BBC licence fee to be abolished in 2027 and funding frozen...

[droodzilla]

Do you think that episode of Newsnight, and in particular Jeremy Corbyn as a Voldemort, was an enduring topic of conversation beyond those who watched it that night? Probably not. I mean, f**k my tall hat, it's only taken 6 years to come to light, even here in PFM and on Twitter. Not really burnt into anyone's psyche, that one, not like the 'hat' picture.

It all builds a narrative I'm sure but ISTM that, too much influence is being credited to a (relatively) minor interest TV programme and just adds further support to justify efforts to neuter a national broadcaster.

Given how the BBC works now, I would suggest that reform to the wider privately-owned media, where most of the -ve press was generated is the first task and the BBC would change in line as as a lot of what it does seems to reflect what is going on in that wider press (often not being as critical as it should be). However, that's not as easy to achieve as making a simple decision as 'denationalising'.

Seriously, we need both: radical reform (democratisation and independence from government) of public service broadcasting + better regulation of privately-owned media (Leveson 2 is the obvious starting point).

Democracy is impossible if the public sphere is awash with lies and misinformation.

 

[Seeker_UK]

I think for me the relevant point is that the BBC thought to broadcast that clip at all, when the person featured in it was Leader of the Opposition. It's the sort of meme that does the rounds on social media, but why the BBC thought it newsworthy so as to actually broadcast it on their flagship politics programme is the interesting question.

Sorry, that's not how it works. "The BBC" does not authorise the broadcast of (most) specific content ahead of it going on air. The Editor has day-to-day authority to decide what's in and out. If it turns out that it was a bad choice then the complaints process is there to address it. In this specific case, I don't recall the same furore that the 'hat' picture caused; clearly it's taken Corbyn supporters / BBC critics six years to plug the memory hole to take umbrage

The only criticsm against the Corporation would be to ask why they continue to employ an editor / editor who chooses to exercise (alleged) bias and employ a messaging campaign to shape public opinion. That makes more sense than killing it off by slowly bleeding it of resource.

 

[Tony L]

TBH, as a news broadcaster, I haven't got much time for the BBC, but as a music broadcaster, well, that's a different thing. When the pirate radio stations were banned, the BBC stepped in and supported alternative and pop music. They gave John Peel a job for all those years, though TBH, I hardly listen at all to the BBC now.

I’m a long term supporter of the BBC but I no longer use any of the news and current affairs programming beyond the first 15 minutes of Newsnight if Emily Maitlis is presenting (she’s the only one left there capable of asking a question). To my mind the value is in the arts, science, nature and history programming along with many documentaries (e.g. the in-depth seven part ‘The Troubles: A Secret History’ was truly superb). I fear for the loss of this sort of programming, though being blunt Sky has been a far better rolling news channel for a very long time now (and I never thought I’d say that).

It will be interesting to see what happens to R3 & R4. I imagine the Tories will want to turn the latter into LBC/US right-wing talk radio propaganda and the former will just be scrapped as uneconomical and too niche.

At present I don’t begrudge my TV license, but neither do I get any real value from it. I hardly ever watch BBC1, my terrestrial TV viewing is very low but almost exclusively Sky News, BBC4 and BBC2. I have R4 on when I’m having a bath and that’s about it. I’m on YouTube etc otherwise. It will be sad to see the Tory Party destroy yet another respected institution (they have already destroyed UK politics and our place in the world), but really the damage was done to the BBC years ago. I assume the Proms of the future will be presented by Nigel Farage and Simon Cowell and only feature the last night.

 

[Seeker_UK]

Serious question. How does a cartoon on Newsnight affect the attitude of 65M+ people (who wouldn't have seen it) towards Rishi Sunak?

Seriously, we need both: radical reform (democratisation and independence from government) of public service broadcasting + better regulation of privately-owned media (Leveson 2 is the obvious starting point).

Democracy is impossible if the public sphere is awash with lies and misinformation.

I don't disagree, but what advantage would there be to effectively remove BBC News as a public service if you force private-sector funding mechanisms?

