Home > Stephen Pollard

Sunday 12 October 2008

Dare to dream and make your ultimate trip a reality

The latest culture as recommended by our staff

Michael Henderson

Michael Henderson suggests

Email registration

Free weekly email update

Great products and special offers for Spectator readers

Click here for great value events

Click here for exclusive articles, offers, tasting notes and discussion

The BBC and cricket: we don't want it

Tuesday, 5th August 2008

Here's my theory: the BBC's casually misleading attitude to news- its refusal to accept that Israel ever has a case for self-defence, its failure to label terrorism as terrorism, its sneering reporting of anything which doesn't fit into its left-liberal prejudices - is now so deep a part of its culture that its own executives don't even realise that their own deeply misleading statements (I'm being charitable) are so easy to spot.

This morning's reaction to the sale of Test cricket rights to Sky is a case in point.

Sky paid £300 million for five years. The BBC decided not to complete. It says the price was too high (although rumour has it that the sum paid to buy the rights to Formula 1 was £150 million for the same period).

Giles Clarke, the ECB chairman, has this morning been lambasting the BBC for failing to put in a bid of any kind. As he points out, almost three and half million of us play cricket, yet the nation's public broadcaster does not consider it worth bidding even a penny to show a Test Match, or highlights.

Because far from selling out to the highest bidder, the ECB went out of its way to lure the BBC into televising Test cricket. Its tender made clear that:

a bidder may bid for part only of any package, eg two Test matches or whatever, taking place in each season. However, any such bid must be for the full duration of the contract.

The ECB made it clear to the BBC that it wanted to have Test cricket on the BBC and would find a way to accomodate it within the overall rights package. Yet there was no bid of any sort from the BBC, not for one Test a year, not for two, and not for a highlights package. Cricket, as far as the BBC is now concerned, is not worth a penny.

That should lead to further questions about just what we pay our licence fee for, if it is not in part for the BBC to televise the national summer sport.

How has the BBC responded to Mr Clarke's attacks? By issuing an entirely misleading statement. Last night, it said that "scheduling and cost constraints" had meant it had had to rule out a bid. Utter rot.

This morning's statement was a deliberate obfuscation:

The BBC is astonished by the comments by the ECB. We've always said any bid for live Test cricket was subject to value for money and fitting into scheduling and in our view neither of these criteria were met. 'We have consistently argued that not having cricket as a listed event puts it out of the reach of all terrestrial broadcasters. That's the ECB's choice and they are entitled to it, but it's absurd to blame the BBC for this outcome.

This is utter nonsense. First, the ECB said it would accomodate the BBC. And if you doubt that it would have done, look at what it has done in Wales: it has given S4C the right to broadcast Test cricket. Is the BBC seriously suggesting that only S4C has the scheduling capacity and money to show Test cricket?

Worse is the misleading inclusion of the word 'live'. The highlights package was available at a snip, Indeed, Channel Five is now to continue showing them. The BBC could have had them, and at least one Test, if it has wanted them, But instead of pwning up to the truth - that it has made a policy decision not to televise cricket - is has tried to blame the ECB.

We go to prison if we don't pay for the salaries of these people.

Previous Back to Stephen Pollard Next

Blogs: Clive Davis | Melanie Phillips | Americano | Coffee House | Trading Floor

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (29)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Marcus Cotswell

August 5th, 2008 1:07pm

Never mind, Stephen, at least they've still got the rights to Wimbledon. I know how much you enjoy the tennis :-p

Greg

August 5th, 2008 1:24pm

"pwning up to the truth".

What is it on the internets these days with replacing the 'o' in owned (and its derivatives) with a 'p'? Is it something to do with porn?

"We go to prison if we don't pay for the salaries of these people"

Only if you have a TV capable of receiving broadcast TV. I got rid of mine and use iPlayer to watch any BBC programmes I like the look of ("Bonekickers" is my current giggle, it's so bad it's good).

