The close relationship between the BBC and the Government can be seen in this instance which the BBC has seen fit to report, which Tim Worstall has a laugh over.
Of course strictly I shouldn’t say between the BBC and “the Government”, but between the BBC and government generally. That the BBC was even running an online service “in support of the national curriculum” is something I would see problems with, though in fact it stemmed from the BBC’s Charter, which of course I also disapproved of. When can our children be free of this tedious integrated ideological training?
In addition we can see that the private sector suffers from the BBC’s interference- a lesson which ought to ring some bells all across media-land. That the EU intervened on this occasion- forcing a BBC re-think- is symptomatic of their assumed right to say that one country’s statism may not be their kind of statism. It is not at all indicative that the BBC has to regard the EU as a threat rather than an opportunity.
The relevance to bias here? Do we need one? Well, if so, it’s clear that an organisation whose raison d’etre depends on assisting public policy goals will be forever toeing the line on those goals. The fact that they agree with Nanny State almost goes without saying- Nanny is Aunty’s best friend.
Oh, well done. You’ve managed to comment on something a full five months after it happened. Slow news day, was it?
Oh for heavens sake!
Can’t you distinguish between ‘statism’ and civil society?
Before you decided to re-invent yourself as a conservative blogger you might have taken the trouble to read Edmund Burke, Michael Oakeshott and Father Neuhaus.
Until you’ve done so posts like this are just so much pissing in the wind.
I wonder if I could draw your attention to another example of BBC bias – Gavin Esler getting excited (again) about the prospect of Hillary in the White House. It’s on my Telegraph blog at
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/holysmoke/august2007/gavinesler.htm
So why hasn’t the EU stepped in to stop the BBC providing soap operas, dramas about doctors/nurses/cops/robbers, quiz shows, chat shows, celebrity dancing competitions, news, documentaries and all other parts of its output. All these thing can be done by the private sector too.
John Reith:
Oh for heavens sake!
Can’t you distinguish between ‘statism’ and civil society?
John Reith | 08.08.07 – 2:53 pm | #
————————————–
Given that statism is largely antithical to civil society, I would think that Ed can. the BBC, however, frequently equates the two, given that it does not seem to accept that civil society does not require the state to play nanny
Nep Nederlander 08.08.07 – 3:46 pm
So tell me….do you find the idea of a national broadcaster supplying educational materials in support of the school curriculum sinister too?
Part of a plot to deliver ‘integrated ideological training’?
Bah humbug!
John Reith writes, “So tell me….do you find the idea of a national broadcaster supplying educational materials in support of the school curriculum sinister too?”
Speaking as someone who attempts to make a living supplying educational materials in support of the sickeningly ideologically integrated national curriculum, yes.
Natalie Solent 08.08.07 – 5:11 pm
the sickeningly ideologically integrated national curriculum
You may be right that the NC is sickeningly ideologically integrated. I don’t know.
But if it is, a national institution like the BBC that provides supporting materials for it as a public service seems to me no more wrong/culpable/sinster/deserving of obloquy than you who do so in the hope of financial gain.
Less so, in fact.
Of course, the BBC was making programmes for schools years before there was a national curriculum.
John Reith | 08.08.07 – 4:02 pm
“Part of a plot to deliver ‘integrated ideological training’?
Bah humbug!”
Oh no? CBBC is full of this sort of thing, and they’ve been caught out more than once. As you point out, JR, there is a long tradition at the BBC of attempting to educate the masses. If one looks hard enough, one might see a trend, over the years, that the tone and substance of these programs generally reflect the makeup of the BBC minions who create them. This would be regardless of their political leanings, but obviously if the majority of Beeboids producing the material think a certain way, the results will reflect that.
Maybe it’s just an ugly reflection nowadays.
John Reith writes, “…no more wrong/culpable/sinster/deserving of obloquy than you who do so in the hope of financial gain.
Less so, in fact.”
Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that the BBC staff who work on this get paid.
By me, among others. The converse is not true.
It’s called crowding out.
Could Britain have developed an industry providing internet-based educational materials? We’ll never know. Few are willing to pay for what BBC Bitesize provides free at point of use. Same goes for the stillborn industry of very local internet news websites.
As for the National Curriculum, read the seventh para onwards of this old blog post of mine if you’re interested. “European dimension” of physics, bah humbug.
Could say more, much more. But have to go and deserve some obloquy.
