British Goverment to Reshape BBC Governance

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?)."

Oversight

[szlevente]

Not enough oversight?? What about freedom of expression and speech?

Re:Oversight

[Psiren]

What about freedom of expression and speech?

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:Oversight

[mar1boro]

I don't know about "these discussions," but this discussion is most certainly about freedom of the press. Whether true or not it was the Hutton Report [bbc.co.uk] that started all of this. The BBC implicated Tony Blair's government in some shady dealings, and these actions are the big payback. They are bringing the BBC to heel.

Absolutely Wrong!

[Martin Spamer]

Why let the facts get in way of some great rhetoric.

This is the regular Charter renewal for the BBC. Happens every 10years or so.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/charter_revie w. shtml

Re:Oversight

[gerardlt]

Exactly. The oversight is in recognition that the British people are basically required to pay the license fee. Because they don't have a lot of choice, the government has to make sure that they (the people, not the government) are getting value for money, without getting directly involved and being accused of controlling the BBC.

what do you think?

[RMH101]

...they'll introduce arguments like this and try to take the licence fee away from them. The reason this is happening is because the BBC had the temerity to question the Hutton report into the WMD in Iraq issue.

Re:what do you think?

[CmdrGravy]

Hello Mr Campbell and welcome to /.

Re:what do you think?

[malkavian]

Actually, evidence that came to light into the media at later times showed that Downing Street had, in fact, been told that the information they were basing the attack on was false.

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:what do you think?

[operagost]

I think it may have more to do with using terms like "sexed up." Now that's professional reporting right there. I propose they continue the trend by declaring Al-Zarqawi "the bomb" and Bin Laden the "Bizzle Fi-shizzle".

Re:what do you think?

[logpoacher]

Hang on ... they weren't the journalist's words. The whole issue revolved around the claim that someone in government had requested that the document in question be "sexed up".

The question you should therefore be asking is whether phrases like that indicate professional government! The evidence seem to suggest not...

Re:what do you think?

[anvil {UK}]

Actually, evidence that came to light into the media at later times showed that Downing Street had, in fact, been told that the information they were basing the attack on was false.

Not at all, they probably knew that it was 'unreliable', not that it was false.

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

It was terrible journalism. A single unsubstantiated source apparently made a specific false allegation. The reporter (Gilligan) went live on air with no notes, no corroboration and no evidence and stated that the Downing St press office and not 'intelligence' was the source of the dossier. The BBC deserved to be hung for that. Alistair Campbell did not draw up the dossier.

This is not to defend the war, I don't, but reporting unattributed unsubstantiated tittle tattle on the main opinion forming news program is awful, awful journalism. The reporter was stupid, but the editorial team and the management (who publicly defended their man before they'd even talked to him) were incompetent.

meanwhile there has been no investigation at all into why the Intelligence was so dismal and wrong. The same intelligence services will provide the justifications for house arrest that the govt wishes to introduce. This is the real scandal.

Re:what do you think?

[Doc Ruby]

No, Blair's British government lied about WMD in Iraq, the BBC showed that on TV, and Blair successfully spun the story by covering up their knowledge. After that success, Blair is moving to exert more control, so that can never happen again - on Iraq, or any other inconvenient publication of government lies. Speculation, my eye - the chain of events is totally obvious, except to warmongers in denial of the truth that busts out everywhere when people do their jobs with any integrity.

Right-wing pressure explains the Conservative view

[CdBee]

The BBC as a public institution is bound by law and common custom to be representative of the people and to support/represent equality of religion/race/lifestyle/sexuality.

The British Tory or Conservative party is roughly analogous to Republicans in the US in that it holds "traditional values", many of which conflict with the modern egalitarian ethic of the BBC.

The British Right-wing, led primarily by tabloid newspapers such as the Daily Mail (politically somewhere to the right of Genghis Kahn..), has been leading an anti-BBC campaign for some time now as they don't want to see a state-run broadcaster "supporting" rights that they wish to abolish or diminish, such as equality of gay and straight relationships before the law, or equal attention in schools for minority faiths.

Re:Right-wing pressure explains the Conservative v

[Anonymous Coward]

You over complicate matters. Newspapers such as the The Sun don't like the BBC because they're owned by one News International, who in turn are owned by News Corp. which is run by one Mr. Robert Maxwell. It's no doubt just one huge coincedence that News Corp. just happens to own 36% of BSkyB, a commercial competitor to the BBC.

