Bang goes the BBC

[Roasted Swan]

Here is an article from the Independent newspaper today;

Downing Street is planing to scrap the BBC licence fee and replace it with a Netflix-style subscription model, according to reports.  Senior aides to the prime minister allegedly told the Sunday Times that the corporation would be forced to sell off most of its radio stations and scale back its website.  The plans also include reducing the number of BBC TV channels and banning the broadcaster's stars from having "second jobs", it is claimed.  "We are not bluffing on the licence fee," the source was reported as saying. "It has to be a subscription model.  "They've got hundreds of radio stations, they've got all these TV stations and a massive website. The whole thing needs a massive pruning back."  Before the general election, Boris Johnson admitted he was "looking at" abolishing the licence fee.  He was also said to be considering the decriminalisation of non-payment of the annual charge.  The current royal charter – which sets out the governance of the BBC – runs until December 2027.   Earlier this week the BBC chairman Sir David Clementi warned the prime minister that attacks on the corporation will result in a "weakened United Kingdom" and urging the government "not to rush to short-term decisions".  It comes after Downing Street refused to appear on BBC Radio 4's Today programme due to what they believe is its pro-Remain bias.

All well and good IF the BBC only offered a Netflix-like TV service.  But if this goes through it will mean the end of the BBC orchestras (and other ensembles who rely on the BBC for a certain amount of broadcast coverage/funding), also the Proms, also the World Service,  the News network - national and worldwide - and so many other resources from cooking recipes to weather reporting.  This is wholly politically motivated and does not acknowledge at all the enduring value of a public service broadcaster in the current age.  We will end up with a few "blockbuster" Game-of-Thrones style mega-series and then all wonder what happened to specialist broadcasting........

[The new erato]

Make Britain great again by Brexitibg isn't working? As in why make the government pay for independent, critical reøorting?

[Pohjolas Daughter]

As an 'outsider', I REALLY hope that they don't make a ton of cuts to the BBC!  As it is now, they've been trying to get me to watch Britbox with online adverts on their website (perhaps at some point in time as I do love British mysteries in particular....other shows as well).  It also seems that I must now login if I want to listening to any of the radio programs (haven't so far as have been pretty busy).  I do love listening to your classical programs in particular.  From what I can see, you do have a lot of 'neat' stations geared towards different countries within the UK...languages, local news, music, etc.  It's really a special treasure-trove from my point of view.  For your sake, I do hope that it doesn't become too expensive.  What do they charge now?  Last I heard, it was a combined radio/tv fee?

Please let us know how things develop!

Best wishes,

PD

[Marc]

As an 'outsider', I REALLY hope that they don't make a ton of cuts to the BBC! [...]

Don't count on it. Trump, Johnson, they're on the roll. BBC 1 and BBC 2, and that's gonna be it. Make it cheap, not too independent, and just for the Britains. Yeah.

(Slightly exaggerating of course. Just slightly though.)

[SimonNZ]

quoting in full:

We won't be bullied by left or right, says news boss at besieged BBC

"The BBC was taken aback by leftwing attacks on its general election coverage, Fran Unsworth, the broadcaster's head of news and current affairs, has admitted in a frank assessment of the political pressures that are undermining efforts to preserve the licence fee.

Unsworth, 62, said attacks on BBC standards of impartiality from sections of the political left, as well as from rightwingers, "was a Brexit thing". "When you get a binary referendum choice that re-frames politics, people take sides in a way that they don't in normal times," Unsworth said.

Describing the latest government warnings about future funding of the corporation as "a serious threat", Unsworth said: "We tend to get caught up in the maelstrom. If people don't see their own 'truth' expressed, then they see it is an untruth. And social media now means that narratives can take hold that are not based in fact."

Unsworth was speaking out after the appointment last week of Oliver Dowden as secretary of state for culture and the arrival of Julian Knight as the chair of the parliamentary committee that scrutinises the BBC. Both are promising to question the broadcaster's reliance on income from the licence fee.