He, he, JR- I do believe I hit a nerve. I admit I’m not a philosopher (except in my soul). I’ve only read some general stuff- Roger Scruton, Will Durant, Bertrand Russell. I don’t subscribe to any canonical approach (yet). However, I do read enough to know where the BBC lies philosophically…
Actually, for once I wasn’t too careful about dates (Scott). I admit I’m out of date, but the blog I found it from was current, I think (that’s how these things happen). It doesn’t really matter in this case it seems to me. Better late than never (as the privatisation of the Beeb would be).
14 march 2007
“About 190 staff at the BBC work on the project and there are contracts with independent production companies. It is not yet clear what will happen to those involved.”
One can’t help but wonder if it’s any clearer in August or are 190 well paid BBC employees still sitting at their desks twiddling their thumbs awaiting clarification? Perhaps the all knowing JR could enlighten us?
Oh, by the way, 190 is about the staffing level of a national newspaper.
David Preiser I can only assume you are talking about things like Balamory and none of my stuff.
pj the ones I know are none the clearer.
Of course, the BBC was making programmes for schools years before there was a national curriculum.
John Reith | 08.08.07 – 5:30 pm | #
Yeah. That was when it wasn’ the sickeningly biased institution that it has become.
‘Actually, for once I wasn’t too careful about dates (Scott). I admit I’m out of date, but the blog I found it from was current, I think (that’s how these things happen).’
Friday, March 16, 2007
Jammed at the BBC
This reminds of the fuss a few years ago when magazine publishers objected to full length commercials for BBC magazines on BBC TV. The BBC had to stop the adverts.
The real problem here is the BBC mentality. Many BBC types genuinely believe they are a force for good in society despite the torrent of trash they are responsible for. They are a curious combination of 30’s authoritarianism and 60’s trendiness.
Oh, by the way, 190 is about the staffing level of a national newspaper.
pj | 08.08.07 – 8:23 pm
editorial staff:
Telegraph – 400
Times – 350
Express – 315
Guardian -???400+??
btw:
NYT – 1200
Washington Post – 800
Interesting discussion.
The Market Impact Assessment and Public Value Test were introduced to try and ensure that the BBC did not put people out of buisness for no good reason.
A revised proposal for Jam will now have to go through one of these.
More details:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/framework/public_value_test/
Nick, how about a ‘public value test’ for Eastenders, Flog It, celebrity ballroom dancing and all Henry Ford production line style doctors/nurses/cops/robbers dramas? I suggest putting them on a BBC subscription channel, reducing the licence fee accordingly and seeing how many people would voluntarily pay for such stuff. I have no faith in the BBC deciding for itself whether Jam, or any other of its products, represents ‘public value’, whatever that is.
Most BBC output represent extremely good value, but only to those handsomely paid for producing it.
Pete | 09.08.07 – 3:21 pm
Nope – the best value is to the licence fee payer who gets a pretty hefty whack of his/her TV viewing (plus all those radio networks and a rather useful website) for about the same price as the Sun…..i.e. significantly less than he/she would have to pay for your cockamamie subscription channel idea.
Like many people, I don’t watch BBC TV very much (much of it is weak), I don’t listen to BBC radio at all, and I don’t use the BBC website. As for it being supposedly better value than The Sun, well, I don’t buy The Sun either, so why should I care about that? I’d rather make up my own mind about what media I choose to spend my money on.
(Anyway, The Sun doesn’t have the advantage of a guaranteed sum every year from almost every household — that gives the BBC a vastly bigger budget than The Sun).
Anon | 09.08.07 – 3:50 pm
I don’t watch BBC TV … I don’t listen to BBC radio at all, and I don’t use the BBC website.
You are very unusual. Incredibly unusual…almost.
Not like ‘many people’ at all.
Indeed, so peculiar are you that it would probably make sense – and cause less disruption all round – to give anyone like you a rebate of the licence-fee. I’m sure some broadcasting version of the SORN declaration you sign in blood if you take your vehicle off the road could be whistled up in a trice.
The Market Impact Assessment is actually done by OFCOM, not the BBC.
Just to add some facts to the issue of reach: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Weekly_reach_of_the_BBC_2005-6_Redvers.png
I guess 7.3% of the population is ‘many’ in absolute terms – but is that what the commentator Anon* meant?
*Perhaps so drunk they can’t remember their name, real or imagined.
”
Indeed, so peculiar are you that it would probably make sense – and cause less disruption all round – to give anyone like you a rebate of the licence-fee. I’m sure some broadcasting version of the SORN declaration you sign in blood if you take your vehicle off the road could be whistled up in a trice.”
