The BBC Is Screwed

[Bob The Skutter]

The government have been making noises about major cuts to the BBC, this hasn't materialised but instead what has happened is the licence fee has been frozen at current levels while the BBC are expected to fund more and more out of it.
Including funding S4C in Wales and the World Service, as well as providing investment in high speed broadband and Local TV and news services.

From The Guardian

The BBC licence fee is to be frozen at the current level of £145.50 for the next six years, a 16% cut in real terms, after the corporation today concluded a bruising round of funding negotiations with the coalition government.

BBC executives have staved off the threat of being forced to take on the £556m a year funding of free TV licences for the over 75s, but at a heavy price.

Among the extra commitments the BBC has signed up to are to fund the World Service and Welsh language broadcaster S4C out of the licence fee from 2015. The BBC is also understood to have agreed to take over funding of BBC Monitoring.

In addition it will provide £150m a year for the roll out of superfast broadband to rural areas from 2013 and £25m a year for local TV and online content. A further one off capital investment in local TV and online services of £25m will also come from the licence fee and the BBC will also underwrite the roll out of the digital radio network nationally.

In total, the BBC has committed to spend an extra £340m of licence fee money to fund all these undertakings from the licence fee by 2014-15. Government expenditure from central taxation will fall be an equivalent amount.

The World Service's annual budget is £272m, S4C's £102m, and BBC Monitoring £25m, although all are expected to be cut as part of the government's comprehensive spending review, to be unveiled tomorrow.

A government source said: "This is a good deal for licence fee payers."

"This deal gives the BBC long term security," said another source with knowledge of the deal. "The BBC are very happy with it."

So when the quality of the output falls due to this they will have another stick with which to beat the BBC.

 

[cultcross]

Exactly. They slap a nearly 20% cut on the corporation and will use the inevitable drop in output to call the BBC 'worthless' in 4 years time.

Pandering to Murdoch. Disgusting.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Exactly. They slap a nearly 20% cut on the corporation and will use the inevitable drop in output to call the BBC 'worthless' in 4 years time.

Pandering to Murdoch. Disgusting.

I don't see why the BBC is coming under the spending review at all. The money doesn't come out of general taxation so it has fuck all to do with reining in money and cutting the deficit, it's just ideological and point scoring with the Murdochs. This government piss me off more and more every day.

 

[danellis]

The government has committed to reducing its footprint. Maybe that is an idealogical and irresponsible decision, maybe it's a practical and necessary reponse to years of overspending by previous administrations.

Either way, it would be unrealistic (at best) to expect them to exclude *any* body whose spending is under their purview to any degree.

dJE

 

[Deckerd]

The government is punishing the BBC for a) being so pro-Labour when they were in opposition; b) being so pinko all the time c) bias d) huge fees for talentless oiks and e) a lack of political objectivity. Did I miss anything?

 

[Bob The Skutter]

The government has committed to reducing its footprint. Maybe that is an idealogical and irresponsible decision, maybe it's a practical and necessary reponse to years of overspending by previous administrations.

Either way, it would be unrealistic (at best) to expect them to exclude *any* body whose spending is under their purview to any degree.

dJE

The BBC isn't funded by general taxation though, the money isn't the governments to do with as it will. The costs they've foisted on to the BBC are a way of cutting from general taxation while getting the BBC to cover it and keep the services.

The government is punishing the BBC for a) being so pro-Labour when they were in opposition; b) being so pinko all the time c) bias d) huge fees for talentless oiks and e) a lack of political objectivity. Did I miss anything?

I'm not sure I agree with most of your points. Yes there is a bias to the left to a certain extent but in no way as much as you're suggesting.
As for huge fees for the talentless a great deal of the BBCs pay is under what the private companies pay. You could argue they shouldn't compete, and should just nurture new talent but you'd just get people moaning about losing their favourite host to another station, especially if it was to Sky.

 

[Deckerd]

Four of my points were identical Bob. FWIW calling the Beeb biased when the alternative is Murdoch is like calling a frog a brontosaurus.

Also, I don't think it will last 4 years before they relent. Time will tell.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Four of my points were identical Bob. FWIW calling the Beeb biased when the alternative is Murdoch is like calling a frog a brontosaurus.

Not really, to be picky being pro-labour and pinko and lacking political objectivity aren't exactly the same thing. Labour are fairly centre nowadays, lacking objectivity doesn't necessarily mean siding one way or the other there are many political points of view etc.

