I'm not that much bothered about any reform of the BBC, so long as it doesn't do any harm to Radio 3. I have an immense, incalculable debt to the station - to which I have been an avid listener since my teenage years, some 40 years ago. I know my intellectual development has been fostered much more by Radio 3 than anything I learnt at school.
Just to take one example: last night's prom concert, to which a number of people have already referred; during the interval there was a fascinating talk on the history of Babylon. This is the kind of thing Radio 3 does brilliantly. And frankly to compare it to Classic FM is ridiculous - if I'm forced to listen to that heap of shit for more than 15 minutes I am in real danger of a psychotic outburst.
I am sure that 99% of people have no idea that R3 broadcasts anything other than classical music. Why is a documentary on Babylon being broadcast on a music station rather than on R4?
All those saying that they are personally happy to pay the licence fee and deem it good value for themselves and using this argument to support the licence fee are rather missing the point. That statement is only of value for those prescribing a subscription model - that is, that the value of the BBC channels is great enough that they (and by inference, others) would pay for access).
The point is whether those who do not want access on those terms, who would not choose to pay if there was an option, who don't see it as value but are compelled to pay in order to support those who do like it ... should continue to be compelled to pay.
Only if the BBC can be demonstrated conclusively to be a positive externality to all of those people and that the licence fee is the only way to avoid a Tragedy of the Commons involving loss of that externality (and that that loss would be greater than the value gained by those not subscribing by the return of their freedom to spend their money as they choose) should the licence fee be retained. Otherwise, compulsion is illiberal. It can only be justified if it averts a "negative freedom".
Excellent post, and exceptionally well put. I agree with every word.
Likewise. BTW if the BBC were trying to create positive externalities and pass the Andy Cooke Test I'm not sure they'd be doing any *broadcasting* at all. What they should be doing is gathering footage in the public interest but that's difficult and expensive to get - war reporting is the obvious one - and making it available for other people to edit, comment and broadcast.
I took the time to look at the whole BBC3 schedule and watched about 6 shows at random, a couple of months ago. Whatever your tastes - it didn't appear to be anything distinctive from E4 unless you think yobbish behaviour and lots of swearing is a public service. TBH, I think E4 is better at it and less self-righteous.
The only thing I'd give the channel props for were two docus about social issues/drug wars in other countries. Kate Deeley [no idea who she is] and Andy Peters [the Blue Peter chap] did a good job and I can imagine them appealing to the BBC3 demographic - though E4 would be a better home for it.
The rest is just awful, lowest common denominator. Nothing wrong that per se - just done better by others. I honestly can't see the point of BBC3 apart from self-created dead air filling.
Agree, like other PBers here, I look forward to the Proms season on the BBC TV, which often does not broadcast some of the bits I want to watch (though all the Proms are available on R3). Also it could even incorporate some of the IN the Park events and perhaps some of the events like Glasto - I do not mean being a copy of MTV, but there is the chance to be wide ranging for the all-age audience. Certainly the interviews etc could be very educational - a replacement for BBC3?
I'm surprised that there isn't a version of Classic FM for the TV. With documentaries/live shows/intv with famous artists/conductors/teachers et al/genres reviews
I'd watch it even though I don't listen to much of that sort of thing.
I can honestly say the only person I knew who listened to R3 was my mother during the period when they'd routinely play the wrong LP and wait until the end of Side 1 before mentioning it.
snip).
snip
However, it would be a great mistake to destroy such a globally respected brand. It has to make better use of its resources globally. Recently the BBC satellite coverage reduced to the chagrin of many-expats in Spain.
So the World Service budget should come of the DCMS budget or that of DFID and should be well resourced, it is our best ambassador and should be funded as such.
I'm not that much bothered about any reform of the BBC, so long as it doesn't do any harm to Radio 3. I have an immense, incalculable debt to the station - to which I have been an avid listener since my teenage years, some 40 years ago. I know my intellectual development has been fostered much more by Radio 3 than anything I learnt at school.
Just to take one example: last night's prom concert, to which a number of people have already referred; during the interval there was a fascinating talk on the history of Babylon. This is the kind of thing Radio 3 does brilliantly. And frankly to compare it to Classic FM is ridiculous - if I'm forced to listen to that heap of shit for more than 15 minutes I am in real danger of a psychotic outburst.
And you're happy for everyone else to pay for your very individual pleasure whether they wish to or not? Indeed whether they can afford to or not.
I'm not that much bothered about any reform of the BBC, so long as it doesn't do any harm to Radio 3. I have an immense, incalculable debt to the station - to which I have been an avid listener since my teenage years, some 40 years ago. I know my intellectual development has been fostered much more by Radio 3 than anything I learnt at school.
Just to take one example: last night's prom concert, to which a number of people have already referred; during the interval there was a fascinating talk on the history of Babylon. This is the kind of thing Radio 3 does brilliantly. And frankly to compare it to Classic FM is ridiculous - if I'm forced to listen to that heap of shit for more than 15 minutes I am in real danger of a psychotic outburst.
I am sure that 99% of people have no idea that R3 broadcasts anything other than classical music. Why is a documentary on Babylon being broadcast on a music station rather than on R4?
The proms interval talks are always worth listening to. They generally have some connection to the music - it might be quite specifically about the piece to be played, or it might have a broader connection to it, as was the case last night when the talk served as an introduction to Belshazzar's Feast. The point is that much of the output of R3 succeeds by encouraging intellectual curiosity.
I'm not that much bothered about any reform of the BBC, so long as it doesn't do any harm to Radio 3. I have an immense, incalculable debt to the station - to which I have been an avid listener since my teenage years, some 40 years ago. I know my intellectual development has been fostered much more by Radio 3 than anything I learnt at school.
Just to take one example: last night's prom concert, to which a number of people have already referred; during the interval there was a fascinating talk on the history of Babylon. This is the kind of thing Radio 3 does brilliantly. And frankly to compare it to Classic FM is ridiculous - if I'm forced to listen to that heap of shit for more than 15 minutes I am in real danger of a psychotic outburst.
And you're happy for everyone else to pay for your very individual pleasure whether they wish to or not? Indeed whether they can afford to or not.
Yes. Radio 3 makes us all more intelligent: rich and poor.
As a seaside towner - they are little buggers and no idea why they've got protected status as wild birds. There's oodles of them and urban vermin worse than foxes.
Has Cameron convened a COBRA meeting yet to discuss the threat posed by seagulls? Or should that be 'self - proclaimed seagulls' or 'so - called SG'? Are any British military personnel embedded with the RSPB? This is all vital stuff.
David Herdson. Good article. I'd ask the question:
"If there were no BBC license, would you buy a subscription if that were the only way to see BBC content? If so, how much would you be willing to pay for access to all BBC programmes."
I think the additional issue you'd have to address is ownership of the BBC. The Board of Directors won't be accountable to anyone if there are no shareholders (otherwise they are accountable to the government?). So the Beeb would also have to be privatized.
All those saying that they are personally happy to pay the licence fee and deem it good value for themselves and using this argument to support the licence fee are rather missing the point. That statement is only of value for those prescribing a subscription model - that is, that the value of the BBC channels is great enough that they (and by inference, others) would pay for access).
The point is whether those who do not want access on those terms, who would not choose to pay if there was an option, who don't see it as value but are compelled to pay in order to support those who do like it ... should continue to be compelled to pay.
Only if the BBC can be demonstrated conclusively to be a positive externality to all of those people and that the licence fee is the only way to avoid a Tragedy of the Commons involving loss of that externality (and that that loss would be greater than the value gained by those not subscribing by the return of their freedom to spend their money as they choose) should the licence fee be retained. Otherwise, compulsion is illiberal. It can only be justified if it averts a "negative freedom".
Excellent post, and exceptionally well put. I agree with every word.
Likewise. BTW if the BBC were trying to create positive externalities and pass the Andy Cooke Test I'm not sure they'd be doing any *broadcasting* at all. What they should be doing is gathering footage in the public interest but that's difficult and expensive to get - war reporting is the obvious one - and making it available for other people to edit, comment and broadcast.
That's not a bad idea. Pleased we agree on something, at last!
