Morning:
12°c
The BBC's greatest fear looks as if it is to become reality. If the reports of it losing its sole right to the TV licence fee prove true - and the evidence pointing in that direction has been mounting for months - then it will be a severe blow to the Corporation's director-general, Mark Thompson, and his executive staff.
It will also anger the BBC Trust's chairman, Sir Michael Lyons, and his fellow trustees. They, like almost everyone connected to the BBC, believe that licence fee income should fund only the Corporation.
As a convinced supporter of public service broadcasting, I have long taken a similar view. So I sympathise with the BBC as it faces the likelihood of losing £100 million from its budget if the Government institutes the "top slicing" proposal.
But even the BBC concedes that there must be plurality in public service broadcasting and it is clear that, faced by the virtual meltdown of its major commercial rivals, the Government has little alternative but to spread the licence fee largesse around. Unless it does so, the BBC would end up as the only public service broadcasting provider.
ITV has been gradually shedding itself of its public service obligations for years. It has all but abandoned its former commitment to regional news programmes, for example, and its children's programming is negligible. As for Channel 4, which is dealing with a looming financial crisis that threatens its very existence, it has threatened to take the axe to public service programming.
If the commercial broadcasters cannot, or will not, fund public service programmes then there is no way the Government can force them to do so. The mechanism of compulsion was all very well during those long-gone days when ITV companies could be terrified by the prospect of losing their licences.
Now the Government has a very different fear. If it pushes too hard there is a very real possibility of Britain's traditional commercial broadcasters going out of business. The BBC's only rival then would be the satellite broadcaster BSkyB, which has avoided public service broadcasting regulations because it is not a British-based company.
In other words, the BBC would end up having the very public service broadcasting monopoly it affects not to want. The sobering logic of that scenario is the wellspring for Lord Carter's Digital Britain recommendations.
All sorts of half-baked ideas to ring-fence the licence fee on behalf of the BBC have been considered in recent months, not least the controversial plan to create some kind of partnership between Channel 4 and BBC Worldwide, the corporation's commercial division.
This is still said to be on the ministerial agenda, though it makes little sense. Why should the profits from the sale and marketing of BBC programmes be handed over to a rival broadcaster?
In truth, if the state wishes to see competing broadcasters producing public service content then the fairest and most straightforward way to ensure plurality is to divide up the licence fee cake.
There are dangers, of course. All governments have been critical of broadcasters in general and the BBC in particular. Politicians already exercise control of the overall size of that cake. What will they do once they control the size of the pieces for allocation?
Anyway, who will qualify for a bite? There is a wider media story here as well. Beleaguered newspaper publishers are suffering financial reverses for similar reasons to those of commercial broadcasters - the collapse in advertising revenue and the rising popularity of the internet.
So they, and their journalists, may well ask for comparable treatment. If the state is willing to support public service broadcasting why not offer backing to regional and local newspapers? Do they not offer a vital public service, too?
Reader views (6)
The BBC must slim down if its income is reduced.Lets have fewer weather reporters.Less political correspondents. Cut down the number of news announcers.
No more millions for performers like ROSS. It is the most extravagent broadcasting org in the world and needs to reduce its expenditure dramatically
- Alex Pomeroy, london
Is this not another case where politicians, especially in Parliament, have made a major mess of running the UK that they now try to the same with the BBC. The Nation should be proud of the BBC as it is a national asset, which should not used to top-up the commercial sector broadcasters. It may well be a case that with BSkyB and the terrestrial that there is too much competition in the commercial sector. Arguments have been raised over the BBC's expenditure and was thought the, I believe, BBC4 should close down. So look at the broadcasting periodicals for ITV alone, ITV1, ITV2, ITV2+, ITV3, ITV3+ ITV4 and ITV4+. Does it need to have all those channel just to repeat programmes such as Coronation Street etc? NO LEAVE THE BBC ALONE it is the best public service provider, I dare say, in the World!!!
- Arthur Lincoln, Roeselare, Belgium
This story has become as inflated as Jonathan Ross's salary.
The BBC need to be reined in and their assault on the digital news market put under real public scrutiny.
ITV has a big problem. If income is derived from advertising , then naturally it will fall in economic depressions, especially as TV and radio now longer have a monopoly for advertisers.
But ITV began to decline when it lost its regional advantage and went 'national'. It lost an identity that strengthened its reach on the network. Independent producers managed to make programmes for their regional companies that were then then sold on to others like Anglia's 'Tales of the Unexpected' and 'Survival'. And let's not forget that scheduling used to change as each region assessed its own audience.
Channel 4 was good for the first 2 decades as it was, in effect, ITV's answer to BBC2. Esoteric and original, bold and well worth staying in for.
The rot began with Channel 5 which had no purpose or place in what was a well balanced broadcasting universe. At the time I thought that if the BBC and ITV had combined to make it a terrestial sports channel then it might have taken on Sky- but no. It was a copycat ITV and a waste of time , except for 'Family Affairs' (my opinion only!).
To save ITV - combine it with Channel 5 and Channel 4. Let them pool their resources and income and get back to regional TV. It works in Belgium and spain- why not here?
- Richard Meredith, huntingdon
I got rid of my T.V.
I will get another one when they abolish the licence fee.
- Jimfred, London UK
Bskyb not a British based company? It's listed in London, incorporated in England and has it's headquarters in the UK. how British does it need to be - the reason they don't have a public service broadcasting obligations is due to the way they broadcast - via satalite - the government doesn't own any rights to satalite transission with which to blackmail them with!
- Mike, Lincoln
When the BBC was "special" it deserved to be financed in a special way.
"Specialness" meant producing the best Science, History Art, Comedy and Drama, all of which it once excelled at, and still does in some areas (exept Science), but to a lesser extent.
However, it`s trend of competition with mass market has led to it merely mirroring many of the more mainstream programming now infesting the airwaves.
Worse still, it overindulges in mass market sport (150 BBC employees covered the Beijing Olympics) and un-newsworthy news, in order to be first on the scene in case something happens!
Finally, we all have witnessed the "Rossism" that goes on with outlandish (even by pre-crunch standards) salaries paid to what are generally regarded as pretty average "celebrities"
Worse still is it`s refusal to publishes salaries, expense claims, etc.
BBC,read my first few lines to see what the license payers actually want from you - high quality non- mainstream programmes of high quality and integrity, uninterrupted by advertising (that includes your own) credit squeezing and end-theme talkovers.
Give us back Quality over Quantity.
Stop trying to force it all, inevitably, on to the internet - leave that to those who choose to pay for such uneccassary fashionable over indulgences.
Leave the rest to sky and lesser non obligatory providers.
- Darius Midwinter, London UK