Reith, or whatever Beeboid is using this name tonight, as I suspect there are a few paid re-buttleists, posting under this name.
After the digital switchover in 2012, you won’t need a SORN, The BBC can just stop the household receiving the channel, by use of encryption, which, be assured, will be possible in the near future, whether the Beeb want it to or not.
Sarah-Jane | 08.08.07 – 8:36 pm
“I can only assume you are talking about things like Balamory and none of my stuff.”
No, I’m talking about things like the disgraceful series of pages on the attacks of Sept. 11 and Osama Bin Laden. I can’t seem to post the link into haloscan here at the moment, but if you check the B-BBC archives of this past 24 June, or search for “Racial impartiality for young minds”, and you’ll find it.
Obviously I assume you were not involved with this.
David – let me know what constitutes “full of this sort of thing” in percentage or numerical terms and we will then assess whether the one article you had changed (plus any others you can find) constitutes full or if your statement is something of an exaggeration.
I note now that you referred to CBBC and not CBeebies, so there might be a slight element of cross purposes to this discussion.
(I am not the real Sarah-Jane by the way).
Nick, Ofcom wages come from the government, just like BBC wages. We need an independent view. The best way to decide the ‘public value’ of such stuff as Eastenders, Flog It, doctors/nurses/cops/robbers dramas and celebrity ballroom dancing is to give people freedom to subscribe to it or not, without any involvement from the criminal justice system.
Selling its main product, down-market light entertainment, to willing customers only is something the BBC is terrified of. And with good reason.
Pete:
Nick, how about a ‘public value test’ for Eastenders, Flog It, celebrity ballroom dancing
Can I just put in a word for Strictly Come Dancing? It really is good, wholesome, family entertainment on a Saturday. Something which wasn’t trendy and many media people assumed no one wanted that any more. But the BBC did it anyway. I think Strictly Come Dancing is actually a pretty good example of public service broadcasting.
(as is EastEnders at its best and Bargain Hunt… Flog It might be a bit too derivative but I’m at work when it’s on so I don’t really know)
Just to add some more facts to the issue of reach:
Having looked at Sarah-Jane’s link to evidence of the BBC’s impressive ‘reach’ it seemed a good idea to find out how that figure is arrived at.
The statistics are compiled by the Broadcasters’ Audience Research Board and according to the relevant Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcasters_Audience_Research_Board
they follow the viewing habits of “approximately 5,100 homes (equating to approximately 11,500 individuals) participating in the survey.)
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reach_%28advertising%29in the UK one gathers that “BARB defines the reach of a television channel as the percentage of the population in private households who view a channel for more than 3 minutes in a given day or week”
Which inspires one to comment that the viewing panel is self selecting in the sense that the participants must be regular & persistent TV viewers or it wouldn’t be worthwhile polling their tastes in entertainment. The BARB is ultimately concerned with discovering market share and has little interest in the sizable proportion of the population who watch little or no TV. And that proportion is steadily rising as other forms of entertainment – video gaming, internet chat rooms, downloading etc – become more popular.
This is of particular relevance to the BBC. The much vaunted 45p per day of the Licence Fee only looks good value for money if the purchaser spends several hours a day in front of the box. For someone who might only catch the odd hour of programming a week, over three pounds an hour is very expensive viewing.
“some broadcasting version of the SORN declaration you sign in blood if you take your vehicle off the road could be whistled up in a trice.”
John Reith | 09.08.07 – 4:06 pm | #
As a matter of fact that is exactly the declaration the TV Licencing officers request when they visit a non license holding household. That doesn’t prevent the next threatening letter arriving a short while later.
Dave and Nick, are you afraid of a real test of the ‘public value’ of Eastenders, Flog It, celebrity dancing and all those doctors/nurses/cops/robbers dramas?
Dave and Nick, you are terrified of voluntary customers for your services for one simple reason. Your wages would plummet if the licence fee was scrapped. You need us more than we need you.
You need our money. We don’t need you.
The Licence Fee does not just pay for BBC television. It also pays for all the BBC’s radio services, local and national and the BBC’s internet services. And more and more television will be delivered by the internet.
“You need our money. We don’t need you.
Pete”
Fair enough. But I think plenty of people who I’ve dealt with over the past month as I’ve waded through flood water and donned my disposable boiler suit would disagree.
