When you say “become”, was there a golden age when the BBC was not pro-establishment? I do agree that the right-wing are more successful at us than getting the BBC to bow to its demands, though.

But I’d rather the situation we have than no BBC – there are still lots of cultural & arts-based programmes the BBC funds that would never get anywhere near commercial operators – particularly on radio, and the BBC website is a wonderful thing. (I might start to agree with you if you let me keep Radio 3, Radio 1’s late-night shows, the BBC website and The Culture Show.) BBC Comedy churns out the odd gem that probably wouldn’t have surfaced elsewhere, too.

Interesting perspective seeing as the BBc is frequently accused of left-wing bias (and Andrew Marr himself admitted that the BBC was permeated with a “left-liberal” world view). Personally I haven’t noticed any bias towards the Left or Right on the news although I haven’t watched it for a while.

Do you really think if you walked down the average high-street and asked 100 people if the BBC’s News and Current Affairs coverage was biased to the Liberal/Left or the Right, that they would really say it was biased to the Right?

Only in ideological la-la land like Liberal Conspiracy could such a notion even be contemplated.

This is a classic distraction strategy. When the BBC has finally decided it can’t let the bias get any worse do you understand how you have overplayed your hand and desperately try to lay down a smokescreen with the frankly fantastical idea that the BBC is biased to the Right.

Ridiculous and classic echo-chamber thinking.

Actually there was a poll a few years back that found most people thought it was reasonably neutral, but more people thought it was biased to the right than the left. (This was back in Labour’s first term and I can’t be bothered looking for it so you’re going to have to trust my memory or more than likely, not.)

Lefties might want “an independent media that isn’t always being swayed by commercial pressures” but normal people want a balanced variety of media choices which isn’t always being swayed by political pressures.

Frankly I’m shocked at the hypocrisy you’re exhibiting here, Sunny – you talk about the media as a ‘them and us’ situation, when the truth is that LC is an active part of the media environment.

The BBC is again being used as a convenient punchbag upon which to promote partisan political agendas, and while I’m sad that they decided not to support the humanitarian cause I don’t think they should pander to left-wing politics either.

The bandwagon that was created by the Daily Mail over offense caused in the Andrew Sachs Affair has now been recreated by the other side over hesitation to broadcast a charity appeal.

It is exactly this sort of debate which polarises opinion to the detriment of the public debate – surely there is a better way. This campaigning article embarasses anyone who associates themselves with it.

What happened to Alan Thomas’ post about nationalisation? It appears to have vanished.

Oranjepan – no institution can be entirely independent of the rest of society or entirely impartial. If we don’t exert pressure on the BBC as the right do then we can only expect it to become more right-wing.

I can’t really see where this ‘right wing BBC’ stuff is coming from. They have consistently pressed for more liberal attitudes to all sorts of things, from the first openly gay soap character back in the 80’s to their subtle but clear pro-euthanasia stance now.

My first instinct on hearing that Sky had done the same as the Beeb was ‘this must be about money’, as the Murdoch media have a history of self-censorship in order to protect their market position.

What other left-liberal causes has the BBC ‘destroyed’? I’m struggling to think of any at the moment.

tim f,
if the left behaves as the right then it becomes the new right.

Campaigning of this sort just plays into the hands of people who want to abolish the Beeb. One week the threat is economic, the next it is political and eventually the argument is conclusive that a multinational corporation accountable to shareholders takes over a national institution and the creep of corporatism undermines our democracy.

Liberals should be pressing for a consistent policy which can be applied when controversies like this or ‘Sachsgate’ arise.

Oranjepan: Quite, and the ridiculous thing is that their policy should simply be to have a proper complaints procedure and to take it seriously, but to also pay reference to the timescales of complaints with regards to external campaigns by the likes of the Daily Mail.

They have to start just standing their ground, in a way the BBC has acted entirely as I would hope they would over the DEC when it comes to making decisions, it just so happens they’ve done it on completely the wrong issue and appear to have swung completely the other way as to not take heed of those that have complained.

“if the left behaves as the right then it becomes the new right.”

depends on your conception of politics, and depends what kind of behaviour we’re talking about.

If politics is a struggle for power between different social forces then we have to actually struggle for power; we can’t model a different way of behaving and hope the ruling classes are impressed into changing their ways.

FWIW, I believe the BBC is eternally too beholden to the Govt. It didn’t give the Tories a hard enough time in the 80s, but equally doesn’t give New Labour a tough enough time now. Too little investigation, scrutiny and challenging of the Govt.
Emotionally, I’d place most BBC journos to the left of new Labour, but there are an awful lot of New labour place-folk in management (following that wanker Birt). Remember of course that New lab isn’t ‘left’, but managerialist, market-obsessed bullshittery, oblivious to the realities of life as lived by the majority of the population outside of the Westminster/Zone 1/chatterati bubble (which includes both New Lab and New Con).

tim f,
the struggle for power view is the conservative position, liberals struggle to find agreement.

Lee Griffin,
thanks, I agree. Oppositional campaigning is more often counter-productive than not when it focuses on the outcome rather than the procedure for deciding it.

“But if the BBC is constantly appeasing the right-wing whiners that see a conspiracy in everything, then there’s no point supporting its existence as a powerful broadcaster.”

That’s what the right-wing whiners want you to start thinking.

The BBC is imperfect but, if we lost, people from across the political spectrum who believe in independent journalism and public service programming would soon realise what they’d lost.