All those saying that they are personally happy to pay the licence fee and deem it good value for themselves and using this argument to support the licence fee are rather missing the point. That statement is only of value for those prescribing a subscription model - that is, that the value of the BBC channels is great enough that they (and by inference, others) would pay for access).
The point is whether those who do not want access on those terms, who would not choose to pay if there was an option, who don't see it as value but are compelled to pay in order to support those who do like it ... should continue to be compelled to pay.
Only if the BBC can be demonstrated conclusively to be a positive externality to all of those people and that the licence fee is the only way to avoid a Tragedy of the Commons involving loss of that externality (and that that loss would be greater than the value gained by those not subscribing by the return of their freedom to spend their money as they choose) should the licence fee be retained. Otherwise, compulsion is illiberal. It can only be justified if it averts a "negative freedom".
Excellent post, and exceptionally well put. I agree with every word.
Likewise. BTW if the BBC were trying to create positive externalities and pass the Andy Cooke Test I'm not sure they'd be doing any *broadcasting* at all. What they should be doing is gathering footage in the public interest but that's difficult and expensive to get - war reporting is the obvious one - and making it available for other people to edit, comment and broadcast.
I'm not that much bothered about any reform of the BBC, so long as it doesn't do any harm to Radio 3. I have an immense, incalculable debt to the station - to which I have been an avid listener since my teenage years, some 40 years ago. I know my intellectual development has been fostered much more by Radio 3 than anything I learnt at school.
Just to take one example: last night's prom concert, to which a number of people have already referred; during the interval there was a fascinating talk on the history of Babylon. This is the kind of thing Radio 3 does brilliantly. And frankly to compare it to Classic FM is ridiculous - if I'm forced to listen to that heap of shit for more than 15 minutes I am in real danger of a psychotic outburst.
And you're happy for everyone else to pay for your very individual pleasure whether they wish to or not? Indeed whether they can afford to or not.
Yes. Radio 3 makes us all more intelligent: rich and poor.
Wow - it has certainly enriched your arrogance - not so sure about the intelligence.
"Why do Tories seem to get almost sexually excited about the idea of destroying everything most people like and are proud of?"
You make an interesting point. When I first thought about your question I thought it had to be coincidence but then I started joining the dots......
The BBC.... Nelson Mandela..... Danny Boyle's Olympic ceremony....... the NHS..... social workers...socialism....... culture....... the arts...... theatre,.......
Have the Proms started??? The BBC are interviewing Katie Derham on R4 not another interview advert??
First Night was last night - Walton's Belshazzar's feast - double choir, double orchestra, brass band so much for the accessible piece for 15 players. Bloody BBC extravagance...
I enjoyed the music last night, even the modern piece. What is annoys me is that past TV concerts aren't available at a later date, and that Proms concerts on Youtube get removed, probably BBC pressure over 'copyright'.
I enjoyed the Mozart. I hated the Walton. I just don't get that discordant strident form of singing/music.
Funnily enough I was reading the thread about the BBC at the same time and was trying to clarify in my own mind what the Proms - which I love - imply about the BBC and its role as a public service boadcaster. I disagree fundamentally with David in his thread header that the BBC should be a mass appeal broadcaster. I actually think that the public service remit should be what it as the fore. Producing the sorts of programming that would not be viable with subscription or advertising sourced revenue seems to me to be the thing that the BBC should, concentrate on. It certainly should not be trying to compete with other commercial channels for mass audience broadcasting and paying 'stars' vast amounts of money to appear on the channel.
I wonder how many of those stars writing letters of support for the BBC as a priceless institution would still be happy to appear for free or for a very small fee because the BBC is so important to the nation? Surely they could make their millions on other commercial channels whilst giving a small amount of their time to support the BBC?
The trouble is if the BBC did not attempt to make mass appeal programmes that also carry considerable risk of failure then no one else will. ITV would never have made Sherlock - too edgy, too risky, too much of an untried approach to an old story. By setting the bar high like this the commercial stations have to raise their own game.
Or alternatively, the BBC's built-in advantages mean the commercial stations cannot easily compete with such programs.
Although you are utterly wrong about Sherlock. 'Elementary' is essentially the same concept as Sherlock - Holmes in the modern day - and is apparently very good. It is produced by CBS.
The BBC's sheer heft corrupts the market. It is wrong to say that if that heft were reduced, the commercial broadcasters would not fill the gap. They would, because there is a market for it.
(As an aside, Sherlock is a hideous TV program. Over-hyped, inconsistent and boring. Yes, they've managed to make the fantastic character of Holmes boring.)
"Why do Tories seem to get almost sexually excited about the idea of destroying everything most people like and are proud of?"
You make an interesting point. When I first thought about your question I thought it had to be coincidence but then I started joining the dots......
The BBC.... Nelson Mandela..... Danny Boyle's Olympic ceremony....... the NHS..... social workers...socialism....... culture....... the arts...... theatre,.......
(Hi Tyson and MD)
Oh dear - still in the anger stage after the election I see - those 'selfish prick' 'arrogant bastard' voters.
Hoping that Cook can now summon up an Athertonesque match-saving innings. Otherwise, this test is lost. Decent start, but he has to keep going for the rest of the day.
Elementary [Brit Jonny Lee Miller] takes Sherlock and makes him a modern day struggling drug addict who's reforming. Watson is female [Lucy Liu] and begins life as his live-in rehab sponsor after quitting a career as a surgeon through a malpractice suit.
The whole premise is shifted to New York, Insp Gregson is the police captain.
Moriarty is female and jolly good. Even Vinnie Jones makes an appearance as a very hardman and is excellent at it.
Have the Proms started??? The BBC are interviewing Katie Derham on R4 not another interview advert??
First Night was last night - Walton's Belshazzar's feast - double choir, double orchestra, brass band so much for the accessible piece for 15 players. Bloody BBC extravagance...
I enjoyed the music last night, even the modern piece. What is annoys me is that past TV concerts aren't available at a later date, and that Proms concerts on Youtube get removed, probably BBC pressure over 'copyright'.
I enjoyed the Mozart. I hated the Walton. I just don't get that discordant strident form of singing/music. snip
The trouble is if the BBC did not attempt to make mass appeal programmes that also carry considerable risk of failure then no one else will. ITV would never have made Sherlock - too edgy, too risky, too much of an untried approach to an old story. By setting the bar high like this the commercial stations have to raise their own game.
Or alternatively, the BBC's built-in advantages mean the commercial stations cannot easily compete with such programs.
Although you are utterly wrong about Sherlock. 'Elementary' is essentially the same concept as Sherlock - Holmes in the modern day - and is apparently very good. It is produced by CBS.
The BBC's sheer heft corrupts the market. It is wrong to say that if that heft were reduced, the commercial broadcasters would not fill the gap. They would, because there is a market for it.
(As an aside, Sherlock is a hideous TV program. Over-hyped, inconsistent and boring. Yes, they've managed to make the fantastic character of Holmes boring.)
"Why do Tories seem to get almost sexually excited about the idea of destroying everything most people like and are proud of?"
You make an interesting point. When I first thought about your question I thought it had to be coincidence but then I started joining the dots......
The BBC.... Nelson Mandela..... Danny Boyle's Olympic ceremony....... the NHS..... social workers...socialism....... culture....... the arts...... theatre,.......
(Hi Tyson and MD)
More to the point, when are they going to get around to the British monarchy?
I just looked up Children's Channels on FreeSat - there are five of them excluding CBeebies.
Adverts aimed at children is tightly regulated - make it more so, if necessary. It doesn't make the BBC's output here so special as to be uniquely better.
You actually miss out the most important part of the BBC. It needs to support children's television so that educational entertainment is available for children without adverts or subscription fees.
And how many don't show anything beyond the cheapest cartoons? If you want to watch market failure in action the children's television channels are a prime example...
I'm not that much bothered about any reform of the BBC, so long as it doesn't do any harm to Radio 3. I have an immense, incalculable debt to the station - to which I have been an avid listener since my teenage years, some 40 years ago. I know my intellectual development has been fostered much more by Radio 3 than anything I learnt at school.
Just to take one example: last night's prom concert, to which a number of people have already referred; during the interval there was a fascinating talk on the history of Babylon. This is the kind of thing Radio 3 does brilliantly. And frankly to compare it to Classic FM is ridiculous - if I'm forced to listen to that heap of shit for more than 15 minutes I am in real danger of a psychotic outburst.
