Bureaucracy is the one sure winner in the BBC's strategic review - the suits and wonks. It's sort of like natural selection turned upside: in a changing environment, the most useless survive. Mark Thompson's review, leaked to the Times today, was supposed to review the Corporation's output, and it could have helped made inroads …
Why do we need BBC3 and 4.......
...plus two other part time channels devoted to kids TV?
Why not pull the content used for all 4 channels into one 24 hour channel?
Most of the content for 3 and 4 is repeats so merge the channels into one and use the spare bandwidth to boost the bit rates on whats left (BBC1/2/3)
Then there are the Red button channels that appear to have very little going on......get rid of some of them.
BBC Parliament? Does that have to be a visual channel? Switch it to a DVB radio channel instead.
It all costs money but the BBC seems to have an attitude of "use it or lose it!"
Less is more chaps, remember that. Talent and quality will out!
BBC4 aint so bad
BBC4 isn't so bad.
They usually have good documentaries on there (Yes....I do watch the odd documentary).
BBC3 on the other hand, what a load of cack, it was assigned to my list of "channels not worth watching" ages ago.
The words "social media" just make me want to puke! eww, social media conferences. It's like going to a lecture on how to dial a telephone number and say "hello". What's the point, oh yeah, to hob-knob and show off and drink the free booze. Nice gravy train.
AS for BBC3, the only decent programme to ever come from that was Monkey Dust. Shut the thing down its embarrassing.
You really don't like the BBC do you?
Haven't mentioned the fact that "Five Live" counts towards Channel 5s "news" coverage. They also recieve cash from our TV license - specifically so that they can cover certain areas of interest - news being one of them...
The BBC have some shows that are just awesome (The Thick of It) and some that are crap but which they sell overseas for big £££ (Eastenders). The Thick of It is BBC3...
One thing that's just GREAT about the BBC - no adverts (apart from short ones for their own shows). Adverts are the main reason that I don't watch much TV these days, so when I do, it's usually the Beeb (and I have 700 channels or something to chose from!)
Not much of a TV viewer...
and yet you've got 700 channels?!
That makes sense!
Sell overseas... but pocket the profit.
> The BBC have some shows that are just awesome (The Thick of It) and some that are crap but which they sell overseas for big £££ (Eastenders). The Thick of It is BBC3...
I get license fee funding being used to produce local content. That's a working model worldwide.
However, almost all the worldwide working models require profits from fee-funded productions be used to paid back the funding (the idea is to ensure fees are channelled into the kind of stuff which doiesn't sell well outside a country, but has a good local following)
WHY is the BBC not required to repay license fee funding from overseas sales of things like Eastenders? Ditto advertising revenue on BBC world service, etc etc etc
The license fee is great...
So how about setting it at a tenner a year?
I reckon I get about £10 a year value out of it. Buggered if I have to pay for local radio, makeover shows, cooking shows, Come Dancing, BBC3, Woman's Hour, or News 24.
So to all you BBC lovers - if you love it so much, you should pay more for it.
Why pay more?
The BBC is the national broadcaster and we all pay because we all get something out of it, one way or another. [Insert examples of how the BBC has --- in concert with healthy commercial competition --- managed to ensure that UK didn't become the 51st, or at least no more so than any other western nation. See also John Peel, The Pax, Brian Cox, etc.]
Would be more fun to reply had parent comment indicated what they actual enjoy in television, but I really don't need to: my use of the NHS has been virtually nil, should everyone else that gets more from the NHS have to pay more too?
Viva La Title!
... and that is the point of Socialism...
I presume by:
"managed to ensure that UK didn't become the 51st, ..." you mean the 51st state of the USA?
What makes you think Tory B Liar didn't do that a long time ago?
As for the BBC most of the non UK news items are USA items. The BBC treats US news events as practically the same as home produced crap.
The BBC is not just for you
Its like the NHS why should I pay for obstetrics im a man!
I think Womans Hour, Strictly and News 24 were three particularly bad examples
'Preaching to the Converted'
Clive James (circa. 1991) would tend to agree, and with the slow running implosion of commercial TV (unless you can bend football supporters over a barrel) the survival of a healthy an suit-lite BBC is more important than ever.
Much of the current problems with suits is the same as it has always been with the beeb. Come charter renewal time (i.e., license fee setting) the government of the day and the BBC seem to end up having a conversation that is as follows:
BBC: How high?!
Sad thing is that (as with the John Birt years) if Mark Thompson hadn't inserted the 2.0 suits and other bits of modernisation that the government liked (shiny, shiny webs) the government would have taken steps to castrate or otherwise take a more active role in the running of the BBC.
More depression still is that David Cameron looks to be wanting to mess further with the beeb, and Lil' Dave doesn't have to wait for the next BBC Charter negotiations if No.10 turns blue.
...is a very fine network. Merging it with BBC3 as an earlier commentard suggested would be akin merging Radio 1 with Radio 3. I think you can see what the problem would be there.
There's an old BBC saying along the lines of "The BBC would work just as well with half the staff, but being the BBC they'd sack the wrong half"
Why not merge 3 with 4?
BBC2 used to do it ok.