Let’s get down to the crux of this. The left are panicking because their primary and most influential media outlet for their ideology and rhetoric has reduced its left-wing stance on a few issues recently. This is because the BBC are becoming under increasing pressure from a number of sources, and not just the Daily Mail (are LC’s contributors capable of comment without blaming their big bad bogeyman?) Most importantly, the public are turning against this State extravagance. For years, white, middle-class so called liberals have been able to push their left-wing agenda safe in the knowledge they can get away with it, whilst the public maintains its “gold old auntie” sentimentalism for an institution associated with British culture and identity. However, its hypocritical for such people to maintain this premise when the same people justify the eradication of British culture and identity in the name of “change” and “progress”. Intellectually, morally and logically, there is no justification for a monolithic State broadcaster in our free and democratic land.

The BBC bosses are aware of this change in opinion. They are also aware that an incoming Tory Govt is already planning to redistribute some of the licence fee. The Tories will come under pressure to break-up the organisation, so that it cannot again be a powerful propaganda outlet for a Labour Govt and for left-wing rhetoric. Hence, the BBC are having to change tack and be less bias. At least, on the surface anyway; any organisation that is overwhelmingly white, middle-class arts based will be inherently left-wing – its their heritage.

“This poses a problem for lefties because we want an independent media that isn’t always being swayed by commercial pressures”.

i.e. you want to continue a monopolistic State broadcaster. There is no such thing as an ‘independent’ public funded media.

“there are still lots of cultural & arts-based programmes the BBC funds that would never get anywhere near commercial operators”

i.e. you are happy to have your pretentious tastes subsidised by a regressive tv tax, that punishes the poor. Congratulations!

That’s really beautiful Chavscum – so well said.

The BBC`s coverage of the conflict has been uniformly anti Israel , its general slant is uniformly anti Conservative . One burst of impartiality and you wan to stop paying for it ?

How childish and if you had you way you would be horrified so its all posturing

“tim f,
the struggle for power view is the conservative position, liberals struggle to find agreement.”

It’s not just the conservative position, it’s a socialist position too.

i.e. you are happy to have your pretentious tastes subsidised by a regressive tv tax, that punishes the poor. Congratulations!

Why is an interest in cultural and & arts programming neccessarily pretentious? You think the poor are incapable of appreciating anything more sophisticated than Eastenders and Strictly Come Dancing? A bit patronising isn’t it?

My god the Abolish/don’t abolish the BBC arguments do get boring and repetitive don’t they?

“there are still lots of cultural & arts-based programmes the BBC funds that would never get anywhere near commercial operators”

i.e. you are happy to have your pretentious tastes subsidised by a regressive tv tax, that punishes the poor. Congratulations!

It’s not just my taste. There’s plenty of shows on the bbc that wouldn’t find a place on a commercial operator because they’re too niche – doesn’t mean that only middle-class people or people with supposedly middle-class tastes like classical music (as if there are no working class people who like classical music) like them. We’re not talking about opera here – there is very little opera even on Radio 3 (as I dislike opera I don’t mind too much).

Have you listened to commercial stations? They’re all pretty much the same. At least the bbc has some diversity and you can pick what you like. There’s something there for everyone, but most people won’t like most of what’s offered. (Me the same as everyone else.) That’s a great principle and one that commercial radio/tv for the most part can’t afford to entertain.

As to it being a regressive tax – it is to an extent, although less so since the Labour government decided to pay for tv licences for older people. It’s difficult to know how to change this though – without an expensive new database which I suspect people on here would oppose, the BBC couldn’t means test TV licences and the licence does help the BBC remain independent from the government. I would support the government paying for more people’s tv licences – eg people who’re on tax credits or housing benefit. I suspect you would oppose that too.

Good to see that LC offers space for a balanced debate…

Tim f:

The mentality of “Why do we have to pay for *this*” is a very libertarian-esque right wing one, and it’s got it’s roots in all public spending. Why should we pay for people to be unemployed, why should immigrants get benefits, why do my taxes have to go to a system I’ll never use…etc…etc.

I can’t help but laugh at the general proposition behind abolishing the license fee as it’s the same type of argument for stopping the public funding of the police force, with the poor more likely (sweeping generalisation here) to be paying for the people that will arrest and charge them, and for plenty of people to be paying for a service that they will never see nor directly use.

Most people accept however that the benefits of having a police force are worth spending money for, even if we never have to directly interact with them…the irony is they fail to see that the same sort of argument can be applied to the ranging cultural impact and knowledge-transfer aspect of the BBC.

Perhaps it’s just that the BBC is so specifically more “in your face” that those calling for it to end can’t see the parallels.

The BBC is owned by all of us. If it goes, it will be replaced by stations owned by wealthy media magnates such as Murdoch and Harmsworth, thus entrenching the domination of society by the wealthy.

I

“But this right-wing pandering means the political climate is being shifted, while we are plied with lame excuses about impartiality. It now says coverage of climate change should be “balanced” by nutjob deniers, and its senior management think broadcasting appeals for humanitarian aid isn’t neutral enough”.

Very poor Sunny and you should know better – calling someone who fails to accept the wisdom of the herd is;

a) The weakest form of risposte and a sure sign you are losing the argument
b) Logically impotent – Gallileo, Einstein, Darwin et al were all “nutjobs” at one time

“Gallileo, Einstein, Darwin et al were all “nutjobs” at one time”

Yes, visionaries were often called nutjobs at the time. But then, nutjobs have often been called nutjobs. The latter happens more often than the former, & I think the climate change “sceptics” will be put in that category by history.

I agree with Lee here: the BBC have finally shown a bit of backbone – but over the wrong issue.

Proposals to ‘balance’ environmental messages with guff from the deniers are ridiculous but this is hardly typical of their coverage so far, which has erred on the side of real science; the BBC has also consistantly given a platform for Left-leaning dramatists and comedians. Last year saw high profile dramas about climate change and the national database and if there was a single pro-Tory joke on Have I Got News For You? or Mock the Week I missed it.