You may regard Classic FM as a "heap of shit" but again, lots of people like it (I do, within reason, while driving). Surely the market can find a place for both. Indeed, didn't Classic FM come into being and survive and succeed since precisely because R3 left that gap in the market?
But ultimately, R3 can only survive if the BBC survives as a mass-market major player. Because a lesser, smaller, one won't find the resource for a loss-making niche market. You need R1 and BBC1 to do well in order for R3 and BBC4 to get their dosh.
I'm not that much bothered about any reform of the BBC, so long as it doesn't do any harm to Radio 3. I have an immense, incalculable debt to the station - to which I have been an avid listener since my teenage years, some 40 years ago. I know my intellectual development has been fostered much more by Radio 3 than anything I learnt at school.
Just to take one example: last night's prom concert, to which a number of people have already referred; during the interval there was a fascinating talk on the history of Babylon. This is the kind of thing Radio 3 does brilliantly. And frankly to compare it to Classic FM is ridiculous - if I'm forced to listen to that heap of shit for more than 15 minutes I am in real danger of a psychotic outburst.
You may regard Classic FM as a "heap of shit" but again, lots of people like it (I do, within reason, while driving). Surely the market can find a place for both. Indeed, didn't Classic FM come into being and survive and succeed since precisely because R3 left that gap in the market?
But ultimately, R3 can only survive if the BBC survives as a mass-market major player. Because a lesser, smaller, one won't find the resource for a loss-making niche market. You need R1 and BBC1 to do well in order for R3 and BBC4 to get their dosh.
Yes, I understand it appeals to some - it wouldn't have survived for 25 years if it didn't. My point was that comparing Radio 3 with Classic FM is not comparing like with like. It's got more in common with Radio 2 than any other BBC station.
I'm not that much bothered about any reform of the BBC, so long as it doesn't do any harm to Radio 3. I have an immense, incalculable debt to the station - to which I have been an avid listener since my teenage years, some 40 years ago. I know my intellectual development has been fostered much more by Radio 3 than anything I learnt at school.
Just to take one example: last night's prom concert, to which a number of people have already referred; during the interval there was a fascinating talk on the history of Babylon. This is the kind of thing Radio 3 does brilliantly. And frankly to compare it to Classic FM is ridiculous - if I'm forced to listen to that heap of shit for more than 15 minutes I am in real danger of a psychotic outburst.
And you're happy for everyone else to pay for your very individual pleasure whether they wish to or not? Indeed whether they can afford to or not.
Yes. Radio 3 makes us all more intelligent: rich and poor.
How does it make the 96% of the population that doesn't listen to it more intelligent?
Have the Proms started??? The BBC are interviewing Katie Derham on R4 not another interview advert??
First Night was last night - Walton's Belshazzar's feast - double choir, double orchestra, brass band so much for the accessible piece for 15 players. Bloody BBC extravagance...
I enjoyed the music last night, even the modern piece. What is annoys me is that past TV concerts aren't available at a later date, and that Proms concerts on Youtube get removed, probably BBC pressure over 'copyright'.
I enjoyed the Mozart. I hated the Walton. I just don't get that discordant strident form of singing/music. snip
The trouble is if the BBC did not attempt to make mass appeal programmes that also carry considerable risk of failure then no one else will. ITV would never have made Sherlock - too edgy, too risky, too much of an untried approach to an old story. By setting the bar high like this the commercial stations have to raise their own game.
Or alternatively, the BBC's built-in advantages mean the commercial stations cannot easily compete with such programs.
Although you are utterly wrong about Sherlock. 'Elementary' is essentially the same concept as Sherlock - Holmes in the modern day - and is apparently very good. It is produced by CBS.
The BBC's sheer heft corrupts the market. It is wrong to say that if that heft were reduced, the commercial broadcasters would not fill the gap. They would, because there is a market for it.
(As an aside, Sherlock is a hideous TV program. Over-hyped, inconsistent and boring. Yes, they've managed to make the fantastic character of Holmes boring.)
I don't know about innovative, but I finally got around to watching past the first episode of Sherlock, and it didn't alter my view that Elementary was far better and less insufferable. I'd highly recommend it to those who haven't watched it. I cannot get past how many versions of the story that include the beginning of the Holmes/Watson partnership fail to come up with an even slightly plausible reason why the pair would stick around each other long enough to develop respect and a good partnership, given the abrasiveness and dismissiveness of the Holmes persona.
The BBC attempted to cover up Palestinian antisemitism in a documentary called Children of the Gaza War. They decided to replace the word "Jew" with "Israeli" for reasons which are still not clear.
I'm not that much bothered about any reform of the BBC, so long as it doesn't do any harm to Radio 3. I have an immense, incalculable debt to the station - to which I have been an avid listener since my teenage years, some 40 years ago. I know my intellectual development has been fostered much more by Radio 3 than anything I learnt at school.
Just to take one example: last night's prom concert, to which a number of people have already referred; during the interval there was a fascinating talk on the history of Babylon. This is the kind of thing Radio 3 does brilliantly. And frankly to compare it to Classic FM is ridiculous - if I'm forced to listen to that heap of shit for more than 15 minutes I am in real danger of a psychotic outburst.
And you're happy for everyone else to pay for your very individual pleasure whether they wish to or not? Indeed whether they can afford to or not.
Yes. Radio 3 makes us all more intelligent: rich and poor.
How does it make the 96% of the population that doesn't listen to it more intelligent?
It potentially does. Anyone can listen to it including say a single mother living in a council tower block. It offers something that is on offer nowhere else - and that is really liberating.
In all honesty, the issue that bothers me about the BBC the most is the aggressive and bullying way in which the TV Licencing Authority operates.
Within days of moving into any flat or house I've ever lived in, I've received a passive-aggressive (sometimes just plain aggressive) letter from them. Follow-up letters can arrive very quickly; I once had three inside eight days despite buying my licence on the 3rd day I moved in.
The phrasing of their letters is full of menace, demanding to know your intentions and what you're up to, with a tone that suggest that if they even have to write to you about TV licences, you're probably a criminal so there's no need for courtesy anyway.
It's statist Stasiness of the worst kind. The equivalent of a bald-headed sheriff sponsored mafioso coming round and knocking on your front door just after you've moved in, with a forced smirk saying, "Welcome to the area. Now, remember to pay your protection money now, or we will come round and deck your head in"
Decriminalisation and abolition of a compulsory licence are the absolute de minimis for me.
Had a house vacant for nearly a year as work was done on it. During that time, the level of (presumably computer-generated) letters was copious and ever more threatening. Their working assumption at all times was that there was a television which was being used - despite never actually ASKING if that was the case.
TV Licensing is clearly the para-military wing of the BBC. They should be ashamed of it.
I'm not that much bothered about any reform of the BBC, so long as it doesn't do any harm to Radio 3. I have an immense, incalculable debt to the station - to which I have been an avid listener since my teenage years, some 40 years ago. I know my intellectual development has been fostered much more by Radio 3 than anything I learnt at school.
Just to take one example: last night's prom concert, to which a number of people have already referred; during the interval there was a fascinating talk on the history of Babylon. This is the kind of thing Radio 3 does brilliantly. And frankly to compare it to Classic FM is ridiculous - if I'm forced to listen to that heap of shit for more than 15 minutes I am in real danger of a psychotic outburst.
You may regard Classic FM as a "heap of shit" but again, lots of people like it (I do, within reason, while driving). Surely the market can find a place for both. Indeed, didn't Classic FM come into being and survive and succeed since precisely because R3 left that gap in the market?
But ultimately, R3 can only survive if the BBC survives as a mass-market major player. Because a lesser, smaller, one won't find the resource for a loss-making niche market. You need R1 and BBC1 to do well in order for R3 and BBC4 to get their dosh.
Yes, I understand it appeals to some - it wouldn't have survived for 25 years if it didn't. My point was that comparing Radio 3 with Classic FM is not comparing like with like. It's got more in common with Radio 2 than any other BBC station.
Hoping that Cook can now summon up an Athertonesque match-saving innings. Otherwise, this test is lost. Decent start, but he has to keep going for the rest of the day.
