Morning:
13°c
A reporter who began his career in Fleet Street before joining the BBC a few years ago says that what has surprised him most about his switch to the corporation is how much it feels like a government department and how little like a news operation.
"Everything shuts down at six o'clock, and Television Centre is deserted at the weekend, which is amazing when you think that it's part of one of the biggest media organisations in the world," he says.
"At heart, the BBC is a nine-to-five, public sector type of place, run by people who have never really worked anywhere else."
Successive director-generals have tried and failed to eliminate this culture.
John Birt sought to reshape the corporation with techniques borrowed from the world of management consultancy but ended up creating unworkable internal markets and being loathed by many.
Greg Dyke, with his affable manner and background in commercial television, arrived as a breath of fresh air to many staff in 2000 as he poured money back into programme making, and pushed up salaries.
He was so generous with licence payers' cash that the current D-G Mark Thompson, then on a three-year career break from the BBC running Channel 4, complained of having to compete with Dyke's "Jacuzzi of cash".
A former BBC staffer recalls a meeting chaired by Dyke when someone fretted about an unexpected cost, and the D-G was heard to mutter: "Come on, it's only twenty grand."
Now times are rather harder, at least for the people who make the programmes, as budgets and staff have been slashed.
When Dyke was forced out in the aftermath of the Hutton Inquiry in 2004, Thompson came back to his natural home as D-G.
But the BBC had to live on shorter rations, partly because Thompson mishandled the last licence fee negotiations.
Within the BBC, most journalists respect Thompson's intelligence and flintiness, the latter perhaps a consequence of his years under the instruction of the Jesuits at Stonyhurst public school.
But he is not praised for his ability to get ahead of the crises that invariably beset the BBC.
The basic salaries of BBC "senior managers" - a staggering 751 staffers are in this category - have been frozen this year.
But as details have emerged of the enormous salaries of the executives and the on-screen "talent", old-school journalists who believe in the public broadcasting ethos seethe at top management's failure to appreciate the damage done to their beloved institution.
Thompson, like his senior lieutenants, has spent most of his working life at the BBC, and journalists say it shows. "I call it Kremlinitis," says a well-known presenter.
"Those at the top spend their whole time talking to each other, so they are genuinely surprised by outside criticism.
"What they decide is policy they come to believe has the force of objective truth. So they are baffled and outraged by attacks in the press."
In an interview with The Guardian last month, Thompson responded to James Murdoch's attack on the BBC in his MacTaggart lecture in August by suggesting Murdoch was not just "out of touch" with the British public's view of the BBC, but added: "You have to ask what the agenda around trying to undermine the BBC is; what is the underlying motivation?"
Thompson seems to be suggesting that Murdoch is driven by making money, which is a charge Rupert's son would accept without embarrassment given that he has shareholders to satisfy.
Conceivably, the D-G is hinting at something darker, a vague, Right-wing conspiracy to undermine public service broadcasting.
But either way, more revealing is Thompson's assumption that only the BBC's rivals have motives, while the corporation itself is driven solely by a post-Reithian altruism.
It's true that the BBC may not get enough credit for its commitment to quality programming and good journalism.
Although there has been a shift towards outsourcing, the BBC still makes many of its best dramas and documentaries in-house, while Robert Peston, the BBC's business editor, was ahead of every other news organisation with much of his coverage of the credit crunch.
Andrew Marr, alternating between his Sunday morning BBC1 show and his highbrow Start the Week on Radio 4, displays a versatility in the best traditions of BBC broadcasting.
At the mass entertainment end of the spectrum, shows such as Strictly Come Dancing retain more of a family wholesomeness than rival talent programmes.
Like most highly bureaucratic organisations which feel under threat, the BBC's core instinct is to expand as a matter of self-preservation.
It cannot see a piece of new or old media territory without seeking to dominate it.
Thus its website now consumes £180 million a year of licence fee payers' money, dwarfing the combined budgets of newspapers' online spending.
The site offers not just news but lifestyle channels on gardening, cooking, health, children's games - indeed, virtually every aspect of our lives.
The political opposition to this is now mounting and last week, the BBC Trust rebuked its own executives for failing to conduct "appropriate competitive-impact principle assessments" before they expanded their reach into territory already occupied by commercial education providers.
The trust also raised an eyebrow at Radio Five Live's bid of more than £1 million for the broadcast rights of FA Cup matches, 10 times more than any independent station could afford.
