In response to the Digital Britain report, BBC Trust
chairman Sir Michael Lyons - the man charged with ensuring the BBC provides ‘good
value for all UK citizens' - was forthright in his defence of Auntie hanging on
to its cash in the face of diverting licence fee money to commercial organisations to help
pay for regional news services.
At the time, one could have been left feeling quietly
confident that our dues were safe in the hands of a well-regulated body.
After all, umpty billion quid to save the banking system aside, why should tax-payers
bail out commercial organisations just because profits have hit the buffers?
The release of the BBC's top executives' salaries and
expenses has cast a rather large shadow over the idea our money is indeed in
safe hands, however. A shadow made larger still by reports over this weekend's
excessive spend on coverage of Glastonbury.
407 BBC staff managed to make it along to the festival, said
the Sunday Times, including a clutch of senior executives, at a cost to the
licence fee payer of an estimated £1.5m.
Sir Michael also attended Glastonbury, at our expense naturally, though
I'm certain he was to busy checking we were getting value for money to enjoy himself
too much.
The BBC has argued the case for its staffing levels, but excesses
in coverage were plain to see. There was no need for Gaby Logan's Sunday
morning Five Live show to be broadcast from the event, for one. Her Dizzee
Rascal interview proving just why she should be kept as far away from music and
its nefarious propagators as is humanly possible.
Meanwhile, the person(s) employed to protect the BBC's
output by vetoing what artists The Guardian could and couldn't film from its
Lounge stage would have been better employed keeping an eye on how much booze
the presenters appeared to be imbibing between broadcasts.
I happen to think coverage of Glastonbury is important, and given its niche
attraction is best served by the Beeb. Why shouldn't we celebrate something
uniquely British and world renowned?
As for the expenses 'scandal', while one could be forgiven for
wondering why internal meetings warranted quite so much in the way of
refreshments, I don't begrudge top executives the odd business lunch or Brucey his Champagne.
But if it wishes to hang on to any shred of credibility in
the argument against top-slicing, and maintain its largely agreeable relationship
with the fee-paying public, decisions regarding what in the current climate
constitutes excess, with regard to coverage and general expenditure, are going to need much closer scrutiny.
And if Sir Michael and senior BBC execs, very well-paid from
the public purse, want to be seen as whiter than white, they would be well-advised to steer clear of muddy fields.