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Sorry, that's not how it works. "The BBC" does not authorise the broadcast of (most) content ahead of it going on air. The Editor has day-to-day authority to decide what's in and out. If it turns out that it was a bad choice then the complaints process is there to address it. In this specific case, I don't recall the same furore that the 'hat' picture caused; clearly it's taken Corbyn supporters / BBC critics six years to plug the memory hole to take umbrage

The only criticsm against the Corporation would be to ask why they continue to employ an editor / editor who chooses to exercise (alleged) bias and employ a messaging campaign to shape public opinion. That makes more sense than killing it off by slowly bleeding it of resource.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but the BBC employed the editor who made that call, and the BBC has appointed successively right wing-leaning people to the role of head of News and Current Affairs in recent years. There is clearly a corporate culture there, because if there wasn't, nobody would have contemplated airing that clip, still less on Newsnight. So I do think you can 'point the finger' at The BBC, for creating and fostering the sort of corporate culture where these attitudes can thrive.

 

[PsB]

Yes I think 2019 proved the left is too weak to effect real change: the establishment did see them off. But anyone interested in an objective assessment would have to say it actually cost them pretty dear: Labour had to go full scorched earth, the BBC burned up a lot of capital (many could forgive the smears on Corbyn but won’t forget e.g. doctoring footage to protect Johnson), the mask slipped with other institutions too. Above all the establishment had to re-align internally, handing more power to the populist right, press barons, the dodgiest of business interests. Boris, hard Brexit, PMs being anointed and removed at the whim of the right wing press: all that was the price the establishment paid to beat Corbyn. It’s really weakened itself very badly from within in its determination to avoid reform without. It’s pretty clear to any outsider now how rotten the whole system is. How it renews itself at this stage I can’t imagine.

I suspect your sample of one is actually pretty representative. You have become a raging lefty - relative to the BBC. The BBC is an establishment institution and the crisis in the establishment (or realignment, to be less dramatic) left the BBC not really knowing who it needs to legitimise. It flailed around quite a lot in the Brexit era, but ultimately fell into line behind Johnson when the chips were down. I think that’s proved too much for a lot of people who would previously have defended it quite vigorously. That’s part of what I mean when I say the BBC has basically done this to themselves: they’ve lost a lot of their natural supporters not just on the left but in the centre too, and a public service broadcaster can’t really afford to do that in a country as aggressively market-driven as the UK.

I largely agree with your second paragraph. In the overall scheme of things it is a minor aspect of a generally sad situation, as one can find multiple other sources of information, but it's a troubling sign of the times nevertheless. The BBC has been systematically weakened by decades of threats to its funding, the assiduous development of alternatives, and sweeteners for the lackeys in charge.

I don't agree with your first paragraph quite so much because it glosses over how fractured the Establishment - however you want to define it - has become (it has never been monolithic IMHO). To take just the press, Murdoch, the BBC, The Economist and the Financial Times are all part of the Establishment, yet they don't agree on much (Corbyn's unsuitability was an exception). It also overstates IMV the importance of Corbyn (a fairly obscure backbencher until 2015). The main issue and prize was not so much beating Corbyn as it was the fight for control of the Conservative Party, between the ERG nutters on the one hand and the more traditional Tory "moderates" on the other. Brexit was more than a wedge issue: the ERG/hard right agenda requires freedom from EU constraints. The hard right in Britain together with its media supporters (or maybe it's the other way round) campaigned for Brexit for more than 30 years and have now neutered the moderates and centrists. They have a majority of 80 and control the agenda, including who gets to be PM.

 

[Seeker_UK]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but the BBC employed the editor who made that call, and the BBC has appointed successively right wing-leaning people to the role of head of News and Current Affairs in recent years. There is clearly a corporate culture there, because if there wasn't, nobody would have contemplated airing that clip, still less on Newsnight. So I do think you can 'point the finger' at The BBC, for creating and fostering the sort of corporate culture where these attitudes can thrive.

If there is a culture that drives a right-wing agenda at Aunty Beeb, it's either not working or so clever, few have noticed.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...abour-the-left-or-the-conservatives-the-right

 

[Barrymagrec]

I don`t watch a lot of TV, BBC or otherwise but I consider R3 and R4 are worth the license fee alone, even though you don`t need to pay it to listen....