David Herdson. Good article. I'd ask the question:
"If there were no BBC license, would you buy a subscription if that were the only way to see BBC content? If so, how much would you be willing to pay for access to all BBC programmes."
I think the additional issue you'd have to address is ownership of the BBC. The Board of Directors won't be accountable to anyone if there are no shareholders (otherwise they are accountable to the government?). So the Beeb would also have to be privatized.
Personally, I would buy a subscription to a full-service Beeb (i.e. all TV channels). I'm sure there'd be value in their putting out other packages too - Classic (BBC1 & 2), Snob (BBC2, 4, Parliament & News), and so on. Overall, I think a subscription fee could be increased a little once the element of compulsion is removed. £200-£250 would not be unreasonable.
Ref the directors, I think you've missed one of my key points, which is in the penultimate paragraph in the intro. Namely that the Corporation should be mutualised. The owners / shareholders would therefore be the licence fee payers / subscribers, and the Board of Directors elected in the same way as any other mutual.
I see no case for privatising the BBC. Apart from the fact that it would probably suck out a load of money from elsewhere in the industry that could be put to better use, diversity in provision is a good thing and to structure the BBC too much like Sky or ITV would be more likely to result in it chasing the same ends and becoming a pale shadow of its rivals.
I'm not that much bothered about any reform of the BBC, so long as it doesn't do any harm to Radio 3. I have an immense, incalculable debt to the station - to which I have been an avid listener since my teenage years, some 40 years ago. I know my intellectual development has been fostered much more by Radio 3 than anything I learnt at school.
Just to take one example: last night's prom concert, to which a number of people have already referred; during the interval there was a fascinating talk on the history of Babylon. This is the kind of thing Radio 3 does brilliantly. And frankly to compare it to Classic FM is ridiculous - if I'm forced to listen to that heap of shit for more than 15 minutes I am in real danger of a psychotic outburst.
You may regard Classic FM as a "heap of shit" but again, lots of people like it (I do, within reason, while driving). Surely the market can find a place for both. Indeed, didn't Classic FM come into being and survive and succeed since precisely because R3 left that gap in the market?
But ultimately, R3 can only survive if the BBC survives as a mass-market major player. Because a lesser, smaller, one won't find the resource for a loss-making niche market. You need R1 and BBC1 to do well in order for R3 and BBC4 to get their dosh.
Yes, I understand it appeals to some - it wouldn't have survived for 25 years if it didn't. My point was that comparing Radio 3 with Classic FM is not comparing like with like. It's got more in common with Radio 2 than any other BBC station.
It's really the same argument for the funding of art galleries and museums. I think it's really important that these things remain free at the point of access, so that opportunities for personal and intellectual enrichment exist for everybody.
Here's a really adventurous concept: true nationwide PPV programming. A combination of existing broadcast and Internet VOD, with an Internet or mobile backend to show the broadcasters what was viewed and distribute money. On-device storage for broadcast catch-up, along with catch-up TV and Internet-only viewing (Netflix, Youtube etc).
You pay a set amount for a channel for a year, or per-program viewed.
We're nearly there, it's technically feasible, and it's the sane way to go, even if it might mean the end for most broadcasters as they exist today.
It's where we'll end up, regardless of what the BBC, Sky and others may think.
(I have no ball in this game currently, although I did work for a very early adopter in VOD many moons ago).
I'm not that much bothered about any reform of the BBC, so long as it doesn't do any harm to Radio 3. I have an immense, incalculable debt to the station - to which I have been an avid listener since my teenage years, some 40 years ago. I know my intellectual development has been fostered much more by Radio 3 than anything I learnt at school.
Just to take one example: last night's prom concert, to which a number of people have already referred; during the interval there was a fascinating talk on the history of Babylon. This is the kind of thing Radio 3 does brilliantly. And frankly to compare it to Classic FM is ridiculous - if I'm forced to listen to that heap of shit for more than 15 minutes I am in real danger of a psychotic outburst.
And you're happy for everyone else to pay for your very individual pleasure whether they wish to or not? Indeed whether they can afford to or not.
Yes. Radio 3 makes us all more intelligent: rich and poor.
How does it make the 96% of the population that doesn't listen to it more intelligent?
It potentially does. Anyone can listen to it including say a single mother living in a council tower block. It offers something that is on offer nowhere else - and that is really liberating.
They can - but they don't.
I'm not knocking it for what it does, which is something that as you rightly say, is not matched by anyone else. But it is a very niche taste and needs to be recognised as such.
What has annoyed me over the years is the BBC's decision to pay huge chunks of licence payers' money to people such as Gary Lineker to undertake roles for which they clearly lacked the requisite skills.Why on earth spend millions on training him up to be barely half decent when there were many other people who had broadcasting abilities and who would have done the job for but a fraction of the cost? He may not be quite so bad now but back in the mid to late 90s he was bloody awful. It really was an abuse of licencing funds that money should have been wasted in that way simply to hire a 'celebrity'.
What has annoyed me over the years is the BBC's decision to pay huge chunks of licence payers' money to people such as Gary Lineker to undertake roles for which they clearly lacked the requisite skills.Why on earth spend millions on training him up to be barely half decent when there were many other people who had broadcasting abilities and who would have done the job for but a fraction of the cost? He may not be quite so bad now but back in the mid to late 90s he was bloody awful. It really was an abuse of licencing funds that money should have been wasted in that way simply to hire a 'celebrity'.
I'm not that much bothered about any reform of the BBC, so long as it doesn't do any harm to Radio 3. I have an immense, incalculable debt to the station - to which I have been an avid listener since my teenage years, some 40 years ago. I know my intellectual development has been fostered much more by Radio 3 than anything I learnt at school.
Just to take one example: last night's prom concert, to which a number of people have already referred; during the interval there was a fascinating talk on the history of Babylon. This is the kind of thing Radio 3 does brilliantly. And frankly to compare it to Classic FM is ridiculous - if I'm forced to listen to that heap of shit for more than 15 minutes I am in real danger of a psychotic outburst.
And you're happy for everyone else to pay for your very individual pleasure whether they wish to or not? Indeed whether they can afford to or not.
Yes. Radio 3 makes us all more intelligent: rich and poor.
How does it make the 96% of the population that doesn't listen to it more intelligent?
It potentially does. Anyone can listen to it including say a single mother living in a council tower block. It offers something that is on offer nowhere else - and that is really liberating.
They can - but they don't.
I'm not knocking it for what it does, which is something that as you rightly say, is not matched by anyone else. But it is a very niche taste and needs to be recognised as such.
Do we know for sure, they don't? From memory research into the demographic shows - as you would expect - a high proportion of ABs among listeners. But, I wonder if there are not a few listeners from much poorer backgrounds?
This is a very personal issue for me. I stumbled across Radio 3 as a teenager (in a middle-class household in the provincial North where the music listened to was mainly Lloyd-Webber and Neil Diamond). It literally changed my life.
I am amused by the idea that most people liked and were proud of socialism. My memory is that most people hated being the poor man of Europe. As for arts, culture and media, there is a major difference between destroying it and freeing it from the dead hand of the state. Sadly there are some on the left who believe that creativity and achievement can only be achieved via government.
I'm not that much bothered about any reform of the BBC, so long as it doesn't do any harm to Radio 3. I have an immense, incalculable debt to the station - to which I have been an avid listener since my teenage years, some 40 years ago. I know my intellectual development has been fostered much more by Radio 3 than anything I learnt at school.
Just to take one example: last night's prom concert, to which a number of people have already referred; during the interval there was a fascinating talk on the history of Babylon. This is the kind of thing Radio 3 does brilliantly. And frankly to compare it to Classic FM is ridiculous - if I'm forced to listen to that heap of shit for more than 15 minutes I am in real danger of a psychotic outburst.
You may regard Classic FM as a "heap of shit" but again, lots of people like it (I do, within reason, while driving). Surely the market can find a place for both. Indeed, didn't Classic FM come into being and survive and succeed since precisely because R3 left that gap in the market?
But ultimately, R3 can only survive if the BBC survives as a mass-market major player. Because a lesser, smaller, one won't find the resource for a loss-making niche market. You need R1 and BBC1 to do well in order for R3 and BBC4 to get their dosh.
Yes, I understand it appeals to some - it wouldn't have survived for 25 years if it didn't. My point was that comparing Radio 3 with Classic FM is not comparing like with like. It's got more in common with Radio 2 than any other BBC station.