Of course, one misses out on live sport but as your post correctly identifies, there isn't much of that on it these days anyway. Put the money saved towards a season ticket at Lord's.

ACT

August 5th, 2008 2:31pm

I couldn't agree more. And worse still, if you're a TMS bore like me, is the Corporation's true attitude towards that. As more than one member of the TMS team has told me, the (tieless, deconstructed) suits at the Beeb would love to get rid of ball-by-ball coverage on the radio, and replace it with dumbed down 5Live pap.

Tiberius

August 5th, 2008 3:27pm

BBC TV doesn't want to broadcast cricket because it doesn't meet its high standards of cravenness. BBC 3 is a much more worthy expression of where public service broadcasting should go.

Jeff

August 5th, 2008 3:33pm

I can only imagine that not having free-to-air cricket can only be bad for the development of the game. I grew up in australia where cricket was always on in the summer, and that's where my love of the game started. How can you turn youngsters onto the game when they can't watch it?

Greg: "pwning" was obviously a typo - the 'p' is next to the 'o' on the keyboard.

Andy Marr

August 5th, 2008 3:55pm

Pollard don't be a muppet.

We don't go to prison if we don't pay.

We get a fine of up to 1000pounds though rarely more than 100pounds.

Anyway that only happens to the numpteys that let the BBC goons into their house.

Their magic TV detectors are just a myth they used to scare us. There is no such technology.

Thats why they always try to get into the house, otherwise they have no knowing.

I havn't payed my licence in 10 years and neither have 3 other people I know.

All we get are regular letters asking us if we have a TV, and we lie.

But anyway you needs TV anymore. You have Sky + BBC live online, all new programming is available online.

Get rid of the TV if you want to be honest.

Beedeekay

August 5th, 2008 4:00pm

Please please please please please David Cameron include in the Conservative manifesto a pledge to end the licence fee (poll tax) that forces us to pay for the Guardian Broadcasting Company whether we watch it or not.

David

August 5th, 2008 4:21pm

Why should the BBC be spending money on something for which there is clearly a commercial market for? Sky is willing to pay, the BBC shouldn't step in and distort the market.

Stephen Pollard

August 5th, 2008 5:10pm

David - I think you're missing the point. I'm not saying the BBC should have bid for the full rights. I'm saying that they are lying about being priced out of televising any Test cricket. The ECB would have let them have either the highlights or one or two Tests a year for a fraction of the price. And yet the BBC says they couldn't schedule or afford it.
Utter nonsense.

Oliver Chettle

August 5th, 2008 9:22pm

I came here to read your thoughts on cricket, but you rant about Israel in the first sentence, so I am not going to read further, and I will leave the Spectator site as soon as I have posted this. Please keep your political obsessions to yourself when they are not relevant.

Squire

August 5th, 2008 11:47pm

Couple of typos there mate. I think that should be compete not complete and owning not pwning. What was that about dyslexic docs?

stephen hottinger

August 6th, 2008 12:52am

The BBC have not shown cricket for 9 years, why are we complaining now?

I understand that the ECB removed it from the BBC in 1998 and sold it to CH4 in an underhand way, by avoiding the bidding process.

The ECB then lied to government, got cricket delisted on the basis of a gentlemans agreement that some cricket would remain on non pay tv and then sold the lot to sky.

The ECB only contribute a small amount to grass roots cricket eg 5% of last £220 million. The bulk of grass roots investment, is lottery/government money.

The 27% increase in participation in cricket the ECB speak about is never shown in detail, I think it involves plastic bats and sponge balls!

Just like boxing and the 6 nations, lack of public audience will be a disaster for cricket.

peter

August 6th, 2008 5:54am

Why should the bbc use our money to pay anything for sport ? If the event is any good there are plenty of commercial stations (satellite or terrestrial) to bid - a license fee can only be justified if it is to provide a service that is not available commercially. The bbc are sending more people to beijing than the british team - we should not be paying for it

THX1138

August 6th, 2008 8:41am

If the BBC had got the cricket SP or someone on The Speccie would have written a piece on how ridiculous it was to spend £300 million on a minority sport.