I can`t imagine anything proposed by this government and particularly mad Nad being anything but destructive and disastrous.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

If there is a culture that drives a right-wing agenda at Aunty Beeb, it's either not working or so clever, few have noticed.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...abour-the-left-or-the-conservatives-the-right

I'm not sure of your point. The curve at that link shows a consistently higher number of people (roughly double) with the view that the BBC favours the right, than those believing it favours the left. And if you look at the Sky News tracker linked lower down the same page, the numbers are roughly half those of the BBC, which suggests adopting a less biased position is achievable.

 

[Nero]

A lot of my TV consumption is BBC, as I can't stand adverts (this also goes for extended trailers). When you have an attention disorder, it becomes almost impossible to watch any commercial TV, including on-line catchup on All4 and ITV Hub. I've also started to lose interest in Youtube etc. which is a shame, as there's a lot of good stuff on there.
I really don't mind paying a fee in order to not have adverts - you can call it a licence fee if you like.

 

[Seeker_UK]

I'm not sure of your point. The curve at that link shows a consistently higher number of people (roughly double) with the view that the BBC favours the right, than those believing it favours the left.

My point is that 49% don't think it favours the Right and 21% don't know. That's more than those who see / believe a right-wing bias. Whether it is a significant difference is down to one's pre-existing views on the matter.

And if you look at the Sky News tracker linked lower down the same page, the numbers are roughly half those of the BBC, which suggests adopting a less biased position is achievable.

Yes, it can be but is removing public funding, and thus accountability, the best way to achieve that? Are there no alternatives to explore before that?

 

[James Morris]

The Tories keep threatening it because it is leverage which works.

You are right that the Tories are partly using it for political gain. But just like all sides of the political spectrum, they have no legitimate arguments.
Lefties will complain when the BBC say something they don't like, then cheer when the BBC says something they do like. Just like the Righties

 

[James Morris]

My point is that 49% don't think it favours the Right and 21% don't know. That's more than those who see / believe a right-wing bias. Whether it is a significant difference is down to one's pre-existing views on the matter.



Yes, it can be but is removing public funding and thus accountability be the best way to achieve that? Are there no alternatives to explore before that?

There is a problem with surveys. It depends on who you survey, and what their leaning is.
But in reality, people from both sides complain, which says a lot. Plus, one side will always say the other side has no legitimate claim, but of course, they themselves do.

 

[James Morris]

I think for me the relevant point is that the BBC thought to broadcast that clip at all, when the person featured in it was Leader of the Opposition. It's the sort of meme that does the rounds on social media, but why the BBC thought it newsworthy so as to actually broadcast it on their flagship politics programme is the interesting question.

So it is no longer allowed to highlight a racist anti royal who would have been a danger to the country should he have got into power?
Gotcha, says it all.

 

[Tony L]

So it is no longer allowed to highlight a racist anti royal who would have been a danger to the country should he have got into power?
Gotcha, says it all.

I think you will find the overwhelming majority of us here are anti-royal. I have certainly never considered them any authority over me. I have absolutely zero respect for the institution or the violence, conquest, colonialism, slavery and bloodshed its stolen wealth is built upon. Brenda makes the best of an entirely ridiculous job, and credit to her for cutting her creepy paedophile son loose recently, but really they can all stick their stupid flags up their arses as far as I’m concerned.

 

[Barrymagrec]

I think you will find the overwhelming majority of us here are anti-royal. I have certainly never considered them any authority over me. I have absolutely zero respect for the institution or the violence, conquest, colonialism, slavery and bloodshed its stolen wealth is built upon. Brenda makes the best of an entirely ridiculous job, and credit to her for cutting her creepy paedophile son loose recently, but really they can all stick their stupid flags up their arses as far as I’m concerned.

It`s your forum Tony, no need to hold back.....

 

[Seanm]

Do you think that episode of Newsnight, and in particular Jeremy Corbyn as a Voldemort, was an enduring topic of conversation beyond those who watched it that night? Probably not. I mean, f**k my tall hat, it's only taken 6 years to come to light, even here in PFM and on Twitter. Not really burnt into anyone's psyche, that one, not like the 'hat' picture.

It all builds a narrative I'm sure but we're talking about one (relatively) minor interest programme that makes up a tiny part of BBC output and ISTM that, it's being credited with too much influence on the UK (and by inference, the Electorate) and just adds further support to justify efforts to neuter a national broadcaster.

