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?)."
Punishment ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Conservative lawmakers? (Score:2, Insightful)
The only lawmakers are the ministers that put legislation forward, back benchers lucky enough to win the silly lottery for back bench time, or judges that amend legislation in a court of law.
Oh, and Rupert Murdoch.
Re:Oversight (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do these discussions always come down to these issues? Did it occur to you that the oversight might have something to do with management of the BBC. That has little to do with free speech.
Re:Long time coming (Score:4, Insightful)
For instance, I've become quite aware of the pro-business stance of Australia's commercial channels recently, and the only conclusion I can come to is that they don't want to jeopardise their ad revenue by emphasising bad stories about business (HIH, Telstra etc..). The ABC, Australia's analogue of the BBC, has no such restraint and regularly skewers business, and to be perfectly fair to them they also do the same to government. I remember the BBC being similarly willing to skewer anyone regardless of any backroom diplomacy, as part of the Beeb's grand tradition. It would be a crying shame to see this change because of a change in oversight rules.
However, from the article I see the Licence Fee funding for the BBC will stay in place, which would mitigate some of these concerns for my former home's broadcaster, thank the stars, however I'm sure we'll see some changes in how reporting is handled.
oh my (Score:1, Insightful)
"The changes are said to scrap the system that has been in place for 77 years. "
The only difference being the removal of the Board of Directors.
"Some are worried that the independence of the "Beeb" could be compromised"
No, the whole idea of this reforming of the BBC was to INCREASE the independance of the BBC.
What the hell is the submitter on about?
Certainly the BBC needs an independant external body to stop the embarassingly biast (against the Iraq war, for example) "news coverage", the little comments the reporters put in every report of Iraq is nothing short of disgusting.
These new changes will help, but I think maybe it doesn't go far enough, but it's for the better, regardless.
Re:Oversight (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not speaking for or against goverment regulated media. But something that is not always mentioned in this debate is that a self-regulated media merket seems to produce even more biased reporting than the government regulated ones.
This seems to defeat the whole argument about freedom of speech - let the media market regulate itself.
n.b: please don't mod this as a troll, i just wanted to raise this issue in the discussion.
what do you think? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If it's not broken don't fix it. (Score:1, Insightful)
No matter how much you dislike what happened, it is not true that we (British) went to war on a 'lie'. This would only be true if it the government knew in advance that there were no weapons of mass destruction at the time of declaration of war. There is little or no evidence of this. It is fair to say that the government was mistaken, or that the intelligence services were incompetent, or that politicians were naive or stupid. But, that is fundamentally different from saying that they deliberately lied. Such accusations should not be made lightly.
Re:Oversight (Score:1, Insightful)
i don't think anyone outside the UK gets it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why not totaly free? (Score:5, Insightful)
This does not make the BBC' under the governments thumb. This is not state controlled television, the BBC has complete journalistic and programming freedom
You can't have organisations just spending public money without oversight, but oversight does not mean editorial censorship, control, or restriction.
Re:Oversight (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oversight (Score:5, Insightful)
So the money comes from commercial concerns and the next thing you know the channel is covering up reports on dangerous products in order to defend a large commercial interest [foxbghsuit.com]
Re:Licensing fee (Score:2, Insightful)
WE LOVE YOU BBC!!!
Re:F*ck the license fee! (Score:3, Insightful)
however, when you think about it, its not really bad value to fund a corporation that is internationally valued and respected as a provider of news. personally, i think the beeb is something we should be proud of, no matter how hard they try to strip us of this pride with their never ending stream of crap DIY shows and people moving house...
Re:Oversight (Score:5, Insightful)
An advertising-funded media will always be thinking about where the money is coming from, and won't want to upset its biggest funders. And, if you think the BBC is biased, try looking at some of the 'independent' newspapers in the UK.
A nationally funded broadcaster does not need to worry about large companies taking their funding away. And if you think that they aren't going to broadcast anything critical of the government - well there's always the 'independent' channels that can do that.
Re:Licensing fee (Score:3, Insightful)
Try watching old beeb programs such as Yes Minister, or some of the dramas on UK gold, where they insert commercial breaks, it's just bizzare!
Re:Oversight (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's look at what's wrong with this:
1: The BBC is funded by the British taxpayer.
2: The BBC is (in Britain at least) a public sector organisation that has always been regulated in accordance with a charter agreed between itself and the government.
3: The BBC is required BY BRITITSH LAW to provided UNBIASED political broadcasting.