It's really the same argument for the funding of art galleries and museums. I think it's really important that these things remain free at the point of access, so that opportunities for personal and intellectual enrichment exist for everybody.
Yes but they get some funds from general taxes and they don't extract a fee from everyone on pain of prosecution. Really quite different from the BBC. At a time when the country is trying to clear a huge deficit the largesse you expect to satisfy a very niche taste is breathtakingly selfish.
In that case, I'd suggest you have a dig about the interweb to find stats that those who can't afford to listen to classical music/hate Classic FM/pay the TVLF will be statistically significant in their demographic.
I've just had a look and can't find anything so far. I don't care enough to do more than 4 Google searches.
I'm not that much bothered about any reform of the BBC, so long as it doesn't do any harm to Radio 3. I have an immense, incalculable debt to the station - to which I have been an avid listener since my teenage years, some 40 years ago. I know my intellectual development has been fostered much more by Radio 3 than anything I learnt at school.
Just to take one example: last night's prom concert, to which a number of people have already referred; during the interval there was a fascinating talk on the history of Babylon. This is the kind of thing Radio 3 does brilliantly. And frankly to compare it to Classic FM is ridiculous - if I'm forced to listen to that heap of shit for more than 15 minutes I am in real danger of a psychotic outburst.
And you're happy for everyone else to pay for your very individual pleasure whether they wish to or not? Indeed whether they can afford to or not.
Yes. Radio 3 makes us all more intelligent: rich and poor.
How does it make the 96% of the population that doesn't listen to it more intelligent?
It potentially does. Anyone can listen to it including say a single mother living in a council tower block. It offers something that is on offer nowhere else - and that is really liberating.
They can - but they don't.
I'm not knocking it for what it does, which is something that as you rightly say, is not matched by anyone else. But it is a very niche taste and needs to be recognised as such.
Do we know for sure, they don't? From memory research into the demographic shows - as you would expect - a high proportion of ABs among listeners. But, I wonder if there are not a few listeners from much poorer backgrounds?
This is a very personal issue for me. I stumbled across Radio 3 as a teenager (in a middle-class household in the provincial North where the music listened to was mainly Lloyd-Webber and Neil Diamond). It literally changed my life.
I'm not that much bothered about any reform of the BBC, so long as it doesn't do any harm to Radio 3. I have an immense, incalculable debt to the station - to which I have been an avid listener since my teenage years, some 40 years ago. I know my intellectual development has been fostered much more by Radio 3 than anything I learnt at school.
Just to take one example: last night's prom concert, to which a number of people have already referred; during the interval there was a fascinating talk on the history of Babylon. This is the kind of thing Radio 3 does brilliantly. And frankly to compare it to Classic FM is ridiculous - if I'm forced to listen to that heap of shit for more than 15 minutes I am in real danger of a psychotic outburst.
And you're happy for everyone else to pay for your very individual pleasure whether they wish to or not? Indeed whether they can afford to or not.
Yes. Radio 3 makes us all more intelligent: rich and poor.
How does it make the 96% of the population that doesn't listen to it more intelligent?
It potentially does. Anyone can listen to it including say a single mother living in a council tower block. It offers something that is on offer nowhere else - and that is really liberating.
They can - but they don't.
I'm not knocking it for what it does, which is something that as you rightly say, is not matched by anyone else. But it is a very niche taste and needs to be recognised as such.
Do we know for sure, they don't? From memory research into the demographic shows - as you would expect - a high proportion of ABs among listeners. But, I wonder if there are not a few listeners from much poorer backgrounds?
This is a very personal issue for me. I stumbled across Radio 3 as a teenager (in a middle-class household in the provincial North where the music listened to was mainly Lloyd-Webber and Neil Diamond). It literally changed my life.
Taken as a group we can though there'll undoubtedly be isolated exceptions.
Radio 3 has a reach of about 2m, which doesn't sound bad but most only listen for very short periods meaning the station only has a 1.2% share. As many of that very small group who are regular listeners will be ABs, that really doesn't leave much to come from the rest, never mind from DEs.
There is a case for funding R3 but it's not one based on bringing high art to the masses unless it actually goes out and does that.
What has annoyed me over the years is the BBC's decision to pay huge chunks of licence payers' money to people such as Gary Lineker to undertake roles for which they clearly lacked the requisite skills.Why on earth spend millions on training him up to be barely half decent when there were many other people who had broadcasting abilities and who would have done the job for but a fraction of the cost? He may not be quite so bad now but back in the mid to late 90s he was bloody awful. It really was an abuse of licencing funds that money should have been wasted in that way simply to hire a 'celebrity'.
It's nice to agree with you for once. Exactly what licence money should not be wasted on. There's plenty of money in football without the BBC topping it up.
Without government funded Radio 3, people would not have opportunities for personal and intellectual achievement? In a world where almost the entire sphere of human knowledge and music is a few clicks away?
What has annoyed me over the years is the BBC's decision to pay huge chunks of licence payers' money to people such as Gary Lineker to undertake roles for which they clearly lacked the requisite skills.Why on earth spend millions on training him up to be barely half decent when there were many other people who had broadcasting abilities and who would have done the job for but a fraction of the cost? He may not be quite so bad now but back in the mid to late 90s he was bloody awful. It really was an abuse of licencing funds that money should have been wasted in that way simply to hire a 'celebrity'.
Excellent point and Sky are not much better on this. The art of sports broadcasting seems to have been dumbed down a lot since I was a kid. I'm not sure exactly how much he gets paid but I'm sure Henman gets paid a fortune for his two weeks work each year. I'm happy for the BBC to pay big money when it's worth it, but what I'm really interested in is the sport itself not the people talking about it.
You 're clearly a gentleman and a scholar, with tastes above the hoi polloi, and I make no complaint about that. In the same way, the old USSR promoted chess and ballet to "educate" the masses.
In my dotage, I have acquired a slight liking for a good soprano voice - as long as it's a nice tune. Think Katherine Jenkins rather than the fat ladies. Art is fine as long as it's pictures.
Picasso was quite good drawer before he forgot how many noses his sitters possessed. Jackson Pollock is just a waste of paint, as is modern art. I can see Rubens had a talent, even if he concentrated on the calorifically challenged. But page three wins hands-down.
Does that make me thick? An honest answer - I won't be offended.
People's tastes vary and classifying them into desirable and undesirable seems a little arrogant.
Sports stuff: hmm. The BBC do use some ex-motorsport people, but I've got to say I think Coulthard and McNish are very good, especially McNish. No idea what their wages are, though.
What has annoyed me over the years is the BBC's decision to pay huge chunks of licence payers' money to people such as Gary Lineker to undertake roles for which they clearly lacked the requisite skills.Why on earth spend millions on training him up to be barely half decent when there were many other people who had broadcasting abilities and who would have done the job for but a fraction of the cost? He may not be quite so bad now but back in the mid to late 90s he was bloody awful. It really was an abuse of licencing funds that money should have been wasted in that way simply to hire a 'celebrity'.
It's nice to agree with you for once. Exactly what licence money should not be wasted on. There's plenty of money in football without the BBC topping it up.
Sigh, Buttler gone as well now - I'm beginning to think Alistair Cook cannot nurdle his way to avoiding the follow on even if all goes well for him. Oh well, Ali, Broad, Wood and Anderson to come.
As a general point on sport on the BBC, there is an argument that the BBC should not spend any money on an event that has to broadcast free to air anyway. So the BBC could drop Wimbledon and the Men's and Women's singles finals would still have to be broadcast live on free to air television. Likewise, if the BBC didn't bid for the Premier League highlights they'd still have to be shown on another free to air channel.
The BBC could then concentrate on keeping some other stuff off pay TV. Of course, the danger is that the BBC could end up with little or no sport - but then would that be a particularly bad thing?
@thomasNashe Radio 3 does expand musical horizons in so many ways, but classical music recordings tended to be cross subsidised by popular music - just consider how EMI managed to keep their labels going for so long. Could Classic FM do more to educate is a moot point.
Not sure I will bother listening to this evening's Prom concert, chunks of music broken away from a whole work.
As for Radio 4, I won't say much other than why the bloody hell can't the cricket be on FM?