It is quite unnecessary for the BBC to run local radio stations, which compete unfairly with independent local media by using the compulsory TV licence fee money — all of which goes to the BBC and none to any other broadcaster.
As for national radio, the BBC’s Radio 4 is the worst example of the kind of biased broadcasting regularly detailed on this site, especially in its “news and current affairs”, and in much of its drama output.
Listening to BBC Radio 4 is rather like having the Guardian newspaper delivered at you through the airwaves.
The Guardian itself is largely funded by lavish public-sector advertising, including from the BBC — another abuse of taxpayers’ money which ought to be redressed. But at least we are not compelled by law to buy a copy, every time we want a newspaper.
>I think plenty of people who I’ve dealt with over the past month as I’ve waded through flood water and donned my disposable boiler suit would disagree.
If they think you’re so valuable then they’ll be happy to pay you voluntarily.
I don’t listen to the radio, let alone BBC Radio, so why should I pay for it?
As for the internet, there are thousands of great sites out there, all of which I use and appreciate, for which I am not forced to pay a fee. Why should the BBC’s site, which I don’t want and don’t use, be protected by forcing people to pay for it? I prefer Arts and Letters Daily, but the government doesn’t knock on my doors menacing me about that site.
>>I don’t watch BBC TV … I don’t listen to BBC radio at all, and I don’t use the BBC website.
>
>You are very unusual. Incredibly unusual…almost.
There are hundreds of channels on TV and I find most of them have something more interesting on them than… let’s see, tonight on BBC1 we have The One Show, My Family, Eastenders, and Stepford Wives. I’d rather slash my wrists than watch that rubbish. I’m threatened with jail to support that sort of crap?
That said, it is true that a lot of people do watch BBC. But then that is hardly surprising given that the BBC has received billions of pounds of license-payers money over the years and so has been able to buy up a large percentage of the resources (people, equipment, etc) in the industry.
So it’s no great surprise that many people watch BBC. It would be surprising if they didn’t, given the resources it has. Which means the fact that they do is no great indication as to its value, any more than the fact that a lot of people in the USSR read Pravda.
>i.e. significantly less than he/she would have to pay for your cockamamie subscription channel idea.
Perhaps so, because it would no longer be subsidized by all those people who choose not to pay for it. (Then again, it might be cheaper if the BBC realizes that they have to cut costs in order get the fee down to a realistic level that people will subscribe to).
For me the most disappointing aspect of the BBC (apart from the biased news) is the comedy. This channel used to produce so many great comedy shows that I never worried about the license. Now the comedy is so dire that those shows on Paramount Comedy Channel where they just basically put a camera and a mic in a stand-up comedy club are better than most of what the BBC now produces.
Perhaps so, because it would no longer be subsidized by all those people who choose not to pay for it. (Then again, it might be cheaper if the BBC realizes that they have to cut costs in order get the fee down to a realistic level that people will subscribe to).
Anon | 10.08.07 – 12:22 pm | #
(are all these Anons the same commentator? I am assuming they are, its a bit confusing otherwise)
Anon – the last time the BBC looked into this (which was prior to the recent series of cockups which will have changed things somewhat), the beeb maximised revenue by using a monthly subscription model at twice the existing license fee pro rata.
Slightly more than half the license fee payers would continue to do so.
So it would stand the test of the free market (or would do cet par) and in fact increase revenue by doing so.
This is all in Building Public Value, as is the nebulous economic argument as to why it is a bad idea for a subscription model.
Sarah Jane,
I’m not talking about C-Beebies, just CBBC. I have collected a few examples taken from various bits of CBBC features, as well as the GSCE study section of BBC website.
Unfortunately, it is far too long for haloscan to handle, so I shall have to either do it in shorter series of posts, or email something to a moderator here for assistance.
i suggest that citing the numbers of people who watch the bbc as evidence of its popularity/their willingness to pay for it is misleading.
consider: if just because i wanted the pleasure of dining out in the restaurants of my choice, i had to pay an annual fee to support restaurant x, doesn’t it stand to reason that, having been forced to pay to eat at x’s whether i preferred to or not, there will be many an occasion i will say, let’s eat at x’s, we might as well – we’ve paid for it’?
it would be cheeky of x then to turn around and trumpet how many (willing?) customers he has!
>So it would stand the test of the free market (or would do cet par) and in fact increase revenue by doing so.
So there are no good reasons left for not doing it then. So do it!
British Universities are finally starting to charge fees, and many of them are starting to see that it’s achievable.
