This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/19/bbc-licence-fee-dispute

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
‘The BBC is not undergoing involuntary euthanasia’ ‘The BBC is not undergoing involuntary euthanasia’
(7 days later)
We have no need to fret about the future of BBC drama – it is capable of providing that all by itself, in a week that has seen the broadcaster launch a counterattack on the green paper on its future. By mid-week, the story of a justified complaint – that the government was cynically offloading a £650,000 bill for free TV licences for the over-75s on to the corporation had turned into howls of mawkish protest and rallying cries of “save the BBC” – before we’re entirely sure from what. We have no need to fret about the future of BBC drama – it is capable of providing that all by itself, in a week that has seen the broadcaster launch a counterattack on the green paper on its future. By mid-week, the story of a justified complaint – that the government was cynically offloading a £650m bill for free TV licences for the over-75s on to the corporation had turned into howls of mawkish protest and rallying cries of “save the BBC” – before we’re entirely sure from what.
A collective protest letter from celebrities, which turned out to have been encouraged from within, has not helped. We should treat such confections with the scepticism we reserve for letters from self-interested business folk calling for Tory votes before an election. Deep breaths all round. The BBC is not really “under attack”, being “bullied”, nor on the brink of being replaced by a porn-funded network based in an offshore tax haven. But it is undergoing an exercise that it does not like – having to defend its funding model and growth of its services.A collective protest letter from celebrities, which turned out to have been encouraged from within, has not helped. We should treat such confections with the scepticism we reserve for letters from self-interested business folk calling for Tory votes before an election. Deep breaths all round. The BBC is not really “under attack”, being “bullied”, nor on the brink of being replaced by a porn-funded network based in an offshore tax haven. But it is undergoing an exercise that it does not like – having to defend its funding model and growth of its services.
Neither is an unreasonable question to ask, which makes me think that it might be better to show an interest in the process and be firm and clear on what its red lines are, rather than adopting a “how very dare you?” one about the exercise.Neither is an unreasonable question to ask, which makes me think that it might be better to show an interest in the process and be firm and clear on what its red lines are, rather than adopting a “how very dare you?” one about the exercise.
Scope and finance are very much legitimate questions for publicly funded broadcasters. The BBC is big and has expanded rapidly from the 1990s. There are some good reasons for this – and some not so good. It is large because scale helped it achieve impact in a global media world and technology has enabled it to add services quickly. It has not, however, undergone much scrutiny for the impact of this on others. A serious radio competitor, for example, has never got off the ground, while newspaper websites are up against its prodigious online offering. Asking a group of people who have run other broadcasting bodies to advise the government on the BBC’s impact on media markets is not lese-majesty.Scope and finance are very much legitimate questions for publicly funded broadcasters. The BBC is big and has expanded rapidly from the 1990s. There are some good reasons for this – and some not so good. It is large because scale helped it achieve impact in a global media world and technology has enabled it to add services quickly. It has not, however, undergone much scrutiny for the impact of this on others. A serious radio competitor, for example, has never got off the ground, while newspaper websites are up against its prodigious online offering. Asking a group of people who have run other broadcasting bodies to advise the government on the BBC’s impact on media markets is not lese-majesty.
Where there are more unfudgeable differences on the BBC’s future is on its aspiration to be a universal service, whereas John Whittingdale, the culture and media secretary, thinks it should be “narrower and more targeted”. I believe the Lilliputians who want a micro-BBC are wrong. Stripped of popular content to attract wide audiences, and merely providing upmarket niche fare, would end up with the corporation losing much of its funding and impact. It is like suggesting the Beeb provide an entirely wholemeal repast, without any of the delicious, naughty bits we want on our plates.Where there are more unfudgeable differences on the BBC’s future is on its aspiration to be a universal service, whereas John Whittingdale, the culture and media secretary, thinks it should be “narrower and more targeted”. I believe the Lilliputians who want a micro-BBC are wrong. Stripped of popular content to attract wide audiences, and merely providing upmarket niche fare, would end up with the corporation losing much of its funding and impact. It is like suggesting the Beeb provide an entirely wholemeal repast, without any of the delicious, naughty bits we want on our plates.
The national broadcaster is also one of the most significant British institutions, at a time when nations struggle to project their beliefs in the global cacophony: why risk that national asset in an uncertain world? Yet that does not make the Gargantuans, who see no limits on BBC expansion, right. The most dubious claim is that the BBC cannot get too big because so many other new providers from Netflix to Apple TV have grown large. This is like the Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland chapter where she is not sure if she got tiny or the room got big – if others proliferate, the national broadcaster will be relatively smaller. But a levy on the licence-fee payer cannot be endlessly re-deployed to match everything that commercial operators do. Finding the balance will be the hardest question for the BBC in the years to come.The national broadcaster is also one of the most significant British institutions, at a time when nations struggle to project their beliefs in the global cacophony: why risk that national asset in an uncertain world? Yet that does not make the Gargantuans, who see no limits on BBC expansion, right. The most dubious claim is that the BBC cannot get too big because so many other new providers from Netflix to Apple TV have grown large. This is like the Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland chapter where she is not sure if she got tiny or the room got big – if others proliferate, the national broadcaster will be relatively smaller. But a levy on the licence-fee payer cannot be endlessly re-deployed to match everything that commercial operators do. Finding the balance will be the hardest question for the BBC in the years to come.
