British Goverment to Reshape BBC Governance 587
AtariAmarok writes "The British government recently announced plans to reshape how the BBC is governed.. The changes are said to scrap the system that has been in place for 77 years. Some are worried that the independence of the "Beeb" could be compromised, and Conservative lawmakers are worried that it does not allow for enough oversight (leaves it too independent?)."
Long time coming (Score:4, Informative)
I say cheers to the thought of an independent British Broadcasting company. I know the goverments regulation over them as been decreasing in recent years but the changes that are in the pipes have been a long time coming.
Re:Punishment ? (Score:5, Informative)
Sure, George (Score:5, Informative)
The Governors at present are appointed directly by the government -- and the last Labour and Tory administrations have made partly-political appointments; in the future, their replacements will be appointed by a more independent executive.
I'd also just like to say this : as a License Fee payer, I believe firmly that the BBC works, and having travelled a fair amount, I've never seen a media organisation produce comparable amounts of quality output.
Re:F*ck the license fee! (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/
--
Each household's colour TV licence cost £9.67 every month in 2003/2004. On average each month, this was how the BBC spent your money:
Average monthly licence fee spend
This chart shows that £9.67 was the average monthly cost of each household's licence fee in 2003/2004. It breaks it down visually into components.
* BBC One £3.37
* BBC Two £1.45
* Digital television channels £0.98
* Transmission and collection costs £0.98
* BBC Radio 1, 2, 3, 4 and Five Live £0.99
* Digital radio stations £0.08
* Nations & English Regions television £0.90
* Local radio £0.61
* bbc.co.uk £0.31
--
Also there is the BBC Imp project which will allow people in the UK (restricted by IP numbers and authorisation) to download a high percentage of BBC TV and radio in >1mmbit DRM'ed wmv for playing on your PC or laptop up to 8 days after broadcast (as allowed by copyright laws)
I had a mate on the trial and it was awesome to be able to watch Top Gear on a laptop over lunch
Re:Sure, George (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Punishment ? (Score:2, Informative)
Furthermore, all inquiries have shown this suggestion to be not true.
Crap reasoning (Score:2, Informative)
Just because the government are pissed off that it made them look worse, it was better than 99% of the other news sources, *cough*BSkyB*cough.
It's just bitterness
Anyone remember that massive page-sized advertisement the BBC took out in the newspapers with the peoples names which basically gave a finger to the government and pledge support to the high figures. Good on them.
Re:Why not totaly free? (Score:5, Informative)
As for decency standards, I really don't understand why the FCC is so tight assed, the BBC recently came under fire from Christian groups over Jerry Springer the Opera (with about 8000 fuck, shit, cunts etc and a gay Jesus), but the BBC did not cave in because they understood that they had to appeal to everyone but _not_ at the same time, so they showed it, the FCC would have had a heart attack.
Re:Why not totaly free? (Score:3, Informative)
This is the foundation of almost all publicly owned broadcasters in Europe - they're there to make sure stuff that isn't commercially viable on the short term still gets a chance at a place in the media, and to aid public information and the development of culture.
Setting guidelines to ensure this is the only way in which parliament "keep the BBC under its thumb". And only indirectly through changes to the charter and by indirectly influencing the BBC's governing structure.
Think of BBC as a corporation owned by the public being given guidelines for how to operate from it's shareholders - represented by Parliament. This is no different than any other media organisation. The only difference is that in the BBC's case power isn't centralised on the hands of small groups of wealthy business people.
Re:Why Isn't This On Their Website Then? (Score:5, Informative)
Because it was on their front page yesterday :)
Theres's a few articles/discussion on the subject, here [bbc.co.uk] here [bbc.co.uk] and here [bbc.co.uk]
Re:Right-wing pressure explains the Conservative v (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Why not totaly free? (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe if you knew something about the BBC you wouldn't spout off such nonsense. The BBC is not 'under the thumb' of parliament, quite the contrary, and I suspect they're now being punished for that fact by the present government. If you want an example of mass-media that's under the thumb of government, check your own side of the pond. I find it amusing that you're so appalled by government interference in the media when you have such a tepid, unadventurous news media under the US system - you don't by any chance watch Fox News do you? Things are getting a bit out of hand when a comedy show (The Daily Show) is one of the most serious political commentaries.
