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?)."
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.
What about freedom of expression and speech?
Why do these discussions always come down to these issues? Did it occur to you that the oversight might have something to do with management of the BBC. That has little to do with free speech.
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.
Oh come on, like you never killed thousands based on a lie. Everyone makes mistakes.
[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
£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.
You have to remember that American politics is comprised or two parties. One of those is poltically to the right, while the other is to the far right. When your middle ground is somewhere Musolini would have been comfortable you can't blame the poor things for thinking the BBC is "liberal". Of course we also need to remember that in American politics, "liberal" is a word used to mean "scary and not at all in the best interests of my friends on the board of directors" rather the more normal meaning of "progressive".
An advertising-funded media will always be thinking about where the money is coming from, and won't want to upset its biggest funders. And, if you think the BBC is biased, try looking at some of the 'independent' newspapers in the UK.
A nationally funded broadcaster does not need to worry about large companies taking their funding away. And if you think that they aren't going to broadcast anything critical of the government - well there's always the 'independent' channels that can do that.
/* This sig is disabled. Press CTRL-W to enable. Thankyou */
Ok, I'm about as conservative as they come, but I would really like to see governments keep their damn hands out of censorship or regulating any kind of media. If people want to watch BBC's biased coverage, GOOD! Let them. If there's a demand for something else, another station will fill it. It's the same as the senator guy from Alaska wanting to regulate cable and satellites. I say leave it all alone and let the media market self-regulate.
Let's look at what's wrong with this:
1: The BBC is funded by the British taxpayer.
2: The BBC is (in Britain at least) a public sector organisation that has always been regulated in accordance with a charter agreed between itself and the government.
3: The BBC is required BY BRITITSH LAW to provided UNBIASED political broadcasting.
4: The BBC is not subjected to market pressures. The main bulk of its operation is not funded by advertising or by consumer purchase, but by a tax on owning a TV set in Britain which is paid regardless of whether you actually use the BBC.
5: The BBC is not directly censored by any organisation outside the BBC.
The overt purpose of funding the BBC is to provide unbiased news, politics, public sector broadcasting as well as entertainment and educational programming that might otherwise not be available. The negotiation of the charter with the BBC is to ensure that it fulfils this purpose, and that it regulates itself in accordance with its purpose.
"As a writer / novelist you might want to spellcheck your sig.
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.
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.
Do you get a constant stream of phone calls and red letters from the Television Licensing Authority demanding that you buy a license? Do they keep sending a man round to your house to intimidate you and ask you why you haven't got a license? Do they keep making you sign forms to declare that you haven't got a TV set? Have they put up a huge poster on the nearest billboard to your house declaring that someone in your street hasn't got a TV license?
I chose to live without a TV set for over 6 years. Eventually I gave in and got one because the only broadband Internet access in my area was through a TV set top box.
The best things that the BBC does are BBC2 (TV) and Radio 4, in my opinion. BBC1 is largely drivel, and even the news seems to be aimed at morons on that channel now (to compete with ITV). I gather that Radio 3 is very good if you're into serious music. Radio 1 is pure handbag and trandy crap and Radio 2 ear-candy for the hard-of-thinking. BBC4 TV was OK for a while.
I really resent paying £120 a year (or whatever) to fund make-over shows, soaps (Eastenders, Neighbours etc.) and all the other assorted lame rubbish on TV. I also resent the fact that Radio 1 pays record companies to advertise their wares (manufactured handbag music).
Oh well. Must be getting old or something.
Stick Men
Actually, evidence that came to light into the media at later times showed that Downing Street had, in fact, been told that the information they were basing the attack on was false.
It was known that the WMD information was at best unreliable, but it was the sole piece of information that was available that allowed Phony Tony to leap into the fray over the express wishes (70% against at the start) of the public opinion.
When multiple sources investigated the same leads as the journalist, but under greater scrutiny again, not only were the documents proved to be 'sexed up', but the meat of it was obtained by a forged document intended for other purposes.
So, the journalist was, in truth, correct. His information and assumptions were correct.
Yet Downing Street now expect the BBC to reform because of this political travesty of revealing to the world what was really going on.
So much for journalistic freedom.
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.