h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Like Enron, you mean...



sprout

No, that improved accounting standards.

"The issue is that the vast majority of the BBC's income comes from the UK taxpayer. It isn't voluntary it is a tax. I want to decide where I spend my hard earned salary. I want to pay as little tax as is compatible with running a civilised society.

If Channel 4 want to pay £18m fine. They operate commercially. The BBC does not and watch this space as the competition authorities get to grips with how the BBC is distorting the market due to its massive public funding."

is "distorting the market" the excuse for ITV and Channel 4 being terrible these days then? I'd have plenty of time for arguments against the Beeb being funded the way it is except for the fact that commercial television in this country is increasingly poor, not because of the Beeb but as a direct evolutionary result of how they're run.

Commerical television is run for the benefit of shareholders and advertisers as commercial necessity. To increase turnover, it's in the interests of the companies to reduce programming budgets and increase advertising revenue. What this means (as we've seen in the last ten years) is that ITV's old crowning glory, drama, has been reduced to a few "brand" shows with ITV now announcing their plans to end high-budget productions. It's also meant that (thanks to deregulation) "hour long" shows now have up to 20 minutes of adverts meaning that we are being deprived of the television we want to watch. All of this is bad for the viewer and good for increasing revenue. Commerical television used to be about making good TV and funding it through advertising. It has, through a process of inevitable market evolution, meant that revenue takes place over good TV. Reality shows and gameshows get respectable, steady, audiences without costing very much so they are a "boom" market on commerical TV.

The idea that the BBC is "distorting" the market through the way it is funded is nonsense. ITV used to be better than the BBC when they still had a sense of pride and cared about the shows they were making. However, as I said, there is an inevitable process of evolution from caring about the product and funding it commercially to caring primarily about the commerical side.

I don't support the Beeb because I have an issue with Commerical TV per se. I support it because I like British television, I think it has a proud history and present and I don't trust the commerical stations to safeguard that at all. I've argued with people (both market-ideologues and more pragmatic people) about this issue and remain unconvinced. The best anyone can managed is to argue that *in theory* commercial television can be good, but a brief consideration of the realities of the business world (and the state of UK commercial TV) makes nonsense of this.

That's before we get to Sky which charges a license-fee style "subscription" *and* shows adverts, *and* makes precious little original programmes *and* charges pay-per-view for enormous amounts of its content.

The BBC works because it's not allowed adverts and it has an obligation, via charter, to deliver a certain type of programming. I don't agree with the crypto-tax of the license fee (I support its replacement with a BBC subscription with the same cost once digital TV takes off - non subscribers cannot view BBC channels or listen to BBC radio) but I do not support the privatisation of the BBC which I am absolutely convinced will lead to poorer quality TV in this country.

But £18,000,000 is still a lot of dosh! About 12 times what I earned from 16 to 65.... (that is the absurdity of it!)

Novo

"But £18,000,000 is still a lot of dosh! About 12 times what I earned from 16 to 65..."

I agree, it's an absurd fee. But that's not the BBC's fault.

Well said Zagreb.

Incidentally, I take no comfort in the decline of commerical television. I think ITV used to be a wonderful station that produced some of the very best television drama this country has seen. I think commerical TV is a necessity in order to keep quality at the BBC up for starters but I find the cheapening of ITV a grimly inevitable process for the reasons I've stated above. ITV *could* put together a really good £1m an episode drama but I can't, from a commercial viewpoint, think of an argument why they should.

I have some ideas about how ITV could rejuvinate itself, which I might detail in a post here.

Lets keep it focused on Ross. Presumably Channel 4 wanted to recruit him to improve their product and hence increase their advertisng income. Along comes the BBC clutching our big bottomless bag of licensing shekels and blows Channel 4 out of the water.

The BBC can outbid just about anybody because of the license fee and not just in the broadcast media arena but increasingly in the digital marketplace, print media and broadcast services. This is becoming a major concern to the regulatory bodies, UK and European.

On the quality front what is reducing BBC quality is the ludicrous expansion into 9 televison channels and 11 radio stations. Where do they expect the content and resources to come from? And what effect do you think that is having on their commercial rivals.

But they didn't get the Test Matches did they WA ?