Criticism from those on the left who detected a rightwing prejudice in the BBC's election coverage was a surprise, she admitted. But Unsworth rebutted claims that the attacks had been caused by a deliberate BBC attempt to avoid more conventional accusations of liberal bias inside New Broadcasting House. There had been no over-correction: "We just carried on doing what we were doing."

Unsworth said she thought renewed hostility from the new Conservative government was unlikely to win back alienated former BBC support on the left.

"People are quite entrenched in their views on this, I think. We have just got to keep restating our case that we will listen to everybody, serve everybody and host everybody, but not be bullied by either side. We don't get it right all the time, obviously, and people can be unhappy with what we do, and that is fine."

The former World Service boss, who also has a seat on the BBC board, made her case for the defence following public arguments made last week by Sir David Clementi, her chairman, and Tony Hall, the director general, who both underlined the breadth of service the BBC can offer because of its licence fee income.

Unsworth said that in the run-up to the renewal of the terms of the BBC's charter in seven years' time, there was always bound to be a national debate, whatever the government.

"But all this talk about the future of the licence fee really should start with discussion about what the BBC is for," she said. "Once you have answered that, you can go on to how it should be funded."

Switching to a subscription payments would be unfair, Unsworth argued, because those willing to pay would end up funding a service that is still obliged to try to inform and reach the entire British public, according to its charter terms.

"This is where the whole subscription model starts to come adrift. If you have a national civic function, you cannot then choose for only certain sections of the audience to pay for it," she said.

Unless the charter is radically altered in 2027, the BBC's "universal mission" in not a consumerist one, but a key duty to keep the people informed, she argued. "Under our charter, the job is to provide impartial news without fear or favour, and not to be beholden to commercial or political interests."

The BBC's "civil contingency" function is also in danger of being forgotten, Unsworth believes. Aside from providing news – "public purpose number one" – the broadcaster must offer guidance in case of national emergency. She had recently witnessed this working in Australia, she said, when ABC regional radio services were relied upon during the power cuts caused by dangerous bushfires.

After two years in the top news job, Unsworth is now meeting criticism from inside her own organisation. High pay levels among senior staff – her salary is in the "up to £249,000" bracket – have prompted censure as 450 job cuts were announced last month across reporting teams. She and her colleagues accept this level of scrutiny, she said. "It is fair that the BBC gets more attention, because we should be better than others. It is hard, but fair enough."

Her restructured, or slimmed-down, news service will be trialled next month, Unsworth said, explaining that it is designed to stop duplication and to give BBC reporting greater impact across all its channels, websites and radio stations. It will also make required budget savings.

She sees the gender pay gap scandal as "a running sore", she added, describing it as "a legacy of yesteryear". Journalists Samira Ahmed, Carrie Gracie and Sarah Montague were among those who found they were paid less than male counterparts. "We have to work through all this and put structures in place that avoid us getting into this mess again."

Julian Knight said this weekend that criminalising those who do not buy a television licence but use the BBC is out of date: "When we're looking at a world of populism, a world in which elites are being challenged an awful lot, the idea of criminal sanctions over the licence fee sticks in a lot of people's throats."

But Unsworth regards such attacks as a conflation of two separate debates – one about the decriminalisation of this offence, the other about the fairness of the licence fee. She cited the words of John Bache, national chair of the Magistrates Association, who earlier this month told Today programme listeners that a change "would make an insignificant difference" to levels of court congestion.

Another irritation for Unsworth is the growing assumption that the BBC has lost its youth audience due to technological changes. In fact, she argues, this has not happened yet and a good percentage of young people still watch news broadcasts such as BBC One's six o'clock bulletin, which has pulled in audiences of more than 5 million since Christmas.

"We do see a slide in linear TV and radio consumption in the under 35s, it's true," she said. "And those behaviours will probably be extended to the under 55s eventually, which is why we really have to think hard about ways of reaching them. But it really is not a crisis."

When Hall's replacement is selected by Clementi this summer, they must champion all these arguments, and more. Yet Unsworth still believes the BBC's best defence will come from its listeners and viewers: "Our real value lies in audience appreciation of what we do, rather than us simply banging the drum."

