Friends of the BBC will oppose the government’s vicious attacks
|
Version 0 of 1. So the government wants a “root and branch” review to decide whether the BBC has “been chasing mass ratings at the expense of its original public service brief” (BBC faces ‘root and branch’ review of its size and remit, 13 July). Ministers appear not to know – or perhaps they have conveniently forgotten – that right from its foundation in the 1920s the BBC’s core mission was precisely to reach the entire population. The BBC was less than two years old in 1924 when John Reith said “it is most important that light and ‘entertaining’ items” be broadcast on its airwaves. There were all sorts of reasons for this. For one thing, Reith thought that “pleasing relaxation after a hard day’s work” was just as vital a building block of the rounded, balanced citizen as programmes of “edification and wider knowledge” – indeed, that to have one without the other would be culturally hurtful. He also believed that it was more democratic for programmes to be made “for any and all”. Furthermore, his staff quickly realised that a schedule laced with entertainment programmes of broad appeal meant audiences had the opportunity to catch – even if accidentally – less familiar but perhaps ultimately more rewarding material. In other words, the popular stuff helped the less popular stuff to succeed, creating what Reith called “the maximum benefit to the maximum number”. The fact that the BBC does the popular ratings-chasing things as well as the edifying things has always been a key part of the public service brief. Which, no doubt, is why in 1926 less than 10% of the schedule was devoted to classical music and not much more than 3% was for drama, while “popular” and dance music between them were on air for more than 35% of the time. It would be more accurate to say that commercial broadcasters have been muscling in on the BBC’s natural territory Tories, and their friends among the circling vultures of the commercial sector, assume that in doing popular programmes the BBC has been muscling in on natural commercial territory. But they are getting their history back-to-front. The BBC got there first – by several decades. It would be more accurate to say that commercial broadcasters have been muscling in on the BBC’s natural territory. Perhaps the government needs an expert panel to investigate whether they should be scaled back?Professor David HendyUniversity of Sussex • Will any of the “panel of industry experts” advising the culture secretary on the BBC’s future possibly gain financially from a diminution of the BBC’s scope and remit? If so, how can they be “independent”?Kit JacksonLondon • Re your headlines (The battle for the BBC, 14 July) and (BBC begins fightback against ‘bullies’, 14 July), I suggest that the BBC learns from Alexis Tsipras and sets up a referendum. The question could be along the following lines: “Do you agree that the Tories should stop trying to undermine the national treasure that is the BBC?” As a supplementary, the nation could be asked: “Do you agree that the current government should ensure that public service broadcasters have sufficient funds to provide full terrestrial coverage of all our national sports, most especially cricket?”Barry MellorLondon • Rona Fairhead, the chair of the BBC Trust, says it would be a “dereliction of duty” for her to resign in the face of the government’s vicious attack on the financing of the BBC (Interview, Media, 13 July). The director-general, Lord Hall, makes a truly dishonourable attempt to pretend that being forced to take on the cost of free TV licences for the over-75s, equating to 20% of the corporation’s current funding, is not a bad thing really. Their respective predecessors knew about “duty”. They threatened to resign in the face of exactly the same Tory demand, and the government backed down. Ms Fairhead and Lord Hall didn’t even try, and can surely be held culpable for the beginning of the end for the BBC as we know it. They should go.John ReynoldsCollingham, Nottinghamshire • If more than 40 million people use the BBC for an average 18 of hours a week, isn’t it time they were brought into the discussion about its future? I am 77 and entitled to a free TV licence, but I am happy to keep paying for it if it will save the BBC from the depredations of this government. I am sure there are more people like me who value all the BBC TV channels and radio programmes for their variety, impartiality and excellence. Time to speak up and pay up. Val SpougeBraintree, Essex • Tony Hall needs to be able to convince viewers of all ages of his strategy for the BBC. From where I’m sat it does not appear he is able to fight the BBC’s corner, and has instead allowed the politicians to dictate the future of the corporation. Of particular concern