Slashdot Mirror
British Goverment to Reshape BBC Governance
AtariAmarok writes "The British government recently announced plans to reshape how the BBC is governed.. The changes are said to scrap the system that has been in place for 77 years. Some are worried that the independence of the "Beeb" could be compromised, and Conservative lawmakers are worried that it does not allow for enough oversight (leaves it too independent?)."
Not enough oversight?? What about freedom of expression and speech?
Welcome aboard our UK brothers and sisters! Join us for a round of control the media! Seriously though, how can the BBC go from opening up archives to the public to becoming restrictive? Sounds like yet another assault by out friendly media conglomerates. No I'm not trying to troll, it seems that this was inevitable.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Admitidly the BBC has had a few problems, but nothing that ammounts to more than poking the goverment (hey most people in england happen to think the goverment deserved a good poking for taking us to war on a lie).
:)
It's an asset which few other countries have, to turn it into a goverment properganda machine *shudder*, Gues we'd just have to start watching fox news for an unbiased opinion
Looks like they are keeping the licensing fee for another 10 years at least :|
:/
£104 ($180 ish?) a year just to watch TV
Get your facts right, all the BBC's UK content is paid for by the licence fee which includes all the digital channels they produce, the radio stations, local content and the online content.
I think just over 100 pounds a year is good value compared to the high monthly fees of Sky (100's of channels of which only a couple are any good).
The BBC is in a unique position, we've got a public broadcaster which means we're not bombarded with ads and they have an excellent (also ad free) website.
With Sky you pay per month and are still bombarded with ads.
e.g. when BBC2 used to have the Simpsons it was 20 minutes because they don't have the ads, with Sky it's 30 minutes.
It's also a small price to pay for having an organisation that has no commercial bias and as we've seen they're willing to criticise the government. I'd certainly rather trust the BBC rather than a commercial entity like Sky who is owned by News corp just like Fox.
As of 12:05 GMT+1, it isn't on their front page.
I've always found that the BBC presented fairly impartial reporting on most issues and didn't tend to get too centralised on particular countries or trends. I have BBC World at home and while it can be a bore at times listening to economics and politics in places I don't care about, at least I hear about it.
I had BBC World when I lived in the USA and its coverage during the September 11th attack and after was markedly different from the US channels, particularly two days out. I live in Madrid now and it's coverage of the train bombings on the 11th of March provided some clarity of view when all of the media channels here were reporting a more local feel.
I feel that anything that compromises their current model would compromise that impartiality - more control or looking for subscriptions would see the flavour of the news influenced: for the worst.
The BBC still reminds me of a time when most people who read newspapers were trying to better themselves and stay informed, and felt that said publications were a level to aspire to. As opposed to the vast proliferation of trash publications and sensationalist reporting which now murk those waters. I hope the BBC stays the way it is.
The BBC as a public institution is bound by law and common custom to be representative of the people and to support/represent equality of religion/race/lifestyle/sexuality.
The British Tory or Conservative party is roughly analogous to Republicans in the US in that it holds "traditional values", many of which conflict with the modern egalitarian ethic of the BBC.
The British Right-wing, led primarily by tabloid newspapers such as the Daily Mail (politically somewhere to the right of Genghis Kahn..), has been leading an anti-BBC campaign for some time now as they don't want to see a state-run broadcaster "supporting" rights that they wish to abolish or diminish, such as equality of gay and straight relationships before the law, or equal attention in schools for minority faiths.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
Somehow I doubt the members of the trust will be free from political influence... and being separated from the management of the day, do they not sound a little more like, say, OfBeeb*, than the 'cheerleaders' that the current Governers tend to be? I could see this being either good or bad, and based on my opinion of the current bastards ruining our country's good name at home and abroad, I'm inclined to be worried.
My tuppence is: just because they've called it a 'Trust' doesn't mean anything. Remember Sir Humphrey Appleby: "Always do the difficult bit in the title. Then everyone will assume that the content must fulfil it". Alternatively, think of Paxman: "Why is this lying lier lying to me?". Then you'll understand the Labour Party.
Justin.
* Note for non-UK readers. We name our regulatory bodies along these lines: OfGas, Office for the Gas industry. OfWat, Office for the Water industry. For some reason the Rail watchdog's office isn't called OfRail though...
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
Hell, yeah. Whenever I see the alternative I realise just how good the BBC is. Sky is dire by comparison, and US TV is just unwatchable.
One thing people tend not to realise is that because the BBC has its own guaranteed source of income, they can't be put under pressure by their sponsors. There's an old story of a car company whose latest product had just been slammed by Top Gear, the BBC's excellent motoring programme (although less excellent than it was. Sigh). And when Top Gear doesn't like something, they're not subtle about it... the story goes is that the CEO watched the review, said, "I'll teach them to talk like that about us. Pull all our advertising from that channel. Now." And his secretary said, "Um..."
You would not believe what a difference this makes. During the last Gulf War I watched some CNN and MSNBC. It was embarrassing. A lot of it was cultural differences, but the blatant jingoism and emotionalism made, to me, a complete mockery of the whole concept of independent journalism ---I found it hard to accept what I was watching as being anything but outright propaganda.