The Left has got better things to do than do Murdock’s work for him.

“Most people accept however that the benefits of having a police force are worth spending money for, even if we never have to directly interact with them…the irony is they fail to see that the same sort of argument can be applied to the ranging cultural impact and knowledge-transfer aspect of the BBC.”

Libertarians (of thne minimal state rather than anarchocapitalist variety) support a publically funded police force because they believe it is the government’s job to protect life and property. They do not consider it the government’s job to fund tv stations.

Sunny – I seem to remember you were going to start blogging examples of BBC right wing bias ages ago.

The BBC itself admits it has a left-liberal bias.
It simply may not be left enough for you.

Stll – bring those examples on.
Biased BBC will no doubt welcome the competition!

That is lovely work by Chavscum

Lee that is wrong , we do all pay for the Police and I accept argument here . The BBC however pushes private suppliers out of the market which you cannot say about the Police. At the moment the BBC is energetically killing off the on line publishing business , there is no excuse for that
I would dispute that the artistic life of the Nation is enhanced by the dank clammy hand of the state and its patronage. Certainly it has been responsible for the appalling lack of creativity in drama and film by encouraging a self absorbed parochialism and , here more than any where a set of comfortable Liberal assumptions that are never challenged . The West End is booming but Drama is suffering badly , as ever they want a grant but the answer is to start writing plays people want to see . British films are so bad that no-one will see them until they have made it in America and been laundered of the stigma
Many many writers are given their first start by the BBC and it has proved itself very bad at doing it . American culture is truly vibrant Europeans are often out off because it is of its nature new . The triumphs of the West in Europe however were not the result of State funding for drab worthy minority so called comedy.

A lot of rubbish gets its chance with the BBC because it ticks their boxes and a lot of talent is ignored because it does not . having to sell tend to get rid of that and it is quite wrong and patronising to assume that popular means bad. Niches are exactly what advertisers want and popular is small area is Just as good.

I waiting to see when the anti-license fee brigade start complaining about the ‘unfair tax’ on the poorest in society caused due to advertising.

How much less would your brand new BMW cost if the company didn’t waste several hundred million every year on strengthening it’s brand image?

“It now says coverage of climate change should be “balanced” by nutjob deniers,”

I don’t have a problem with this provided they go the whole way. Everytime terrorism is discussed there needs to be a representative of the 9-11 truthers to argue that al qaida doesn’t exist and it was all Dick Cheney. Everytime the business news is read out I want a marxist academic to explain how business is shafting the working class. During astronomy documentries I want flat earthers and people who think the moon landings were faked to be given airtime. I want Nazis invited onto history programmes to defend Hitler, tobacco companies to be allowed to argue that smoking is cool and lung cancer isn’t that painful, representatives of organised crime to point out the contribution they make to the economy, misanthropic social workers to argue that Baby P would have only ended up an asbo kid, animal rights extremists to rant about meat during cookery programmes, Athiests on songs of praise, peadophiles to discuss the age of consent, tribal elders from Pakistan to defend honour killings, Malthusians to defend the HIV virus, etc.

(now thats going to provoke a lot of people…)

Planeshift,
aren’t you trying to create balance on a pinhead? surely there is enough space in the world for everyone without treading on each other’s toes.

I don’t really care very much either way BUT this idea “the bbc provide content that wouldn’t be provided by the commercial world” is flawed. The reason there isn’t a commercial 6Music at the moment is BECAUSE there is a BBC 6Music. Get rid of the BBC and a Virgin/Sky/Whatever 6Music will take its place.

Ditto all the other stuff you like: the Today Programme, the Archers etc etc etc

“The BBC however pushes private suppliers out of the market”

Are you living in another world? Through the 60’s and 70’s the BBC’s only competitor was ITV. That’s two bbc channels versus one commercial channel.

Then came Channel 4, commercial even though publicly owned, and then five, commercial. Alongside this also came Sky with a highly private corporate style service offering numerous channels of which a fair amount were british based and originated.

Move more to the modern day and Sky’s broadcasting channels have increased while even BSB’s growth did not slow the progress of “terrestrial” channels (in the sense of freeview) with Virgin taking a stake of the pie through it’s own channel and the UKTV brand (mostly in conjunction with the commercial arm of the BBC), and multiple other tv channels popping up that offer surprisingly niche areas of concern (Nuts TV).

On top of all of this ITV and Channel 4 as original competitors to the BBC have grown their services at pretty much the same rate as the BBC.

So..please…tell me exactly how the BBC has pushed private suppliers out of the market?

erm, the reason there isn’t a commercial 6Music is because with commercials there would be less music and I don’t want to listen to commercials when I tune in for music. Same for all the other programmes.

“On top of all of this ITV and Channel 4 as original competitors to the BBC have grown their services at pretty much the same rate as the BBC.”

Riiiight. ITV and Channel 4 are on their knees and nearly non-viable and the BBC is bigger than it has ever been and has a multi-billion revenue stream.

Sorry for feeding the troll, but I had to pick him up on this:

“The BBC however pushes private suppliers out of the market which you cannot say about the Police.”

Of course you can say that about the police. If we abolished the police, don’t you think most people would be keen to beef up their home security? Perhaps richer communities might even form private agreements to pay for private security guards to patrol their areas? Wouldn’t the private detective business prosper as people hired private dicks to find out who stole their stuff and get it returned to them?

“Riiiight. ITV and Channel 4 are on their knees and nearly non-viable and the BBC is bigger than it has ever been and has a multi-billion revenue stream.”

