The BBC’s stay of execution

charles hercock

It is not just the inefficient administration that needs a shakeout but we need to ask about expensive activities.
They need to justify sport and its cost when withdrawing from bidding would still allow ITV and Channel 4 to show big events -and also without the BBC bid cheaper.They need to justify the hugely expensive BBC3 and BBC4
In our cash strapped society should they not withdraw back to core public service values.We get ample spread of entertainment thru the other Freeview Channels

Please stoke up more of this David

TrevorsDen

This is the point - it WILL cut good programmes to pay the crap stars of crap programmes like the egregious Eastenders their odious salaries. And it will squeal and blame it on the govt - and the loudest squealers will be the arty-farty brigade who make and gain the most out of licence payers money .

If they do we should pass an act of parliament and sack the bosses.

The licence fee should be cut in stages to £99. The BBC is an utter disgrace.

Anan

The BBC is a blatantly Labourite establishment, and they have not even the slightest semblance of decency or even an iota of impartiality now after the Conservatives gained power. Kirsty Walk on Newsnight can't keep her stammering, rude mouth shut even for 10 seconds after asking a Minister a question, she trembles with hatred in those nutty circus outfits she's always wearing as the Tory begins his response, but is wide-eyed and silent when that scheming low class crook Campbell is brought on (by the way aside from gutter journalist, what are his actual qualifications?).

It is high time the entire BBC is avulsed from the public purse and into the real world of competition. The time for public subsidies for the BBC ended long ago, and the only real purpose it served was as a governemnt progaganda arm - now that it does not even function in that role, instead using taxpayer money to be a Labourite propaganda ministry, there is not a single reason to keep it public funded.

The BBC, as with most British television, is strongly Labourite and totally crap to watch. The punchline of any comedy is either something sex related or an expletive. The presenters and commentators have strong Marxist ideologies (Marxism that only applies to the middle class Tories and not their or the Labourites' gigantic salaries) and little intelligence, who have been given their roles through their influential parents (Dimblebys, Sergeant, Snow, etc.) or their political connections.

Is there not some movement or pressure group out there for the abolition of the BBC? Anyway I hope Jeremy Hunt has the guts to drastically cut the licence fee (hopefully abolishing it), sever the pays and pensions of the talentless Labourite presenters and producers, and bring some decency to this organization by undoing systematically and thoroughly every pro-Labour change that was made to it over the last 13 years of ugliness.

Andrew Wilson

A partial view perhaps, but over the last 13 years and indeed before, the notion that BBC stands for Blair/Brown Broadcasting Corp has some resonance. I noticed that on last night's Any Questions, Phillip Hammond was moved to reply to a comment by the apalling Jonathon Dimbleby (in my view) by saying, "Another example of BBC impartiality". Perhaps other changes need to be made too?

Long the UK

The BBC should be turned into C-Span. Serious public service broadcasting to lift the intellectual climate.

There is no need for BBC 1, 2, 3 & 4. You just need BBC News and BBC Politics on telly. BBC 4 & 5 for the radio.

don

First step is for everybody to stop calling it a 'license fee'. It is a tax, no more, no less. A tax on watching television. Think about it--you pay 150 quid for "license" to watch a certain TV channel for a year (and it doesn't even show porn). Are we all bonkers? Why do the media who compete with the BBC go along with this ludicrous, patronising euphemism?

TrevorsDen

Avulsed - great word. The wonder and enlightenment of the web.

I see; lots of support for the BBC here then ....

Chris Rose

'Reducing' the licence fee sounds insufficient. The present lavish ways of the BBC suggest that the fee could easily be halved without the corporation's essential task being impaired.

Ed P

BBC News is a disgrace - huge savings could be made if it was just plain news, not opinion. Not everyone has access to multiple sources of news, so have to rely on the BBC. These people are being fed lies and left wing opinion insidiously. There should be no state funding for any of these slanted discussion programmes unless and until they fulfil their charter and provide balance.

Clear Memories

Why should those of us with a right-leaning view pay to have our ideas disregarded at best and more often, thoroughly trashed?