4: The BBC is not subjected to market pressures. The main bulk of its operation is not funded by advertising or by consumer purchase, but by a tax on owning a TV set in Britain which is paid regardless of whether you actually use the BBC.
5: The BBC is not directly censored by any organisation outside the BBC.
The overt purpose of funding the BBC is to provide unbiased news, politics, public sector broadcasting as well as entertainment and educational programming that might otherwise not be available. The negotiation of the charter with the BBC is to ensure that it fulfils this purpose, and that it regulates itself in accordance with its purpose.
Re:Right-wing pressure explains the Conservative v (Score:2, Insightful)
The Daily Maul don't like the BBC because they don't like anything or any body, especially if they're a damn foreigner or under 55 years of age. The BBC don't show Come Dancing and The Antiques Roadshow as much as they used to you see.
The Power of Nightmares (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically it was an account of how we arrived at the current climate of fear with our leaders exaggerating the dangers from almost entirely fictitious enemies. Interesting comparisons between the American neo-conservative ideologies and the beliefs held by Bin Laden et al.
If you didn't get to see this because you are American or British but missed it then you should, the torrents are out there, seek and ye shall find.
I'd doubt it will ever get shown in the US.
Re:Licensing fee (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of the purchases haven't made sense in recent years, either. They have been playing endless repeats of "Dead Ringers", which is bizarre, because most Australians have only a cursory knowledge of British politics, so I can't see the value in imitations of British politicians and newsreaders.
So, a well funded BBC that can produce world-class entertainment is nothing to complain about. Slashing funding would just result in less profits in the long-term, and less local productions. The BBC is something to be proud of, and a couple of pounds per week is a bargain for what you receive.
Re:Oversight (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Right-wing pressure explains the Conservative v (Score:3, Insightful)
So you agree that there needs to be public oversight of the BBC. If the BBC was truly independent there would be no way to make sure that it kept to the standards you mention above.
Re:Licensing fee (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm currently watching a BBC documentary (Score:2, Insightful)
I quote from this documentary, from an american anti-war protester, who professed to know nothing about Vanunu or his plight:
"Why is our media that's supposed to be free and open not telling us and why is our government not letting us know this information if we're in the home of the free?"
The BBC made and screened this documentary. It's an important issue that has been largely ignored by virtually every other major media organisation worldwide. The fact that this documentary ever aired says a lot about how independent the BBC has already been.
I stand 100% behind the BBC, and I'm very worried about any restraint they may be put under due to this change. I'll be keeping an eye on it, of course.
a small prize to the first person who does an Uncle Leo [geocities.com] on this comment, by the way
Re:If it's not broken don't fix it. (Score:2, Insightful)
No. If you are told by your intelligence services that there is proof, and you believe them, you say that, and then the intelligence services were mistaken, you did not lie. You were misled. There is a difference.
In any case, it seems that this coalition could do with a lesson in not making accusatiosn lightly too. The consequences of their accusations were far more serious!
Yes. A dictator who murdered millions, threatened the stability of the Gulf, and routinely tortured children has been kicked out of power. That is a serious consequence.
Re:Punishment ? (Score:1, Insightful)
even so, it was true.
Re:Why not just keep things as they are?! (Score:2, Insightful)
I struggle to see how any of this would be possible under a more conventional, commercial funding model.
Re:If it's not broken don't fix it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, they need only haver known that there were none capable of being direct threats to Britain available for use within 45 minutes. The best benefit of the doubt one can give Blair on that is that they didn't have absolute proof there were no such weapons. They don't have absolute proof that you don't have such in your bedroom under the bed, but I don't think that would justify an armed invasion of your home.
On the other hand, one can ask why the UK and US government were so desperate to have the invasion take place before the arms inspectors could report that they were willing to burn any number of important international bridges with long term allies to shift the invasion forward a few weeks. We now know the inspectors would have reported no weapons present. What did Bush and Blair believe that report would say?
Re:Oversight (Score:2, Insightful)
Biased? How the hell can the BBC be biased when it reports on ITSELF in a fully professional and unparalleled manner. I was watching BBC News last night running a report on this whole fiasco and the reporting was as though they were reporting externally from the BBC and not once was any biased comment said. The very same thing happened after the BBC were (wrongly in my opinion) disciplined for reporting on an intelligence flaw with the British government. That shows just how wrong you actually are.
Re:If it's not broken don't fix it. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, this is pretty well established - it has been published in reputable journals like New Scientist. If it had not been there, I would definitely have questioned this type of accusation, but New Scientist is well-respected.
Checked out Saudi Arabia recently?
