The BBC is still in danger after the white paper

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/may/13/the-bbc-is-still-in-danger-after-the-white-paper

Version 0 of 1.

Culture secretary John Whittingdale told the House of Commons that “the BBC is and must always remain at the very heart of British life” (Report, 13 May). But the white paper tells a different story.

It allows the BBC to contract out all of its production, except news, thereby losing most of the staff, skills and expertise that has underpinned its success.

Ofcom, an organisation designed to promote commercial communications, will now oversee the relationship between the BBC and the market. As such it is likely to be far more receptive to the pressures from the commercial sector for the BBC to curtail its activities.

The BBC must now consider whether subscription “could provide a more sustainable funding model in the longer term”. This is clearly the direction of travel long advocated by those wishing to see the corporation withdraw from popular programming and provide only content the market deems unprofitable.

Let us hope that when the white paper is debated in parliament, the government is forced to reconsider this approach. Otherwise the BBC will become a small, subscription-funded, organisation with few viewers and even fewer supporters.Emeritus Professor Tom O’MalleyAberystwyth University

• The BBC director general has welcomed the new white paper’s requirement for the corporation to be “distinctive” and “innovative”. But I’m concerned about how the culture secretary counterposed distinctiveness with the mere chase of ratings in his Commons speech. Could this be Whittingdale’s way of indicating, together with his demand for “transparency” around top performers’ pay, that the BBC should butt out of popular programming? Couched in the language of concern for quality and the dangers of descending to mere entertainment, the aim seems to be to leave the big ratings stuff to the market and for the BBC to concentrate on higher matters for niche audiences.

But ever since its monopoly was broken by the introduction of commercial TV in the 1950s, it’s been an economic necessity for the BBC to keep an eye on ratings – if only to justify the universal licence fee. Notwithstanding, the BBC has managed to sustain what the 1962 Pilkington report on the future of British broadcasting described as broadcasting’s key purpose, the “widest possible range” of programming, offering a very broad mix that has been both popular and distinctive. The director general needs to be much more alert to possible commercial cream-offs of popular programming – however well gussied-up in worthy “distinctiveness” talk.Rosalind BruntSheffield

• Although “distinctiveness” has been the subject of much debate, little has been said about the obvious unique feature of BBC – the absence of commercial advertisements. These can have an adverse impact on audience members and have been known to influence content. The absence of commercials on the BBC is important for audiences, accuracy and artistic integrity. When the impact of commercials on the behaviour of children and other vulnerable groups is taken into account, the value and values of commercial-free broadcasting are not only distinctive but essential.Emeritus Professor Bob UsherwoodUniversity of Sheffield

• The licence fee will go up with inflation, but the BBC’s income from public money is to be frozen for five years. So where will the extra money from the increased licence fees go? Maggie HamiltonMilford on Sea, Hampshire

• The BBC is being warned that its programmes should not aim to get the highest ratings or it will be privatised. At the same time our schools are told to get the highest ratings or they will be privatised. What a strange world we live in.Ron BrewerOld Buckenham, Norfolk

• If the BBC is independent, why is the government putting its nominees on its board?Tim WardLondon

• Surely BBC licence payers should decide who gets on the new unitary board to run the BBC?Carmel CaddenLondon

• It is odd that the newspapers which screamed that the Leveson proposal for a watchdog to make sure that the press-appointed ombudsman was working properly was government interference with the freedom of the press are now strangely quiet about government plans to appoint half the members of a new BBC governing body and interfere with the corporation’s finances. Where are the demands for freedom from government interference now?Adam LeysLondon

• The government will be hoping that, having backed off from the proposal to flood the BBC board with government appointees, the decision to restrict their representation to no more than half will be accepted with a sigh of relief. But to make even one government appointee, in the absence of a corresponding representative from the opposition benches, inevitably compromises the BBC’s impartiality. Indeed, why do we need politicians on the BBC board at all? And, if politicians, why not teachers, doctors, nurses, lawyers?Tim Shelton-JonesBrighton

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com