Yet Sky is doing perfectly fine even though people have to pay additional subscription fees to get hold of their content. Other TV channels such as the UKTV group however are in growth with their more niche lead programming. To blame solely the BBC for Channel 4 and ITV’s woes given:

a) No consideration for the quality of output given against the cost of providing it (certainly in the case of ITV), usually through imports,
b) the sheer number of other competitors on Freeview that aren’t the BBC, and
c) the economic climate that will of course favour a publicly owned body at this time….

..is bizarre and disjointed.

It’s also worth noting that the total amount of money that is fed in to commercial and private TV operators through advertising and other choice-based subscriber fees is far greater than the license fee revenue the BBC claims.

Oranjepan: Yeah but some people would rather have the ads and not pay the £135 a year

Except the License Fee is there not because it’s the only way to fund the BBC but because it’s the only way to guarantee it’s funded to an acceptable standard. If you like the programming, even if you only like one program and only watch that program once, the License Fee is a better value investment from you as a consumer than taking in adverts and hoping the revenues stay constant enough to guarantee your program can stay on air.

Anyway, if 6Music is stopping a commercial music station from being formed, why didn’t the commercial music station do it before 6Music started? Surely it can’t be because a wieldy public sector organisation was flexible enough to be first to the punch? ;p

As Lee shows, one of the reasons we don’t have a diversity in commercial radio stations is because at the first sign of dropping revenue they resort to the same tried-and-tested formula of what works for commercial radio. They don’t have the time or commitment to build marketshare through niche programming. Funding radio through a licence affords a station the possibility of maintaining a disctinct voice.

The starting point on media bias is that the Right wing does not want an independent media. Never has done. It wants pure right wing propaganda 24 hours a day. Any body who wants a ‘market led commercial media’ does not want independent media. Because the only way to pay for it is from commercial sponsorship, which means corporations that tend to be owned and run by big business. Now there are always exceptions to the rule , but usually corporates are Conservative.

Two examples from America should give a warning to what happens when you move down that route. The fist is Disney refusing to release and promote Michael Moore’s film back in 2003. Disney claimed that the reason for their decision was that as a company they were ‘non political.’ Now that is fine if it happens to be true. However ,Disney at the same time as claiming to be non political were quite happy to own the stations that put out Rush Limbaugh and other Right wing blow hards. Another example is the increasing refusal of corporate media to run adverts made by left leaning organisations.

The Right has always wanted the destruction of the BBC, and so any tactic to achieve that end will be supported by the brown shirts. If they can intimidate the BBC into moving to the Right ,which is what they have done over the last 10 years, and in doing so make Liberals increasing unwilling to fund the licence fee, then it is job done as far as they are concerned

The BBC will never appease the Right wing because nothing short of total destruction will do. It should be quite clear to the BBC that no matter how many Andrew Neil’s or . Nick Robinsons or Jeremy Clarkson’s they allow to pollute the airways nothing will satisfy the frothing at the mouth right wing.

The real problem is that the Right does not tolerate opposing views. You only have to look at the Guardian site to see the army of Right wing trolls that want to drown out any views they don’t agree with. It is why allowing apposing views on the BBC will always been seen as left wing bias. Right wingers like their news to be simple and biased to the Right. Which is why the BBC will never be supported.

“Gallileo, Einstein, Darwin et al were all “nutjobs” at one time”

“Yes, visionaries were often called nutjobs at the time. But then, nutjobs have often been called nutjobs. The latter happens more often than the former, & I think the climate change “sceptics” will be put in that category by history.”

That’s the great thing about “climate change” though isn’t it ? As with all apocalyptic visions there will be no one around to decide who was right. Either we will all be frazzled/drowned or nothing at all will happen, either way it will be at some indeterminate point in the future, convinently just outside the living memory of the current populations.
As someone who grew up under the shadow of a certain nuclear anhiliation and who still appears to be intact 20 year on I reserve the right to be called a “nutjob”. Which incidentally is an offensive and derogatory term for those suffering from mental illness but that’s a whole other thread……………….

I briefly considered writing a satirical post entitled ‘A left-wing case against Liberal Conspiracy’, but then decided that I couldn’t be bothered. If only apathy were more widespread.

Lee its simple, when people are watching the BBC they are not watching something else. That something else needs to make a profit so they are making less of profit .That means less suppliers are attracted to the market and that means there are less of them.
I don’t know how you makes living but I think you will find most people in business rather dislike the same product being offered by the government for nothing
Unless you are suggesting the peculiar genius of the BBC has had such an energising effect as to grow the sector then you are disguising logical absurdity with anecdotal stuff about how well ITV is doing .( falling to pieces I hear). As you point out it is an easy to enter market and of the BBC is good enough then it can charge its licence fee by all means , voluntarily like anyone else .
The Newspapers loathing of the Beeb can be traced to their attempt to snuff out on lone News at birth by providing a free service.
I `ve got nothing against state provision and in many areas I believe its essential but this area is becoming an anachronism . I think the particular bias of the BBC is also a problem , in the 90s Polly Toynbee set the editorial tone for the Beeb on Society she was actually the Editor for years . If you were to surmise that there is large section of the Conservative Party that will never forgive an organisation they once much valued for this period ….you would be right. Their arrogance was stupefying . That’s what is really going now as they see who is likely to be the next government …
My own view is that the BBC should continue on a smaller scale should not be extending its Empire and should be funded out of general taxation as a vehicle of the maintenance of national culture and News .

Tim ok yes , the argument is bit more subtle than the one I made , in fact asking yourself how like the Police or the Army the BBC is is a good way of strarting to get to grips with it

Not very.

“Anyway, if 6Music is stopping a commercial music station from being formed, why didn’t the commercial music station do it before 6Music started? Surely it can’t be because a wieldy public sector organisation was flexible enough to be first to the punch? ;p”

Nah, it is because we have a government controlled and regulated radio spectrum – which we shouldn’t.