Given how the BBC works now, I would suggest that reform to the wider privately-owned media, where most of the -ve press was generated is the first task and the BBC would change in line as as a lot of what it does seems to reflect what is going on in that wider press (often not being as critical as it should be). However, that's not as easy to achieve as making a simple decision as 'denationalising'.

[edit]

I find it amazing that the same people on PFM (and probably more widely) who have strong views on nationalisation / privitisation are happy for exactly that to happen to the BBC because some parts of one part of it service isn't to their liking. It's like saying that it was OK to privatise British Rail because Casy Jones' burgers tasted of ar*se or privatising British Telecom because trimphones are naff.

If its news service needs reform, then push for reform. Taking the funding away and / or allowing for commercialization and introducing the risk for (more) vested interest and undie influence.

No, I don't think that clip had any particular influence. I was just using it as an illustration: it's certainly representative of Newsnight's approach to Labour during the Corbyn years, which was to dismiss it either directly or jokily as fundamentally unserious but possibly sinister. And that was part of a larger practice of de-legitimisation, which varied according to genre and audience: News at Ten viewers got the IRA accusations, Newsnight viewers got the gags, being of course far too well-informed to take any of the other stuff seriously.

The BBC is hugely influential in setting the general tone of public discourse and deciding what is and what isn't legitimate. It's the single most-used and most-trusted news source in the UK.

As for reform, it would in some ways be easier to reform the BBC than private media because there is some public oversight and because it's publicly-funded, so you can reform it by paying for it to do publicly beneficial things, rather than just imposing regulations that prevent it from doing things that are detrimental. It also shapes the whole British media landscape: positive changes at the BBC would have huge knock on effects.

I have pushed for reform, very actively, but as I say the BBC has resisted reform from the left tooth and nail, and the ship has sailed. Nothing I've said should be taken as support for blowing up the BBC, I'm trying to point out how we got here. They've spent the last few years alienating - and I mean actively insulting - that part of its audience that believes in public service broadcasting, and sucking up to people for whom its very existence is an insult. It's left them pretty exposed, and I don't consider it my doing or my problem.

 

[Seanm]

I largely agree with your second paragraph. In the overall scheme of things it is a minor aspect of a generally sad situation, as one can find multiple other sources of information, but it's a troubling sign of the times nevertheless. The BBC has been systematically weakened by decades of threats to its funding, the assiduous development of alternatives, and sweeteners for the lackeys in charge.

I don't agree with your first paragraph quite so much because it glosses over how fractured the Establishment - however you want to define it - has become (it has never been monolithic IMHO). To take just the press, Murdoch, the BBC, The Economist and the Financial Times are all part of the Establishment, yet they don't agree on much (Corbyn's unsuitability was an exception). It also overstates IMV the importance of Corbyn (a fairly obscure backbencher until 2015). The main issue and prize was not so much beating Corbyn as it was the fight for control of the Conservative Party, between the ERG nutters on the one hand and the more traditional Tory "moderates" on the other. Brexit was more than a wedge issue: the ERG/hard right agenda requires freedom from EU constraints. The hard right in Britain together with its media supporters (or maybe it's the other way round) campaigned for Brexit for more than 30 years and have now neutered the moderates and centrists. They have a majority of 80 and control the agenda, including who gets to be PM.

Yes, the British establishment is complex and fragmented. What I'm saying is there's been a realignment, with one (several really) fragment coming to dominate: the realignment in the Conservative Party itself is part of that. And a big part: a lot of what's happened over the last 10 years can be explained as an attempt to save a party that looked like it was in terminal decline. All this began before Corbyn of course (and Corbyn himself is less significant than the movement that got behind him), but Corbyn certainly focused minds, and showed us that for all its fragmentation and complexity the British establishment could pull together in a crisis to fight a common foe. Most parts of the establishment hate Boris and the factions he represents and would far rather have gone on with the likes of Cameron, May at worst, but he was the price they were prepared to pay to keep the left out of power.

 

[TheDecameron]

They'd better watch out if they **** with cbeebies.

Its Jackanory! What do we see through the arched window today? Why it’s Tom filling up the wine fridge after Dick and Carrie have wheeled a suitcase full of bottles from the Co op in The Strand. Do you think they are having a party?

 

[TheDecameron]

introducing the risk for (more) vested interest and undie influence.

That’s a very telling Freudian underslip.