We'd have arts/educational stuff on BBC2 with comedy (Smith&Jones/Young Ones etc.).
Some folks have a short memory.
There just isnt enough decent on non repeated material on either channel to warrant two channels.
I'm just sad 6 music is going.
If they sacked Chris Moyles they could run the fucker off the saving they'd make in pies alone.
Poor old Nemone has only just come back off maternity leave as well, and it's back to hospital radio for Gideon Coe; more complaints from the ENT ward about that Napalm Death Peel Session loom long in his horizon, methinks.
Golgafrinchans are alive and well
Perhaps we could go back in time to a famous institution that began back in the 1970s at the BBC courtesy of the late great Douglas Adams and blast all of the middle-managers into space to find another planet to clog up with red-tape and self-importance.
best quote ever
In Darwinian terms, a social media executive is an adaptation that isn't really fit for any purpose.
Article was on the money, too.
BBC2 has been diluted to enable BBC 4,
6Music used to be late night Radio 1 (e.g., John Peel...)
Website has been repeatedly slapped or threatened by publishers trying to compete with a tax* funded service
And so on
The hidden gem, and it's not even funded by the licence fee, is the World Service, daytime WS is the sole benefit of having DAB, IMHO.
* read page 11
All very true
But I have zero sympathy for NewsCorp. Zero.
Damned if you do...
Let's face it: this article would have been written no matter what the content of the review was. The BBC is always going to draw massive criticism simply due to its funding model.
Which is probably why it's so brilliant. Sure, it's not subject to the market pressures of the commercial networks, but it IS subject to every other kind of pressure. And I defy you to find a better public broadcaster in the world than the BBC. I've lived in Japan, where the national broadcaster - NHK - has a similar license fee-style funding model. But beyond the news and the odd decent traditional samurai drama, it is absolutely *awful*. It's like TV from 50 years ago, and most Japanese people watch anything but NHK.
The BBC is a real global oddity in being a genuinely popular, innovative public broadcaster. For all the stick it gets for following the latest web 2.0 fads, would you really want it any different? Would you prefer it to be like NHK, making the odd decent drama but otherwise being utterly irrelevant to modern society? No boundary-pushing documentaries (the recent, brilliant, Virtual Revolution, for instance) and comedies (Bellamy's People), no BBC website, no iPlayer?
All that said, please do continue criticising. It's probably what keeps the BBC brilliant. Just be careful you don't kill it in the process.
My jaw dropped while reading this post. How dare you actually write something thoughtful and sensible on the internet. I demand that your internet licence is revoked.
Sad days ahead
People have different tastes and we need broadcasters to provide for that and they need funding one way or the other.
I haven't watched ITV 1 in a long time ( last good stuff IMO was Granada's Word in Action, and Thames' Sweeney ). In fact, having access to a wide range of broadcasting; Sky, Virgin, Freeview plus Internet I don't watch that much at all as it's all mostly crap. There's a few good programmes on and spread across channels but most of it is repeats and what ever is cheap. I seem to end up watching the 'minority channels'; BBC3, BBC4, ITV3, Sky3, Dave and Virgin1 fillers when there's nothing on and I'm bored.
Expansion may not give us more but cutbacks will undoubtedly give us less.
Personal abuse of me
The above article - although it doesn't mention me by name - is personally abusive of me.
It is quite funny though.
But if any other comments are abusive of me I will alert them. I have already alerted one.
There's a good reason for that
It's because you're a waste of space. Get off my taxes!
Can I just check....
there seem to be a few Nick Reynoldses (Reynoldii? Nicks Reynold? I must admit to being unsure) but Im not sure which one you are.
1) Who are you?
2) if you're "Nick Reynolds is Social Media Executive, BBC Online" then WHY are you?
I don't do broadcast televison or the licence tax myself, but keep your paws off Radio 4, if you please.
I don't know who you are.
"This looks like a review with the review part missing."
One sweet pun - it just as well describes the BBC's culture programming. And precisely locates one feature of BBC self-propaganda that no one should delude themselves about: that whatever (else) the BBC, is doing it is providing entertainment. That is fine for what they used to call "light entertainment", but in the hyperreal the epithet is redundant, of historic interest only, and somewhat lacking in "diversity" they might feel. But the BBC would have us believe that exactly the same goes for news and current affairs. So that when they get it wrong, such as announcing the collapse of WT7 well ahead of it happening, this is just a trifle. Likewise, the political biases of its news staff (all 5000 of them) are... a trifle also?
Government hates sucess anyway
One of the BBC's finest moments in recent years was when the BBC revealed some of the lies that the government was telling us - dodgy dossier/sexed up/etc.
This was quickly followed by one of its least impressive moments when it apologised for doing this and its boss resigning.
It is not imaginary that Murdoch is the barbarians at the gates. He gives every indication that he wishes to destroy the BBC.His own news system is the laughing stock of the USA and they know it.
6music and the Asian Network
What is the point of the BBC if not to do public service broadcasting? Surely both 6music and the Asian Network are exactly the sort of output a public service broadcaster should be broadcasting. The total cost of running both these services is less than some presenter’s salaries and there is no commercial alternative.