You 're clearly a gentleman and a scholar, with tastes above the hoi polloi, and I make no complaint about that. In the same way, the old USSR promoted chess and ballet to "educate" the masses.
In my dotage, I have acquired a slight liking for a good soprano voice - as long as it's a nice tune. Think Katherine Jenkins rather than the fat ladies. Art is fine as long as it's pictures.
Picasso was quite good drawer before he forgot how many noses his sitters possessed. Jackson Pollock is just a waste of paint, as is modern art. I can see Rubens had a talent, even if he concentrated on the calorifically challenged. But page three wins hands-down.
Does that make me thick? An honest answer - I won't be offended.
People's tastes vary and classifying them into desirable and undesirable seems a little arrogant.
Yes, there's no legislating for taste - nor should there be. And as JEO points out one of the great aspects of modern life is the accessibility of all forms of art, music and literature. However, Radio 3 does more than simply play classical music. It has a genuinely educative value, and I think that is all the more important now that schools are by and large sausage factories for training pupils in passing exams, and that they can often do that without necessarily encouraging critical and creative thinking.
Andrew Castle would be the first to be sacked if I ran the BBC. He needs to be reminded that the Murrays are representing Great Britain today - not Scotland.
They gave away F1, they lost some golf recently, the Olympics, Six Nations is being shared with ITV.
They already have little to no sport. I think Wimbledon's the only thing the BBC exclusively has.
And in a way that's why they BBC should drop Wimbledon. I'm annoyed that they've lost the Open Championship (that should be on the protected list, in my opinion). I suspect that Wimbledon will be protected to the very end because it appeals to a wider demographic - i.e. women.
@thomasNashe Radio 3 does expand musical horizons in so many ways, but classical music recordings tended to be cross subsidised by popular music - just consider how EMI managed to keep their labels going for so long. Could Classic FM do more to educate is a moot point.
Not sure I will bother listening to this evening's Prom concert, chunks of music broken away from a whole work.
As for Radio 4, I won't say much other than why the bloody hell can't the cricket be on FM?
Yes me too. The Gruber premiere on Monday night is I think the next highlight. I see like me you're a man with an analogue radio: cricket just wouldn't be the same without the shipping forecast.
The BBC can either change now in a controlled and thought-through way now or change in a panicky and ill thought-through way in a few years' time. Personally I'd choose the first option but the BBC seems intent on the second. Dumb.
If that were true, it might be okay. But this is not what's on the cards is it. This is motivated by other objectives.
The nature of mass media has changed utterly and irreversibly in the last few years and the pace of change is accelerating. The BBC has neither the time or space to be fretting about hidden agendas. It has to confront this change itself and can't expect to be reliant on public funds indefinitely.
The licence fee is one of those British anomalies that's logically indefensible but in practice has worked. That's ending.
Sports stuff: hmm. The BBC do use some ex-motorsport people, but I've got to say I think Coulthard and McNish are very good, especially McNish. No idea what their wages are, though.
Are either of them better than Murray Walker, though? Nice chap though he was, he was hardly an expert in motorsport, having rather fluked his way into commentating via his father. Yet he was, and still is, a classic.
Without government funded Radio 3, people would not have opportunities for personal and intellectual achievement? In a world where almost the entire sphere of human knowledge and music is a few clicks away?
I may need to fine tune my irony meter - but anyway, the point is that R3 is indeed a sensible use of a public service remit. The rest of BBC's output mostly is not. My only real objection to Mr Herdson's analysis is that I fail to see why a rump BBC needs to be a mutual.
"Wimbledon will be protected to the very end because it appeals to a wider demographic - i.e. women."
It may be more that it's posh women. The one sport where women are paid the same as men. I'm not sure why that spells equality. Men are better at professional sport and pay is usually a product of ability and popularity. It's not that they're less intelligent or less deserving but they're not so good and not so popular.
Just because they're allowed to appear at the same event shouldn't be sufficient justification - the seniors, the juniors and the doubles players don't get equal pay.
I can see a much better case for actors and actresses to have roughly equal pay. That makes logical sense.
Britain exports a lot of its worst features all around the world, and that includes the license fee. (Also Simon Cowell.)
Japan has NHK, which is specifically modeled on the BBC. Luckily although the law says you have to pay, there's no enforcement mechanism unless they can get you to sign a contract, so they have to resort to all kinds of trickery and social engineering. For example, they'll pretend to be checking your reception since they moved the antenna, or claim to be doing a ratings survey, then once you admit to having a telly they move in for the kill.
People have developed all kinds of countermeasures, like explaining away the sound of the sumo wresting from the TV by saying your wife does an amazing sumo wrestler impression, or looking the guy straight in the eye and saying there's nobody home.
Not too long ago, Radio 3 looked at the 1812 overture, and at some of the themes used by Tchaikovsky. Performances after 1917 had some revisions, to remove the old Tsarist anthem God Preserve the Tsar.
"Wimbledon will be protected to the very end because it appeals to a wider demographic - i.e. women."
It may be more that it's posh women. The one sport where women are paid the same as men. I'm not sure why that spells equality. Men are better at professional sport and pay is usually a product of ability and popularity. It's not that they're less intelligent or less deserving but they're not so good and not so popular.
Just because they're allowed to appear at the same event shouldn't be sufficient justification - the seniors, the juniors and the doubles players don't get equal pay.
One doesn't even need to get into the argument about whether men are better at professional sport or not or the men's game is more popular to justify why the prize money not being the same was still fair - the rules they play under are not the same, as the men have to win more sets to win the title. This is only true in Grand Slams, so there is no justifications for the women not to play the same number of sets to win in order to get the same prize money.
Britain exports a lot of its worst features all around the world, and that includes the license fee. (Also Simon Cowell.) Japan has NHK, which is specifically modeled on the BBC. Luckily although the law says you have to pay, there's no enforcement mechanism unless they can get you to sign a contract, so they have to resort to all kinds of trickery and social engineering. For example, they'll pretend to be checking your reception since they moved the antenna, or claim to be doing a ratings survey, then once you admit to having a telly they move in for the kill.
People have developed all kinds of countermeasures, like explaining away the sound of the sumo wresting by saying your wife does an amazing sumo wrestler impression, or looking the guy straight in the eye and saying you're not at home.
£150 a year for no adverts is an absolute bargain.
BBC has its faults but it is far from broke, so please don't "fix" it by forcing it to be as lw rent and commercial as all the other channels.
I watch BBC1 and BBC2 more tahn all other channels combined, and BBC radio is superb. Test match special with adverts between overs instead..?! Please please no
£150 a year for no adverts is an absolute bargain.
BBC has its faults but it is far from broke, so please don't "fix" it by forcing it to be as lw rent and commercial as all the other channels.
I watch BBC1 and BBC2 more tahn all other channels combined, and BBC radio is superb. Test match special with adverts between overs instead..?! Please please no
"The BBC in its present guise is not sustainable - forcing people to pat a licence fee if the do not want the BBC's services is just wrong. The problem the Tories have, though, is that they have allowed the argument to be framed - by the newspapers that back them and by their more swivel eyed supporters - as being about "revenge", "payback" and "bias". They are going to have to work very hard to persuade the public that these are good enough reasons to change things, especially if it ends up meaning higher costs and less choice. "
Should we apply the same parochial judgement to museums and art galleries and subsidised theatre? Is it really desirable that we all turn into lobotomised Tory zombies worshiping at the altar of free enterprise?
Compulsory free entry to museums is a much more difficult issue than you might think.
Fundamentally, it eliminates a very significant revenue stream that museums can use to invest in their programmes. Against that it may - unproven - encourage additional access, especially for children. (This is something my Trustees debate a great length every time we open up our house to the public - to date we have stuck with free access, but it costs us a huge amount).
Personally, I'd like to do what NYC does and stick a fee on hotel rooms that is then used to subsidise big tourist attractions such as the National Gallery. For example, there are 123,000 hotel rooms in London. At 85% occupancy that is 38 million hotel stays a year. Add £2 per night and that is £75 million per year. This would be a very useful addition/replacement of state funding (e.g. the National Gallery's grant-in-said is around £20m p.a.)
"Wimbledon will be protected to the very end because it appeals to a wider demographic - i.e. women."
