Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson says “Set the BBC free and let it flourish”
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson says “Set the BBC free and let it flourish”
In all the debate about the terms of the BBC’s renewed Charter, one question seems to have gone unasked, never mind unanswered: why does the BBC need a Charter at all? The political reason why it has one is that it’s the flip-side of being funded by a tax, enforceable in law and if it has that right then it must equally have certain duties.
0
Comments
I tweeted (humorously, mischievously and/or provocatively) to say "No, that's not the royals doing a Nazi salute in 1933. The angle of the arm is too high. Desperate smear attempt by the Sun." to which someone replied "Hahahaha this guys been on that strong Mary Jane".
Does that mean he's annoyed and that I therefore successfully trolled him by pretending to be outraged?
Some such "commerials" are run over and over and over again for a period of up to a week or even more before they are actually aired. This means that over a given period of say 24 hours, the BBC is saving itself tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds by force-feeding us with often boring repititious promos, created at a tiny fraction of the cost of making proper programmes and which together I calculate adds up to at least an entire hour of lost programming per day, equivalent to a loss of over 2 weeks of programmes over the course of a full year.
Nice work if you can get away with cheating the licence-paying public in this way.
Which is why it will not happen .
The more substantial snag is that the model would remove the hidden subsidy for news coverage. We can argue about bias, but the BBC takes news a lot more seriously than most channels, and can afford to because they have lots of money. There is still a substantial national interest in having a good universally-available channel for impartial news, so the model should, if accepted, be tweaked to allow a subsidy for news plus whatever is needed to try to allay the criticisms of those who feel it's biased.
O/T, I'd noit realised that religion was such a big thing for Farron, to the point that he won't say if he things homosexuality is a sin, even though he hedges with polite observations that we're all a bit sinful:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/18/tim-farron-avoids-saying-whether-he-sees-gay-sex-as-a-sin
I wonder if most LibDem voters knew that and are OK with it? On the upside there is certainly an audience for it in the hard evangelical community which I'd think would not normally vote LibDem.
The government will not do this though. Sky, ITV and other media platforms would be totally opposed as a subscription based BBC also able to take advertising and able to access the capital markets would be a competitor they could not deal with. My Sky subscription is close to £90 a month. That would not be a sustainable price for Sky if they were going head to head with the BBC on a level playing field.
Jules Bianchi has died from the injuries he sustained in last year's Japanese GP.
RIP.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/33578770
The world has changed, and the BBC as set up increasingly does not fit into that world. It is a monopoly organisation that still wants to act as if it is a monopoly.
What would be your solution to the problems that face it and the wider industry?
Farron has some sick beliefs.
As well as the gay issue he describes Thatcher as evil.
But being illiberal seems okay with lib dems.
Look at Rennard and Lord Carlisle.
It's too early for your sanctimonious trolling.
Also, what exactly is meant by a 'subscription model' ? The phrase could cover a multitude of methods and systems: e.g. do you pay for the entire BBC, or for individual packages of channels (as per Sky).
And who pays for all the new STBs that would be needed?
Edit: and what about Freeview?
It is noticeable that his personal beliefs have come in for such open criticism. When do we hear of muslim politicians being queried in this way?
This all happened because the Eurozone formed a bloc vote and the UK was left with a choice of standing up for itself and failing, causing UK government embarassment, or pretending a terrible chain of events is no problem. And, under pressure from the government, the UK media fails to report what has just gone on and the implications from it. We had a string of stories that Osborne had blocked it, and no coverage of how this turned out to be a complete falsehood.
Frankly, I do not know how to fix it, and am simply pointing out that much of the criticism of the BBC is driven by its commercial rivals who do not want a strong, independent BBC competing against them for subscribers or advertisers.
BBC does not stifle innovation it promotes it in technology, people and content
Subscription does not work for radio at all
Advertising on the BBC would seriously damage commercial broadcasters
The relationship with govt has worked well, it is the Tories not the BBC that have changed
You have no funding solution for the world service
Most people happily pay the licence fee
Farron seems quite willing and able to be a public Christian. Neither he nor I are bothered by this sort of questioning, but it is noteworthy that other politicians are not subject to the same criticism.
And who pays for all the new STBs that would be needed?
Edit: and what about Freeview?
In an era of smart TV and Internet, we will soon have 80% access for picture broadcasts. Radio can mainly be advertising supported with possibly a small fund for one r4 channel. But it needs will on the part of the BBC.
I enjoyed listening and watching Walton's Belshazzar's feast, hadn't realised before how immense the orchestral & choral forces were. Tucked away at the side of two boxes, a brass band to augment the huge mass on the platform. The whole thing a glorious example of BBC excess, given that the work has supposed to have just 15 players to begin with.
The BBC has played a great part in promoting classical music, though it appears to have reduced the coverage of live concerts, both on TV and on air. Can't recall the last time they bothered with a whole Ring Cycle on TV or any string quartet recitals; yet Channel 4 have hardly bothered to cover any music in the last 10 years. As for the rest of the broadcasters, no attempt is made to match the BBC's output. In some ways the concert coverage has become lame and predictable, perhaps 8 or 9 prom concerts, and the Vienna Philharmonic's New Year's Day Concert, and almost bugger all in between. How far the BBC flogged last night's concerts to overseas broadcasters remains to be seen, but perhaps some of the overseas PBers might know more on this. At least some of the dumbing down on Radio 3 has been checked, though much of the morning output sounds like Classic FM without the heating, car & health care ads.