Presumably Rupert M has an even deeper pocket than than BBC. AS Zagreb says in so many words "it all comes down to money in the end", and

Novo

"The BBC can outbid just about anybody because of the license fee and not just in the broadcast media arena but increasingly in the digital marketplace, print media and broadcast services. "

And that's probably why they lost the rights to broadcast F1 as well then?

As memory serves me, Bernie Ecclestone phoned the BBC 10 minutes before he announced to the world he'd signed a contract with ITV... When asked why he didn't ask the beeb to re-submit a tender his response was along the lines of, "With the amount of money they're offering, either you can't afford it or you've been ripping me off for years!".

Test Matches was a sell out by the TCCB. There was an understanding that the Government wouldn't ring fence them for terrestrial but the TCCB took Moredicks shilling

"On the quality front what is reducing BBC quality is the ludicrous expansion into 9 televison channels and 11 radio stations."

I don't think it's "ludicrous" that they have so many channels. I think it's a very good thing indeed - it's better we pay £120 a year for nine TV channels than two. Why do you think BBC quality has been "reduced" incidentally?

"Where do they expect the content and resources to come from?"

From where it's been coming from so far, I suppose.

"And what effect do you think that is having on their commercial rivals."

Giving them an incentive to work harder and match quality, that's the theory anyway. Instead they seem to be going into a downward spiral of more adverts/less cost/less viewers and listeners. ITV cannot and must not whine about not being able to compete - it has manifestly been able to do so in the past and still commands huge resources (C4 and Sky would love ITV's income and viewership).

I think there's a way commerical TV can redeem itself which is to ditch the suit-attitude of money-first, re-embrace risk-taking and originality instead of safe mediocrity, win-back all those creative people who're drawn to the BBC and, frankly, watch some of its old output ("Spitting Image", "Rising Damp", "Sherlock Holmes", "Cracker") and compare it to its current shameful output.

Turning ITV news back into a proper news programme instead of the trashy nonsense it is now would be good too.

To be honest, though, I don't see any of this happening.

I quite enjoy Jonathon Ross' shows, although I don't watch or listen to them (or any TV at all really) with any regularity. I wouldn't say he, or anyone else in this world, is worth 18 million quid, but its capitalism at work: if you don't like it there's always Cuba.

As for the reference regarding the one eyed trouser trout and the old dragon, well it made me laugh. Davey boy may as well take it with good grace. "Oh no ma! They's talkin' 'bout sex on teevee!"

Must be a guilty conscience.

"but its capitalism at work"

The usual argument here would be to say "ah, but the BBC, it's state-owned isn't it and so isn't a proper business". The simple fact, though, is that it is. It's run like a typical business, is actually largely independent of government and has numerous commercial interests. The only difference is that it's income is acquired by law.

The Beeb's critics would love the BBC to be a typical old-style state-owned enterprise: overly-bureaucratic, staid, poor, failing, unpopular. The problem is it defies the theory: it's more dynamic and innovative that its commerical rivals and more popular. Since the classic argument is all but lost, the "distorting the marketplace" boo-hoo line has become the current piece of cut-n-paste criticism.

There's much wrong with the BBC: it's too centralised, as I've said the license-fee system is unfair (although I think the viewer-who-doesn't-watch-the-beeb is extremely rare), it can be arrogant and it does have a political bias (although nowhere near the extent that its critics claim, in fact the worst political bias (especially in news) is found on the commercial stations). However, as I've said, I look at the situation from the point of view of a consumer and I think privatising the Beeb would lead to a reduction in the quality of British TV and a drastic reduction in the quality of British radio (anti-Beeb critics often acknowledge the latter by insisting that BBC radio be funded by "taxpayers", presumably having imagined a world without Radio Four).

Can someone tell me what Cameron's response was to the question?

My guess is that he agreed to appear in order to add a 'cool, hip' dimension to his image. I can't believe he or his advisors didn't know the style of the show & prepared accordingly. Whether it will have done him any good is debatable - why shouldn't the rest of the media & other politicians express an opinion?
What I've seen of the programme doesn't particularly appeal to me, although I generally enjoy Wossy, but so what. If I find something not to my taste, I turn the set off. BBC will soon pull a show that doesn't draw sufficient audience ratings - if it remains popular, let it continue.