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?
Similar reform acts to the british media have been coming for a long time now. The first major whole hearted attempt came in the mid-80s. It is interesting because each time they get closer to actually getting it done but fall through in the end.
I say cheers to the thought of an independent British Broadcasting company. I know the goverments regulation over them as been decreasing in recent years but the changes that are in the pipes have been a long time coming.
Be better in bed. Wikiafterdark!
Is it because the Beeb has been so "reserved" when Blair engaged his Kingdom's soldiers into Iraq for some yet-to-be-defined reasons ?
Trolling using another account since 2005.
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
Sorry, lawmakers? Just because a politician is elected to the House of Commons does not make them a 'lawmaker'. Given the elected-dictatorship that is the British system when large majorities are held by the Government of the day, that description couldn't be further from the truth. Just look at the railroading of the current detention orders bill that's going on by this 'Labour' government.
The only lawmakers are the ministers that put legislation forward, back benchers lucky enough to win the silly lottery for back bench time, or judges that amend legislation in a court of law.
Oh, and Rupert Murdoch.
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
The Governors at present are appointed directly by the government -- and the last Labour and Tory administrations have made partly-political appointments; in the future, their replacements will be appointed by a more independent executive.
I'd also just like to say this : as a License Fee payer, I believe firmly that the BBC works, and having travelled a fair amount, I've never seen a media organisation produce comparable amounts of quality output.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
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.
How much do you pay for sky and still have adverts and biased news? 20 a month? 30 a month? It's still 2-300 per year. ITV is full of adverts. CH4 shows some great programming and can buy the US imports, but the BBC has value not only as an independant but I dont see Sky 1 showing Open University level stuff, or exposes on corruption.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/
--
Each household's colour TV licence cost £9.67 every month in 2003/2004. On average each month, this was how the BBC spent your money:
Average monthly licence fee spend
This chart shows that £9.67 was the average monthly cost of each household's licence fee in 2003/2004. It breaks it down visually into components.
* BBC One £3.37
* BBC Two £1.45
* Digital television channels £0.98
* Transmission and collection costs £0.98
* BBC Radio 1, 2, 3, 4 and Five Live £0.99
* Digital radio stations £0.08
* Nations & English Regions television £0.90
* Local radio £0.61
* bbc.co.uk £0.31
--
Also there is the BBC Imp project which will allow people in the UK (restricted by IP numbers and authorisation) to download a high percentage of BBC TV and radio in >1mmbit DRM'ed wmv for playing on your PC or laptop up to 8 days after broadcast (as allowed by copyright laws)
I had a mate on the trial and it was awesome to be able to watch Top Gear on a laptop over lunch
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.
...they'll introduce arguments like this and try to take the licence fee away from them. The reason this is happening is because the BBC had the temerity to question the Hutton report into the WMD in Iraq issue.
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
£120 a year is *phenomenal* value for money. 10 digital channels, 2 terestrial channels - all packed full of high-quality, advert-free intelligent programing. 4 FM national radio stations, a load of local radio - all advert-free. Numerous digital radio stations. World-class reporting and news that's unbiased. One of the best all-round websites there is. The BBC is an *amazing* resource for UK citizens and one that's very cheap indeed considering what you get. Contrast with £300 a year for Sky and Murdoch's poison.
The BBC is funded by the license fee. It is a legal requirement to pay this fee if you own a television set or similar device that is able to recieve television broadcast. The governemnt has a duty to ensure that this law is (in its belief) fair and that the BBC is spending the license fee correctly and is fulfilling its remit. This is the end of the governments involvement.
... it just has to ensure that it provides the public service broadcasting that our money is paying for.
This does not make the BBC' under the governments thumb. This is not state controlled television, the BBC has complete journalistic and programming freedom
You can't have organisations just spending public money without oversight, but oversight does not mean editorial censorship, control, or restriction.
So this all comes about from the 'sexing up' of the War in Iraq coverage? What a shit reason. Wow, it failed once in 77 years of governance. That's a bloody good track record in my books.
Just because the government are pissed off that it made them look worse, it was better than 99% of the other news sources, *cough*BSkyB*cough.