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 a

Re:Right-wing pressure explains the Conservative v

[hoofie]

I think you mean Rupert Murdoch - Mr. Maxwell threw a seven and drowned after falling [allegedly...] off his yacht in the Med.

Re:Right-wing pressure explains the Conservative v

[philbert26]

The BBC as a public institution is bound by law and common custom to be representative of the people and to support/represent equality of religion/race/lifestyle/sexuality.

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:Right-wing pressure explains the Conservative v

[Malc]

I love this liberal usage of the word "traditional" by conservatives. Here in Canada it's currently being applied to the same-sex marriage debate. Personally I'm all for the traditional definition of marriage, but I would appreciate some help on the following two matters:
1) My father-in-law still hasn't paid me the dowry. He seems to be dragging his feet.
2) My wife is upity and needs some convincing to stay in the kitchen (except when I make other demands)!

</removes-tongue-from-cheek>

Honestly: wh

Pose a direct question to them. They can't answer.

[ianscot]

Honestly: what are traditional values? Some 1950's definition? An 1850's definition?

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 s

Re:Oversight

[millwall]

If people want to watch BBC's biased coverage, GOOD! Let them. If there's a demand for something else, another station will fill it.

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.

Re:Oversight

[Atrax]

Clearly you're not trolling - you make a salient point - Funding must come from somewhere (hell it's obvious that the viewers resent paying for anything).

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:Oversight

[x0n]

In fact, the BBC is funded by the viewers, in the form of a "TV license" fee. In Ireland and England, viewers pay this tax of sorts once a year and it enables state-funded stations like the BBC to run without any advertisements and to a lesser extent the Irish national station, RTE (Radio Telefís Éireann) which is semi-state funded, to run with significantly less ads than any North American station.

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

[gerardlt]

Actually, for true independence, I think it's important to have both. Markets do not self-regulate for everyone's benefit - they do it for their own benefit.

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:Oversight

[term8or]

Ok, I'm about as conservative as they come, but I would really like to see governments keep their damn hands out of censorship or regulating any kind of media. If people want to watch BBC's biased coverage, GOOD! Let them. If there's a demand for something else, another station will fill it. It's the same as the senator guy from Alaska wanting to regulate cable and satellites. I say leave it all alone and let the media market self-regulate.


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:Oversight

[Aim Here]

"5: The BBC is not directly censored by any organisation outside the BBC. "

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 c

Re:Oversight

[Atrax]

there are BBC operations [bbc.co.uk] abroad which are arguably outside UK regulation, yes. More accurately they may be said to be 'primarily under other regulations'. The details are a bit intricate, I suspect.

Re:Oversight

[turgid]

I'm a British taxpayer, but I don't own a TV so I don't pay the licence fee.

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:Oversight

[FireFury03]

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?

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).

Re:Oversight

[cortana]

TYpical Slashdot hyperbole! I went without a TV set for three years while I was at university. I got one letter a year from the TVLA saying that it was illegal to operate a TV set without paying the license fee. That was it.

Re:Oversight

[FireFury03]

They will try to take some story and blow it up to be something that it is not.

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.

Re:Oversight

[CmdrGravy]

Britain is the 4th largest economy in the world, soon to be overtaken by China ( according to the BBC ) so we're not an insignificant economic force in the world.

Re:Oversight

[mark2003]

The problem is that then it panders to the lowest common demoninator or the the popular viewpoint in order to get advertising revenue.

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

Re:Oversight

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to remember that American politics is comprised or two parties. One of those is poltically to the right, while the other is to the far right. When your middle ground is somewhere Musolini would have been comfortable you can't blame the poor things for thinking the BBC is "liberal". Of course we also need to remember that in American politics, "liberal" is a word used to mean "scary and not at all in the best interests of my friends on the board of directors" rather the more normal meaning of "progressive".

Re:Oversight

[term8or]

There is no such thing as Freedom of speech or press legally in the UK, get used to it.

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.

Long time coming

[moofdaddy]

Similar reform acts to the british media have been coming for a long time now. The first major whole hearted attempt came in the mid-80s. It is interesting because each time they get closer to actually getting it done but fall through in the end.

