Afternoon:
10°c
He may be paid £6 million a year but I can't bring myself to join the chorus of complaint about Jonathan Ross: he strikes me as a natural broadcaster. On the other hand, the spiteful face of Graham Norton (£5 million) reminds me of the type of boy who egged on bullies at school. He is the best reason I know for reaching for the remote.
You might disagree. You may admire Norton and abhor Ross. But at present, it doesn't seem to matter what you, I or anyone else thinks of the BBC's talent and whether they're talented. The BBC takes money from a state-enforced tax on every household but is beyond public accountability. Like the Catholic Church before the Reformation, it squats on Britain, delivering its sermons and dividing its spoils, and is indifferent to the grumbles of those who must pay its tithes.
Look more closely at the Vatican in White City, however, and its position is nowhere near as strong as it appears.
It pays vast salaries to Ross, Norton, Paxman and the rest, not because it wants to, but because it knows they can find work elsewhere.
In the 20th century, the BBC could keep wages down and justify the licence fee because there were only a handful of channels for stars to work for and viewers to watch. Bar a few hermits, everyone spent time in the BBC's company.
In a multi-channel age, its privileges make no sense. Already regulators are talking about giving funds from the licence fee to rival broadcasters who produce public-service programmes.
If that were the BBC's only difficulty its situation would be bad enough, but beyond the dozens of stations on Freeview lies the net.
A few years ago, the BBC invited media-savvy students to a conference in Smithfield. As they described their viewing habits, the executives' faces turned pale. The students spent their free time online. When they wanted quality drama they didn't turn on British television but downloaded the best US shows.
The hip students represented a future in which ever-greater numbers could live their lives without contact with the BBC. To persuade Parliament that it was still legitimate-to tax them, the BBC ran after the fleeing viewers and on to the net. But the expansion is infuriating the press, which says the BBC is using tax revenue to drive newspaper websites out of business, costing a fortune and running way over budget.
To pay for its imperial ambitions, the BBC must either push the licence fee to politically unacceptable levels or allow its core business of producing programmes to rot and fall further behind the Americans.
Neither option is sustainable. The talent should enjoy their lavish subsidies while they can. The bank that enriches them will one day crash.
Reader views (4)
I'm in Bangkok for three months. I turned on 'BBC World' television expecting something along the lines of the BBC World Service. It is truly, truly awful. It has no obvious format or substance and you don't know what you're watching, whether it's an advert, a trailer, a programme or whatever and most of the time there's this annoying drumbeat - the BBC trying to shake off its old authoritative image and appear hip. It's like watching your auntie trying to be hip. The BBC have aped CNN and come up with something infinitely worse. I watch either CNN or the Australian alternative, I just can't watch BBC World. It's time for the BBC to become a subscription service.
- John C, Helston Cornwall, 24/07/2008 04:48
Report abuse
If what Nick Cohen writes is true, then the BBC moguls are even less intelligent than I thought. Their solution to the problem of media-savvy students downloading US drama was to plough cash into a web site full of news, weather and the facility to "listen again" to Quote Unquote and The Organist Entertains. This managed to damage the web sites of UK newspapers without furthering the cause of the BBC at all.
They have more money than sense.
- Clarissa, Kingston, Surrey, 05/06/2008 00:13
Report abuse
I agree. Most BBC drama is dominated by poorly written PC feminist scripts in which every opportunity is taken to humiliate the lead male figure. It`s just so wrong and is a real turn-off.
If you want another example of dreadful television - look at the new BBC version of Robin Hood. It has every PC cliche and is appalling viewing. It`s supposed to be set in the middle-ages, not downtown urban Tottenham.
The BBC urgently needs to stop being politically correct and start making dramas with good scripts, decent actors and vastly improve it`s technical quality. This is an age of high-definition television - so why does the BBC allow producers to shoot dim & badly graded programmes ?
The Americans don`t do that. Why should the BBC ?
- Stuart Andrews, London, UK, 04/06/2008 21:59
Report abuse
It is not just the young. I'm in my 50's and turned off by almost everything the BBC produces. Norton is a turn-off because he always looks smutty and Ross because there is not enough room in my house both both me and his ego. Paxman is too aggressive to be a good interviewer so another waste of space - let them all go. Drama-by-numbers shows such as Holby, Casualty, Eastenders are another reason to go elsewhere. The licence fee should be capped and shared amongst all broadcasters to pay for quality educational/social programmes. The market can decide on the rest
- Jig, Redhill, Surrey, 04/06/2008 12:57
Report abuse