It may be more that it's posh women. The one sport where women are paid the same as men. I'm not sure why that spells equality. Men are better at professional sport and pay is usually a product of ability and popularity. It's not that they're less intelligent or less deserving but they're not so good and not so popular.
Just because they're allowed to appear at the same event shouldn't be sufficient justification - the seniors, the juniors and the doubles players don't get equal pay.
I can see a much better case for actors and actresses to have roughly equal pay. That makes logical sense.
Women are paid more than men at tennis. They only play 3/5ths of the tennis for the same money.
This is pretty unbelievable - I've been following the Cricket online, and I finally turn the TV on and literally the second delivery I watch is Cook dragging on and being denied a well deserved 28th hundred. And people say jinxing isn't a thing.
Without government funded Radio 3, people would not have opportunities for personal and intellectual achievement? In a world where almost the entire sphere of human knowledge and music is a few clicks away?
I may need to fine tune my irony meter - but anyway, the point is that R3 is indeed a sensible use of a public service remit. The rest of BBC's output mostly is not. My only real objection to Mr Herdson's analysis is that I fail to see why a rump BBC needs to be a mutual.
I'm not suggesting there should be a 'rump' BBC: it should be more-or-less what's there now. If, as I do, you reject the 'public service only' model, which I suspect would result in a slow decay of the organisation as it lost huge amounts of funding and shut down all the popular bits it was told it shouldn't be doing, then shut down the less popular bits its couldn't afford.
So if you have a significant player then it either needs to be nationalised with appointment and accountability to and by the government and/or parliament, or owned by shareholders via some sort of privatisation, or owned by its customers. I feel that third model offers the best combination of accountability and opportunity in the context of a non-statutory funding system.
"Wimbledon will be protected to the very end because it appeals to a wider demographic - i.e. women."
It may be more that it's posh women. The one sport where women are paid the same as men. I'm not sure why that spells equality. Men are better at professional sport and pay is usually a product of ability and popularity. It's not that they're less intelligent or less deserving but they're not so good and not so popular.
Just because they're allowed to appear at the same event shouldn't be sufficient justification - the seniors, the juniors and the doubles players don't get equal pay.
I can see a much better case for actors and actresses to have roughly equal pay. That makes logical sense.
Women are paid more than men at tennis. They only play 3/5ths of the tennis for the same money.
The standard should be equal pay for equal work to an equal standard.
Defining 'standard' is of course the problem there - commercial popularity in terms of ticket demand, sponsorship and so on would be one measure - but 'equal work' could easily be sorted by having both singles tournaments played as best-of-five and all doubles as best-of-three.
Actually, even that isn't equal work as the strength-in-depth in the men's game is much deeper so the number of 6-0 and 6-1 sets in the ladies' is much higher and likewise the number of 6-4, 7-5 and tiebreaks in the men's.
The standard should be equal pay for equal work to an equal standard.
Defining 'standard' is of course the problem there - commercial popularity in terms of ticket demand, sponsorship and so on would be one measure - but 'equal work' could easily be sorted by having both singles tournaments played as best-of-five and all doubles as best-of-three.
I would say Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova rival any of the male players in commercial/public interest.
Also, as a caveat to the pay debate - although the Slams pay equal prize money, the average non-Slam men's tournament still pays considerably more than the average women's tournament - even though outside of the Slams, the men play best-of-3 just like the women do.
Dying Days of the new Colonialists - just supporting austerity for others
European Union diplomats plan to dine in imperial style, by ordering a glittering dinner service that could cost as much as £2 million.
The European External Action Service, the EU’s foreign office, will buy a “sparkling” array of crystal glassware, silver cutlery and fine china to host banquets and dinner parties for visiting dignitaries, the Daily Telegraph has learnt.
The tableware – to cater for up to 3,360 officials and guests at the EEAS' Brussels headquarters and 140 embassies around the world – will come embellished with the Flag of Europe, engraved on the drinking glasses and painted in gold on the “top quality” crockery.
Dying Days of the new Colonialists - just supporting austerity for others
European Union diplomats plan to dine in imperial style, by ordering a glittering dinner service that could cost as much as £2 million.
The European External Action Service, the EU’s foreign office, will buy a “sparkling” array of crystal glassware, silver cutlery and fine china to host banquets and dinner parties for visiting dignitaries, the Daily Telegraph has learnt.
The tableware – to cater for up to 3,360 officials and guests at the EEAS' Brussels headquarters and 140 embassies around the world – will come embellished with the Flag of Europe, engraved on the drinking glasses and painted in gold on the “top quality” crockery.
The standard should be equal pay for equal work to an equal standard.
Defining 'standard' is of course the problem there - commercial popularity in terms of ticket demand, sponsorship and so on would be one measure - but 'equal work' could easily be sorted by having both singles tournaments played as best-of-five and all doubles as best-of-three.
I would say Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova rival any of the male players in commercial/public interest.
Also, as a caveat to the pay debate - although the Slams pay equal prize money, the average non-Slam men's tournament still pays considerably more than the average women's tournament - even though outside of the Slams, the men play best-of-3 just like the women do.
Serena Williams is the outstanding player of her generation and deserves top pay. Whether the comparable number tens, number twenties and number fifties deserve equal pay is another matter.
Sharapova receives commercial interest because she's beautiful (or looks beautiful: she sounds pig-ugly when she's playing). That's a commercial advantage (some) women have but isn't particularly reflective of her tennis. As it happens, her tennis is very good, but the same was also true of Anna Kournakova.
You're right about the other tournaments but then that's probably a truer marker of where the relative commercial values lie.
£150 a year for no adverts is an absolute bargain.
BBC has its faults but it is far from broke, so please don't "fix" it by forcing it to be as lw rent and commercial as all the other channels.
I watch BBC1 and BBC2 more tahn all other channels combined, and BBC radio is superb. Test match special with adverts between overs instead..?! Please please no
In which case I assume you would be happy paying a subscription to watch/listen to it. Meanwhile those of us who only watch or listen to extremely limited amounts of BBC output cab decide whether or not we feel it is worth spending our hard earned money on just as we do with other channels.
Comments
The only thing I'd give the channel props for were two docus about social issues/drug wars in other countries. Kate Deeley [no idea who she is] and Andy Peters [the Blue Peter chap] did a good job and I can imagine them appealing to the BBC3 demographic - though E4 would be a better home for it.
The rest is just awful, lowest common denominator. Nothing wrong that per se - just done better by others. I honestly can't see the point of BBC3 apart from self-created dead air filling.
As a seaside towner - they are little buggers and no idea why they've got protected status as wild birds. There's oodles of them and urban vermin worse than foxes.
"If there were no BBC license, would you buy a subscription if that were the only way to see BBC content? If so, how much would you be willing to pay for access to all BBC programmes."
I think the additional issue you'd have to address is ownership of the BBC. The Board of Directors won't be accountable to anyone if there are no shareholders (otherwise they are accountable to the government?). So the Beeb would also have to be privatized.
"Why do Tories seem to get almost sexually excited about the idea of destroying everything most people like and are proud of?"
You make an interesting point. When I first thought about your question I thought it had to be coincidence but then I started joining the dots......
The BBC.... Nelson Mandela..... Danny Boyle's Olympic ceremony....... the NHS..... social workers...socialism....... culture....... the arts...... theatre,.......
(Hi Tyson and MD)
Although you are utterly wrong about Sherlock. 'Elementary' is essentially the same concept as Sherlock - Holmes in the modern day - and is apparently very good. It is produced by CBS.
The BBC's sheer heft corrupts the market. It is wrong to say that if that heft were reduced, the commercial broadcasters would not fill the gap. They would, because there is a market for it.
(As an aside, Sherlock is a hideous TV program. Over-hyped, inconsistent and boring. Yes, they've managed to make the fantastic character of Holmes boring.)
The whole premise is shifted to New York, Insp Gregson is the police captain.
Moriarty is female and jolly good. Even Vinnie Jones makes an appearance as a very hardman and is excellent at it.
It is head and shoulders above the BBC's version and much more innovative. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gATRPx2sE2A
But ultimately, R3 can only survive if the BBC survives as a mass-market major player. Because a lesser, smaller, one won't find the resource for a loss-making niche market. You need R1 and BBC1 to do well in order for R3 and BBC4 to get their dosh.
