of exceptional quality. We have yet to have a culture of subscription to such channels (though I would happily pay the equivalent of my licence fee for Radio Three alone). Until we do, in the interests of our civilisation, a cultural channel such as Radio Three must be maintained.
It is impossible to make such a case for anything else the BBC does, other than Radio Four and a public service television channel that is an amalgam of BBC 1, 2 and 4. Its commercial interests have no place in a broadcasting organisation. Its local radio stations seem pointless, and merely duplicate what the private sector does. Its internet operation should echo what its small residual broadcasting operation would do, to offer iPlayer and Listen Again facilities for those channels, and to offer a form of archive.
Most significantly, a drastically reduced BBC would eliminate much of the Leftist influence that dominates it. Socialist dramatists, reporters, editors and presenters could take their chances in the private sector. Oddly enough, I suspect that might be the last we would hear of them: which is precisely why the BBC will fight like a hellcat to retain as much of its present functions as it can.