[SimonNZ]

I personally dont remember seeing any rightwing bias in the BBC Brexit reporting, but anyway here's another Guardian piece on the difficulty of their balancing act from last October:

Brexit bias? BBC faces a difficult balancing act in polarised nation

"Media bias is always in the eyes of the beholder. So, on one side, those who support leaving the EU regard the BBC as the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation. Those who seek to remain, meanwhile, view it as the Brexit Broadcasting Corporation.

This is familiar ground for Britain's major public service broadcaster. Think back to the Troubles, the Falklands war, the Scottish independence referendum. In each case, the BBC was accused of failing to be impartial.

This time, however, the attacks pose a more profound challenge. At a time when fewer and fewer people believe what they are told by journalists, the BBC is struggling to convince its audience that it is not subject to sinister influences. The public's media savviness has gradually elided into media cynicism. People are on red alert for bias. They have come to suspect misinformation and propaganda where it does not necessarily exist.

Brexit has seen a marked rise in complaints to the BBC, mostly from the pro-leave side. Audience surveys carried out on behalf of the corporation reveal a worryingly negative reaction to its coverage. And a review of BBC news and current affairs by the regulator, Ofcom, released last week, mentioned "dissatisfaction with the BBC's coverage of Brexit", although it did not record specific examples.

The criticism is rooted, partly, in the intense polarisation of each side. Positions have become ever more entrenched, with leavers fearing that a pro-remain establishment, which is thought to include the corporation, is conspiring to ensure that the referendum result is not honoured.

Another major factor behind the escalating hostility towards the BBC is the saga's longevity. Brexit just won't get done and, as it drags on, the corporation's detailed daily coverage opens its content to increased scrutiny, and increased scepticism, from viewers and listeners.

As Anne McElvoy has pointed out, in a column urging the corporation to underline its commitment to impartiality, "the strains of Brexit" have made it tricky for BBC journalists to reflect the balance between two fiercely held viewpoints. Audiences do not seem to believe that news editors and their staff take pains to hold the middle ground.

Doubtless, people are also influenced by the critics who rage against the BBC's output. Aside from the background hubbub of anti-corporation bile from the usual suspects – newspapers such as the Sun, Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph – there have been specific assaults. Steve Baker, the Tory MP who chairs the European Research Group, accused BBC journalists of asking questions based on false premises.

Paul Dacre, the former Mail editor, was as forthright as ever in writing of "the Eurosceptic-hating BBC" which "pumps out hysterical anti-Brexit propaganda". In a column for the Spectator he called its coverage "a disgrace" and singled out its Europe editor, Katya Adler, for special mention, asking if she is "actually employed by Brussels".

This is a silly point. When Adler goes on air, she says what her EU sources have told her. Those sources are anything but happy about Brexit and the UK's handling of the crisis, so it is hardly surprising that her reports reflect that. How, in such circumstances, could she frame her comments differently?

Charles Moore, the Telegraph columnist, opened another line of attack back in April when he complained on Question Time about being the sole leave supporter on its panel. This was a specious objection – another guest, the culture secretary, Jeremy Wright, had backed remain in 2016 but now favours leaving the EU. Moore's criticism rested, in part, on a flawed study by the Institute for Economic Affairs, which counts panellists on BBC discussion shows based on how they voted in the referendum, rather than their current views on Brexit.

Remainers have their own complaints. In this column last week, Emily Bell contended that the BBC's Brexit coverage lacked "adequate authority". She added that its journalism has "struggled to be serious and consistent enough to meet the complex gravity of the moment".

I beg to differ. There have certainly been moments when I've shouted at the TV and radio because interviewers have failed to ask the question that I felt was essential. But I often have the same reaction to non-Brexit matters. Those cavils aside, the coverage has been informative, if repetitive.

Perhaps the most contentious criticism of late has come from Peter Oborne, the journalist who campaigned and voted for Brexit and then, six months ago, changed his mind. In a scathing analysis of Brexit reporting, in which he takes several political editors to task for acting as stenographers for fabricated stories, he included a section on the BBC's political editor, Laura Kuenssberg.