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/139132/why-jews-were-lost-translation-bbc-children-gaza-war-documentary
If they translated it correctly it might give viewers an insight into why Israel will never be safe.
TV Licensing is clearly the para-military wing of the BBC. They should be ashamed of it.
It may have more listeners than R3.
I'm at a loss as to why you feel that the other 98.8% of the population should pay for your niche tastes.
http://www.rajar.co.uk/listening/quarterly_listening.php
The average listener manages about 6hrs each. I think that's per quarter.
Ref the directors, I think you've missed one of my key points, which is in the penultimate paragraph in the intro. Namely that the Corporation should be mutualised. The owners / shareholders would therefore be the licence fee payers / subscribers, and the Board of Directors elected in the same way as any other mutual.
I see no case for privatising the BBC. Apart from the fact that it would probably suck out a load of money from elsewhere in the industry that could be put to better use, diversity in provision is a good thing and to structure the BBC too much like Sky or ITV would be more likely to result in it chasing the same ends and becoming a pale shadow of its rivals.
You pay a set amount for a channel for a year, or per-program viewed.
We're nearly there, it's technically feasible, and it's the sane way to go, even if it might mean the end for most broadcasters as they exist today.
It's where we'll end up, regardless of what the BBC, Sky and others may think.
(I have no ball in this game currently, although I did work for a very early adopter in VOD many moons ago).
I'm not knocking it for what it does, which is something that as you rightly say, is not matched by anyone else. But it is a very niche taste and needs to be recognised as such.
He's extremely average after years trying to get better at it - and paid millions for being entirely average.
This is a very personal issue for me. I stumbled across Radio 3 as a teenager (in a middle-class household in the provincial North where the music listened to was mainly Lloyd-Webber and Neil Diamond). It literally changed my life.
I've just had a look and can't find anything so far. I don't care enough to do more than 4 Google searches.
Radio 3 has a reach of about 2m, which doesn't sound bad but most only listen for very short periods meaning the station only has a 1.2% share. As many of that very small group who are regular listeners will be ABs, that really doesn't leave much to come from the rest, never mind from DEs.
There is a case for funding R3 but it's not one based on bringing high art to the masses unless it actually goes out and does that.
You 're clearly a gentleman and a scholar, with tastes above the hoi polloi, and I make no complaint about that. In the same way, the old USSR promoted chess and ballet to "educate" the masses.
In my dotage, I have acquired a slight liking for a good soprano voice - as long as it's a nice tune. Think Katherine Jenkins rather than the fat ladies. Art is fine as long as it's pictures.
Picasso was quite good drawer before he forgot how many noses his sitters possessed. Jackson Pollock is just a waste of paint, as is modern art. I can see Rubens had a talent, even if he concentrated on the calorifically challenged. But page three wins hands-down.
Does that make me thick? An honest answer - I won't be offended.
People's tastes vary and classifying them into desirable and undesirable seems a little arrogant.
Sports stuff: hmm. The BBC do use some ex-motorsport people, but I've got to say I think Coulthard and McNish are very good, especially McNish. No idea what their wages are, though.
The BBC could then concentrate on keeping some other stuff off pay TV. Of course, the danger is that the BBC could end up with little or no sport - but then would that be a particularly bad thing?
Not sure I will bother listening to this evening's Prom concert, chunks of music broken away from a whole work.
As for Radio 4, I won't say much other than why the bloody hell can't the cricket be on FM?
They gave away F1, they lost some golf recently, the Olympics, Six Nations is being shared with ITV.
They already have little to no sport. I think Wimbledon's the only thing the BBC exclusively has.
The licence fee is one of those British anomalies that's logically indefensible but in practice has worked. That's ending.
Develop arguments as to why adultery (including pre-martial sex) should be made illegal, but which won't lose you the next election
And it actually works. I had a favorite meal - a sublime chicken pot pie - at Claimjumpers until I realised that it was over 1,900 kcal...
My only real objection to Mr Herdson's analysis is that I fail to see why a rump BBC needs to be a mutual.
20yrs ago maybe you'd be right. We don't like change hence the Party name.
It may be more that it's posh women. The one sport where women are paid the same as men. I'm not sure why that spells equality. Men are better at professional sport and pay is usually a product of ability and popularity. It's not that they're less intelligent or less deserving but they're not so good and not so popular.
Just because they're allowed to appear at the same event shouldn't be sufficient justification - the seniors, the juniors and the doubles players don't get equal pay.
I can see a much better case for actors and actresses to have roughly equal pay. That makes logical sense.
Japan has NHK, which is specifically modeled on the BBC. Luckily although the law says you have to pay, there's no enforcement mechanism unless they can get you to sign a contract, so they have to resort to all kinds of trickery and social engineering. For example, they'll pretend to be checking your reception since they moved the antenna, or claim to be doing a ratings survey, then once you admit to having a telly they move in for the kill.
People have developed all kinds of countermeasures, like explaining away the sound of the sumo wresting from the TV by saying your wife does an amazing sumo wrestler impression, or looking the guy straight in the eye and saying there's nobody home.
BBC has its faults but it is far from broke, so please don't "fix" it by forcing it to be as lw rent and commercial as all the other channels.
I watch BBC1 and BBC2 more tahn all other channels combined, and BBC radio is superb. Test match special with adverts between overs instead..?! Please please no
@EU_Commission: .@JunckerEU: 'We have found a common understanding on the geographic protection of Halloumi/Helim cheese in #Cyprus' http://t.co/WdJj5CF4JD
Fundamentally, it eliminates a very significant revenue stream that museums can use to invest in their programmes. Against that it may - unproven - encourage additional access, especially for children. (This is something my Trustees debate a great length every time we open up our house to the public - to date we have stuck with free access, but it costs us a huge amount).
Personally, I'd like to do what NYC does and stick a fee on hotel rooms that is then used to subsidise big tourist attractions such as the National Gallery. For example, there are 123,000 hotel rooms in London. At 85% occupancy that is 38 million hotel stays a year. Add £2 per night and that is £75 million per year. This would be a very useful addition/replacement of state funding (e.g. the National Gallery's grant-in-said is around £20m p.a.)
So if you have a significant player then it either needs to be nationalised with appointment and accountability to and by the government and/or parliament, or owned by shareholders via some sort of privatisation, or owned by its customers. I feel that third model offers the best combination of accountability and opportunity in the context of a non-statutory funding system.
Defining 'standard' is of course the problem there - commercial popularity in terms of ticket demand, sponsorship and so on would be one measure - but 'equal work' could easily be sorted by having both singles tournaments played as best-of-five and all doubles as best-of-three.
Actually, even that isn't equal work as the strength-in-depth in the men's game is much deeper so the number of 6-0 and 6-1 sets in the ladies' is much higher and likewise the number of 6-4, 7-5 and tiebreaks in the men's.
Also, as a caveat to the pay debate - although the Slams pay equal prize money, the average non-Slam men's tournament still pays considerably more than the average women's tournament - even though outside of the Slams, the men play best-of-3 just like the women do.
http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/2015/07/blogs/free-exchange/20150725_woc138.png
European Union diplomats plan to dine in imperial style, by ordering a glittering dinner service that could cost as much as £2 million.
The European External Action Service, the EU’s foreign office, will buy a “sparkling” array of crystal glassware, silver cutlery and fine china to host banquets and dinner parties for visiting dignitaries, the Daily Telegraph has learnt.
The tableware – to cater for up to 3,360 officials and guests at the EEAS' Brussels headquarters and 140 embassies around the world – will come embellished with the Flag of Europe, engraved on the drinking glasses and painted in gold on the “top quality” crockery.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11747506/eu-diplomats-plan-fine-dining-service.html
For those slowly drifting off in their chair:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinkadvice/11668188/Which-gin-are-you-Take-our-quiz-and-find-out.html
Sharapova receives commercial interest because she's beautiful (or looks beautiful: she sounds pig-ugly when she's playing). That's a commercial advantage (some) women have but isn't particularly reflective of her tennis. As it happens, her tennis is very good, but the same was also true of Anna Kournakova.
You're right about the other tournaments but then that's probably a truer marker of where the relative commercial values lie.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/earth/11746766/Animal-pictures-of-the-week-17-July-2015.html