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:Long time coming

[Atrax]

"Independent" would be great, but media companies have to be funded somehow. Depending on your definition of independent, there may be issues.

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.

Punishment ?

[mirko]

Is it because the Beeb has been so "reserved" when Blair engaged his Kingdom's soldiers into Iraq for some yet-to-be-defined reasons ?

Re:Punishment ?

[REBloomfield]

They weren't reserved; the Chairman spoke up and lost his job. Funny how no one has pointed out that he could do them for unfair dismissal now we know that the 45 minute was, in fact, as we knew all along, complete bollocks.

Re:Punishment ?

[gowen]

Funny how no one has pointed out that he could do them for unfair dismissal

He wasn't dismissed. He tendered his resignation, firmly believing it would not be accepted. He was wrong.

the 45 minute was, in fact, as we knew all along, complete bollocks.

The rubbishing of the 45 minute claim wasn't what upset the government. What upset the government was the suggestion that they -- and not the security services -- had inserted the claim into the dossier. This was what Gilligan suggested in his first broa

Re:Punishment ?

[Bill_Mische]

No, however the enquiry produced evidence that Campbell had a quiet chat with the head of the JIC about the dossier, who then inserted a number of changes helpful to government policy (and with internal protests from the spook community) completely of his own accord...which was nice of him.

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

There goes the UK

[dj_cel]

Welcome aboard our UK brothers and sisters! Join us for a round of control the media! Seriously though, how can the BBC go from opening up archives to the public to becoming restrictive? Sounds like yet another assault by out friendly media conglomerates. No I'm not trying to troll, it seems that this was inevitable.

Conservative lawmakers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, lawmakers? Just because a politician is elected to the House of Commons does not make them a 'lawmaker'. Given the elected-dictatorship that is the British system when large majorities are held by the Government of the day, that description couldn't be further from the truth. Just look at the railroading of the current detention orders bill that's going on by this 'Labour' government.

The only lawmakers are the ministers that put legislation forward, back benchers lucky enough to win the silly lotter

Re:Conservative lawmakers?

[rpjs]

Whilst I agree in principle with what you write, I do find it uncomfortable when US writers describe MPs as "lawmakers". yes, technically they are, but the term implies some sort of separation of powers and independence of the legislature that simply does not exist in the British system.

American should remember more what they rebelled against when writing about the British political system!

Re:Conservative lawmakers?

[term8or]

Err... they rebelled about not having representatives in partliament...

If it's not broken don't fix it.

[NoMercy]

Admitidly the BBC has had a few problems, but nothing that ammounts to more than poking the goverment (hey most people in england happen to think the goverment deserved a good poking for taking us to war on a lie).

It's an asset which few other countries have, to turn it into a goverment properganda machine *shudder*, Gues we'd just have to start watching fox news for an unbiased opinion :)

Re:If it's not broken don't fix it.

[miu]

hey most people in england happen to think the goverment deserved a good poking for taking us to war on a lie

Oh come on, like you never killed thousands based on a lie. Everyone makes mistakes.

Re:If it's not broken don't fix it.

[Atrax]

Oh come on, like you never killed thousands based on a lie.

Yeah, but we were trying to give it up! And we were doing so well, too.

Re:If it's not broken don't fix it.

[gowen]

to turn it into a goverment properganda machine *shudder*

Have you even read the proposed changes? What among them think this is *more* likely to make the BBC a propaganda machine?

Re:If it's not broken don't fix it.

[R.Caley]

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.

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:If it's not broken don't fix it.

[R.Caley]

[...]within 45 minutes.

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:If it's not broken don't fix it.

[R.Caley]

Its one of the claims.

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:If it's not broken don't fix it.

[PsiPsiStar]

There is no evidence they knew it to be false.

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 importan

Re:If it's not broken don't fix it.

[R.Caley]

There is no evidence they knew it to be false.

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 implausi

Re:If it's not broken don't fix it.

[Decaff]

UN hadn't even properly finished its weapons inspections (to which Iraq was being more and more cooperative) and the UK blindly followed. If that's not leading soldiers to their deaths based on a lie, then at least it's based on gross neglect of duty.

No, really, this wasn't the case. There were major problems with the UN inspections - huge amounts of corruption that is still being investigated.

I am one of those who celebrate the demise of a terrible dictator in Iraq, but I also have a lot of worries abo

Re:If it's not broken don't fix it.