I am sick of watching left-wing, multi-culti claptrap trotted out as drama, sick of seeing biased and left-bigotted interviewers talk over those whose views they won't accept, let alone listen to and debate.

I want the good without the bias. Scrap the licence completely and let the BBC take its chances in the market place. Good programmes (Top Gear et al) will sell whilst the social engineering claptrap (Casualty, Eastenders and all the other dross) will sink.

Just a thought (if you disagree), Emirates Airlines inflight entertainment carries at least 4 hours of Top Gear on every flight but not an episode of Eastenders. They buy based on what people want to watch. Think about it.

Swiss Bob

Cut the fee by 10% for each of the years under the new agreement. Then abolish it and if Pravda is worth the money then people will pay for it.

There is no possible justification for a state broadcaster in the 21st Century, especially one so partial to one political ideology.

JohnPage

Of course they will cut front line services - like the police etc. But unlike the police we can all see some of the egregious waste, such as multiple reports for the same event, and reporters filmed outside when they could be in the studio.

That's why the NAO has to tear into the BBC's backrooms too.

denis cooper

The cost is one thing, but the blatant, systematic and institutionalised breaches of the Charter's requirement for political impartiality are another thing and in the bigger picture they are infinitely more serious.

Of course it's absolutely typical of the Tories to focus primarily on the cost: in the recent Commons debate, which has still not been deemed to merit any mention on this site but which is recorded here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100714/debtext/100714-0003.htm

most of the Tory objections to the EU External Action Service centred on its cost, not on the principle that the external representation of this country should never be subsumed into a collective EU representation, which is what they will probably allow to happen in the coming years.

By all means complain about the cost of the BBC, but first and foremost make it clear that its continued existence as a publicly funded service depends upon it providing a politically impartial service for news and commentary to the public as a whole, as laid down in its Charter, and if that means replacing many members of its staff - presenters, reporters, researchers, editors, production managers, all the way up to the most senior executives - then that is what must happen, and it must start now.

There were and still are good grounds for sacking Wark:

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/scotland/Warks-Labour-links-now-Tory.2593441.jp

and that would be a start, but only a start - there are plenty more in the BBC who've apparently been recruited on the basis of their political stance, and who've proved incapable of subordinating those personal views to the requirements for political impartiality and journalistic integrity.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411977/Yes-biased-religion-politics-admit-BBC-executives.html

"BBC executives have been forced to admit what critics have known for years - that the corporation is institutionally biased ..."

There are only two possible cures for that - thoroughly purge its staff, or shut it down.

Tim W

Every BBC News program leads with Stephanie Flanders and Robert Peston telling us how evil Tory cuts are. They were TELLING us that the £6bn in year savings the other week were massive and dangerous. If thats bad, how will the cover £50bn cuts? A public service would be not to scare people.

They could easily merge their local radio stations. They seem to have one for each county of the UK. Make it regional to save money and give independents a chance.
Much of their programming is good on the BBC but the pay that senior executives get is crazy.
Also this week for the Open Golf for example, they have people interviewing players for TV and then a different person conducting an identical interview for 5Live immediately afterwards. Why not use the one interview for both? A clear example of publicly owned companies not understanding efficiency. A private company could produce the same quality output at a lower cost.

TomTom

"if it cuts yet more public service broadcasting from the World Service"

The World Service is funded by the Foreign Office not the Licence. the Licence is simply a Compulsory Subscription Model backed by Incarceration for Non-Compliance.

This permits Mark Byford to spend £5000 watching football and creates an Apparatchik Class immune from the travails of those forking out £12/month to fund their Secular Vatican.

The NAO should expose BBC corruption. It is no different in Germany where ARD and ZDF wallow in Compulsory Subscription Revenues and self-indulgent corruption

strapworld

The BBC pay outrageous salaries and have third rate programmes and third rate presenters. Men and women who should have been retired years ago. (Golf and Question Time especially!) Even the Proms was hosted last evening by a woman who used to read from an autocue on ITN! Are there not young people wanting jobs who could have done a better job? If anyone saw that woman last night whose ribs glared at us in that low cut gown, you may have thought, like me, that instead of wasting money on such an inappropriate dress she could have bought herself a decent meal!

