According to reports in the Sunday Times the BBC is to lose about 18% of its income because it is to be required to fund the free television licence for the over 75s.
Four thoughts follow. The first is that it is worrying that the report was made via the Murdoch press, who have campaigned for this.
Second, it is of concern that the cost of social policy should be born by the BBC when the decision was not theirs.
Third, that this is justified by the neoliberal dogma of 'crowding out' is absurd: the current news privately owned news media is more than capable of sustaining itself but if ever it was not then the need for the BBC would be greater, and not less.
But last, what is worrying is the break down of the appropriate barriers between the BBC and government that now implies the BBC is just an arm of the state. It cannot and should not ever be seen as such if it is to retain its credibility as the foundation of the free press not just in the UK but around the world.
This last point apparently now counts for nothing, and it's this lack of regard for the real value that the fourth estate can bring to debate that worries me most.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Given the hints of things to come from George Osborne the actions against the BBC represent a prerequisite action. A supine, cowering, timid public service broadcaster is vital to government strategy. It is not partisan, leftist propaganda they fear but independent, balanced reportage based on empirical evidence. Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair tried dumping Director Generals to reduce opposition, this new approach is more ambitious and devious. It is a spiteful action unworthy of any government that calls itself democratic.
Writing as someone fast approaching mid- seventies, I havent had a telly for around 40 years. Frankly I dont miss it.I can tell what was being watched the previous night by the level of agreement shown amongst those watching. Looks to me like brain washing on a not so subtle level. I have no intention of letting my independence of thought be corrupted by force feeding from a propoganda machine. Seem to remember an American journalist(about the time of the Mcarthy witch-hunts) Saying that T.V. was far to important to waste on ‘soap opera’ and he has been proved right. Switch it of, get a life!
I have some considerable sympathy with that – but I sue the off button, a lot
And I sue the radio much more
I have been T.Vless for about two years now. I was progressively shocked by the the dumbed-down nature of the BBC news and lack of depth in interviews (Paxman/Flanders/even Mason while at BBC). It was ceasing to have a truly education function. RT and Al Jazeera have their agendas, of course, but probably the best we have so far. Non-state or corporate funded news channels like ‘Real News’ maybe better alternatives as they are outside power loops.
The day will come when social media is controlled, I am sure
If the BBC wants to reclaim some high ground it should reorganise so that it is formally accountable to the licence payer. Since its formation every member of the Board of Governors or Trustees has been government appointed. No board members have ever been elected directly by those who pay for it, and until recent technology the licence has for functional purposes been compulsory. It has been a form of taxation without representation.
And an Oxford Cambridge cabal throughout. Also paying princely sums to sports pundits at the same time as losing much sport is questionable. Sleepless night, a cuppa, and BBC world news, love it,but yet another quiz show no thanks. Do need a little relaxing trashy show at times but it is heavy on the dumbed down now.
Sylvia, it’s not the fault of the Beeb that it’s lost a lot of sports coverage; if the Beeb was supported by our politicians instead of being attacked by them, and if we had politicians who who actually cared about national institutions instead of blindly worshipping the ‘market’, the BBC would still retain a lot of sports coverage. Freezing the licence fee, and now forcing what is effectively a massive cut on the BBC is how you end up with dumbed down cheap rubbish.
And if, by an Oxford/Cambridge cabal you mean the Beeb had had a lot of very well educated people producing it’s programs, what’s wrong with that?
The BBC has no mandate to make dumbed down trashy shows: commercial TV can do that. Quite why the taxpayer should pay money for a programme such as “The Voice” or “Sun, Sex and Suspicious Parents” is not clear to me.
Make it a public service broadcaster again making programmes of note. Let BBC3 and 4 show the back catalogue, and not rubbish like repeats of quiz shows but things like Civilisation and The Shock of the New. It shouldn’t be about left or right but about giving knowledgeable people the time and space to make intelligent programmes: who could imagine John Berger being given licence to make Ways of Seeing now? Things don’t need to be big budget but they do need the courage to be willing to stand apart from the current trend of dumbing down everything and assuming that viewers of documentaries need to be reminded every ten minutes of what the documentary is about.
Viewing the post election landscape, it is clear we’re witnessing a very conservative coup d’etat, albeit under the guise of a democratic mandate.
The boundaries are to be reformed to the Tories liking; any dissenting opinion is crushed, be it from charitable organisations or from an impartial observer like the BBC (which is to be emasculated); the tax system is skewed to favour those groups who vote and vote Tory solidly, be they asset rich pensioners or landowners.
Following May’s result, in the absence of crisis it is likely we’ll not see another Labour government for a generation at least – and yes, it really is that bad. In a big part that is Labour’s own fault, the naivite of the Blair administration in not reforming institutions is exposed as the Tories skew them all for their own benefit but also putting forward two very poor leaders at the last two elections (and likely a third if any of the current contenders win) has fatally undermined its electoral credibility.
It doesn’t help that Europe is self flagellating itself into disastrous failure with its posturing over Greece. Viewed from these shores, with Osborne’s mismanagement buffeted by at least having our own currency, why wouldn’t you stick with what we’ve got?
I’m struggling to see now how progressive politics and an economic strategy re-adjusted to serve everyone (and especially those less well off) will ever gain a foothold in the UK? Depressing.
I assure you your assumption of an absence of crisis is the weakness in your argument
Osborne can only deliver with a massive increase in private debt
That will deliver a crisis, I am afraid to say
I agree with you that the imbalances in the economy will eventually precipitate some sort of fallout.
I think I’d rather Labour won in the battle of ideas (and there Labour is getting trounced by the arsenal available to those wedded to bad ideas) rather than waiting for a crisis to bring down the government.
Agreed
perhaps a sweeping generalisation sorry, of course a well educated workforce to manage big BBC projects needed, just an observation on my part that many entertainers and newsreaders come from said universities, not envy on my part, just like to hear it for Manchester and Leeds.
Osborne at his politically nastiest; simultaneously crippling the BBC and cutting government expenditure, whilst pandering to the pensioner voters (and I’m one) by keeping their free licences. And then when the BBC do have to cut services as they’ll have to, the Tories will redouble their attacks on the BBC
As noted, deeply undemocratic. Makes the days when Campbell and Blair were bullying the BBC seem almost halcyon