But personally, whatever people said in response to your survey, I can’t see that many people, when it really comes down to it, forking out twice the current license fee a year — app. £25 a month — for what is basically some ropey old TV channels, which have little in the way of sports or movies or the latest top American shows on them.
amImissingsomething – the demand curve was no based on reach figures but research into the specific matter, they are not saying because 92% watch it a bit, 52% will pay double for it. It may be economics but it was more scientific than that.
Anon – there are good reasons for not doing it (apparently) – the argument is in the document if you want to read it. Personally, I think it merits more serious discussion (in the open) than it has had. I think the issue is that if it goes to a subs model – what happens to the value that has been created by people in the past who now choose not to pay- effectively they have subbed the subscribers – note this would almost certainly mean C2DEs subbing ABC1s. If you flog the thing off, how much is it worth and who do you flog it to?
You would be surprised the value people place on not watching commericals – certain people at the BBC might do well to remember that.
Have I pointed out that these are my views and not those of the BBC recently? Consider it done.
>the demand curve was no based on reach figures but research into the specific matter, they are not saying because 92% watch it a bit, 52% will pay double for it. It may be economics but it was more scientific than that.
I had presumed it was based on a properly-done survey. (If not, then what?) But even ignoring the problems with surveys, you have the fact that while you may have x number of people saying in a survey “Yes, I’d subscribe”, the actual number who really do fork out may be much, much lower.
>there are good reasons for not doing it (apparently)
Really? Are these reasons other than “We feel we offer a so much better service on the license payer model” (ie. “we prefer to force people to pay for us”).
>If you flog the thing off, how much is it worth and who do you flog it to?
Hardly an objection, just an everyday business reality (even the government eventually worked out how to sell nationalized industries). Sell to the highest bidder. Or the bidder with the silliest hat. Whatever.
>You would be surprised the value people place on not watching commericals – certain people at the BBC might do well to remember that.
Unfortunately the opposite is the case, when it comes to hard cash. You’d be surprised at the value people don’t place on watching commercials. I remember years ago when pay TV was being discussed and we all got so excited at the fact that we’d pay some extra money to get no commercials. But it turned out that the amount of money this would cost was actually so much that most people preferred to have commercials and pay less.
Here is the relevant para from the document:
“Our research shows that, in order to
maximise income, the BBC would need to charge a subscription price of £13 a month
(£156 a year), 30% higher than the current licence fee. However, even at this level
the BBC would only generate around 90% of its current income, and over one third of
homes, or 20 million people, would choose not to subscribe to the BBC90. As a result,
the BBC would become a service only available to those who could afford to pay. As
we have noted in earlier chapters, this would lead to a loss of consumer welfare,
because it would cost nothing to provide the BBC’s services to the 20 million people
excluded. Moreover, the remaining two-thirds of people who did subscribe would be
paying more for a narrower range of services. The result would be a permanent loss
of one of the main sources of the BBC’s public value, its universality.”
So it is a welfare argument, like I said, I am not totally convinced.
If you want to wade through the whole thing it is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/bbc_constitution/bbc_royal_charter_and_agreement/Building_Public_Value.pdf
The chapter pertinent to this discussion is Chapter 7 p113.
I must also confess to a wee error due to faulty memory. IF the BBC moves to a subs model then slightly more than half the people who would pay £10 a month (81%) would pay £20 a month (42%).
So I personally would argue that a focus strategy based on core BBC audience (natural history programmes, intelligent news, quality drama, the website) makes more sense than compromising/diluting the brand by launching stuff like BBC3. Channel 4 is always going to do edgy yoof better because the BBC just doesnt (or shouldnt) have the kind of values to make F*** Off Im a Big Brother Chav. Which is what some sections of the audience seem to want.
It’s this bit here I dont get:
“As a result,
the BBC would become a service only available to those who could afford to pay.”
Surely that should be chose to not to pay? At the moment they have to pay it, so surely whoever sets the license fee thinks they can afford it? (In this case they are looking at £10 vs £13
Sarah-Jane | 10.08.07 – 9:31 pm |
thank you for that – although my comment was not specifically a response to any of yours, but just a general observation and response to my assessment of other posters’ comments over a longish while
What would the real John Reith make of Eastenders , the lottery show and Flog It?
Would he have been happy to make people pay for such trash before they were allowed to watch other TV without getting a fine and a criminal record?
The BBC is terrified of voluntary subscription even as it tells us of its quality. Very strange. High quality brands don’t usually have much trouble attracting customers.