A similar impulse to expand is seen at BBC Worldwide, the corporate arm, which is now shoring up its ill-judged investments in various areas, notably its purchase of the Lonely Planet travel guides at the top of the market.
It is also investing in various independent production companies, to the alarm of many in the industry who regard this as a conflict of interest as the BBC becomes both a buyer and seller of programming.
Until recently, the Conservatives spoke robustly about the need for a radical reassessment of the way the BBC functions.
Shadow culture secretary Jeremy Hunt, who is close to David Cameron, speaks for the Tories on the BBC, and told the Evening Standard that the new BBC Trust brought in by Labour three years ago has failed.
The costs and scope of the BBC must be scrutinised, and probably reduced, he says.
But he also made clear that in the run-up to next year's general election, abolishing the licence fee is not under consideration.
John Whittingdale, a Right-winger who is tipped by some in the Conservative Party to take over the culture brief in government, did not return telephone calls about his views.
Some, inside and outside the corporation, believe the Conservatives are merely biding their time because though they realise the licence fee is unsustainable in the digital age, there is no advantage in picking a fight with Radio 4's loyal fans, who would not tolerate any theoretical threat to The Archers.
Yet technology will count against the current order.
When the analogue signal is switched off in three years' time, every television will have a mechanism to pay for subscription television.
The other threat to the licence fee is the increasing number of people, especially the young, who watch television through their computers.
You only need a TV licence to do this if you watch BBC output "live" - should you do so on delay, even for a couple of seconds, you need no licence.
In theory, every student in a hall of residence who has a television or who watches the BBC in real time on a computer needs a licence.
But the BBC refuses to disclose how many students it thinks do so, and who do not have a licence. Nor will it give any estimate of how many have been prosecuted.
"The BBC prefers to prosecute single mothers on benefits," says David Elstein, the former chief executive of Five.
"In truth, very few students pay the licence fee, and the BBC knows it, but they don't prosecute because the publicity would be uncomfortable."
Elstein, a consistent thorn in the side of the BBC and its funding model, argues that the licence fee cannot survive the digital era, and will probably not survive the next Conservative government.
He believes the Tories will be more radical in government than in opposition partly because the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is regarded as one of the weakest in Whitehall.
Oddly, for all its power, the BBC lacks self-confidence. Its programme making is often superior to the commercial channels - last week's Criminal Justice was gripping viewing - and few could now argue that politicians of the Left are given an easier ride in interviews than those of the Right: Andrew Marr's recent grillings of Gordon Brown and David Cameron were equally tough.
Yet as several reporters and presenters pointed out in interviews, the BBC lives in terror of a hard-hitting piece in the Daily Mail - which it despises and fears in equal measure.
Much of the current obsession with "Compliance" stems from its fear of being attacked from the Right.
Its lack of self-confidence can be seen even in its new guidelines for comedy which seem like a crude response to the Jonathan Ross/Andrew Sachs fiasco.
These seek to banish from the screen anything unduly "intimidatory, humiliating, intrusive, aggressive or derogatory".
That rules out much in the tradition of British comedy, and will keep compliance officers fully engaged, keeping tabs on the programme makers.
"I've always said the BBC is a horrendous institution that happens to make rather good programmes," says one presenter who concedes that "the institution has got worse, and the programmes rather less good in recent years", yet still speaks up for the licence fee.
Another journalist doubts that any government, even an incoming administration, has the stomach "really to take on the BBC, which is probably just as well so far as we are concerned".
Interviews with BBC staff reveal some disquiet about the decline of broadcasting standards, but no one inside the corporation, and few outside, will entertain the idea of tearing up the licence fee.
Ben Bradshaw, ex-BBC reporter and now minister in charge of the BBC, Twitters on a daily basis about how the corporation has gone soft on the Tories, but that doesn't worry BBC veterans who have seen this all before in the run-up to general elections.
To adapt Lord Palmerston's dictum, the BBC has no permanent political friends, just permanent interests, and that is to maintain the licence fee.
And everyone, in that rackety, rebellious and disenchanted institution - where good journalism is still done against all odds - says Amen to that with every expectation that they will live to see off another spending review.
Reader views (12)
This article is balanced and poignant. We are, on one hand, lucky to have public funded institutions but there is a 'public sector' mentality that it would solve many problems if we could retune to a more real world one.
