The BBC has always been a part of my life. That, of course, will be the case for just about every person in the UK now alive. For many of us BBC radio and television has simply been part of our lived experience. As such it is the backdrop to who we are. In very many ways it will define into what generation, or even sub-generation, we fit. You can pretty much age decades of people on the basis of who were the Blue Peter presenters when they were young. If you are my age you could do the same for Radio 1 DJ's, who presented Top of the Pops and if you can recall recounting Monty Python stories when series were not available on catch-up.
It is, therefore, a shock to realise that the Conservatives really are intent on destroying the BBC. That is most especially the case when the government itself recognises the importance of the institution. It noted in its Integrated Review published in July 2021 that the UK is:
A soft power superpower: 3rd ranked soft power in the world; The BBC is the most trusted broadcaster worldwide, reaching 468m people every week, in 42 languages; The British Council operates in over 100 countries
This rare competitive advantage is to apparently be sacrificed to save Boris Johnson. It is a bargain hardly worth thinking about.
Saying this, I am aware that not everyone is a fan of BBC News. That, most especially, includes the Conservatives, who seem to think it the national output for a woke elite. Those on the left who wish to criticise it might need to take note of that. I do. It might suggest that however bizarre the BBC's notion of balance might be, it is not the left alone who take offence.
But even without the news – and I do not use it a great deal for that – the price paid for the BBC is fair. All that is not fair is that this is a poll tax.
I agree that there is a need for the reform of BBC funding. Those on benefits should not be paying. Those over 70 should not be paying either, because it is simply too costly to differentiate those who can still afford to pay after that age, and anyway, they above all others are dependent upon the BBC for much of their contact with the world, which makes the price well worth paying.
What will never be worthwhile is the wanton destruction of this national asset, including by its enforced commercialisation and the inclusion of adverts, whose existence is in direct contravention of the need to build a sustainable, non-consumer focused society.
We need a BBC for entertainment, education, the news and to provide the soft power it delivers. Nothing else can deliver that. It needs more taxpayer funding to meet the needs of society and to be fairly funded, not less. And what we must never do is let a bunch of arrogant neoliberals destroy it, which is what they are seeking to do, all to favour the Murdoch empire to buy support for their re-election.
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:
I agree 100%
By the way, looking forward to buying your book on the creation of money when it comes out.
Thanks…..I just have to write it…..
Completely agree. There is no limit to the depths Johnson, and many conservatives, will sink. Putting the know nothing anti-BBC bigot Dorries in as Culture Secretary (!!!) last year as part of his reshuffle to pursue the tories’ anti-BBC agenda, and now throwing out this insane proposal to wreck the BBC as part of his attempt to curry favour with his backbenchers and distract attention from ‘Partygate’ is to em an act of anti British treachery akin to his failure to lockdown quickly enough in 2020 and his callous disregard for an exhausted NHS now.
Like you Richard, the BBC is part of my DNA. I grew up on it and still listen/watch it as my main source of entertainment and information. The attitudes of many right wingers to it show just what is wrong with English politics. As you say, where is the ‘conserve’ in conservative now? The self-professed pragmitism the tories say they stand for, the ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ attitude to British institutions like Parliament, the BBC, the rule of law?
I feel sick to my stomach about this. This ois a direct personal attack on me as a person; my feelings, my memories, my understanding of what, in a good sense, Britain is about. The real, sick joke here is that by their attacks on all these institutions the right are destroying the very thing they say they represent, Britain and British values.
So, just a couple of days after I sent a furious email to my local tory requesting he send a letter to the 1922 committee as Johnson is so obviously utterly unfit to be PM, I’ll be sending a follow up further condemning him for this latest disgraceful example of selfishness and irresponsibility. And pointing out that Dorries is no more fit to be Culture Secretary than Johnson is to be PM.
Thanks
I don’t wish to see the end of the BBC and agree with funding reform, but personally I gave up listening to its news and current affairs output several years ago. A lowlight was hearing Labour MP Siobhan McDonagh on the R4 Today programme denouncing anyone with criticisms of capitalism as an antisemite, with no challenge or further questioning from her interviewer Nick Robinson. As for the argument (with which I used to agree) that the BBC must be doing something right if it is criticised by both right and left, the same argument could be used to defend Nadine Dorries’ action. It is of course a kick in the teeth for the BBC to be threatened like this when it didn’t even break the stories of the government party scandals.