I also think budget lost at the BBC means less jobs in-house, in the media and in independent production companies, at a time with so many job cuts is bad too. I think all the cutting the con-dems are doing we're likely going to go in to another recession and be fucked from both ends.

 

[Captaindemotion]

I don't know if it's correct to call the Beeb pro-Labour, given the whole David Kelly broo-ha-ha. I think the problem is that the BBC now runs scared of whoever's in power. Look at Andrew Marr's craven interview with Cameron the week before the general election or Nick 'Smug Tory Twat' Robinson.

I loathe Murdock and all he stands for but frankly I think the adoration of the BBC is over-the-top too. The enemy of my enemy is not automatically my friend. And while the BBC is largely licence-funded, it does receive some tax-derived support too, as I undertstand. If these cuts mean sacking some highly paid wankers like Chris Moyles, no complaints from me.

 

[Deckerd]

being pro-labour and pinko and lacking political objectivity aren't exactly the same thing.

Oh they are if it's a conservative politician talking about the BBC.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I don't know if it's correct to call the Beeb pro-Labour, given the whole David Kelly broo-ha-ha. I think the problem is that the BBC now runs scared of whoever's in power. Look at Andrew Marr's craven interview with Cameron the week before the general election or Nick 'Smug Tory Twat' Robinson.

I loathe Murdock and all he stands for but frankly I think the adoration of the BBC is over-the-top too. The enemy of my enemy is not automatically my friend. And while the BBC is largely licence-funded, it does receive some tax-derived support too, as I undertstand. If these cuts mean sacking some highly paid wankers like Chris Moyles, no complaints from me.

Services which was tax funded are BBC Monitoring and BBC World Service, both of which are foreign office services, though they will now be licence fee funded.

Chris Moyles may have made his own sacking inevitable with his on air rant about his pay, anyway. To be honest, though I don't like him, he is popular and I don't begrudge the BBC going with popular from time to time to prove their worth in audience figures.

 

[captcalhoun]

it won't last the whole six years. cuz the ConDems'll be out before 2015 because there's gonna be a fucking uprising when the cuts bite and everyone's out of work and got no benefits and the Tory bastards just get richer and the poor and middle class get poorer.

They're doomed!!

 

[Deckerd]

It'll be interesting to see how long their nerve holds on the 'spending review' before they give in and start backing down*. The electorate aren't very bright as an entity but quite soon an awful lot of them are going to wake up.

*a la Inland revenue doing a complete U-turn earlier this year

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^Settlements last 6 years though.

 

[Holdfast]

... calling the Beeb biased when the alternative is Murdoch is like calling a frog a brontosaurus.

Sure, of course Murdoch's media is biased... but he runs a private company that has no obligation to be non-partisan (apart from the Sky News broadcast division). The BBC should IMO be held to a higher standard of political neutrality precisely because it is not a private organisation.

Anyway, leaving that aside I can't think of a single reason we need BBC Worldwide to be funded by the FCO outside of the licence fee arrangements. This isn't the Cold War where there's a large scale propaganda component to think about (and besides, incipient Muslim terrorists aren't going to be positively influenced by an extra episode of EastEnders), and the days of Empire and a pretence at a coherent Commonwealth requiring a dedicated media channel, are long gone. There's no lack of English language worldwide media anymore either.

More fundamentally, if you take the position that the state shouldn't do what the private sector can do as effectively instead (which is the test being applied by the coalition to every item of government spending across public sector expenditure), there's no real need for state involvement in broadcasting at all in this day and age. The BBC is thus a luxury item and can consider itself jolly lucky it's being allowed to keep a licence fee at all, which is probably why they're being forced to say they're "happy" to sign up to this deal.

One can have an ideological argument about whether the test ("does the state absolutely have to do this item of spending?") being applied is one you would choose according to your political beliefs, but given that it is the test being used, the BBC have actually been far more shielded from the consequences than most governments departments. Personally, I think it's absolutely the right test to apply, given my own political bias.

On another tangentially related note, I will do my best to plough back the extra few quid a year I'll save by not paying for licence fee increases, back in to stimulate the economy in the form of an extra latte or brownie or two.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Tax doesn't pay for BBC Worldwide, Worldwide is a commercial operation. Tax pays for World Service and Monitoring. Which serve a foreign policy role, obviously. Perhaps they could roll them in to Worldwide and make them commercial...