I understand that Absolute Radio is interested in buying 6music. However they have already said that they’d want to concentrate on its core market (i.e. get rid of its specialist music shows). The Asian Network would stand no chance of getting picked up a commercial rival. Surely the whole point of the BBC as a public broadcaster is to broadcast programs that could only be made by a non commercial broadcaster?
Shutting down 6music and the Asian Network will not help commercial radio is likely to result in the BBC spending yet more money on output which competes directly against commercial rivals. Surely as a public service broadcaster they ought to be doing the exact opposite?
Besides what am I meant to do with my DAB radio now? I only got it to listen to 6music.
One random radical idea
I was about to suggest renaming auntie beeb to `failed arte', or farte for short. But, well.
Something I'd been wondering about, is why freeview even exists. After all, if you can have paytv then why have freeview but require a separate infrastructure to collect licence fees (and have nitpicky rules about them and crap)? So why do we have a bbc? Well, one thing it's handy for is a national emergency channel, and political stuff. So keep one radio and one telly channel open for exactly that, and news, and stuff the empty hours with the odd ``uplifting'' or ``educational'' nature documentary, open university, or what-have-you. Pay for that out of general expenses, do away with the licensing rigamole, and spin off the rest under dvb-t's paid-for channels. That should cut down costs a bit, no?
BBC4 has some excellent programmes. In fact it is doing the job that BBC2 was set up to do, while BBC2 has slid down the slope towards BBC1. BBC3, afaiac, is a complete waste of money and bandwidth, but then I'm not in its target age group.
As for the DAB channels, DAB is not just dead in the water, it's a sinking ship and the rats are swimming for safety. Many channels are available on DVB-T anyway (including World Service). What the BBC should really do is put 5 Live and Sports Xtra on VHF/FM so everyone can access them.
Oh but wait... some of my favourite programmes of recent years have come from BBC3 - Gavin & Stacey and Being Human, to name two. And I have no interest in sport, but I do like so called 'alternative' music, so obviously we should replace '6 Music' where you've accidentally typed '5 Live and Sports Extra'...
The BBC is for everyone, and at the moment I think it does that rather well. No one should make the mistake of assuming that their taste is all that matters, or you become the Daily Mail. Every bit of what the BBC does caters for someone, and while I detest Eastenders, my Mrs can't understand my endless fascination with natural history and cosmology programmes. We both agree on Being Human though.
A better idea for the telly ...
Get rid of CBBC, cbeebies, BBC3, BBC4, and with the bandwidth (BBC1, BBC2, and 2 more 24hr channels):
BBC1 as now
BBC1 + 1 timeshift
BBC2 as now
New BBC3 (or a much cleverer name at great expense).
On NuBBC3 you could have
6 am - 6 pm = Kids stuff.
6 pm - 10 pm = Grown-up telly (BBC4 ish).
10 pm - 6 am = Swearing, farting, etc in Northern accents (BBC3 ish).
Stop the BBC3 criticism
You don't like it. I get it. I don't like it that much either. But plenty of people do, and it gets decent viewing figures. Just because it isn't aimed specifically at you doesn't mean it's not worthy of surviving. Saying that BBC3 should be killed but BBC4 should survive is just self-serving on your part.
First of all, cards on the table. I'm a fan of 6Music. 6Music is why I bought a DAB radio in the first place. 6Music is why I bought a second DAB for the bathroom, why I bought a personal DAB for listening at work, and why I spent extra when buying a new car to get a DAB fitted. It has introduced me to so much new (and old) music that I'd never heard of before. As I am old-fashioned enough to still buy music, the record industry (especially the smaller independents) has benefited directly from me listening to 6Music. Therefore I am spitting mad at the BBC.
The BBC has opened a big can of worms that they may regret. I don't know whether they realise, but this now has me questioning why we should have a publicly funded broadcasting service. What is the BBC for and why keep the license fee? Judging by the postings on the save 6music FB group I'm not alone in that respect. Its raised lots of questions in my mind.
On the one hand should money be spent on stations such as 6music which have a small audience no matter how passionate that audience? On the other hand , why bother with Radio 1 and BBC1 when we have commercial broadcasters that would ,if the BBC weren't there , likely try to produce a lot of the same content. Given ITVs current pathetic state would that happen? If the BBC were closed would a commercial version of Radio 4 be set up - the audience figures would indicate that if the BBC wasn't there as a rival , there is a market opportunity for a radio station offering a mix of news, drama, comedy , factual etc ...
And of course what is the true story when lots of this story has been leaked by parties that have a vested interest in the removal of their biggest rival?
And this is why the BBC
needs to be shut down, monies returned for both the use of the air waves and the money that it has stolen via the 'licence'. Next the DVLA and then HMRC, the British free market will be rolling in wonga soon, everyone will have enough to build their own roads, and run their own TV stations.
Complete and utter rubbish
"only the BBC stands between national culture and "barbarism", in the shape of Mr Murdoch"
What complete and utter bullsh#t. Murdoch doesn't send people round to my house demanding money for something I don't watch. If you want the BBC then you pay it via a voluntary subscription.
Visit www.tvlicenceresistance.info and find out the facts