Of course, internet access for all is really super. Hurrah. But the failure and misjudgement by Digital Britain on other big questions leave me totally underwhelmed. There's no progress on a Channel 4 and BBC Worldwide deal and the easy option of top slicing the BBC licence fee is a huge mistake. It is a slippery road.First up once you have taken BBC licence fee cash you will do it again. It will give the next government so help us all the encouragement it needs to dig into the BBC a little deeper.Early evidence of this comes if you look at the remarks of Conservative MP John Whittingdale who rebuked BBC Trust chairman Sir Michael Lyons for his robust defence of the corporation. Whittingdale says it is up to Parliament to decide the level and organisation of the licence fee. The man is an idiot.He wants to organise how the licence is spent? Does he want to run the BBC as well? Of course, he does. I say again so help us all.The BBC, as Sir Michael said, are guardians of the licence fee. Some might say they need to improve their guardianship in certain areas, but it does a lot and it does a lot really well.There are no doubt some in the commercial sector, if not many, who welcome this. They would like nothing more than to see the BBC taken down a few pegs.That is a mistake as it only plays into the hands into the hands of international media companies, like News Corporation and Bertelsmann, who are the only people who really benefit by taking cash away from the BBC.They do not want to see a BBC that is strong enough to sit alongside the other big players in the broadcasting and media landscape; one that invests in high-quality journalism and other public service content, and supporting the creative economy. As we have seen this week as it has proved itself just about the best around with its coverage of the election aftermath in Iran.It you could think of one way to waste money then spending it on yet more little-watched local news produced by ITV is the way to do it.The problem with local news at the moment (and the BBC does a lot of it) is that it is not local enough. As someone said to me during the heavy snow we had this year all they wanted from local news was detailed coverage of what was happening in their village/town and beyond. That isn't available.What is available is the chance to watch local politicians warble on about whatever it is they warble on about. Local politicians are the only ones who really enjoy this.Why publicly fund two sets of local news? I really don't get it. Better to relax regulations on regional newspaper mergers and give those groups more freedom and encourage the development of online hyperlocal websites where people can find the information they really want.ITN boss John Hardie talks about competing with the BBC locally (to provide "much-valued choice of sources and opinions"), but I think really all he wants (like everyone else) is more money to strengthen his organisation's future. It needs to do that without the BBC. Local news is the last place we need that choice. In some markets its, frankly, overrated.The BBC has already proposed better ways than Digital Britain of working with the commercial sector and moving forward through partnership."The BBC has come up with an ambitious programme of partnerships to help the wider industry support public service content during tough economic times. The BBC will continue discussions with Channel 4 about a possible joint venture with BBC Worldwide that would create value for both parties."He is also right when he says top-slicing would damage BBC output, reduce accountability and compromise independence. It would he says become a slush fund. As I said, once it has been done once it will be done again. A Conservative government will not be able to keep its hands off of it ("did someone say there's a big pot of money around?"). The temptation will be too great: Digital Britain will have provided all the justification that it needs.That is why top slicing must be rejected.Lyons is also right when he says that the move would lead to the licence fee being seen as another form of general taxation. He says the BBC Trust will not sit quietly by and watch this happen. "In particular, the Trust is not convinced of the proposal in the Digital Britain report to apply any of the surplus to fund a second regional news operation. There has not yet been a full and open debate about the suggested costs of these services, and it appears that the current proposals have failed to take into account potential sources of commercial funding as well as alternative sources of public funding."
Follow me on Twitter
Agree. Agree. Agree. 100%. You're spot on.
Having only one source of news is hardly good for democracy though is it Gordo? Make the licence fee opt-in and for those people who care as much about the BBC as you do will pay for it. Me, I'll pay half of it.
But Jez you don't have one source of news - you have local radio, local newspapers and local websites. My beef is with wasteful local TV news - which IMHO is not very local. If there is a three car smash up on the high street that never makes BBC local news or ITV local news. I turn to one of my local newspapers. In my case i have three: Haringey Herald: Haringey Independent and Haringey Advertiser.