Never really understood why the BBC is not funded out of General Expenditure.
I know the argument runs that it needs “independent” funding…. but we know that the license is not. And, yes, its budget might get squeezed as competing priorities press for more… but that seems reasonable – why should the BBC be ring fenced when the NHS is not? (FWIT, I think both need proper funding).
When you put it like that I can change my mind about the BBC who in the past has made me very angry indeed, to the point of not really caring what happens to it.
It’s digital services are to my mind top notch really and it looks like a modern media outlet.
The BBC is caught in the middle now I think. It’s trying very hard to be all things to all people. Those who accuse it of promoting ‘woke’ – well I just do’t know what they are talking about.
And what is Johnson going to do about the Times whose journalists wrote ‘Failures of State’ about how he messed up the initial Covid response? He has more to worry about that just the BBC.
I suppose its to do with what you say – that people still trust the BBC. I don’t to be honest – I listen to what they say very carefully as they are prone to being biased and unbalanced.
My conclusion however is that it has been messed up by modern politics? That started with Thatcher and the fracas over Iraq and Blair did not help either – in fact it did huge damage.
The BBC has become a failed institution because the state it operates in has actually failed. A state that is failing to look after it’s people, it’s failing to be democratic and accountable, it’s failing to be principled.
I suppose the BBC is just a mirror of us the nation really isn’t it, divided, contradictory messy.
They’re prepared to sacrifice anything and everything to save Boris as when he goes, the entire cabinet, none of them anywhere near being realistic contenders for their positions, will go with him, probably the party too. Amidst the talk of Corbyn forming a new party it should be considered that the Tories will now need one too. In the interim, given the clear and obvious failings of Starmer and, um, whoever runs the LibDems these days, it appears Britain may well find itself having to muddle along without government for a time. As the situation grows more desperate, expect the looting a la Javid’s recent gift to the private health care sector to grow even more blatant. As Rome falls, everyone with the power to do so snatches what they can while they can. It’s an unedifying spectacle but at least it means progress is being made. In the wake of this upheaval, one hopes some new and better arrangement for our governance will arise.
Trust in the BBC evaporated during 2014 and the Scottish Independence Referendum. Read ‘London Calling’ and be amazed.
Tut Tut Richard!
“It needs more taxpayer funding”.
I wholeheartedly forgive you, because you are otherwise SO right.
Norman
The BBC, a Scottish perspective.
https://grousebeater.wordpress.com/2022/01/17/bbc-propaganda/
Pentlander, Your link appears to be damning of the BBC, and believable.
Is there an Independence policy for public broadcasting in Scotland, post a successful campaign?
How is Nicola going to counter this problem next time?
Norman
Thanks Norman. I hope you watched the whole video.
I don’t think this is a problem that NS can fix or wants to fix in my opinion.
It’s down to the new media financed by the Scots themselves.
The video you watched is part of that new media and it is developing.
The standard route for an authoritarian government is to corrupt or destroy opposition. It is worthwhile running through the traditional centres in the UK.
Local government (destroyed)
Organised labour (effectively neutered)
Civil service (politicised)
Royal Family (discredited except for Queenie)
EU (Got Brexit Done)
Religion (weak to worthless except for Islam)
Minorities (cowed)
Police (subverted)
Military (weakened)
Print media (largely controlled)
Social media (Zuckerberg, say no more)
This leaves Auntie Beeb as an important remaining target….
Alan, that is so good – please tweet it.
Just on the numbers, according to DWP statistics, in 2020 there were 22.8 million people claiming benefits in 2020 – 12.5 million people of pension age, 9.5 million of working age, and some children receiving disability benefits. That includes some 5 million households receive Universal Credit.
The BBC say that about 25.5 million out of 27 million households (about 95%) have a licence. How many would be left, after exempting every person on benefits, and every person over 70? Perhaps a half to two thirds? If we go that way, might it be better to fund the state broadcaster out of general taxation?
A mix seems possible and fair…..
I’ll try to keep it short but let’s see.