BUT The left wing bias of the BBC is a disgrace. This blog, amongst many others, has been pointing this out for years.The stories are legion. The Today programme/Newsnight/Question Time/even the 5.45am farming programme! and the World Service are dominated by the left.

It appears to me that if you are not on the left of politics and a person of black/asian descent or lesbian/homosexual or a foul mouthed 'comedian' your chances of a career in the BBC are very very limited.

BUT and this is a big BUT. I do not believe this coalition government (which I have supported in the main) has the bottle to reduce the licence TAX! Nor, what I believe is the bigger scandal, not to decriminalise not having a television licence.

I am quite amazed that Cameron and Clegg, together, have not brought the Director General in for a quiet chat and given him example after example of bias against the middle and right wing of politics.

Jeremy Clarkson for Director General.
Jon Gaunt to chair Question Time and Richard Littlejohn to present Newsnight.

Let the wind of change sweep through Broadcasting House and Television Centre and blow away the tired, grumpy leftwing journalists who have made their fortunes from the public purse.

David Preiser

Anan,

Well said. You might want to check out the Biased-BBC blog.

http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/

Rita Lomax

An excellent blog, with top of the range posters, so there's nothing to add except thank you all.

AndyinBrum

Christ, the frothing mouth brigade are out in force today, could someone explain to me how cutting the license fee will aid the deficit? Because that's what should be the governments one priority, not worrying about an organisation that is not funded from general taxation.

I do agree that the BBC news can come across as politicaly biased, but after seeing Sky & fox, It's a he'll of a lot closer to neutrality than they are. But how do you ensure neutrality? What's right wing to me, could be left wing to you, or t'other way round

Anyroad. For what it's worth, in spirit of cuts, axe BBC 3, what little good stuff it offers can be easily accomodated online, or on BBC2.

Also the reason Eastenders isn't shown on airlines is because they aren't stand alone programs, but instead have continuing storylines over weeks, months or years, top gear really is just one off sketches

Minnie Ovens

Clear Memories
July 17th, 2010 12:15pm

I don't think that too many viewers of Eastenders are lining up to fly to the Emirates which might be a reason it is not shown.

Mycroft

I know someone with Conservative views who has had a successful career with the BBC, and he fully confirms that left-liberal views are taken for granted by most of his colleagues; so he is discreet about what he says on political matters. The trouble is that when people know this about certain organizations, people who think that they would be uncomfortable (or even be discriminated against) in such environments simply don't apply to join, and the bias becomes ever more entrenched. For all that, the BBC is infinitely better than ITV, which is a cultural desert, so I wouldn't want to become starved of funds. But pressure really does have to put on them to try to do something about this.

Mr Dark

Newsnight is a long-running disgrace. Paxman looks bored. Kirsty Wark is incapable of a covilised interview with a Tory politician, and Paul Mason, the resident 'economist' is like any campus Marxist. Only Mark Urban redeems this dismal, stale formula. The ensuing Culture Review is similarly pathetic, with the deeply provincial Ms Wark getting excited about every 'award-winning' 'controversial' item of mediocrity which her researchers have trawled up to be 'critically appraised' by whatever group of academics, comedians and pundits she can persuade up to Glasgow. As for Question Time/Any Questions, I switch off the moment I hear that Helena Kennedy or Shami Chakrabati have been recycled between the two Dimblebys yet again.

Minnie Ovens

strapworld
July 17th, 2010 1:39pm

Your point on Golf is well made.
I'm watching the Open and one presenter asked the other: Who was Granny Clark(e)?
The Answer: A woman called Clarke who was a grandmother.
You certainly know when the intellectual strain gets to these people. Sooner rather than later.

toni

" I noticed that on last night's Any Questions, Phillip Hammond was moved to reply to a comment by the apalling Jonathon Dimbleby (in my view) by saying, "Another example of BBC impartiality".