[Decaff]

I've heard reports that at least some of the sources cited for 'murdered millions' are leaky at best, and 'routinely tortured children' is mainly appealing to emotion.

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!

Licensing fee

[peterprior]

Looks like they are keeping the licensing fee for another 10 years at least :|

£104 ($180 ish?) a year just to watch TV :/

Re:Licensing fee

[MikeDX]

£104 to watch TV and listen to radio COMPLETELY LEGALLY AND ADVERTISEMENT FREE is a total bargain, plus the BBC websites, world service, BBC freeview digital.. Less than £10 a month for that much entertainment, with no crazy frog, and no annoying johnny vaughn is a fucking bargain. you may like spam with your TV. I DON'T.

WE LOVE YOU BBC!!!

Re:Licensing fee

[GeckoUK]

Another thing to remember is that being forced to compete with the BBC ad free channels keeps the number of ads on ITV, channel 4 et al down to a bearable level.

Re:Licensing fee

[CProgrammer98]

DOn't forget though, you get to watch AD FREE tv -That's gotta be worth the license fee surely.

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:Licensing fee

[Marlor]

Don't complain. Here in Australia we pay for our ABC directly via taxes, and their funding has been drastically decreased over the last two decades (from to $41 per person per year in 1985 to around $20 per person per year now). As a result, they can't really afford to finance the production of local programmes, so they currently spend most of their TV budget on buying programmes from the BBC.

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:Licensing fee

[MosesJones]

Others have said it, but so shall I.

£104 to have the BBC in existance is well worth the money. Its reporting is superb, its comedy truly world-class and its drama often ground-breaking. I've lived and worked all around the world and there is no media organisation to compare with it in terms of breadth and honesty in its approach.

The way the BBC holds politics to account in the UK is unrivialed in any country. Tony Blair is AFRAID to go onto the BBC because of the grilling he will get. Many countries claim they have free-speech, and yet none actually challenge their leadership in the same way as the Beeb.

Blackadder, the Office, Little Britian, Newsnight, The Today Programme, Panorama etc etc etc.

Put it this way, in the UK we see the bodies of our soldiers being returned, we see the damage the suicide bombers do, and the damage that allied bombs do. Even Sky News (prop: R Murdoch) has to be unbiased and serious about the news, Fox News (prop: R Murdoch) is considered to be a comedy programme.

£104 to live in a country where Fox is a joke.... bargin.

i don't think anyone outside the UK gets it.

[RMH101]

£120 a year is *phenomenal* value for money. 10 digital channels, 2 terestrial channels - all packed full of high-quality, advert-free intelligent programing. 4 FM national radio stations, a load of local radio - all advert-free. Numerous digital radio stations. World-class reporting and news that's unbiased. One of the best all-round websites there is. The BBC is an *amazing* resource for UK citizens and one that's very cheap indeed considering what you get. Contrast with £300 a year for Sky and Murdoch's poison.

Re:i don't think anyone outside the UK gets it.

[david.given]

£120 a year is *phenomenal* value for money.

Hell, yeah. Whenever I see the alternative I realise just how good the BBC is. Sky is dire by comparison, and US TV is just unwatchable.

One thing people tend not to realise is that because the BBC has its own guaranteed source of income, they can't be put under pressure by their sponsors. There's an old story of a car company whose latest product had just been slammed by Top Gear, the BBC's excellent motoring programme (although less excellent than it was. Sigh). And when Top Gear doesn't like something, they're not subtle about it... the story goes is that the CEO watched the review, said, "I'll teach them to talk like that about us. Pull all our advertising from that channel. Now." And his secretary said, "Um..."

You would not believe what a difference this makes. During the last Gulf War I watched some CNN and MSNBC. It was embarrassing. A lot of it was cultural differences, but the blatant jingoism and emotionalism made, to me, a complete mockery of the whole concept of independent journalism ---I found it hard to accept what I was watching as being anything but outright propaganda.

(Incidentally, the BBC is not government funded, and their charter clearly makes them independent from government interference. If the government tries to pressure them, most BBC journalists shout 'Hurrah!' and it tends to make the news.)