His point, somewhat similar to Dacre's criticism of Adler, centres on her use of anonymous sources. Oborne seized on Kuenssberg's posting of six linked tweets as proof that she was being "manipulated by Downing Street".

Why? Because she conveyed that Boris Johnson's government was holding "two positions" on the Benn act. On the one hand, it would comply with it. On the other, it was determined not to do so.

Kuenssberg's insight relied, as she stated in her tweets, on "a senior No 10 source". That didn't strike me as unusual, nor did I think it misleading. It was not a lie.

Johnson was, at the time, trying to have his cake and eat it. Kuenssberg did nothing more than reflect his ambivalence. As for her use of an unnamed inside source, it is simply how lobby journalism works. But it doesn't have to be that way. I agree with Oborne: it is time for journalists to be more forthcoming in naming the people we quote.

None of that should detract from Kuenssberg's fine work, day after day. Fair-minded BBC viewers and listeners may well agree with me. But can we be sure that they are in the majority?"

[steve ridgway]

What do they charge now?  Last I heard, it was a combined radio/tv fee?

It's currently 154.50 pounds a year and not optional so basically a tax for a public service. We don't pay for any subscription services and am not sure we could justify it for just the news, occasional high quality drama and repeats of documentaries we already have on a recorder. A few niche internet radio channels match our tastes much better than BBC radio.

[vandermolen]

The threat to the BBC is deeply dispiriting. I regard the BBC as one of the most important aspects of British life. Not to mention its proud history of, for example, broadcasting to occupied Europe in World War Two.

[Que]

We could play it off as modernisation because the BBC is a thing of times past...

But I think it's a post Brexit thing: the BBC will be transformed into the new Ministry of Truth.

The Judiciary will be next:

New attorney general wants to 'take back control' from courts

After that, mark my words: the House of Lords.

Q

[Marc]

We could play it off as modernisation because the BBC is a thing of times past...

But I think it's a post Brexit thing: the BBC will be transformed into the new Ministry of Truth.

The Judiciary will be next:

New attorney general wants to 'take back control' from courts

After that, mark my words: the House of Lords.

Q

Me fears so, too.
Destroy -> Schadenfreude -> misery.
Well, no misery for the happy few, probably.

Long live the revolution of human 'common sense'.

[Mandryka]

The Judiciary will be next:

New attorney general wants to 'take back control' from courts


Q

No surprises there, this was clear enough in their manifesto.

Corbyn's responsible for this shambles, he's ensured that the tories can do what they want for the next decade, with no opposition.

Re the BBC , I think it's wrong that the licence fee is effectively compulsory, even if you don't use BBC products for your telecommunications  you can't opt out,  so I support the tories here, I would prefer to see the BBC turn into something you opt into.

[Irons]

I am torn on this one. The BBC is known, and I think admired, around the world but is it fit for present day purpose? I subscribe to Sky purely for football coverage, as we pay over £100 per month for that, along with internet connection and phone landlines we are not prepared to shell out for Netflix and the other subscription channels. This is all very well but we are now finding we are missing out on the best productions while watching rubbish like "Eastenders". I would love to watch "Madame Secretary" for example as told it is very good, but unable to do so as unwilling to pay subscription. The BBC do not offer choice, you pay. I'm not sure this is sustainable.

Again the whole face of radio is changing. I listen a fair bit to speech through headphones. I find instead of radio, I am listening more and more to podcasts, fast approaching the time I never listen to radio.

I agree though politics have raised an ugly head which makes me uneasy. Reforms are needed but that should not be cover for Johnson to kick the BBC into submission.

[vandermolen]

No surprises there, this was clear enough in their manifesto.

Corbyn's responsible for this shambles, he's ensured that the tories can do what they want for the next decade, with no opposition.

Re the BBC , I think it's wrong that the licence fee is effectively compulsory, even if you don't use BBC products for your telecommunications  you can't opt out,  so I support the tories here, I would prefer to see the BBC turn into something you opt into.