Yes - a nasty place!
Don't get me wrong, Hussein was/is a nasty fucker, and I'd be happy to see him shot in the balls, but there are plenty of other nasty fuckers around. How come, if the rationale is human rights, is the US not bombing the shit out of these guys?
I have no idea, but I don't support the argument that because we can't (or won't) deal with all the problems, we should deal with any. The reason we don't deal with China is simple - they have nukes!
The Murdoch Angle (Score:5, Insightful)
If the BBC is producing high-quality stuff that appeals to fewer people then Murdoch's press says that it's not giving value for money because no one is watching it.
If the BBC were allowed to work freely then we'd have torrents of their programmes available by now. But that would be "unfair" on poor billionaires who want to charge us every time we watch a program or listen to our music in a different location.
Bottom line is: Murdoch, like all his class, hates competition and wants the BBC closed down as soon as possible. And he has the money to buy the politicians; the hard part is convincing the public, even those that read the crap he spreads over their daily rags.
Fuck the fucking load of fucking fuckers.
TWW
Re:Punishment ? (Score:3, Insightful)
What I thought pissed them off was the claim that they must have known it was bollocks. Which Gilligan didn't have evidence for but which if you stuck the words "unless they were complete morons." on the end, I'd agree with.
Re:what do you think? (Score:1, Insightful)
Rupert Murdock (Score:5, Insightful)
The British general public widely like, respect and are proud of the BBC.
The Rupert Murdock owned media has been astroturffing against the BBC for years, when grass roots public opinion is that he is the only real problem with the British media.
Re:Oversight (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you get a constant stream of phone calls and red letters from the Television Licensing Authority demanding that you buy a license? Do they keep sending a man round to your house to intimidate you and ask you why you haven't got a license? Do they keep making you sign forms to declare that you haven't got a TV set? Have they put up a huge poster on the nearest billboard to your house declaring that someone in your street hasn't got a TV license?
I chose to live without a TV set for over 6 years. Eventually I gave in and got one because the only broadband Internet access in my area was through a TV set top box.
The best things that the BBC does are BBC2 (TV) and Radio 4, in my opinion. BBC1 is largely drivel, and even the news seems to be aimed at morons on that channel now (to compete with ITV). I gather that Radio 3 is very good if you're into serious music. Radio 1 is pure handbag and trandy crap and Radio 2 ear-candy for the hard-of-thinking. BBC4 TV was OK for a while.
I really resent paying £120 a year (or whatever) to fund make-over shows, soaps (Eastenders, Neighbours etc.) and all the other assorted lame rubbish on TV. I also resent the fact that Radio 1 pays record companies to advertise their wares (manufactured handbag music).
Oh well. Must be getting old or something.
Re:If it's not broken don't fix it. (Score:3, Insightful)
How is this relevant?
Because that is the claim the UK government made.
Its all very fine to say what we now know. This is called 'hindsight'.
But `we' weren't desperate to act before the report came out. Well, I wasn't. One very plausible explanation for the indecent haste is that Bush and Blair were pretty sure that the report would remove one of their excuses, and the only one Blair could use.
Re:Oversight (Score:1, Insightful)
They need to Creative Commons License BBC (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oversight (Score:4, Insightful)
Additionally, when I see a news report about a field in which I am an expert I usually find it massively inaccurate and full of fundamentally flawed arguements... So I'm left thinking that the other stuff they report is just as inaccurate but I'm just not knowledgable enough in that field to notice.
Am I missing something obvious here? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Oversight (Score:3, Insightful)
I for one do not want my news coloured by focus groups - I want reality whether or not it is unpalatable, unpopular or doesn't make me feel good. Look at TV and films in the US - Fox news catering for "patriots", CNN claiming to be real but still always looking for an angle to show the US in the best light and the film industry always revising history to show the US and the good guy fighting all those evil foreign people who do not understand truth, justice and the American way. I do not want the BBC to just produce feel good adverts for the UK - if we as a country do not step up to the plate or screw over someone else or have periods in our history that are shameful then I would like to know about it. Only then can I address it.
Re:Oversight (Score:5, Insightful)
After leaving university I was without a TV for a period of about 2 months (i.e. not very long). The TV Licencing Authority took to sending me letters with "YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW" printed on the _outside_ of the envelope in big red lettering. I had no money at the time so didn't do anything about it but I would be kind of curious what would happen if someone took them to court for libel.