Dan Harrison

August 6th, 2008 10:21am

The point that the author is made is not about the cost of televising cricket, nor the justification for the licence fee on the grounds of what we as individuals want to see, his point is that the BBC made no effort at all to even make a big for any kind of cricket.

Fair enough some may say, why should they when the ECB has cut them out of the picture before, as pointed out by Mr Hottinger.

The point is that they should have to justify why they did this letting down the millions of dedicated cricket fans in this country without even 'batting' an eyelid, and then try to blame it on the ECB.

I agree with Stephen that the BBC should be held accountable for what it does and does not decide to cover, especially if they want me to pay over £100 a year for the funding of drivvle like eastenders!

tired and emotional

August 6th, 2008 12:30pm

pwning is what you do when you perform extremely well in a computer game like world of warcraft. Instead of you got 'owned', you got 'pwned'.

I can't remember the origin of it but I think it's pronounced pooned...

MartinW

August 6th, 2008 12:37pm

Let's not get too worked up about this. If there is to be a choice, then TMS on Long Wave is by far the better service to have. To lose ball-by-ball commentary from by the magnificent TMS team would be devastating.
Losing TV coverage on the BBC can be borne.
Incidentally, given the appalling way the BBC now treats sports coverage, i.e. flashing or rolling a highly intrusive 'logo' over the screen every time a shot is repeated, or overlaying everything with 'musak', perhaps we are better off without cricket on BBC TV.

D.A.

August 6th, 2008 1:46pm

The BBC is obsessed with it's left wing propaganda. I don't think they can use cricket to promote all their loony lefty pet subjects. Therefore it is much better to let someone else pay for the cricket and the BBC can keep its cash to use to lecture to the long suffering and increasingly irritated viewers / listeners.

Patrick, London

August 6th, 2008 2:15pm

Why not do a Vorderman to Jonathan Ross and bid with the millions saved?

Alternatively why not just kill the licence fee altogether and let the BBC compete in a free market?

Ann

August 6th, 2008 3:15pm

I hope I am allowed to say that the BBC is run by lying scum. It should be dismantled at once.

Ann

August 6th, 2008 3:20pm

Cricket is no more a 'minority sport' than formula 1, you sad muppet.

THX1138

August 6th, 2008 5:39pm

D.A. Ann- You're like the fictional ranters from Down The Line.

Maybe you're really Charlie Higson trying out some new characters?

THX1138

August 6th, 2008 5:41pm

Ann. FYI I said The Speccie would say it was a minority sport. I just think it's a boring sport.

Ann

August 6th, 2008 7:36pm

Numberplate, I am sorry for you that you don't get cricket, the most exciting game there is. But then, the prats who run the BBC also don't have the mental apparatus to appreciate it.

D.A.

August 7th, 2008 12:14am

number plate, are you a beeboid ?

THX1138

August 7th, 2008 8:25am

DA- No

MICHAEL HARRIS

August 9th, 2008 4:20pm

I'm relieved the BBC will not be showing cricket.When they had the Tests they were constantly interrupted by News, Weather, ads for future programmes-quite apart from Wimbledon, athletics and horse racing.Pay your subs you squirts, and God bless Rupert Murdoch who brought undivided coverage to us all.Michael

Ann

August 9th, 2008 10:49pm

Michael, I agree with you there (although it's wrong to suggest that there are NO interruptions on Sky). But then, I do want to see the BBC shut down anyway.

Colonial

August 11th, 2008 1:37pm

I was in the Eastern Med for July, where the locals are not exactly big on reporting cricket. However, we had occasional access to BBC TV news. Even here the cricket reporting is so utterly pathetic that you have no doubt that the weird GLUPs ( Ghastly Lefty Urban Poms ) have some kind of agenda to destroy great chunks of what is, or now mainly was, great about Britain. One wonders why they are so happy about the new overpopulated, crass and venal multicultural stew they are forming.