The angry Caesars of commercial TV taking on BBC Worldwide

When religious critics tried to trap Jesus into either justifying or opposing the payment of taxes by Jews to the Roman authorities, he confounded them by replying: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's."

It is doubtful if the BBC's director-general, Mark Thompson, would care to cast himself or the corporation as a divine entity. But indulge me for a moment by accepting the conceit that, in media terms, public service broadcasting is a form of deity. On the other side, a group of increasingly angry and frustrated Caesars are profit-seeking media companies.

So is there any answer to the divide between the two? That divide, allied to persistent concerns about the advisability of licence fee revenue, has come to dominate all discussions about the corporation. It centres on where to draw the line between what should be properly regarded as the preserve of public service god and what should be preserve of the free market Caesars.

Much of the recent fire from the men in togas has been aimed at BBC Worldwide. Time Out's publisher Tony Elliott was upset about Worldwide's acquisition of a stake in the travel guide Lonely Planet.

Gerhard Zeiler, chief executive of European broadcaster RTL, questioned whether its foreign expansion was in the best interest of licence fee payers. An array of independent producers — including Wall to Wall, DCD and Endemol — revealed their hostility last month.

Chris Hunt, DCD's chief executive, was moved to talk of "an imperialistic and anti-competitive culture within the BBC".

John McVay, chief executive of Pact, the trade association that represents commercial producers, put the case succinctly by saying that Worldwide "can't be protected as a public company on the one hand and then let off the leash to be a rapacious and aggressive commercial organisation on the other. It would appear that BBCW no longer knows what its boundaries are".

Worldwide's content and production director Wayne Garvie has hit back forcefully at these criticisms, dealing with each in some detail. But it's the wider debate that matters because the arguments against Worldwide are also levelled against the BBC in general.

Hence the beleaguered regional newspaper industry's united opposition to the BBC's proposal to strengthen its local online news service in 60 areas throughout Britain.

Publishers believe it is too great an extension of public service broadcasting into new media, especially at a time when papers are struggling to retain declining audiences for newsprint by wooing them to their own websites.

Added to this mix is the irony of the success of BBC's major online innovation, its iPlayer service. It has struck users that watching programmes online obviates the need to pay for a licence. Finally, there is the ongoing fragmentation of the TV audience, which means that fewer people are watching the BBC's main channels.

Gradually, much as I have feared for a year or more, there are signs that the drip-drip-drip of anti-BBC propaganda generated by the assorted Caesars, with their constant references to the alleged misuse of taxpayers' money, are beginning to have an effect on support for the licence fee.

In a recent Ipsos Mori survey, people were asked whether the licence fee – which raises a total of £3.4billion a year – was good value for money. A significant 47% thought it was not.

So why is the BBC pursuing commercial expansion through Worldwide and taking on newspaper companies which are, quite naturally, able to mount PR campaigns that inevitably cause negative headlines and stories?

The answer, clearly, is that it has no alternative on either front. In the former case, the BBC has to find a way of exploiting its product on a global basis and, at the same time, move into areas that enhance its chances of appealing to new audiences.

In the latter case, as people show a growing preference to consume media online – whether by text, audio or visual – it would be remiss of the corporation to stand back and allow its licence-fee-paying audience to choose non-BBC alternatives.

There is, in other words, a clear conflict of interest for a public service broadcaster forced to be either more commercial or to elbow aside commercial competition. But it is simply the BBC confronting reality.

Yet it is perfectly understandable that the Caesars should defend their interests too and, it should be said, it is essential that we have a mixed media economy.

If the BBC is not to lose the public support on which it depends – and which is, after all, its raison d'être – then it cannot rely on its god-like status by finding an accommodation with commercial rivals.

Thompson and his executives, not to mention the BBC Trust, must find a way of defining the limits of the corporation's public service broadcasting remit. It will not be easy, given that we are living through a digital revolution in which there are few certainties, but the BBC must give the Caesars a break.