“Of course you can say that about the police. If we abolished the police, don’t you think most people would be keen to beef up their home security? Perhaps richer communities might even form private agreements to pay for private security guards to patrol their areas? Wouldn’t the private detective business prosper as people hired private dicks to find out who stole their stuff and get it returned to them?”

Yes, and why not 🙂

The Guardian doesn’t make a profit, it’s subsidised, has been for years. Newsflash, no one outside Islington reads it.

The BBC itself admits it has a left-liberal bias.

No it hasn’t. Stop promoting myths.

planeshift – that’s something I can agree with. I just don’t think the whiners who wants to see climate change coverage “balanced” will like it.

orangepan: f the left behaves as the right then it becomes the new right.

I’m not sure how that’s the case…?

And also, while I agree that we should argue for more consistency, the outcomes are usually that because BBC management know the left won’t whine as much, they end up pandering to the MElanie Phillips brigade.

And by the way, I can only LOL at the person who compared her to gallileo.

Newmania, I’m trying to phrase this as simply as I can for you.

You have to have quite a lot of money to buy a national newspaper. And people with quite a lot of money tend to support the idea that people with quite a lot of money should pay lower taxes. Let’s, for sake of argument, call that a “right-wing” opinion.

So to suggest there is equal entry to the market for left-wing views is a tad silly. Unless, of course, the state confiscated, say, the Express, and redistributed it to a collective of left-wing people.

The Guardian doesn’t make a profit, it’s subsidised, has been for years.

And guess what, neither does the Times.

Nor does the “gone for a pound” Evening Standard.

So to suggest there is equal entry to the market for left-wing views is a tad silly. Unless, of course, the state confiscated, say, the Express, and redistributed it to a collective of left-wing people.

Are you suggesting the pitiful sales of the Guardian are due to the bias of the Newsagents positioning of them discretely behind Bondage Weekly ? Does he run away singing “Chase me “ if anyone wants to buy the Mirror ? You do not need perfect entry to a market for it to function fairly as has often been observed , a small amount of competition ( in aviation for example , or phones) transforms the playing field . Here there is a large amount of competition .

The Guardian doesn’t make a profit, it’s subsidised, has been for years.

And guess what, neither does the Times.

The Times is not the recipient of public Sector Advertising quid’s extorted from me which you do not need and in effect diverts public money into tilting the table . Still I would ,accept the need to control the amount of foreign incursion into the media where there is the danger of importing monopolistic behaviour out of our control.

“Lee its simple, when people are watching the BBC they are not watching something else. That something else needs to make a profit so they are making less of profit .That means less suppliers are attracted to the market and that means there are less of them.”

Newmania: There are more of them, and that is the source of peoples woes.

Let me make it clear, the main reason that ITV and Channel 4 aren’t faring so well is because Sky is dominating…as well as a few small niche channels such as Dave securing a small but solid share of the market through freeview. It is nothing to do with the BBC.

Your argument isn’t one for competition between private companies, it’s for there being a monopoly. There is a finite ad revenue source out there, and you can’t just see the kind of increase in broadcasters we have without some also taking a hit in their finances. ITV, for example, alongside Channel 4, were making some big gains in the early stages of freeview and digital as early adopters of the technology. As more people took hold of it their share has subsequently dropped. This is normal business.

It’s also key to note that the amount of money people put in to TV advertising is increasing despite this idea that the BBC is crowding the market out, private companies are still more than happy to put more money than ever in to it’s competitors.

“some people would rather have the ads and not pay the £135 a year”

Estimate the additional expense on your weekly shopping basket you have to pay for the privilege of shopping at Tesco to buy your Coca-cola and your Lenor and your Kingsmill bread and your Country Life butter and your whatever else because of the advertising costs involved and it comes to rather more than £135 per year.

Having a competitive media market where different funding sources exist actually keeps the costs down – if there wasn’t a license fee you could argue that everyone would be paying an additional surcharge on their annually consumed goods of up to 10%.

So if you calculate how much you spend on branded goods in a year and how much extra you’d be forced to pay for the same standard of life then it is clear that the license fee represents an extremely good economic deal even if it is highly annoying to tolerate the strictures of the compulsion involved..

And that’s not even considering whether the public service requirement is of any social benefit.

.”There is a finite ad revenue source out there ”
And yet…..
It’s also key to note that the amount of money people put in to TV advertising is increasing.”
Lee you are missing a central point here which is that advertising revenue is not an abstract it is paid for results which means reaching punters . Now if ,many of them are lured to ad free no subscription state telly then those results are less so the value of ads are less so less money goes in . Obvious isn’t it .
I think you are just describing overall increased consumption of media , well fine but irrelevant .That really is all there is to be said on it , its not as if I would get rid of the BBC anyway there are other justifications for it which in my view it has got vastly to large to be sustained in its current form , thats all .

Newmania: here I’m being entirely serious – what parts of the BBC would you cut, then?

“the main reason that ITV and Channel 4 aren’t faring so well…”

is that the business model which they’ve evolved to depend upon is becoming outmoded as direct advertising is capable of being bypassed for TV viewers, while their traditional trapped audience (and the corresponding advertising revenue) is shrinking as they both migrate to other media platforms like the net; people are getting bored with the passivity of the entertainment format they offer in the face of a wider breadth of choices.

Have you noticed an explosion in live music, comedy and other entertainment such as football attendance, video gaming etc over recent years? People are becoming progressively bored by the goggle box and it’s technological limitations. Why should the state worry about keeping a stagnant industrial commercial format afloat to the same level which is in dire need of rationalisation and refocus?