Very much agree with your Corbyn point

[Irons]

Very much agree with your Corbyn point

So do I. I'm amazed that Rebecca Long-Bailey has said that if she wins the race as party leader she would like to make Corbyn shadow Foreign Secretary.

[vandermolen]

So do I. I'm amazed that Rebecca Long-Bailey has said that if she wins the race as party leader she would like to make Corbyn shadow Foreign Secretary.

Yes, I don't think that will help her cause. I don't think that highly of her but was greatly amused when I heard her explain that her concern for the welfare of others may have originated in hearing her dad coming home from work and talking about threatened redundancies and also 'my time working in a pawn shop - that's P.A.W.N.'.

[vandermolen]

I don't usually buy the Daily Mail (my daughter, a journalist by training, takes a very dim view if I do) although yesterday the front page featured the headline:
'BBC Legend Rips Apart 'Liar' Boris', which I approved of. David Dimbleby the well known broadcaster (who came up to me in a field on the South Downs a few months ago to give me route instructions, having been instructed to do so by my wife who, as always, was miles ahead of me - he was charming). He 'accused the Prime Minister of using the issue [scrapping the BBC licence fee] to undermine the corporation and avoid having his policies scrutinised. He said Mr Johnson doesn't give a damn about fairness because his landslide election victory has made him 'arrogant with power'...Dimbleby (82) said the PM was 'apeing Donald Trump' by using the same 'political rule book' to try to control the media....'Nobody trusts Boris Johnson...he lies everywhere to everyone...he doesn't care what people think he just wants to be Prime Minister.'

[Mandryka]

I don't usually buy the Daily Mail (my daughter, a journalist by training, takes a very dim view if I do) although yesterday the front page featured the headline:
'BBC Legend Rips Apart 'Liar' Boris', which I approved of. David Dimbleby the well known broadcaster (who came up to me in a field on the South Downs a few months ago to give me route instructions, having been instructed to do so by my wife who, as always, was miles ahead of me - he was charming). He 'accused the Prime Minister of using the issue [scrapping the BBC licence fee] to undermine the corporation and avoid having his policies scrutinised. He said Mr Johnson doesn't give a damn about fairness because his landslide election victory has made him 'arrogant with power'...Dimbleby (82) said the PM was 'apeing Donald Trump' by using the same 'political rule book' to try to control the media....'Nobody trusts Boris Johnson...he lies everywhere to everyone...he doesn't care what people think he just wants to be Prime Minister.'

Does Dimbleby argue that Johnson's ideas about the BBC will give the government greater media control?

[vandermolen]

Does Dimbleby argue that Johnson's ideas about the BBC will give the government greater media control?

That seems to be the trajectory of his thinking if these plans go ahead. However, I'm pleased to see some opposition from within the Conservative Party (along the lines of 'this was not in our election Manifesto') to Johnson's and Cummings's apparent plans to undermine the BBC.

[Irons]

That seems to be the trajectory of his thinking if these plans go ahead. However, I'm pleased to see some opposition from within the Conservative Party (along the lines of 'this was not in our election Manifesto') to Johnson's and Cummings's apparent plans to undermine the BBC.

Apparent is right. Whats happened to Johnson, disappeared down a rabbit hole? Or smoking a cigar at Chequers? Since his majority it has all gone very quiet. After the turbulence of the brinkmanship of May's years this feels politically strange. The Labour "race" to be leader is like watching paint dry. I love the cut and thrust of politics but I have never been so bored by it here in the UK. A row over the saintly BBC would be welcome but even that seems to be dying a death. It is though Boris couldn't be bothered.   

[vandermolen]

Apparent is right. Whats happened to Johnson, disappeared down a rabbit hole? Or smoking a cigar at Chequers? Since his majority it has all gone very quiet. After the turbulence of the brinkmanship of May's years this feels politically strange. The Labour "race" to be leader is like watching paint dry. I love the cut and thrust of politics but I have never been so bored by it here in the UK. A row over the saintly BBC would be welcome but even that seems to be dying a death. It is though Boris couldn't be bothered.   

I think that your last sentence sums up his political strategy brilliantly Lol!