is what will be left of the BBC for young people. Just last month the views of many young people were ignored when the BBC and BBC Trust pressed ahead with plans to close BBC3 on television. It ignored the 24,000 consultation responses, the 300,000 signatures on the #SaveBBC3 petition, and an overwhelming majority in its own ICM polling. It seems in this area, as in others, the young are facing the biggest burden of the cuts. Now the Tories want a “debate” on Radio 1 too, and there is even talk of moving CBBC off our screens. Why is it all at the cost of young people? The BBC will need the support of passionate users of their services to defend what it does – they will be the licence fee payers of the future and will fund the corporation in the years to come. Unfortunately, I’m unconvinced that Lord Hall is the person to win them over. To many young people he’s seen as just another man in a suit trapped in a management bubble.Jono Read#SaveBBC3 Campaign • Whether or not BBC stars are overpaid (Wage bill for highest-paid BBC TV stars up by a fifth, 15 July), the four to one ratio of men to women of those pictured is perhaps more significant.Roy GrimwoodMarket Drayton, Shropshire • Does anyone agree that we should have a Friends of the BBC? A number of corporate bodies in the arts, museums and galleries enjoy the support of their “friends”, and there is no institution more worthy of loyal followers than the BBC (Editorial, 8 July). As this government seems hellbent on “death by a thousand cuts” for the BBC we, the audience, should make our voices heard and show our appreciation of the wonderful, life-enhancing service we receive, before it is too late.Shirley JacksonShouldham Thorpe, Norfolk • The article by Charlotte Higgins about the prospective battle confronting the BBC (The long read, 14 July) was one of the most depressing things I have read for a long time. Anyone who has experienced nothing but BBC television and radio could be forgiven for thinking that the praise heaped on BBC output is just hyperbole, but experience of foreign output demonstrates that it is not. Over the last 20 years I have been a frequent visitor to the US and after two or three visits I just gave up even trying to watch TV. Totally oppressive advert content, which might prove useful to anyone with a bladder problem but, for anyone who wishes to follow the story, very disruptive. As for radio: the choice is between religious programmes, hillbilly music, other types of pop music and National Public Radio. The US public radio and television broadcasting channels (one of each in Texas) are usable but tend to have a high content of old BBC material, so anyone familiar with BBC output will have seen or heard it all before. The implications of turning over the BBC to the vandals is horrific. America is a dreadful lesson to us all. Perhaps we need a public campaign – a petition? Reminding people what they stand to lose and, indeed, the excellent value that the BBC represents. Much better value than Sky. Perhaps the public is the only force this government would listen to. Will the Guardian take the lead?Eric DavidsonAberdeen • By saying that the charter review “will also look at the political bias of the BBC news coverage”, your report implies that bias is an established fact. What is a fact is that the BBC presents information on the obnoxious policies of this vicious government in a remarkably restrained way, considering how it is required to report on the indefensible, day after day. The charter review must be seen for what it is: an attempt by people with a vested interest in seeing it weakened to intimidate the BBC so that Tory policies go unchallenged. For this government “impartial news coverage” means uncritical reporting of Tory policies and politicians, and no coverage of critical comment from any part of the political left. Most of the press provides such a service, and the BBC is to be financially coerced into doing the same.Brian SmithWoodbury Salterton, Devon • Recent governments have been keen to give the people what they want, or so they say. If the British people could be asked about the BBC with the choice of three replies, I wonder what the figures would be? The question is, “Do you prefer: 1) A BBC funded by a licence fee as now plus those who watch/listen digitally? 2) A BBC funded by subscription, so that payment is optional and the service is reduced in scope? 3) Anything – don’t really care what happens to the BBC. If the people really don’t care, that is one thing. If on the other hand they prefer the first option and it is only commercial rivals to the BBC who don’t like it and the government then argues against this option, it is pandering to producer interests, is it not? Let’s be clear, who is it trying to please?Jeanne WarrenGarsington, Oxfordshire |