If TV companies can’t keep up with the evolving needs and desires of their audience then that’s their problem. But it’s the same for all traditional media in a proliferating marketplace – newspapers, books, records have all seen base-line sales fall. Do you wonder why there is a general conspiracy across all media formats to perpetuate non-story controversies and no-name celebrities?

It’s because they all have an interest in keeping up the appearance of their relevancy to society just to survive. Now that the economy has hit the skids it’s becoming apparent that they’ve all been complacent for far too long and neglected their core responsibilities.

Tabloidisation is a reaction to market maturity and saturation. There is a limit to the consumer society and that applies to media too.

DG’s email sent to BBC staff

explaining his decision re the Charity broadcast ban

states :

“and in particular after seeking advice from senior leaders in BBC Journalism, we concluded ”

wonder who are the senior leaders in BBC Journalism that Mr Thompson was referring to. is it BBC management , is it BBC journalists (seems not), or is it senior journalists from outside the BBC who think it is their job to manage BBC editorially.

“The Guardian doesn’t make a profit, it’s subsidised, has been for years.

And guess what, neither does the Times.”

The Daily Mail never used to make a profit either It was subsidised by the regional newspapers that the group owned.

But this strawman argument of the Rights about making a profit is nonsense. If you believe in a commercial, market driven news, then you don’t believe in an independent news in my opinion.

By the way, all those people who complain about paying the licence fee , never complain about the extra money they pay on all the products they buy that goes on advertising.

“Lee you are missing a central point here which is that advertising revenue is not an abstract it is paid for results which means reaching punters”

And you’re missing the point that it that pays no relevance to the quality of output or variety of output, which is secured by a publicly funded body.

But hey, what do you say to the charge that some non-TV watching Tesco customers are subsidising part of other customers viewing habits through prices limited because of advertising budgets? Surely every customer should be able to choose if they buy the “pay for marketting” price or the “I’m already a customer I don’t need to be advertised at” price?

@15 Chavscum: Most importantly, the public are turning against this State extravagance [the BBC]

Is there any evidence for this? For example, in opinion polls. My understanding is that most talk against the BBC is drummed up by the Murdoch media who want to destroy the BBC as it is competition for Sky.

They are also aware that an incoming Tory Govt is already planning to redistribute some of the licence fee.

If the license fee is to be redistributed, some going to channel 4, then licrense fee payers should decide that, not the government. Specifically, each individual license payer should be able to decide which organisation his fee gets paid to. That way, broadcasters will be responsive to the people not to be government.

This could of course be generalised: Why stop at two broadcasters funded by the license fee? Why not three? Or ten?

The same idea could be applied to any future broadband tax.

“By the way, all those people who complain about paying the licence fee , never complain about the extra money they pay on all the products they buy that goes on advertising.”

Not really comparing like with like are you? If I had to pay a fee to enter the supermarket to fund their own brands of food even though I didn’t buy them then that would be a more appropriate comparison.

Sally, it’s people like you with your childish and angry left-wing rants that drive people towards the Tories. In fact some of your comments are so utterly stupid that you must be a troll. For example:

“The Right has always wanted the destruction of the BBC, and so any tactic to achieve that end will be supported by the brown shirts.”

Actually you will find many “traditional” right-wingers love the BBC. The highly conservative Peter Hitchens for example has opposed the commercialisation of the BBC. To many (I suspect mostly elderly) right-wingers, the BBC is a great British institution that must be defended. Furthermore there were many right-wingers back in the 30s, 40s and 50s who hated the idea of commercial tv and radio for fear it would lead to dumbing down. Lord Reith was certainly no leftie.

Sunny, I know the link says “Daily Mail” in it but I urge you to have a look and then reconsider whether it is a “myth” that the BBC has admitted to being biased:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html

At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.
One veteran BBC executive said: ‘There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness.
‘Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC’s culture, that it is very hard to change it.’

Political pundit Andrew Marr said: ‘The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.’

Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.

First, I hardl ever believe what the Daily Mail says, its journalism is so bad and so completely biased. Secondly, just because one or two people says it doesn’t make it true. I know BBC journalists who say the place is still quite racist and patronising. They just don’t get Daily Mail editorials to support them. Shall we assume its full of BNP sympathisers then?

And lastly, I wonder what the reception would have been if she said the BBC was full of Jews, disproportionately? Anti-American? I wonder if that was because the BBC was reporting on an incredibly unpopular President. Is it still anti-American? Or is now that Obama’s there, the corporation is dominated by Black Power activists?

“Not really comparing like with like are you? If I had to pay a fee to enter the supermarket to fund their own brands of food even though I didn’t buy them then that would be a more appropriate comparison. “

No, it is because people like you eulogise over so called choice, but actually a lot of choice is no such thing.

People can’t choose to not eat, they have to buy food, and whoever they buy that food from they are paying for the advertising. Same with all essential products. Gas ,electric etc etc.

“The Right has always wanted the destruction of the BBC, and so any tactic to achieve that end will be supported by the brown shirts.”

Cabalamat @65:

When you talk about the Murdoch media, do you have in mind, for instance, the newspaper which published this article?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5593994.ece

And any ideas why the BBC is not reporting this story?

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2009/01/lord-ahmed-threatens-parliament-into.html

It’s wouldn’t be anything to do with bias, would it?

The Guardian doesn’t make a profit, it’s subsidised, has been for years. Newsflash, no one outside Islington reads it. ~ Matt Munro

Are you actually stupid, or is it just an act?

And whilst we mention Sky. Is it worth comment the Times (controlled by News International) publishes editorials condemning the BBC whilst Sky (controlled by News International) refuses to broadcast.