Comparison with the NHS is apposite, because the two organisations share many of the same strengths and weakness. Both are all-purpose, valued institutions, whose established way of operating is under threat from a number of forces – economic, technological and demographic. As such, they risk inhabiting a joint comfort zone, where the focus is on preserving and defending, rather than innovating and rethinking. But just as anyone who wants to preserve the achievement of a universal health service needs to be up for reforming it, the BBC will be poorly served by a retreat into a citadel, relying on sentiments that are anti-change or simply protectionist. Less tradition-bound “replenisher” audiences will demand an organisation comfortable with dynamism and flexibility, as well as consistency.Comparison with the NHS is apposite, because the two organisations share many of the same strengths and weakness. Both are all-purpose, valued institutions, whose established way of operating is under threat from a number of forces – economic, technological and demographic. As such, they risk inhabiting a joint comfort zone, where the focus is on preserving and defending, rather than innovating and rethinking. But just as anyone who wants to preserve the achievement of a universal health service needs to be up for reforming it, the BBC will be poorly served by a retreat into a citadel, relying on sentiments that are anti-change or simply protectionist. Less tradition-bound “replenisher” audiences will demand an organisation comfortable with dynamism and flexibility, as well as consistency.
The BBC debate is cultural and ideological, as well as practical. Do some papers bash the BBC excessively because they think it is, as Norman Tebbit once put it, a “sunset home for third-rate minds” and “sanctimonious, smug” lefties? They surely do. Yet the way the public broadcaster covers the relationship between state and market is not as broad or inquiring as it could be. It cannot win its big argument – on remaining a broad service – solely by relying on the heartbeat of those uttering a displaced cry of pain against a Tory election win or who treat commercial media as infra dig.The BBC debate is cultural and ideological, as well as practical. Do some papers bash the BBC excessively because they think it is, as Norman Tebbit once put it, a “sunset home for third-rate minds” and “sanctimonious, smug” lefties? They surely do. Yet the way the public broadcaster covers the relationship between state and market is not as broad or inquiring as it could be. It cannot win its big argument – on remaining a broad service – solely by relying on the heartbeat of those uttering a displaced cry of pain against a Tory election win or who treat commercial media as infra dig.
More of the recipe for the BBC’s success lies in its own hands than outside it. Bright insiders, as well as those of us who wander in and out of its studios as presenters and contributors, know that it is devilishly hard to challenge existing aversions.More of the recipe for the BBC’s success lies in its own hands than outside it. Bright insiders, as well as those of us who wander in and out of its studios as presenters and contributors, know that it is devilishly hard to challenge existing aversions.
Ideas of merit and contestability can end up being vague. There is “just enough truth in the public-sector group-think accusation”, says one former channel head, to need addressing. At the same time, ministers need to be reminded that the BBC has many pockets of excellence and dedication, most often from those paid modestly to make creative, thoughtful programmes week after week. Their worry is the questionable utility of a lot of managers to programme makers. True, Tony Hall, the director general, is about to wield an axe here. Overall though, more people in the organogram should move in and out of jobs and in and out of the BBC, a sensible precaution against lethargy and repetitious thinking.Ideas of merit and contestability can end up being vague. There is “just enough truth in the public-sector group-think accusation”, says one former channel head, to need addressing. At the same time, ministers need to be reminded that the BBC has many pockets of excellence and dedication, most often from those paid modestly to make creative, thoughtful programmes week after week. Their worry is the questionable utility of a lot of managers to programme makers. True, Tony Hall, the director general, is about to wield an axe here. Overall though, more people in the organogram should move in and out of jobs and in and out of the BBC, a sensible precaution against lethargy and repetitious thinking.
The irony is that this is about a licence fee that is being renewed on its present basis. So the dispute is really about the terms of the deal, not the danger of Auntie undergoing involuntary euthanasia.The irony is that this is about a licence fee that is being renewed on its present basis. So the dispute is really about the terms of the deal, not the danger of Auntie undergoing involuntary euthanasia.
One day, its funding may well turn out differently. Not because proto-Thatcherite ministers say so, but because the forces of media disaggregation are powerful and likely to grow more so. The mixed model of a core licence fee funding large parts of the BBC the market could never satisfactorily replicate, topped up by subscription, is not a horror movie. I suspect the Beeb would turn out to be rather adept at it. But it is at least a decade off. For now, it needs to deal with a real-terms cut to the licence fee while improving what it delivers and taking unsentimental decisions about where to concentrate efforts and resourcesOne day, its funding may well turn out differently. Not because proto-Thatcherite ministers say so, but because the forces of media disaggregation are powerful and likely to grow more so. The mixed model of a core licence fee funding large parts of the BBC the market could never satisfactorily replicate, topped up by subscription, is not a horror movie. I suspect the Beeb would turn out to be rather adept at it. But it is at least a decade off. For now, it needs to deal with a real-terms cut to the licence fee while improving what it delivers and taking unsentimental decisions about where to concentrate efforts and resources
In this environment, I would replace the slogans in New Broadcasting House, telling programme makers to do the things they are doing already, with the superb line on continuity and reform from Lampedusa’s great novel, The Leopard: “If things are to stay the same round here, they are going to have to change.” This is never a delightful prospect for established institutions. But whisper it gently – it’s not the end of broadcasting civilisation, either.In this environment, I would replace the slogans in New Broadcasting House, telling programme makers to do the things they are doing already, with the superb line on continuity and reform from Lampedusa’s great novel, The Leopard: “If things are to stay the same round here, they are going to have to change.” This is never a delightful prospect for established institutions. But whisper it gently – it’s not the end of broadcasting civilisation, either.
Anne McElvoy is senior editor at the Economist and a regular panellist on Radio 4’s Moral MazeAnne McElvoy is senior editor at the Economist and a regular panellist on Radio 4’s Moral Maze