And I noticed that on ' Question Time' David Dimbleby repeatedly barracked and interupted Andy Burnham, but he didn't whine about it and I'm not either.
It happens to all politicians on all sorts of programmes, stop being so precious, grow a bit of spine and get over it.

Stuart Seacole Smith

The BBC malaise is two-fold: long-standing complacency and waste in every aspect of the organisation on the one side; and political bias towards the left on the other.

But the cure is the same: a significantly reduced license-tax in line with other budget cuts, and holding the BBC strictly to its charter. This can start right now, and if the organisation hasn't sorted itself out in 5 years, then implement either another significant cut in the fee, or possibly its complete abolition.

The budget cuts combined with minute attention to the charter will help: cull clapped out and/or irredeemably partisan staff and presenters; focus the organisation on core services; and stimulate new approaches to making quality drama and nature programmes that involve nurturing new talent and co-operating with US and EU commercial stations aimed at maximising bang for the buck and eliminating bias.

I don't care if the tories focus on "waste" as their key motivator, the result should be the same. Roll on the changes.

davidk

Might I add a word against the grain here? You're all barking mad.

A strong and independent national broadcasting company is essential to our democracy. Just because it isn't the egregious SKY News Channel, toadying to whatever government minister greases the sofa on any given day, is not a reason for calling it a crypto-Marxist organisation.

Grow up.

lescam

The BBC has plenty of faults, and I do agree about the leftwing bias on many current affairs programmes.

However, don't any other viewers agree with me that it is a pleasure only found on BBC, to be able to watch a good film or drama etc WITHOUT ADVERTS interrupting it. On ITV they are so crafty that there is a half hour or so ad free at the beginning, then the ads come more frequently, until towards the end they are every five minutes. For this reason we only watch pre-recorded ITV so we can fast forward the ads, but it is still an irritant. It is wonderful being able to watch something good from beginning to end, without any interruptions. For example, a couple of years ago, the Churchill drama "The Gathering Storm", one of the best things I've ever seen on TV, would have been totally ruined with adverts.
I definitely want to keep the BBC and I don't object in the least to the licence fee, which I think offers good value. But I do object to the biased news etc. and find Sky News far better in this respect. Regarding QT, it can be entertaining, but I am sick to death of Chakrabarti and the other bleeding hearts who appear so regularly. The idea of the programme is good, but the balance of left v. right is appalling and needs to be dramatically re-adjusted.
With all it faults, the programmes on BBC are still better than ITV. At least we are spared Big Brother, Celebrity Big Brother, Extraordinary People, etc. If BBC is killed off, I can imagine the rubbish that will take its place. Long live the BBC.

Dimoto

So most on here are anti the BBC, no surprise there, and I'm sympathetic, but what a mish-mash of views !
Some want to can Eastenders but elevate the ultra trivialist Jeremy Clarkson to the pantheon on the right side of St. Vince !

If the BBC is the national public service broadcaster, you have to allow that the barely literate majority have the right to programmes that interest them, not just the "news 'n politics" favoured by the humourless political junkies on here.

Personally, I find BBC4 one of the very few channels which still reflects the Reithian idea - I vote keep it.

Of much more concern is the cronyism and nepotism. The BBC has a role in opening opportunities to young talents, after all, media is an important industry. The trouble is, unless a youngster has an exceptionally dirty mouth or some other "shock jock" skills, he/she will find no way in, as the talentless, boring, sinecure holders drone on into their graves.
Dimblebees, Simpson and co, just bloody GO !!
There should also be an enquiry into the practice of the BBC croneydom, in mounting "independent production companies" to sell their soiled wares to their BBC chums.
The whole structure is rotten.

Anan

Thanks for the info David Preiser.

Cutting the license fee will definitely help the economy - more money in our pockets to buy rightwing journals with, and less in the hands of the bloated left.

strapworld

Minnie Ovens, I am also watching the Open Championship with the 79 year old commentator Allis pontificating. I have no idea who/is/was Granny Clarke. Ken's Grandmother?