It's just bitterness
Anyone remember that massive page-sized advertisement the BBC took out in the newspapers with the peoples names which basically gave a finger to the government and pledge support to the high figures. Good on them.
however, when you think about it, its not really bad value to fund a corporation that is internationally valued and respected as a provider of news. personally, i think the beeb is something we should be proud of, no matter how hard they try to strip us of this pride with their never ending stream of crap DIY shows and people moving house...
The BBC is pretty free from the government, if there was any political censorship going on then other channels would be all over it. Watching things like question time, journalists are not known for being polite and letting politicians get away with bullshitting - if a question is asked, a proper answer is expected no matter what part of the political spectrum. There have been plenty of occasions when the BBC has done things that pissed off the government and even other governments (Israel, Vanunu) they are absolutely not afraid to broadcast things that need to be seen, from lists of dead soldiers (censored in the US by some stations) to prisoner abuse (censored in the US for at least 2 weeks before it came out) to just taking the piss out of the establishment - if this was china every employee would have been publicly hanged - which is why i love the BBC.
As for decency standards, I really don't understand why the FCC is so tight assed, the BBC recently came under fire from Christian groups over Jerry Springer the Opera (with about 8000 fuck, shit, cunts etc and a gay Jesus), but the BBC did not cave in because they understood that they had to appeal to everyone but _not_ at the same time, so they showed it, the FCC would have had a heart attack.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
This is the foundation of almost all publicly owned broadcasters in Europe - they're there to make sure stuff that isn't commercially viable on the short term still gets a chance at a place in the media, and to aid public information and the development of culture.
Setting guidelines to ensure this is the only way in which parliament "keep the BBC under its thumb". And only indirectly through changes to the charter and by indirectly influencing the BBC's governing structure.
Think of BBC as a corporation owned by the public being given guidelines for how to operate from it's shareholders - represented by Parliament. This is no different than any other media organisation. The only difference is that in the BBC's case power isn't centralised on the hands of small groups of wealthy business people.
You over complicate matters. Newspapers such as the The Sun don't like the BBC because they're owned by one News International, who in turn are owned by News Corp. which is run by one Mr. Robert Maxwell. It's no doubt just one huge coincedence that News Corp. just happens to own 36% of BSkyB, a commercial competitor to the BBC.
The Daily Maul don't like the BBC because they don't like anything or any body, especially if they're a damn foreigner or under 55 years of age. The BBC don't show Come Dancing and The Antiques Roadshow as much as they used to you see.
Last year's license fee was worthwhile if only for this one documentary series. This is exactly the sort of intelligent programming which the current reforms are purported to encourage.
Basically it was an account of how we arrived at the current climate of fear with our leaders exaggerating the dangers from almost entirely fictitious enemies. Interesting comparisons between the American neo-conservative ideologies and the beliefs held by Bin Laden et al.
If you didn't get to see this because you are American or British but missed it then you should, the torrents are out there, seek and ye shall find.
I'd doubt it will ever get shown in the US.
So you agree that there needs to be public oversight of the BBC. If the BBC was truly independent there would be no way to make sure that it kept to the standards you mention above.
I think you mean Rupert Murdoch - Mr. Maxwell threw a seven and drowned after falling [allegedly...] off his yacht in the Med.
... sent to me from the UK at my request, on Mordecai Vanunu, Israel's Nuclear Whisleblower
I quote from this documentary, from an american anti-war protester, who professed to know nothing about Vanunu or his plight:
"Why is our media that's supposed to be free and open not telling us and why is our government not letting us know this information if we're in the home of the free?"
The BBC made and screened this documentary. It's an important issue that has been largely ignored by virtually every other major media organisation worldwide. The fact that this documentary ever aired says a lot about how independent the BBC has already been.
I stand 100% behind the BBC, and I'm very worried about any restraint they may be put under due to this change. I'll be keeping an eye on it, of course.
a small prize to the first person who does an Uncle Leo on this comment, by the way
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
I don't understand the rational for any goverement regulation outside of deceny standards. I suppose its because I am a yannkie but the whole idea to me of the goverement having that much control over the media is appaling. How does parliment justify keeping the BBC under its thumb?