As the Groaniad had it yesterday:
“It’s over for the BBC as they know it.”
‘The source added that “the days of state-run TV are over” and praised the growth of US-run private sector companies such as Netflix and YouTube.
Although the BBC will continue to receive £3.2bn a year in licence fee income, the costs of making its programmes are increasing rapidly due to rising inflation and competition from the likes of Netflix. ‘
————-
About time we got rid of the privately collected Licence fee to be propagandised to even if we don’t watch the news & entertainment that it supposedly funds.
That pretty much leaves live sport as the only real purpose it can deliver.
(That too was being subverted at the Euros last year by the Ukraine supporting nonsense if anyone recalls).
It is ALREADY commercial well over a £billion in BBC world revenues!
It has decades of back programs and other physical assets which are ripe for exploitation.
It has not been independent and largely delivers government and Atlantic Council Narratives straight into the minds of captive watchers. Look at the ticket at the bottom in pubs and non-stop into many who are house/bed bound. Look at its election coverage and supporting the government’s Covid genocide.
The British Council being a fully funded Government cultural propaganda setup and long time cover for espionage agents will not be losing much of the soft power BBC World provides.
Whatever actual professional independent journalism there used to be, had retreated into the World Service, through Thatcher/Major/Blair years; that too was hollowed out some years ago too to keep the Narratives consistent from Western Media.
Al Jazerra English is where many ended up I believe (but that too has diminished since due to the geopolitics of the MENA.
A free to air, tv broadcaster, does have a vital function. So that peoples who can’t afford endless subscription channels or want to watch and listen to sports & cultural events can have it available. All the pitches and players are covered in sponsorship- there is no missing advertising now. The BBC is no maiden aunt who requires all such naughty messaging to be removed before broadcasting it! Like it once used to insist on.
That vital function is done by the commercial free to air broadcasters like ITV and Channel 4 do.
Cricket for example on C4 allowed many children to get into and follow the game – something that again disappeared behind a paywall – it leads to a reduction of kids who partake in it because it isn’t something that’s ‘on the telly’ – they won’t try and emulate it in the streets and parks (if there are any left where they could).
That speaks directly to the current state of English cricket.
But then why ask for a licence fee for the BBC when other free to air channels are the ones supplying the service and content?
It is not only illogical it’s unfair. Even if you don’t consume a minute of the BBC you still have to pay them a regressive poll tax!
I expect that publicly directly funded or not – the Soft Power and news and cultural propaganda is never going to dematerialise like a Tardis.
What this is about is the same old (now) shit show of ‘privatisation’ – these physical and content Assets – who is going to get ownership of these? And benefits from it?
How much does a commercial free to air broadcaster actual cost? I’m sure it’s a lot lot less then £5 billion!
I think that’s long enough. Sorry.
Sorry, but fir once I do not agree with most of that
A lot of it is lacking any objectivity at all
You clearly have little awareness of BBC output for a start
The suggestion that the only value added is in sport is nonsense
I am now even wondering why I am allowing this….
“I am now even wondering why I am allowing this….”
And you talk about dictatorial government!! A certain irony I think
For heaven’s sake – have you not heard of editorial freedom? Politely, grow up
Again, funding something like the BBC can be done without the license fee bollocks which I have never understood.
The Tories have as per usual created an artificial argument. When they let the market lose on ITV they ended up regretting it if I recall. So if that is the case – what’s their answer? Oh – no – Murdoch? Really?
If a society decides that paying for good, ethically and publicly accountable media is a good thing, then – like the NHS and social security, education, housing, etc.,for God’s sake print the bloody money and be done with it.
Might this be an instance of government by diktat?
Might this take us further along the way to fascism?
Might this be an instance of government by diktat?
How well does this fit with Parliamentary government and/or democracy?
Interesting to note that a full price Netflex subscription is £13.99 a month, which is about the same annual cost as a TV license. Also, that VAT is now collected by HMRC on such subscriptions, but not a TV license.
The problem with the BBC from my point of view is the news and current affairs programmes are simply there to propagandise on behalf of the English establishment. If other areas of BBC output require to be utilised to shore up this establishment, they will be. This news/current affairs/politics part of the BBC simply cannot be trusted. I consider everything they say with suspicion.