What gets me is this game with people following grown men around who are hitting a small ball with a stick eventually into a hole, then doing it all over again. I get more fun throwing a ball (or stick) for my golden retriever who runs after it and brings it back then does it all over again!

But over a hundred people are there ''working'' for the BBC! They certainly know how to spend public money.

Sky television shows golf throughout the year. I doubt if they have more than twenty people involved, yet their broadcasts are far superior to the BBC. But that is the difference between a private company and a publicly funded one.

How many BBC employee's went to the World Cup? The Olympics? I read that there were more BBC employees covering President Obama's oath of office than even american news broadcasters!

Anan

I take issue with the entire British television establishment. Did no one else notice the utter contempt that Sky News showed toward Cameron and the Conservatives during and after the election? (and even to Howard before)? However, Sky doesn't extort its subscription out of people, unlike the BBC, and since I don't like their biased pro Labour crap, I am free to cancel Sky. I find it absolutely preposterous that we are required to have a License to watch a VHS video or DVD on TV, and therefore continue to fund the BBC and its Marxist drivel. Down with the BBC!!!

TomTom

"not worrying about an organisation that is not funded from general taxation."

WRONG !!! It IS !!

Pensioners >75 get free TV licences because the Taxpayer forks over £600 MILLION to the BBC from Taxes. So the Licence Payer pays TWICE - £145.50 AFTER INCOME TAX PLUS a proportionate Share of £600 MILLION.

The TV Licence costs £382.90 to a Top Rate Taxpayer or £32/month

Boudicca

The Licence Tax should be halved for starters and Hunt should warn the BBC that the blatent left-wing bias will cease or the BBC will cease to exist.

It is time the Labour propaganda machine, funded by Licence Tax payers, stopped.

Chuck Unsworth

@ davidk

"A strong and independent national broadcasting company is essential to our democracy."

And you think the BBC is such?

Fergus Pickering

If you watch films without adverts how do you make a cup of tea, feed the cats, have a pee etc etc? Anyway, most of the stuff I watch is recorded first using the excellent Sky system. Paying one hundred and fifty qid a year just to watch films without ads seems a bit wasteful to me. Aen't there any PROGRAMMES you like? No, me neither.

davidk

@ Chuck Unsworth -

The BBC attempts to deal a fair hand despite the generations old struggle it's had with politicians of various stripes. I think, by and large, yes, it has maintained its independence. If this present government seek to weaken it to pacify the Murdoch Empire it will pay a heavy price down the line.

Mycroft

davidk - no one is aying here (I hope) that we shouldn't have a 'strong and independent national broadcasting company', but rather that it should be equally strong and independent in dealing with all shades of political opinion.

Stuart Seacole Smith

davidk: deluded, I'm afraid. How old are you by the way?

Anan: fully agree with all.

TomTom: interesting analysis. Blimey, the BBC's ripping us off even worse than we thought. A "stealth ripoff" no less!

davidk

@ Mycroft -

"it should be equally strong and independent in dealing with all shades of political opinion."

As is often stated, the BBC are accused of being equally 'left' and 'right' - which sort of underlines the point they are equidistant from the two main political parties.

If Hunt sees himself as the man to take on the Beeb and slay the 'dragon', I'd suggest he thinks again if he doesn't want a very troubled political career. The BBC is an institution beloved of the vast majority of the people of this country - warts and all.

@ Stuart Seacole Smith -

Yes, very constructive.

Snowman

davidk @ 9.27:

here’s something that must appeal to your constructiveness, I reckon.

on today’s news the BBC reported on a case in the High Court filed on behalf of six former Guantanamo Bay inmates alleging torture in the camp. Few days ago, the Washington Post ran a front page story about six Guantanamo detainees who told their lawyers they’d rather stayed in the camp than go back to Algeria.

in my book, an unbiased broadcaster pursuing objectivity would touch on the Algerian story, coupling it with the High Court case perhaps, would you not agree?

and whilst you’re at it, will you kindly give us an example of a right leaning bias at the Corporation. Any example will do.