Maybe if you knew something about the BBC you wouldn't spout off such nonsense. The BBC is not 'under the thumb' of parliament, quite the contrary, and I suspect they're now being punished for that fact by the present government. If you want an example of mass-media that's under the thumb of government, check your own side of the pond. I find it amusing that you're so appalled by government interference in the media when you have such a tepid, unadventurous news media under the US system - you don't by any chance watch Fox News do you? Things are getting a bit out of hand when a comedy show (The Daily Show) is one of the most serious political commentaries.
The rationale for government regulation is to ensure that the licence fee is spent appropriately, not on another 'Temptation Island' knock-off because that sells, but on programming that attempts to educate and entertain. The word government means something very different outside the USA, which I suspect is where your confusion comes from. PS Your spelling is appalling, frightening even, please use a spelling checker.
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
I'm also quite content to pay my TV Licence. I find that I don't watch a great deal of BBC TV these days but their radio output - particularly 3 & 4 - is still excellent, and their various web sites are outstanding - especially now that I've got broad band and can take advantage of all the streaming audio.
I struggle to see how any of this would be possible under a more conventional, commercial funding model.
If the BBC is producing high-quality stuff that appeals to fewer people then Murdoch's press says that it's not giving value for money because no one is watching it.
If the BBC were allowed to work freely then we'd have torrents of their programmes available by now. But that would be "unfair" on poor billionaires who want to charge us every time we watch a program or listen to our music in a different location.
Bottom line is: Murdoch, like all his class, hates competition and wants the BBC closed down as soon as possible. And he has the money to buy the politicians; the hard part is convincing the public, even those that read the crap he spreads over their daily rags.
Fuck the fucking load of fucking fuckers.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
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.
The British general public widely like, respect and are proud of the BBC.
The Rupert Murdock owned media has been astroturffing against the BBC for years, when grass roots public opinion is that he is the only real problem with the British media.
What they really should do is to force BBC into releasing everything they have produced themselves that has been aired into a Creative Commons License! The People Payd for It, so the people should be allowed to use and share it! BBC should, by law, be required to let people share their shows on BitTorrent and other p2p networks!
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
Why let the facts get in way of some great rhetoric.
e w. shtml
This is the regular Charter renewal for the BBC. Happens every 10years or so.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/charter_revi
With that said, as a "true Brit", the BBC has always been a broadcasting service that I have always been very proud of. It has come in for a lot of criticism recently, perhaps rightfully so, as it's played the "ratings chasing" game of copying other channels and broadcasting far too much reality TV dross in favour of good drama and comedy shows - however, bringing the BBC under some governmental control means that the BBC will hopefully be forced to provide varied programming again, rather than "dumbed down TV" for the masses.
In Britain, we can take great pride in the fact that world recognised shows like Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Red Dwarf, Dr Who, Monty Python's Flying Circus, etc exist because of the BBC - likewise the radio programming, specifically Radio 4 which originally did the HHGTTG radio shows and the adaptations of The Hobbit and The Lord Of The Rings, as well as numerous dramas and plays.
I'm happy to continue paying my TV license for good quality programming and lack of advertising. All we need now are some more good comedy shows and I'll be happy...
The final issue to mention is the BBC's web site which is of tremendously high quality. They put a lot of work into supporting media formats across multiple OSes (there's even some Linux support there!) and as someone who's trying to learn Spanish at the moment, there's a wealth of educational and language resource there also.
In Britain, we probably don't have too many things to be proud of but the BBC is our best trademark to the world and something we should cherish.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
All the comments that suggest that the removal of governors is an attempt to bring the BBC to heel miss the rather obvious point that the governors were all government appointees.
Remember the BBC Micro? That was an initiative by the BBC to bring computing to schools and the masses. The impact of that initiative was huge and we are still reaping the benefits today, ask any IT professional which machine they cut their teeth on and many will tell you of fond memories of the Model B. Dare I say it but it but I believe it had greater impact than the Sinclair Spectrum, which I always regarded as a programmable games console.
Seriously, if it wasn't for the BBC Micro I probably wouldn't be posting here today.
For all intensive porpoises your a bunch of rediculous loosers
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.