The whole point of funding through the licence fee is to allow the BBC to do things that a commercial channel wouldn't find viable - I resent them spending the licence fee on programs that are very commercially viable (Football, Eastenders, Fame Acadamy, etc). Especially when they go into bidding wars for sporting events against other (particularly free-to-air) channels.
IMHO the BBC should own both non-commercial, licence funded channels and commercial self-funded channels. Minority stuff can be paid for out of the licence fee whilest the really popular stuff can go on the commercial channels (and they could even plough those commercial revenues back into the non-commercial channels). This would also mean that the licence can be used to fund the first series of programs and if they are very successful they can be moved to the commercial channels and the revenues used to fund more new programs.
Something like 10% of the licence goes on licence collecting (including TV detector vans, intimidating people who don't own TVs, etc). Since a large proportion of the licence goes on non-TV related services (radio, web site, etc) it would seem fairer to collect the money through general taxation instead of specifically targetting TV owners. This would also reduce the amount of money that needs to be spent doing the actual collection.
One thing that really bugs me is that IMHO the quality of BBC programming has really gone down - there are a number of good programs still, such as Rough Science and the Ray Mears shows, but I certainly haven't seen any good comedy since Red Dwarf VI finished (please don't talk about The Office - it's not good, it's not funny, it just makes me cringe).
Totally agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, if it wasn't for the BBC Micro I probably wouldn't be posting here today.
What I want to know is (Score:3, Insightful)
Are they still planing to release their archives online ? And in this new DIRAC codec that they're working on ? I've got a nasty feeling that about 12 months from now the archives will appear in some awfull closed format.
For my money I'd like to see their archives released in xvid and the radio archives in mp3. For that matter, why the hell are they doing online radio in Real Audio and not mp3 streams ?
Re:If it's not broken don't fix it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Only one known to be false claim is needed to prove the charge of lieing.
But not the key one.
Well, it was the only one which justified war, since it made it pre-emtive self defence, which makes it rather key IMO.
I remember, the final report about WMD came out sometime after the war had finished.
That is rather the point isn't it, they hurried the invasion, at the expense of alienating potential allies. Why?
If they believed in WMDs, there was clearly a really strong case for holding off a few weeks. They could have had a report backing their case to bring the Europeans and perhaps the Russians on-side and at least persuade the Arab states to passively support the invasion. Remember, waiting for that report was the demand the French were explicitly making for support in the security council.
Either there is some even stronger reason they couldn't wait, one they have not shared with us, or they believed the report would actually weaken their case, i.e. they knew there were no WMDs, at least none which could provide a legal basis for war.
Re:Oversight (Score:3, Insightful)
Well firstly, it does a good job of censoring itself sometimes - the BBC coverage of the Northern Ireland conflict, for example, was a disgrace - well over 50 programmes were censored (either not shown at all, or cut in some way) in some fashion due to the BBC, not including whatever censorship the daily news bulletin editors decided to impose. There was even an instance of a Star Trek:TNG episode not being shown due to an offhand comment on Northern Ireland made by one character.
And of course, there are probably hundreds of programmes that either weren't made or decided not to say anything that might offend whoever was in control.
Secondly, your statement is false - again, regarding Northern Ireland, in the late 1980s the Home Secretary did issue an edict stating that the voices of Sinn Fein members were not to be heard on British Television (including the advertising-supported channels).
The BBC is usually better than the commercial broadcasters, IMO, but it does have it's problems.
Re:Oversight (Score:1, Insightful)
It's not in any government's interests to let it's population have true free speech.
It will always be limited by law.
Pose a direct question to them. They can't answer. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is an extremely useful question to actually ask a socially conservative person. They have essentially no answer to it. They don't know what they're wanting to return to; they just know that they're scared of where they think we're going. They can list things they like -- respect for authority and so on -- but try getting them to commit to a historical period when they'd have been happier, and they become furtive and suddenly rather relativistic themselves.
For example: people who pine for "the way schools used to be" often have not a single clue about when they think that "used to be" was. Do they want to go back to 1950, before integration had happened? Oh, no, they won't commit to that. Would they like to go back to the era when the SAT was basically only taken by upper-class white males, to keep scores up? They don't really know. What they know is that the liberals are destroying our colleges, etc. etc.
This talk of traditional values is all about people maintaining their position of power and control over others.
Specifically about using the fear of change to keep people from questioning their power's legitimacy.
Re:what do you think? (Score:3, Insightful)
The question you should therefore be asking is whether phrases like that indicate professional government! The evidence seem to suggest not...
Re:i don't think anyone outside the UK gets it. (Score:1, Insightful)