Such is hypocrisy.

“People can’t choose to not eat, they have to buy food, and whoever they buy that food from they are paying for the advertising. Same with all essential products. Gas ,electric etc etc.”

If I want I can buy food that isn’t advertised. I can’t watch commercial tv without being forced to pay for the BBC.

If I want I can buy food that isn’t advertised.

@69 Trofim: When you talk about the Murdoch media, do you have in mind, for instance, the newspaper which published this article?

hey 🙂

“If I want I can buy food that isn’t advertised. ”

Bully for you. But you miss the point , which is typical

Most people have not got the time to bother searching for food or any other products that aren’t advertised, so they buy what they want, and pay the free market tax of advertising and promotion.

Anyway, seeing as yesterday you were demanding the right to work a million hours a week you don’t have the time either.

People have to buy food, and whoever they buy that food from they are paying for the advertising

I wonder what the advertising budget for Tesco Value Coffee is? (a bargain at 40p for 100 g, incidently). I hazard to guess it is zero.

Sally was the advertising dividend the explanation for the internationally admired haute cuisine of the Soviet Union ? The things they could do with a cabbage , you would not believe it …melts in the mouth ……delicately spiced with water …. a complex simplicity ….

“Not really comparing like with like are you? If I had to pay a fee to enter the supermarket to fund their own brands of food even though I didn’t buy them then that would be a more appropriate comparison.”

You do realise that products aren’t priced solely on a scale of “this is how much it has to cost”? Products are sold under priced to generate sales and footfall that are subsidised by other products you’re likely to buy. The comparison is a lot nearer than you think.

“If I want I can buy food that isn’t advertised. I can’t watch commercial tv without being forced to pay for the BBC.”

It doesn’t matter if you buy what’s advertised or not, as companies spend a percentage of their revenue on advertising themselves. In that sense if you do buy food that isn’t advertised you are almost certainly subsidising the costs of advertising the other products. Doesn’t that make you angry? Want to write to the tabloids and get 50,000 complaints against the supermarket’s evil internal financial redistribution methods?

yes its unfortunate as tim f says – bbc radio is well worth keeping.
as for its news reporting – well its all just video nowadays isn’t it – we don’t need that anymore.

the bbc’s idea of impartiality really seems to mean not having any kind of ethical position.

anyway Channel 4 is doing a good job keeping up public service broadcasting.

“If I want I can buy food that isn’t advertised.”

Can you buy it from an outlet which doesn’t advertise?

The example of Tesco Value products fails to include the advertising budget for Tesco – it’s not like you can buy Tesco Value anywhere else.

Its significant that the justifications for maintaining the licence fee in its current format offered by the Left are purely based on the politics of fear. The fear that standards would drop, the fear that costs would rise and the fear that James Bond like villains will take control of the media. The diversion of the debate to Tesco’s advertising budget is complete ‘strawman’.

Oranjepan #61 makes a good point about the state of television as a rapidly decreasing media outlet and the overdue need for rationalisation. This more than anything else applies to the BBC. It requires a complete overhaul. I suggest selling off the various parts and making the TV stations subscription based, along with some sensible regulation regarding ownership, perhaps with a licensing requirement for broadcasters. There will be a lot of whingeing from the Left and a knock-on effect on private broadcasters, but after a while the market will settle and we will gain from more choice, broadcasting free from State ownership and manipulation and above all the principle of freedom will be restored. The fact we are forced, by threat of imprisonment, to pay the State a tax to access television, is not in keeping with a free society. If some leftie luvvies lose their jobs then all the better.

“The diversion of the debate to Tesco’s advertising budget is complete ‘strawman’.”

You can’t make the link so you want to call it a strawman?

Let me make it as clear as day, this applies only to those that are arguing that the BBC license fee is unjustified through the lack of choice to pay it…whenever you go in to a store like tesco you lack the choice to not contribute to their advertising budget. You lack the choice to not invest in their green initiatives, you lack the choice to not subsidise those that use free carrier bags. Yet we don’t hear the same sorts that argue against the BBC argue against the fact that when they go and buy some beans that they are also funding aspects of the business they may not wish to. It’s the same argument, yet it is somehow dropped for private business.

So essentially it’s not an argument about cost, nor about choice, it’s purely an argument about not liking a public body.

As for the politics of fear…interesting argument. However we need only look towards America to see where we could end up if we followed your argument, and that’s not a place that we should ever be aspiring to be.

Rubbish. You comparison with Tesco’ advertising is a totally irrelevant, nonsensical yet familiar leftie riposte to criticisms of the licence fee.

True I don’t agree with a monopolistic broadcaster being a public body. Lets be honest, I believe in freedom, choice, a small State, value for money and the right of self-determination, and you are errr, a socilaist.

The argument about the politics of fear could equally be applied to those who wish to abolish the license fee – they (ie chavscum & co) are afraid that the reports they are currently being fed are biased and a misrepresentation of the true state of affairs.

It is impossible to satisfy everyone by transforming the media into a monolithic beast by forcing them all into being supported by a single business model based on one sort of funding stream or another: I am unhappy about the content provided by ITV and all commercial channels even though I have no choice but to pay for them through product surcharges resulting from advertising, just as I am unhappy about the content provided by the BBC which I am forced to pay for if I ever wish to watch TV. I would also be unhappy about the lack of variety in my media consumption if I was to be restricted to subscription packages (which I would also be paying for when I’m not watching) or if I only read voluntarily produced websites.

Your media is like your diet; just like unless you consume the full variety of carbohydrate, protein, fat, vitamins and fibre you will not have the intake to remain healthy; if you only consume one type of media you will not be able to form a properly balanced view.