I don't like the heavy-handed way the license fee is collected --- they use scare tactics a lot. "This man didn't pay his license fee. Now he's bankrupt, his wife has left him, his kids are drug addicted hookers, and we shot his dog. Don't let this happen to you." They also have a lot of trouble believing that some people don't have TVs. If they'd be nicer about it, I'd be much happier paying for it.

There's quite a good writeup on the BBC's journalism here [ajr.org].

Re:Licensing fee

[peterprior]

Good grief. When I last had a TV (read: when I last could be bothered to hook my WinTV card up to an aerial and the novely of the wmtv dockapp was still fresh) it was £104 and that was 4 ish years ago.

Wonder if the "buy black and white licence and turn the colour saturation down when the inspectors turn up" trick will still wash ;)

Re:Licensing fee

[Atrax]

Wonder if the "buy black and white licence and turn the colour saturation down when the inspectors turn up" trick will still wash ;)

Funny, but I can attest it doesn't. A friend got pulled up for it and only got away with it when it was realised that the Landlord had a licence for the house anyway.

Sure, George

[gowen]

Some are worried that the independence of the "Beeb" could be compromised

I haven't heard this much in the British media. In fact, these reforms seem likely to *increase* the Beeb's independence, since it adds another layer of distance between the Governors (now the BBC Trust) and the patronage of government.

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:Sure, George

[szlevente]

Not sure how things are in the UK, but here in Eastern Europe, BBC is a synonym for objective, independent, realistic and incisive news reports. Haven't heard of anybody disliking it. FM radio stations that re-broadcast BBC programmes are bound to gain more listeners, just because of that.

Rupert Murdock

[Martin Spamer]

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:Sure, George

[aug24]

Somehow I doubt the members of the trust will be free from political influence... and being separated from the management of the day, do they not sound a little more like, say, OfBeeb*, than the 'cheerleaders' that the current Governers tend to be? I could see this being either good or bad, and based on my opinion of the current bastards ruining our country's good name at home and abroad, I'm inclined to be worried.

My tuppence is: just because they've called it a 'Trust' doesn't mean anything. Remember Sir Humphrey Appleby: "Always do the difficult bit in the title. Then everyone will assume that the content must fulfil it". Alternatively, think of Paxman: "Why is this lying lier lying to me?". Then you'll understand the Labour Party.

Justin.
* Note for non-UK readers. We name our regulatory bodies along these lines: OfGas, Office for the Gas industry. OfWat, Office for the Water industry. For some reason the Rail watchdog's office isn't called OfRail though...

Why Isn't This On Their Website Then?

[flynniec6]

As of 12:05 GMT+1, it isn't on their front page.

I've always found that the BBC presented fairly impartial reporting on most issues and didn't tend to get too centralised on particular countries or trends. I have BBC World at home and while it can be a bore at times listening to economics and politics in places I don't care about, at least I hear about it.

I had BBC World when I lived in the USA and its coverage during the September 11th attack and after was markedly different from the US channels, particul

Re:Why Isn't This On Their Website Then?

[RonnyJ]

Why Isn't This On Their Website Then?

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]

Crap reasoning

[Cougem]

So this all comes about from the 'sexing up' of the War in Iraq coverage? What a shit reason. Wow, it failed once in 77 years of governance. That's a bloody good track record in my books.

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

The Power of Nightmares

[dr_strangeloveIII]

Last year's license fee was worthwhile if only for this one documentary series. This is exactly the sort of intelligent programming which the current reforms are purported to encourage.

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.

I'm currently watching a BBC documentary

[Atrax]

... sent to me from the UK at my request, on Mordecai Vanunu, Israel's Nuclear Whisleblower [peaceheroes.com]

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 m

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Slightly OT

[Atrax]

licence fee still stands, but there are quite a few free-to-air stations, especially if you take into account free-to-air digital [freeview.co.uk]

Remember radio licences?

[Richard Kirk]

I remember when you used to have a radio licence in the UK. These were per household rather than per set, and I don't think they were ever enforced the way TV licences were. The thinking was that the general public should not have to pay for a rich man's toy, plus a bit of public enterprise would pump the UK valve industry. When radios became generally available, there was, fortunately a new toy - first 405-line TV, and then colour TV (there was a different licence for 625-line colour). We wanted a broadcasting company with independence, so the licence fees went to the BBC, but central government picked up the costs for collecting the licences.