BBC Scotland seems to exist in totality to denigrate and belittle Scotland. Reporting Scotland is like the news arm of an invading country. Radio Scotland news /current affairs/politics is the same. “Too wee. Too poor. Too stupid” is their mantra for Scotland.
The BBC is an organisation with broader scope than simply the news/current affairs/politics though. It does produce a few decent programmes. There’s not much though. Why doesn’t it have more channels? A sports channel showing live sports worth watching. A nature channel. An arts channel. A film channel. The radio channels are decent.
I understand the argument that in losing a public service broadcaster you lose more than can be replaced by simply paying for subscription private providers, like Sky, Netflix and Disney. However the BBC has been doing a pretty good job of making itself the last resort to turn to, for anything, serious or entertaining.
Rishi Sunak has apparently written off £4.3 billion in covid loans. The BBC licence fee (I think) takes in £3.3 billion. Who knows where the £37 billion for test and trace disappeared to. If the government is not revenue constrained, and the BBC is worth saving, then why can’t it be funded by a mixture of a progressive tax and a government grant of newly created money?
I used to like the BBC but now it just infuriates me. I try to engage with it as little as possible. I don’t think I’m missing much.
I think the output of all organisations has always to be questioned
There are excellent journalists at the BBC and poor ones
The same is true of many newspapers – even right-wing ones on occasion
Human beings write the news – this is the inevitable outcome
So choose your news elsewhere. The rest of the BBC is still worth saving and without fear of fascism it could be tr5ansfoirmed
I think News Night is one of the last bastions of good journalism to be honest.
Let’s not forget that it was the on the BBC when there was a previous Tory fracas about playing the national anthem – it played the Sex Pistols ‘God Save the Queen’ at the end of the programme once. It did that because it was thinking what many of us were thinking – therefore our media was truly representative at the time.
And ‘Have I got News for You’ maintains that Hogarthian contempt for power imbued with self importance. Ditto above.
Also – for those here crowing about the cost of the BBC and those on low incomes?
Well, it sounds a bit like those who crow about inflation being unfair on the poor and then inflate interest rates to me.
It’s very simple: if people can’t afford stuff, make benefits more generous and increase and uphold the minimum wage to a living wage.
The growth of the working poor is the most shocking thing in this country believe you me – not how the BBC is funded.
The guy who delivers food for the ‘Just eat’ home delivery cartel and can’t earn enough money to eat himself needs a higher wage and better conditions – not just a free at the point of use BBC which any Government that printed its own money could do.
BBC Radio – which I have lived with all my life – is mixture of superb to appalling. And for TV and radio I’ve noted that higher quality content tends to happen in the later hours which infuriates me some what.
There seem to be a good many commentators who think the BBC is cracking value at twice the price. Under a classical liberal system you can all pay double or treble even voluntarily.
It still wouldn’t be accountable to the people who pay for it though. That would only happen when the Board of Trustees is elected by the licence fee payer, and government appointment is canned along with government setting the scope and size of any compulsory licence fee itself. Let a Board elected by the people paying decide these things.
Sorry – bit proportionately makes that a wholly untenable idea
Parliamentary scrutiny should be enough
Your clearly a fan of State controlled media then. Or at least you prefer political control over control by the subscriber, licence payer, citizen or any other model of control.
All media is state-controlled to some degree
The BBC is state funded
I do not think it any more state-controlled than our courts are
Here’s a plan.
Separate the News and Politics Section of the BBC from the Quality Viewing Section.
Make both a consensual subscription service, with matching state funding.
See which one survives.
My money would be on the Quality Viewing Section.
The historical facts are the Political Section has always been, is, and will always be a grooming device that serves the interests of the Ruling Class, it has never served the interests of the population, not once.
Which, in a Democracy, is profoundly anti-democratic.
The Jimmy Savile and Iraq War Coverage ought to have clarified that, as extreme examples.
Go back to the origins, the General Strike of ’26, no press media, only the BBC Radio – tasked with making it look like a balanced discussion was being fairly hosted. It wasn’t. Nothing has changed,.
People have an internalised emotional attachment which is the hook the cult exploits.
I totally understand the power of that hook.