So if you want a healthy media diet you must accept that each funding method has equal validity in contributing to the overall mix, that the public must choose between the methods by which we pay for the products on the market and that producers must seek ways to compete for market share according to the income which they are capable of deriving.

I happen to agree that parliament has a role in deciding whether the license fee would be better shared out between different channels (IMO the C4 trust deserves some support from the public purse) just as the Treasury income collected from taxes on advertising revenue, licenses and other assorted levies may be better redistributed to fund improvements in our public service broadcasting many people desire and perhaps ought to rise as a proportion to do so.

The herd mentality which makes people attack the BBC is an easily created campaigning bandwagon because it is (or is supposed to be) the most visibly accountable organisation (as a consequence of the direct funding mechanism and the corresponding level political control exerted over it for this type of funding to remain legitimate).

People complain about the license fee in order to line up an attack on the government of the day while the government of the day responds by critisising particular BBC decisions in order to preemptively defend themselves by putting distance between them and the corporation.

The BBC is easily turned into a political football BECAUSE of the directness of the funding mechanism – it requires a little more dexterity to attack the negative effects of indirect funding of commercial (unhealthy or anti-social advertising eg tobacco and alcohol) or subscription media companies (ie ‘immoral’ and illegal content) through Ofcom.

This is all just politics as usual!

“Rubbish. You comparison with Tesco’ advertising is a totally irrelevant, nonsensical yet familiar leftie riposte to criticisms of the licence fee.”

Well, it’s not, but if your best argument is to simply put aside such points as “leftie” because that’s the only answer you have left then fair enough.

“Lets be honest, I believe in freedom, choice, a small State, value for money and the right of self-determination, and you are errr, a socilaist.”

I’m not really socialist as such, but at least I recognise that in “choice” there are also things we have no choice about. You may overlook them because they are detrimental to your argument when you apply such thinking to one area and not to another, but I won’t.

I’ll also repeat, my license fee would pay about two days wages for the lowest paid member of staff on my favourite show. Seeming I watch more than one show on the BBC a year, I’m getting my value for money. Cheers.

“Rubbish. You comparison with Tesco’ advertising is a totally irrelevant, nonsensical yet familiar leftie riposte to criticisms of the licence fee.”

Oh dear, oh dear, the troll can’t deal with the argument so has thrown a hissy fit. The only reason you think it is irrelevant is because it does not compute with your talking points that you get from right wing central.

Those on the Right always want to single out any tax that they have no choice in paying. Well, the same applies to the corporate world as well. It is full of ‘Free market taxes’ that people can’t avoid.

I will give you another example.

When you sell your house, and you pay your estate agent you are paying a percentage for all the people that put their houses on the market with that agent, but did not sell their house. You are subsidising the people who could not ,or would not move.

@ Lee

I am an ex-pat living in Canada, now I read the BBC website a lot, why am I subject to all the adverts now displayed all over the site? If I want to go to Monster.com to look for a job I will do so at my own volition.

Wherever you are in the world you are subject to commercial advertising on the BBC other than in the UK. So the BBC is being funded, in part, by advertising.

I may add that BBC America/Canada is also full of adverts. If this works so successfully in North America where people don’t pay the license fee – why not in the UK?

BBC World service is paid for by the Foreign office.

I think where people have a real problem with the fee is, basically, the cost – the fact that you have to pay it if you have a PC that can view “TV”, the inefficiency, the programming their money is used for [Eastenders for one], that today there is technology where you still have to pay the fee even though you don’t watch the BBC, and the fact it is a criminal offence if you don’t pay it.

Sally, in the private sector there is a multitude of providers, and if for whatever reason one doesn’t like a particular provider one can shop elsewhere. There is no such choice in relation to taxes. And this is regardless of whether or not you stretch the meaning of ‘subsidy’ to absurdity.

Will,
the home service is to provide people in the home nations (not just the home counties) with coverage which is not subject to commercial interference. You don’t pay the license fee because you don’t live within the jurisdiction, therefore it is your choice to avail yourself of it. BBC World Service is designed for you.

The problem you describe arises because the corporation products which benefit from overlapping coverage cannot be separated. However I don’t see that British license fee payers should subsidise viewers of foreign services which any services whether they are available to people in Britain or not, nor do I think that the British diplomatic service is influential enough to force all potential users of it’s services to pay a legally enforceable license fee.

So the inference from your complaint is that either the BBC should drop it’s public service remit and be privatised or that the Empire should be reformed.

I for one would be very unhappy with the consequences of either of those choices.

Oranjepan

So the inference from your complaint is that either the BBC should drop it’s public service remit and be privatised or that the Empire should be reformed.

You saw a complaint and inference of renewed empire in my post?

I didn’t see that one coming – but, if I could explain? I was simply stating facts and that if the BBC can advertise in such a way – the argument that the BBC cannot advertise at home is not really an argument at all.

You see I like the BBC – I don’t like the drift to the right or any bias shown – I do believe the BBC, especially as it is publicly funded, should be all over whichever government re: Civil/human rights if that government isn’t doing its job in protecting them.

The BBC seems to have become a political football once more. As such, to preserve its funding, it will sway toward the probable government to be elected.

I do apologise if you see me as an imperialist – I can assure you I am not.

Will,
I find it odd that you say in one breath that the Beeb shouldn’t show any bias and in the next that it should show anti-government bias when it comes to the issues you feel strongly about.

This is the problem with striking a balance, it is a very subjective matter.

Please can you clarify this line:
“The BBC seems to have become a political football once more. As such, to preserve its funding, it will sway toward the probable government to be elected”

I didn’t realise the corporation is elected!

I didn’t realise the corporation is elected!

Neither did I – that’s why I put the word ‘Government’ there.