The rationale for government regulation is to ensure that the licence fee is spent appropriately, not on another 'Temptation Island' knock-off because that sells, but on programming that attempts to educate and entertain. The word government means something very different outside the USA, which I suspect is where your confusion comes from. PS Your spelling is appalling, frightening even, please use a spelling checker.
Re:If it's not broken don't fix it. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Oversight (Score:0, Informative)
Re:Licensing fee (Score:2, Informative)
And the regulators do employ people to check they comply.
Re:Punishment ? (Score:2, Informative)
Absolutely Wrong! (Score:3, Informative)
This is the regular Charter renewal for the BBC. Happens every 10years or so.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/charter_revi
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:They need to Creative Commons License BBC (Score:5, Informative)
This was proposed [bbc.co.uk] by the previous BBC chairman (Greg Dyke).
Interesting model if the BBC starts to produce more software (current chairman was very careful to talk about "content" and "devices" this morning).
Re:i don't think anyone outside the UK gets it. (Score:2, Informative)
Ciao
PS Disclaimer: I last heard VOA at least 10 years ago and found it very, very pro-American. The World Service is also pro-UK but mostly in a quaint way.
Re:Oversight (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why not totaly free? (Score:2, Informative)
That isn't actually true. What you say is probably closer to Channel 4's remit. The BBC existed long before (even American) commerical broadcasters. They exist to provide a broad, accessible range of media outlets. The old "inform, entertain & educate" mantra of Lord Reith, the first D-G. There's nothing in the charter that talks about providing "alternatives" in the sense that you mean, certainly outside of areas like news. This is why it's actually important for the BBC to provide populist (& popular) programmes - if they didn't, less people would watch, which would paint them as increasingly irrelevant, which would lead people to qustion why they pay the licence fee.
Recent channels such as BBC3 & 4 WERE created with a view to providing an alternative to commerical provisions, and they had to seek government approval before they could start. That still doesn't mean that they should stay away from anything that a commercial broadcaster might provide. That's a problem I have with the "less copycat shows" argument - more often than not, it was the BBC who INVENTED these kinds of shows, in an attempt to appeal to a larger section of the public (something which IS enforced by the charter) - they become successful, and commercial broadcasters copy them cos that's the best they can do. A few years down the line, and people start accusing the BBC of copycat behaviour. It makes no sense. Lifestyle shows like Changing Rooms, or "docu-soaps" like Driving School and Airport are two recent strands of programming that I can think of where this happened.
Re:Oversight (Score:5, Informative)
Not true.
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
as amended by Protocol No. 11
Rome, 4.XI.1950
Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion1
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Article 10 - Freedom of expression
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Re:Oversight (Score:2, Informative)
Re:what do you think? (Score:5, Informative)
It was known that the WMD information was at best unreliable, but it was the sole piece of information that was available that allowed Phony Tony to leap into the fray over the express wishes (70% against at the start) of the public opinion.
When multiple sources investigated the same leads as the journalist, but under greater scrutiny again, not only were the documents proved to be 'sexed up', but the meat of it was obtained by a forged document intended for other purposes.
So, the journalist was, in truth, correct. His information and assumptions were correct.
Yet Downing Street now expect the BBC to reform because of this political travesty of revealing to the world what was really going on.
So much for journalistic freedom.
Re:If it's not broken don't fix it. (Score:3, Informative)
Obviously, it's difficult to prove that someone "knew somthing to be false" if they don't want it known. For this reason, laws typically revolve, not simply around what a person does know, but what they should reasonably be expected to know and to find out (i.e. due dilligence.) Ignorance of the law is not an adequate defense, or it would be difficult to next to impossible to convict anyone. Similarly, lack of due dilligence on a matter of remarkable importance such as this should be called 'dishonest.' So to demonstrate dishonesty, we need to set a standard for due dilligence.
Particularly, we need to ask why US intelligence produced information which was worse than other international bodies.
On March 7th, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in Vienna, told the U.N. Security Council that the documents involving the Niger-Iraq uranium sale were fakes. "The I.A.E.A. has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents . . . are in fact not authentic," ElBaradei said.