Now most people have a TV. The people who need TV most may be the poorest amongst us - Open University Students, parents, and carers, and so on. You can make a TV by putting a card in your computer. The TV detector vans do not work any longer (if they ever did, which I doubt). The licence costs more to collect then it is worth. The whole TV licence scheme is getting beyond its useful life. Basically, the only thing it has going for it is its long history.

If you can come up with a reliable alternative that can give the BBC a secure income that does not depend on central government or market forces, then we would love to hear about it. But coming up with a general way of making being nice finiancially rewarding would be a bit of a social breakthrough.

Gone Downhill Already

[garethwi]

A long time ago, the BBC was run by programme makers, and it was respected throughout the world for it's high quality programme making.

Then, around the end of the eighties, the accountants took over, and the quality ethics was jettisoned in favour of cost cutting.

Since then the BBC has slowly drifted towards the lower end of the market with programmes like Eastenders being shown 30 times a week, with an omnibus edition lasting all Sunday.

The government charter should be changed in favour of bringing the programme makers back.

The Murdoch Angle

[nagora]

This is how it works: if the BBC is producing stuff that competes with SKY's shit, Murdoch's press (Times, Sun etc) say it's unfair that a tax-funded company is competing with their (massively cross-subsidised, non-tax-paying) service.

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

Told to IGNORE RATINGS

[MullerMn]

A lot of posts here, and so far nobody seems to have mentioned what I thought was the most encouraging part of the announcement, namely that the BBC has been told it is not to chase ratings but focus on quality programming.

Hopefully, this means that the BBC will keep turning out more of the kind of programmes that have made its name into a badge of quality and stop it getting caught up in the race-to-the-bottom-of-the-barrel that Sky and the other commercial channels seem to be in.

They need to Creative Commons License BBC

[xiando]

What they really should do is to force BBC into releasing everything they have produced themselves that has been aired into a Creative Commons License! The People Payd for It, so the people should be allowed to use and share it! BBC should, by law, be required to let people share their shows on BitTorrent and other p2p networks!

Re:They need to Creative Commons License BBC

[alext]

Funny?

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).

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

What I want to know is

[DrStrangeLug]

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 ?

TV Licence

[BugMaster ChuckyD]

I'd be happy to pay the TV licence to keep the BBC the way it is, and I'm an American!

Re:F*ck the license fee!

[linuxci]

Get your facts right, all the BBC's UK content is paid for by the licence fee which includes all the digital channels they produce, the radio stations, local content and the online content.

I think just over 100 pounds a year is good value compared to the high monthly fees of Sky (100's of channels of which only a couple are any good).

The BBC is in a unique position, we've got a public broadcaster which means we're not bombarded with ads and they have an excellent (also ad free) website.

With Sky you pay per month and are still bombarded with ads.

e.g. when BBC2 used to have the Simpsons it was 20 minutes because they don't have the ads, with Sky it's 30 minutes.

It's also a small price to pay for having an organisation that has no commercial bias and as we've seen they're willing to criticise the government. I'd certainly rather trust the BBC rather than a commercial entity like Sky who is owned by News corp just like Fox.

Re:F*ck the license fee!

[TehHustler]

Plus the fact that if you didnt have a license fee, then the taxes would go up to fund it anyway. HOWEVER... I do object to paying for BBC Services that I don't use. So, I always thought there should be a subscription system. When digital technology is king, this shouldnt be a problem to implement.

Re:F*ck the license fee!

[Atrax]

The BBC is not entirely funded by the licence fee. They are also massive exporters of content, for which fees are levied, so they do manage to extract a tithe from other media companies.

Luckily, this means they're one step away from being pressured by conglomerates to supress news - it just means the buyer supresses it instead.

more info here [bbc.co.uk]

Re:F*ck the license fee!

[REBloomfield]

My objection is, I'm paying a telly tax. And incidentally, my Sky Bill is £9 a month. And it's a lot more interesting to me than gardening and Eastenders. I like Ads. I can get up and take a pee, or get a beer, and I don't miss anything.

Also, i don't trust anyone for news, no one gives it completely non-bias. They might criticise the Government, but they do it in a half assed way.

Re:F*ck the license fee!

[philbert26]

I think just over 100 pounds a year is good value compared to the high monthly fees of Sky (100's of channels of which only a couple are any good).