I guess that contractual and complexities halt the rebroadcast of past proms concerts et al but being able to download them or stream them could provide a revenue stream of sorts.
Though I have always wondered how many of the BBC commissioned pieces have had a second performance.
I'd pay the £200 per year (or whatever it is) for TMS alone. I like a lot of what it does and I watch/listen to BBC more than Sky and Sky costs me a fortune (£120 a month).
My wife and kids have the Sky anytime box downstairs and I gave Sky multroom it annoys me that I pay all that money and can't ever get to watch anything because Sky anytime won't feed to another telly!
But, the socialists inside the lds have ignored Farron's illiberalism.
The World Service is an important issue that would need to be dealt with, but it is an important part of the BBC's brand so an entity along the lines set out by David - and perhaps able to raise more money internationally by offering subscriptions and charging for iPlayer - would have the incentive and the funds to keep it going.
If people do not want to pay the licence fee they should not have to. They should not get access to the services covered by the fee either, of course. That's why ads for radio and subs for TV works.
None of this would be attractive to the government or the BBC's rivals, so it won't happen.
One positive about the BBC is that it enforces moderation on the advertising channels, both in terms of numbers and of quality of interruptions. A subscription service is an alternative to adverts, but is divisive as it is likely that the percentage subscribing to the premium programmes would be very small.
The BBC is like the NHS or monarchy, and indeed many other British institutions. It is not how we would design it now, and the subject of much grumbling, but most British people are very strongly in favour if it is threatened. Politicians beware!
Would we establish a nationalised national broadcaster, if we did not have one? Cf: would we apply to join the EU now, and be pleased to move towards ever closer union, if we were not members already?
'Zero budgetting' is not infallible. But it is often a sensible place to start....
Here is your licence fee, you have ten years, go 'win the global race' for Britain.
I think the BBC should be subscription and some adverts to keep the subscription down.
I agree; most people are currently happy (leaving aside the pensioners who do not pay).
The problem is the next generation, who have been raised with a plethora of multimedia devices. Why would they share the same love of the BBC that my generation do?
Which channel is Game of Thrones on?
RIP Jules.
"I would rather have moral politicians than amoral ones!"
So would I. At least, you know where he's coming from and can vote accordingly. He won't say one thing and do another.
It comes down to a matter of trust, and I don't trust most MPs. What do they stand for? Looking after number one.
Sad to hear Jules Bianchi has now died:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/33578770
He suffered a massive head injury at the Japanese Grand Prix last year, when his car went off the track in wet conditions and hit a recovery vehicle which had gone to retrieve another car which had also left the circuit.
Amongst other things that would mean a radical change to rights purchasing in the UK. For example BBC1&2 would become global channels.
If the BBC can establish itself globally, then ultimately the UK subscription/licence could be very low. But that takes time and focus.
The BBC is about the only serious global media player we have. The very last thing we want to do is to lose that opportunity.
The licence fee is a TV tuner tax. Why pay for a tax for a tuner when you can watch things you want to watch on a device without a tuner?
Well said, Jonathan. I very happily pay the licence fee and I don't even have a TV. I just watch via iPlayer on my laptop and my tab - and hardly ever watch anything as it goes out. I'm not a huge viewer, really, but probably 75% of the little I do watch is on the BBC. They could more than double the licence fee before I'd start to moan at all. It's great value.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lzS8yW8INA
1 - A 40-50% media market share, particularly of news coverage, cannot be accepted for any organisation in 2015 in a large county, never mind a state funded one. Radio is the same.
2 - The quality of particularly the news output is no better than any other news media, and often distinctly tabloid.
3 - The License Fee is a dead-tax walking.
There is no justification for continuing state funding.
Subscriptions or whatever, but make it happen in 10 years.
Murdoch has done the country a great service, his Sky plus box it the antidote to all adverts and trailers.. and can store 80 hrs of programmes. We would be lost without it.
Past tense. The world has changed.
Bit like the eurozone, really.
Too many BBC fans on here are blind to its problems, and consign all people pointing out the problems to a group called "BBC haters"
Such blind love for the BBC will kill it.
The BBC advertising is worse than the commercial channels. They repeat the same few endlessly. At least, the ITV advertising is more varied.
Look, if I have no interest in an upcoming programme, don't keep hammering away at me. I have changed channel several times just to get away from it.
The TVLF has become an anachronism of a bygone age. The new generation of digital media platforms so beloved of youngsters today, means that for many the TV set is obsolete. That may not be a significant problem for now, but technology and viewing habits do not stand still, and nor can the BBC afford to.
Sky is optional. If you have a TV, even if you never watch the BBC, you must have a licence fee. The two are not remotely comparable.
Edited extra bit: bit sleepy, just realised it may well've been made in jest.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-33567357
Looks like a well meaning gesture, though I cannot think of any country where this is done.