Snowman

and another thing, davidk:

since when is a national broadcasting organisation ‘essential to democracy’, ha? National broadcasters are usually associated with dictatorships, not democracies. In the 21st century, a national broadcaster funded involuntarily through taxation amounts to a boil on democracy.

you are entitled to hold the view that the BBC does an excellent job, or at least one that satisfy you, others may hold the same view. It’s perfectly OK with me if you and the others fund the excellence, and let me spend my money on what suits me. Any quarrel with it?

Disillusioned

Why does the BBC need a multi billion annual budget? It doesn't and, with the World Service and core news services ring fenced, it's budget should be drastically reduced and the rest of the licence fee allocated to funding decent universities. It is advances in our knowledge base that will help us out of recession, not some overpaid, vacuous, sofa bound "z" list "celebrity" or some self important, talentless journalist/TV presenter (too many to name!).

yank

My satellite television service picks up BBC America. It's a bit of propaganda they work up for us special. I check in with it once in a while, to spot out just where the hammer and sickle is planted on a given day.

You all might save yourselves a few sheckles, and remove the subsidies for that effort.

Fergus Pickering

Come along, David K, this really wil not do. Saying the BBC is unbased does not make it so. For 3 years it propped up the worst government we have ever had. And now it routinely attacks the coalition for everything they do. Why do you suppose their jobs were always advertised in The Guardian? This morning I heard three luvvies, or was it four, all tut-tuttng like mad about the idea of a ban on burkhas. They took it for granted that only the ignorant unwashed could hold a view contrary to their own - the sort of people who believe in capital punishment. Well I think there are a good few noxious criminals who coud be executed with advantage to the rest of us, starting (but not finishing) with Peter Sutcliffe.

yank

Oh, and did I mention that BBC America, in oh so properly accented Britishese, knowledgeably informs us that BP is populated by horrid capitalist roaders, the tainted remnants of a diseased society, out for one last smash at the environment and the workers of the world?

A message worth every pound sterling, I'm sure.

Steve Tierney

In my opinion the BBC should be; BBC1, BBC2, Radio2, Radio4, BBC News and parliament and the World Service. And that's it.

Stuart Seacole Smith

davidk: no doubt you've spent the weekend feverishly compiling a tome on right-leaning bias at the BBC?

Personally I'd be surprised if you found enough to half fill a mini post-it.

A hint that might save you some time: the left (preposterously) criticises Al-Beebeera for not being extreme left enough. The right (far too rarely) criticises it for being of the left. That doesn't put it in the centre. It must change or go.

raptor

It is nonsense to claim that the BBC is "independent". The BBC could only be described as independent if it earned its own living, which it does not.

The BBC is entirely dependent upon a tax levied on everyone in the UK who owns a television set, whether or not they watch BBC programmes. (And whether or not they regard the BBC as value for money, or as a collection of parasitic public-sector leftists.) Not a penny of the TV tax goes to any other broadcasting organization.

The only solution to this problem is to abolish the TV tax, and for the BBC to be broken up and privatised.

The parts of the BBC that are capable of earning their own living could then be regarded as "independent." The rest
would simply disappear, as being redundant.

Jolly Roger

I dont find any value in anything the BBC broadcasts. I do however require a tv to be able to watch dvds. Why should I have to fund this organisation?

The BBC should be privatised and people who enjoy the output from this broadcaster can pay the appropriate subscription charge. It is deeply offensive having to fund the BBC when you get no return for your money.

Sarmad

I am a classical musician and am frequently disgusted by the nepotism at work in BBC Radio 3 and the Proms. The commissioning process for new works in the Proms is completely lacking in transparency and appears to be totally corrupt. In recent years there have been multiple commissions and performances at the Proms for some partially-talented composers who are well-liked by certain establishment figures. At the same time there are composers whose far greater value can easily be demonstrated, but who have no chance whatsoever of ever being commissioned. And these are not small fees that are being paid to this epigones. It is so unfair that I now, reluctantly, welcome the end of the BBC. It's sad, because I learnt a great deal about music from Radio 3 during 1988-1995.