Are they still planing to release their archives online ? And in this new DIRAC codec that they're working on ? I've got a nasty feeling that about 12 months from now the archives will appear in some awfull closed format.
For my money I'd like to see their archives released in xvid and the radio archives in mp3. For that matter, why the hell are they doing online radio in Real Audio and not mp3 streams ?
Yes it's a damn shame they had to announce that Ground Force will be axed
Life is like an analogy
> The point is that the BBC is there to provide an alternative to the commercial broadcasters
That isn't actually true. What you say is probably closer to Channel 4's remit. The BBC existed long before (even American) commerical broadcasters. They exist to provide a broad, accessible range of media outlets. The old "inform, entertain & educate" mantra of Lord Reith, the first D-G. There's nothing in the charter that talks about providing "alternatives" in the sense that you mean, certainly outside of areas like news. This is why it's actually important for the BBC to provide populist (& popular) programmes - if they didn't, less people would watch, which would paint them as increasingly irrelevant, which would lead people to qustion why they pay the licence fee.
Recent channels such as BBC3 & 4 WERE created with a view to providing an alternative to commerical provisions, and they had to seek government approval before they could start. That still doesn't mean that they should stay away from anything that a commercial broadcaster might provide. That's a problem I have with the "less copycat shows" argument - more often than not, it was the BBC who INVENTED these kinds of shows, in an attempt to appeal to a larger section of the public (something which IS enforced by the charter) - they become successful, and commercial broadcasters copy them cos that's the best they can do. A few years down the line, and people start accusing the BBC of copycat behaviour. It makes no sense. Lifestyle shows like Changing Rooms, or "docu-soaps" like Driving School and Airport are two recent strands of programming that I can think of where this happened.
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!
Rubbish!
The BBC produces very high quality television and radio. Have you ever seen the crap that comes out of the States (no offence to our American cousins)?
Sure, BBC1 might have lost its way a bit in recent years, but the quality of the programs on BBC2 and BBC4 (as well as Radio 2, Radio 4, 6Music and BBC7) is very high indeed.
If you feel the need to bash the BBC, watch Sky1 for a few nights and you'll soon be taking your comments back.
J
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.
I love this liberal usage of the word "traditional" by conservatives. Here in Canada it's currently being applied to the same-sex marriage debate. Personally I'm all for the traditional definition of marriage, but I would appreciate some help on the following two matters:
1) My father-in-law still hasn't paid me the dowry. He seems to be dragging his feet.
2) My wife is upity and needs some convincing to stay in the kitchen (except when I make other demands)!
</removes-tongue-from-cheek>
Honestly: what are traditional values? Some 1950's definition? An 1850's definition? Some definition that lasted for hundreds of years until most people decided they were unfair or didn't work? This talk of traditional values is all about people maintaining their position of power and control over others.
Now Labour is always accusing the BBC of being biased against them.
If by some fluke the Lib-Dems won the next election, no doubt they would always be accusing the BBC of being biased against them.
Personally, I think it's great that the 'state' broadcaster is always willing to challenge the government of the day, no matter what political persuasion it may be. And frankly, I think that the vast majority of people in Britain are proud of the BBC and want the government - any government - to keep their hands off it. A government that proposed privatising it would find themselves out of office at the next election... if not strung up in Parliament Square!
You must think in Russian.
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
This is an extremely useful question to actually ask a socially conservative person. They have essentially no answer to it. They don't know what they're wanting to return to; they just know that they're scared of where they think we're going. They can list things they like -- respect for authority and so on -- but try getting them to commit to a historical period when they'd have been happier, and they become furtive and suddenly rather relativistic themselves.
For example: people who pine for "the way schools used to be" often have not a single clue about when they think that "used to be" was. Do they want to go back to 1950, before integration had happened? Oh, no, they won't commit to that. Would they like to go back to the era when the SAT was basically only taken by upper-class white males, to keep scores up? They don't really know. What they know is that the liberals are destroying our colleges, etc. etc.
This talk of traditional values is all about people maintaining their position of power and control over others.
Specifically about using the fear of change to keep people from questioning their power's legitimacy.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.