One senior I.A.E.A. official went further. He told me, "These documents are so bad that I cannot imagine that they came from a serious intelligence agency. It depresses me, given the low quality of the documents, that it was not stopped. At the level it reached, I would have expected more checking."
The I.A.E.A. had first sought the documents last fall, shortly after the British government released its dossier. After months of pleading by the I.A.E.A., the United States turned them over to Jacques Baute, who is the director of the agency's Iraq Nuclear Verification Office.
It took Baute's team only a few hours to determine that the documents were fake.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030331fa
Re:Missed opportunity (Score:2, Informative)
The BBC produces very high quality television and radio. Have you ever seen the crap that comes out of the States (no offence to our American cousins)?
Sure, BBC1 might have lost its way a bit in recent years, but the quality of the programs on BBC2 and BBC4 (as well as Radio 2, Radio 4, 6Music and BBC7) is very high indeed.
If you feel the need to bash the BBC, watch Sky1 for a few nights and you'll soon be taking your comments back.
J
Re:what do you think? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:If it's not broken don't fix it. (Score:3, Informative)
Short of having the technology to take a retrospective dump of Blair's brain at the moment he made the decision to make the claim, it is impossible to prove they knew it to be false. That level of proof is just never available for this kind of issue. Maybe Comical Ali really believed the glorious Iraqi army was thrashing the decadent US forces who so laughably claimed to be holding the airport, how can we be absolutely sure? We can only say that it is implausible that anyone could actually hold that opinion at that timebplace and time.
However, we know Blair had no reason to think the 45 minute claim was true. The intelligence services clearly stated that this was an unsupported claim by an untrustworthy single source. The government put it forward as a fact. Even if you decide this isn't evidence of lieing on the issue of fact (which is to decide that Blair convinced himself of the truth of the claim on no basis), it is clearly lieing about the level of evidence.
Of course, when an inquiry finds that a government did not lie, the cynical public always call this a 'whitewash', but that does not mean the public is right.
It does not mean the public is wrong either.
Actually, I don't think this is a case of Blair being an Evil Lieing Bastard(tm) who wanted war at any cost, but of good old double-think. Blair knew the claim was bollocks, but at the same time convinced himself it was true because it was politically necessary to believe it.
The UK and US went to war to get rid of Saddam Hussain. The US blather about 9/11 and the UK blather about WMDs were attempts at providing a reason which would justify the predictable deaths.
Legalisticly, the US and UK had an argument for the legitimacy of the war. SH put Iraq outside the protection of international law when he invaded Kuwait, and since he never even seriously pretended to comply with the UN resulutions which ended the gulf war, one could argue that Iraq was still beyond the pale. After all that is how the sanctions and the no-fly zones were justified.
But a legal argument is not useful when you need to stand up and say ``I'm going to send your children to their deaths killing othe people's children, is that OK by you?''.
Re:Independence Doesn't Guarantee Impartiality (Score:3, Informative)
Now Labour is always accusing the BBC of being biased against them.
If by some fluke the Lib-Dems won the next election, no doubt they would always be accusing the BBC of being biased against them.
Personally, I think it's great that the 'state' broadcaster is always willing to challenge the government of the day, no matter what political persuasion it may be. And frankly, I think that the vast majority of people in Britain are proud of the BBC and want the government - any government - to keep their hands off it. A government that proposed privatising it would find themselves out of office at the next election... if not strung up in Parliament Square!
Re:Oversight (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, that's right, people who watch BBC have no interruptions to their viewing. No advertisements at all. Nada, zilch. The station, although funded by the government, is paid for by the people. It's worked flawlessly so far -- the BBC is world renowned as a fair, balanced and insightful news organization. I can say this truthfully as an Dublin-born Irishman living in Canada for the last few years -- anytime there has been trouble in the North [of Ireland] and I needed a truthful report, I went to the BBC, a British station. CBC -- a Canadian station -- would always show inaccurate and plainly wrong reports, heavily biased toward in favour of the crown. Whether this has anything to do with Canada's membership in the Commonwealth, I don't know.
Regardless, any change in the running of the BBC should have a watchful eye kept on it. Just my 2 [euro]cents.
- Oisin
Re:Oversight (Score:3, Informative)