I'm sure sure out in Berkhamsted you have a few also.
Completely agree on this one. It is spot on. The BBC provides so much more than just programming. Just look how they led the way with iPlayer.
We only have the Berkhamsted Gazette and, good as it is, I worry about its future as the local ads market is dying on its arse, despite Rob Ray's best efforts. If that went, then we'd have nothing.
In this great rush (a good thing it is) do we sometimes forget that the marginalised of the marginalised will be more marginalised by having no access?
Oh, and as for the licence fee. Let the commercial players dig in and weather the storm. You didn't see them handing over the coffers to BBC when they were doing well. So why should the BBC give the commercials money now? Give 'em nothing. The BBC is a great measuring stick, faults and all, for the world over on how a TV station should be run with credibility.
Otherwise we'll end up with Fox lite for business and E! for the rest.
Have I missed something? Doesn't the phrase "commercial TV" mean that it has to be, well, commercial? To me, this looks as tho' ITV et al are looking to be semi-nationalised as per Bradford & Bingley, etc. If a non-government funded company cannot make money, market forces say it needs to either put together a way of being restructured to stay alive or go under Let's take BBC money to save Vauxhall and Lloyds - why not, the pot of money is going begging...
The BBC is the world's most respected broadcaster - except in the UK, where it gets nothing but brickbats. UK print media used to be highly respected until it went down the scandal and gossip route - do people really want the BBC to end up like that as well?
Here, here Grazia. And I'm not even from the UK !! Ireland's dual funded national broadcaster RTE is constantly under attack for exactly that - dual funding. The reason for dual funding is the size of the country's population doesn't allow for a licence fee to pull in all the required funds to put out decent broadcasting. Broadcasting that is constantly compared to our nearest neighbour, the UK.
Then the market opened up to let the commercial broadcasters in. So, they knew the lay of the land when they arrived but are now screaming for a hand out. It boils my……. to think they might get any cent (or penny) of the licence fee.
Thought I heard somewhere that ITV were going to pay the Beeb to produce local news for the commercial network. Would make more sense to me rather than the BBC having to chuck money at the commercial sector.
Got to agree with the comments about local TV news not being that local. Out here in the sticks we either get BBC Midlands (very Birmingham based, but that's 55+ miles north) or ITV Central (again Brum based) or ITV West (Bristol). When do we get news on Gloucester? By the seem of it, only when there's a mass murderer about.
While I'm here, as it seems to be the in thing to do, I'm short of a few quid. Can I top slice the BBC licence fee too? Thanks
Mike you did read that www.brandrepublic.com/.../BBC-offer-resources-local-media
With the release of the government's Digital Britain report this week, it comes at a timely juncture
Life was so much more manageable knowing I could get BBC WORLD working overseas. It kept me in contact when the internet failed. Internet access in Saudi Arabia is vetted. You only get to access and see what they want you to see, and what you are allowed to see. BBC WORLD respects other cultures and is culturally sensitive unlike commercial TV which is freer, but in turn places restrictions on it.
The other night a programme showed a soldier in a play placing a carpet in the back of a car. That would, or should never happen. Some carpets are prayer mats, and as so, are sacred items, only to be touched by Muslims. Soldiers who have seen active service in the Middle East would know this. Who wants to be shot for helping someone put what looks like just a carpet in the back of a car? That's the sort of thing the BBC would pick up on, whereas commercial TV is more concerned about popular TV and ratings...and so they should be.
One argument says: You can't have subsidised ratings.
The other says: Banks? Railways? Media? All are controlled by central governement in a state of national emergency. What national emergency?
The war may be 6000 miles away, but financially, it's here.
It's placing the UK, Europe, and America in a state of financial emergency
and placing a massive burden on Soldiers, their families, and Tax-payers alike.
The sooner it is over, the better.
Gordon Macmillan
Blogging for:
Member since: 03 Jun 2008
Last login: 20 Nov 2009
Total Posts: 1,616