It is excellent. And I support what you say about having a broadcaster (relatively) free from commercial pressures. However, I think that having such a broadcaster gives benefit to the whole population, even those who don't watch TV. Therefore there's a case for paying the fee from taxpayer money rather than from TV viewer money. Currently the TV license is pay

Re:F*ck the license fee!

[Anonymous Coward]

How much do you pay for sky and still have adverts and biased news? 20 a month? 30 a month? It's still 2-300 per year. ITV is full of adverts. CH4 shows some great programming and can buy the US imports, but the BBC has value not only as an independant but I dont see Sky 1 showing Open University level stuff, or exposes on corruption.

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:F*ck the license fee!

[kyojin the clown]

I live in the UK, and very rarely watch broadcast TV. Most of it is cack, and to be honest the good stuff rarely fits in with my general schedule. I used to be all bent out of shape over the £120 odd fee i pay.

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 st

Re:F*ck the license fee!

[Atrax]

(the extra channels, are, I believe, not funded from the license fee)

This is correct, however see my post above and note why the licence fee allows the BBC to be free of financial pressure from the likes of advertisers who may put pressure on them financially through withdrawal of funds.

For a real life example of a news channel acting unethically because of commercial concerns, see here [foxbghsuit.com]. Synopsis: two reporters for a Fox News sub reported on a Monsanto product with serious health issues and were subseque

Re:F*ck the license fee!

[Atrax]

only 30p for online? and for that I get to listen to ISIHAC [isihac.co.uk] at work and get funny looks for bursting out laughing? bargain. I'm tempted to send a cheque

</british expat>

Re:Why not totaly free?

[Metatron]

The BBC is funded by the license fee. It is a legal requirement to pay this fee if you own a television set or similar device that is able to recieve television broadcast. The governemnt has a duty to ensure that this law is (in its belief) fair and that the BBC is spending the license fee correctly and is fulfilling its remit. This is the end of the governments involvement.

This does not make the BBC' under the governments thumb. This is not state controlled television, the BBC has complete journalistic and programming freedom ... it just has to ensure that it provides the public service broadcasting that our money is paying for.

You can't have organisations just spending public money without oversight, but oversight does not mean editorial censorship, control, or restriction.

Re:Why not totaly free?

[t_allardyce]

The BBC is pretty free from the government, if there was any political censorship going on then other channels would be all over it. Watching things like question time, journalists are not known for being polite and letting politicians get away with bullshitting - if a question is asked, a proper answer is expected no matter what part of the political spectrum. There have been plenty of occasions when the BBC has done things that pissed off the government and even other governments (Israel, Vanunu) they are absolutely not afraid to broadcast things that need to be seen, from lists of dead soldiers (censored in the US by some stations) to prisoner abuse (censored in the US for at least 2 weeks before it came out) to just taking the piss out of the establishment - if this was china every employee would have been publicly hanged - which is why i love the BBC.

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?

[vidarh]

The point is that the BBC is there to provide an alternative to the commercial broadcasters. As such, there's no point in having the BBC producing stuff that the commercial broadcasters does just as well. Especially as the variety of commercial channels has been rapidly increasing. Which is why so much effort is put in to make sure BBC programming is focused on areas where the BBC can either provide an important alternative (news, for instance, by providing an alternative to the viewpoints of the commercial

Re:Why not totaly free?

[guet]

I don't understand the rational for any goverement regulation outside of deceny standards. I suppose its because I am a yannkie but the whole idea to me of the goverement having that much control over the media is appaling. How does parliment justify keeping the BBC under its thumb?

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 governme

it is now

[RMH101]

abolishment of it's board of directors, Michael Grade selling them to labour: this is all "under the thumb" of not parliament, but the labour party. This would not be mooted if they'd done a Fox news and whooped and hollered the invasion of the Middle East.

Totally agree

[leathered]

Remember the BBC Micro? That was an initiative by the BBC to bring computing to schools and the masses. The impact of that initiative was huge and we are still reaping the benefits today, ask any IT professional which machine they cut their teeth on and many will tell you of fond memories of the Model B. Dare I say it but it but I believe it had greater impact than the Sinclair Spectrum, which I always regarded as a programmable games console.

Seriously, if it wasn't for the BBC Micro I probably wouldn't be posting here today.

Re:Independence Doesn't Guarantee Impartiality

[payndz]

The Tories always accused the BBC of being biased against them.

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