I don't really agree with you on the state not doing what the private sector can, because I don't believe the market is always the best thing to leave decisions to. It may provide "adequate" services but they tend to be lowest common denominator unless you can afford luxury or you have a big enough pool of people to make it profitable to make quality for a small percentage of them. We don't really have that here when it comes to TV production.

 

[Pingfah]

There's going to be a massive surplus of potential traffic wardens if the TVLA goes out of business

 

[Captain Shaw]

it won't last the whole six years. cuz the ConDems'll be out before 2015 because there's gonna be a fucking uprising when the cuts bite and everyone's out of work and got no benefits and the Tory bastards just get richer and the poor and middle class get poorer.

They're doomed!!

I can't see Labour getting in again in 2015, As a minimum wage worker who's waiting for a council house I'm so fucked.
Wish I had took out a big bank loan when the good times where here, and had some fun before going bankrupt.

 

[cultcross]

More fundamentally, if you take the position that the state shouldn't do what the private sector can do as effectively instead (which is the test being applied by the coalition to every item of government spending across public sector expenditure),

I do not subscribe to that notion, and I think it is a potentially dangerous one in a number of areas. Broadcast, especially in news, is one such area. You said yourself in the preceding paragraph that the private news agencies are under no obligation to be impartial or factual. This is not a situation that should be encouraged - the result is the US news media. The BBC is the only thing that grounds our media in decent journalistic standards, imho. Competing with a public institution does the commercial broadcasters good in terms of accountability and responsibility for their content.

 

[Holdfast]

Tax doesn't pay for BBC Worldwide, Worldwide is a commercial operation. Tax pays for World Service and Monitoring. Which serve a foreign policy role, obviously. Perhaps they could roll them in to Worldwide and make them commercial...

I meant World Service when I typed Worldwide. Sorry for the confusion; typed too quickly. I don't agree that the World Service's foreign policy role is anywhere nearly as important as it used to be, for the reasons I mentioned above, so doesn't need to be funded separately any more.

Spinning off the World Service/Monitoring into Worldwide would be a sensible solution, I agree.

We don't really have that here when it comes to TV production.

It can very plausibly be suggested that while one has a large state sector in any industry, that in itself makes it hard for private sector competition to develop. The BBC is a media leviathan. Perhaps if it is forced to survive on rather less taxpayer oxygen than it currently does, alternatives may begin to develop?

No guarantees, of course, but I'd go back to the fundamental point that this is about media entertainment. Entertainment isn't a core item that the state has to provide otherwise it won't be done, which is how I tend to view government's ideal role in running a country. That core stuff would be things like legislating, policing, the criminal justice system, national defence, basic benefits for the truly needy, some aspects of transport like road-building, some other basic infrastructure reserved areas, etc, etc. News and entertainment? Definitely non-core IMO so shouldn't be something the state needs to spend money on, beyond providing a broad legislative and regulatory framework for its delivery.

As a halfway house, they should at least give people an option. I presume some license fee money goes towards other transmitter maintenance for all channels and I know some licence fee money goes towards C4 (and C5?). Fine I'll pay the £25 (or whatever low sum) per year for that infrastucture stuff, and be locked out of the BBC channels and the UK-specific parts of the website in return. Give me that option and I'd quibble far less about the licensing arrangements.

Broadcast, especially in news, is one such area. You said yourself in the preceding paragraph that the private news agencies are under no obligation to be impartial or factual.

All broadcast news, whether state or private, is under the same regulatory framework re: impartiality. That's why I exempted Sky News from the rest of the Murdoch empire in my previous post. Sky News is bound by those rules, just like the BBC. And that regulatory framework can still be there regardless of whether the BBC exists or not.

Besides, there's no such thing as an impartial channel, regardless of whether the regulation exists or not. All media is biased. We automatically know the Mirror is left-wing and the Sun is right-wing, or the Guardian is lefty and the Mail right, and adjust our interpretation of their reporting accordingly. In fact, many already do exactly that with the BBC and Sky. The BBC tends to have a pink tinge; Sky an azure hue.

If people manage it already with newspapers, why can't they do it with TV? It's not really any different, and at least there won't be this hiding behind the hopeless impartiality rules that goes on at the moment. Besides, the state is no safeguard of impartiality anyway, since the state can be influenced by political pressure as well. It's not some independent entity somehow impervious to political bias.