(Incidentally, the BBC is not government funded, and their charter clearly makes them independent from government interference. If the government tries to pressure them, most BBC journalists shout 'Hurrah!' and it tends to make the news.)
I don't like the heavy-handed way the license fee is collected --- they use scare tactics a lot. "This man didn't pay his license fee. Now he's bankrupt, his wife has left him, his kids are drug addicted hookers, and we shot his dog. Don't let this happen to you." They also have a lot of trouble believing that some people don't have TVs. If they'd be nicer about it, I'd be much happier paying for it.
There's quite a good writeup on the BBC's journalism here.
A long time ago, the BBC was run by programme makers, and it was respected throughout the world for it's high quality programme making.
Then, around the end of the eighties, the accountants took over, and the quality ethics was jettisoned in favour of cost cutting.
Since then the BBC has slowly drifted towards the lower end of the market with programmes like Eastenders being shown 30 times a week, with an omnibus edition lasting all Sunday.
The government charter should be changed in favour of bringing the programme makers back.
Find funky gifts
A lot of posts here, and so far nobody seems to have mentioned what I thought was the most encouraging part of the announcement, namely that the BBC has been told it is not to chase ratings but focus on quality programming.
Hopefully, this means that the BBC will keep turning out more of the kind of programmes that have made its name into a badge of quality and stop it getting caught up in the race-to-the-bottom-of-the-barrel that Sky and the other commercial channels seem to be in.
Now most people have a TV. The people who need TV most may be the poorest amongst us - Open University Students, parents, and carers, and so on. You can make a TV by putting a card in your computer. The TV detector vans do not work any longer (if they ever did, which I doubt). The licence costs more to collect then it is worth. The whole TV licence scheme is getting beyond its useful life. Basically, the only thing it has going for it is its long history.
If you can come up with a reliable alternative that can give the BBC a secure income that does not depend on central government or market forces, then we would love to hear about it. But coming up with a general way of making being nice finiancially rewarding would be a bit of a social breakthrough.
I too watch it because it has no commericals but to be honest they have 90% crap. (I mean how many hours a week do we need to see auctioning programs and yet once in a while we get a new episode of HIGNFY and nothing for a few months after. In fact wasn't Monday night meant to be comedy night on BBC2? That lasted for a few weeks.....My nurse says I should stop now.)
Ciao
Damn, that's where I've been getting my news about what's going on here in the US. Seriously. The BBC has had a much more objective take on the news than what is generally available here in the states. I will miss it if it goes the way of Fox News. And don't even get me started on Conservatives screwing with things like Red Dwarf...
I'd be happy to pay the TV licence to keep the BBC the way it is, and I'm an American!
I believe the BBC to be an excellent organisation with a history of flagship programmes; in particular it's current affairs and news divisions.
Having said that standing still is not the best way to maintain excellence. The BBC does have undergo regular reviews (be they internal or externally imposed) in order to keep at the forefront of the media. Chances in the way oversight is performed definitely falls into this category.
Personally, I believe a form of licence fee is the only way to avoid wholesale chasing of ratings. I have no objection to paying for it. You could argue that I could continue to pay for high-quality programming from the private sector if the BBC were disbanded completely. However, I think the failure DRM and content encryption schemes over the years have shown us that excluding non-payers is very tricky indeed. I suggest that the free rider issue would rapidly sink any commercial paid-for service. I could very well be wrong, I haven't researched this particularly. It's just my opinion.
Having been there I can honestly say that the board of governors are the most inept money wasting bunch of people I have ever had to deal with. The BBC employs brains to make intelligent decisions about what to do and how to do it. THEN the Board of governors go ew ew my mate don't own that company and I fancy the pretty blue colour on there box so we will go with that. Seriously folks the board of governors were a historical leftover from the cold war, even though the BBC was originated as the UK's propaganda machine during war times (think radio/World service) but generally it's moved on from there. Just glad the final decision making aspect is also coming into line with today's World. I've worked in Governments in many many area's and public field in many aspects and I can honestly say that the board of governors were the biggest bunch of bureaucratic money and time wasting use of power I have pretty much experienced (Tory government privatisation fad included). I hope you all realise this still wont save Dr Who from its cultural mutilation, its goona be like watching the first batman movie and expecting Kapow/wamoo, Zap to be there :D
Not at all, they probably knew that it was 'unreliable', not that it was false.
It was terrible journalism. A single unsubstantiated source apparently made a specific false allegation. The reporter (Gilligan) went live on air with no notes, no corroboration and no evidence and stated that the Downing St press office and not 'intelligence' was the source of the dossier. The BBC deserved to be hung for that. Alistair Campbell did not draw up the dossier.
This is not to defend the war, I don't, but reporting unattributed unsubstantiated tittle tattle on the main opinion forming news program is awful, awful journalism. The reporter was stupid, but the editorial team and the management (who publicly defended their man before they'd even talked to him) were incompetent.
meanwhile there has been no investigation at all into why the Intelligence was so dismal and wrong. The same intelligence services will provide the justifications for house arrest that the govt wishes to introduce. This is the real scandal.