Hence the suggestion of the split, and let’s see which thrives, which falls.
Why a subscription?
Why a subscription?
Well a ‘licence’ is pretty much a subscription. Without the subscription or the licence, one cannot access the main TV broadcast content – radio is free..
What would make it public broadcast is the matched funding from the State’s coffers.
There could be discounts for low income/no income rates… (I remember UB40 lower priced tickets to almost every public facility in the 80s)
What would maintain genuine independence is freedom from advertising and legislation institutionalising honesty and probity.
And then the population would decide whether or not either sector deserved support.
After moving back to Canada some years ago, the one thing I really missed (apart from Marks & Spensers) was the freeview TV stations which include the BBC. A lot of BBC programming is very good and reasonably priced and without ads every two minutes. CBC tv is a very poor relation. Crappy programming with massive advertising and poor delivery – you have to buy it in on cable or satellite which is expensive – once it went digital we lost our transitter in Caledonia and the Halifax transmitter doesn’t reach us hence cable/satellite. CBC funding has been squeezed by the Canadian govt for years and universal subscription isn’t acceptable here. Programming other than CBC tv is even worse. Apart from the BBC news which totally disgusted me over the Scottish referndum, much of the rest of the BBC is very much worth keeping, netflix and whatever are no replacement. So please be careful what you wish for.
CBC radio is a completely different animal and is good informative company.
Well, whatever happens, lets hope the Beeb can get out the last installment of ‘Wolf Hall’ before money gets too scare!
The single reason for changing the BBC is to remove something the Government does not like. The same with the attempts to privatise Channel 4. Imagine if the BBC were sold. Who would buy. A right of centre grouping who would pick up a very large worldwide audience and an instant boost to the ability to promote their views. The funding for the purchase would be opaque to say the least. The Government’s attack on the BBC has nothing to do with programming quality, the iniquity of the licence fee or the need to create competition so that the BBC can compete with the likes of Netflix, Amazon or Apple. It has everything to do with Politics and the need to control media. No one will agree all the time with its output. No one ever could whatever the organisation. What is needed is someway to protect impartiality.
I find it incredible that so many Tories seem to believe that the BBC is biased against them. Really?!
During the critical period 2017-2019, when Labour under Corbyn had begun to be regarded as a serious threat to the establishment, the anti-Labour bias of the BBC’s news and politics output was blatant, not to say shameless.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1206992886841192451.html
I had been putting together a list of further examples, but this morning I find that the admirable folk at Media Lens have saved me the effort:
https://www.medialens.org/2022/save-the-bbc-in-whose-interests/
So, is the BBC worth saving? I think so. For decades the output of many BBC departments has been world-class. Am I willing to pay a licence fee? On balance, yes.
Just don’t expect me to place unquestioning faith in the truth and integrity of the BBC’s news, current affairs and politics output.
I have long disliked the BBC news, which has seemed to me, too, to be biased. I have been kidding myself that Ch4 news is less so – but now I wonder if I should doubt that too.
Where to go?
Is medialens guilty at all of its own criticisms?
Norman
Watch Ros Atkins at 7pm on the BBC News Channel instead
I do quite often now
The 9pm slot is often also very good as well
John Pilger put it succinctly:
‘The BBC has the most brilliant production values, it produces the most extraordinary natural history and drama series. But the BBC is, and has long been, the most refined propaganda service in the world.’
I, for one, cannot forgive the BBC for that crime, not when it – The British Security State – has caused and continues to cause so much harm nor can I or would I cite the quality programming as a defence of that criminality.
That would be akin to citing Hitler’s train time table efficiency and his road building program as a defence of his whole record.
That grooming operation that is central to the BCC and it’s historical rooted origin protects the most egregious state crimes from honesty and accountability.
We must grow up, mature enough to not be taken in by clever seductions of any kind – climate change, pollution, poverty and war fare are the outcome of our previous failures to break the spells of the Wealth Extractor’s Externalised Costs dynamic.
John Pilger long ago lost touch with reality
Sorry – but please try living in the real world in which you are not going to see power if you spout nonsense since people will see through it
Try presenting plausible arguments for achieving real change rather than this sort of stuff, with which I have been bored now for more than forty years – without ever losing my desire for real change