It would be totally natural for anyone in a public service organisation to resist change. Who wouldn't want to know their salary is neither linked to economy nor commercial gain? It frees you up to do a dedicated job.
There are many dedicated people in the BBC and we get great programming.
However, it seems like a closed shop that acts in a superior way towards the private sector. Us who work, earn and then pay the money in tax, TV licences or national insurance used to pay public sector wages.
Then the BBC makes vastly unpopular choices and doesn't properly explain itself by chucking the only woman off its reality TV judging panel and replace her with a younger, less experienced woman.
We pay their wages but are infinitely helpless to make a difference with the BBC, Transport, NHS or government to ensure they act in their paymaster and public's interests.
- Sophie Sweatman, London, United Kingdom
"Everything shuts down at six o'clock, and Television Centre is deserted at the weekend". Nonsense. Strange that your 'reporter' informant seems never to have set foot in the newsroom after hours. Perhaps he should add his name to the list of news correspondents who are soon to start doing far more night-shifts, as part of the 'big-spending' BBC's money saving plans.
- Tom, London,UK
Spend some time in USA watching all commercial TV and you will see the benefit of publicly funded BBC having freedom to focus more on quality that immediate return.
- Ross, Ex Pat, Virginia, USA
Have you ever known anything connected to the government in recent times to NOT continue on?
- Trunk, US
"When the analogue signal is switched off in three years' time, every television will have a mechanism to pay for subscription television."
No they don't. That was the point of the BBC getting behind freeview and making it work after the ITV digital fiasco. Hey presto the most popular form of digital tv in the country uses a box that doesn't need a viewing card and can't take one. Clever eh?
And how are you proposing to pay for radio? Coin slot in the side? Radio 4 listeners march on Broadcasting House when the BBC tinkers with a theme tune, good luck telling them the whole station is being abolished.
David Cameron. The man who axed The Archers and The Proms? I doubt even he is feeling that radical.
- Alan Gregory, London
If the BBC is able to survive because it is "so bloody good at what it does", then abolish the compulsory licence fee, as it is clearly not needed
- Anonymous, nah
The BBC is institutionally Left. They're the Met before the Lawrence report. Estimates show that 80%+ staff are self described Liberal/Left and it shows whether done consciously or not. The make up of their staff creates a self perpetuating political and social culture. Labour are questioned hard (sometimes - remember Marr v Brown in the called off election) from the perspective of left wing philosophy as are the Tories questioned hard but again from a left wing perspective. You'd be hard pressed to find an interview where either Labour or Tory are questioned from a right wing perspective because the BBC are steeped in left wing philosophy. This comes through in all the their programming as well - The One Show is the BBC's equivalent of the Mirror constantly bashing Cameron as a Toff despite the rank hypocrisy of many BBC staff with similar backgrounds (not to mention pretty much the entire Guardian writing staff). Anyone who is racist or holds any kind of different view is called right-wing to the ludicrous point that even the National Socialists of Germany (Nazis) are now right-wing which allows the BBC to smear an entire political philosophy. There is no such thing as a left wing label at the BBC, extremist or not, just the BBC's definition of normal. Don't get me started on all the left wing comedians
- Doug, Bankrupt Britain
Never mind who produces the "best" this or that. It should be down to choice and whether the individual wants to pay to watch a TV channel(s). It should not be an enforced tax.
- Tax Free Tv, London
I think perhaps the BBC could do with slimming down as it is something of a behemoth. Nonetheless it is our premier broadcaster and I think it would be sorely missed if the Tories would be so rash as to dismantle it. The BBC is a flagship for British culture and in many respects the world's window into Britain, this is an important role and the BBC has the best heritage and expertise to do it well.
- Emma, London, UK
The BBC and the Government are not left wing.
They are very much part of the Neo Bourgeoisie movement.
- Decency, London, UK
Despite the rantings of the Conservative Party/Press, that the only thing to prove its lack of bias would be to say "vote Tory", the BBC survives because it is just so bloody good at what it does.
ITV? SKY? What 'quality' television do they produce?
In fact, does SKY produce anything at all?
- Barry Chapman, Welwyn England
The BBC is a left wing organisation. As much as it likes to have a poke at the government, it needs this government because their politics are so aligned.
A bunch of elitist Liberal-Lefties who have turned their back on the indigeneous TAX paying populace.
A sentence equally applied to the BBC and this failed government.
- Frank, Home Counties, England.
