Tories threaten to tear up Lord Reith's BBC legacy
Conservative government would abandon royal charter
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
UPPA /Photoshot
The Conservatives' culture, media and sport spokesman, Jeremy Hunt, has accused the BBC of being 'out of touch'
enlarge
Already reeling from accusations of bias and threats of cuts from Ben Bradshaw, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the BBC was yesterday slapped down again by his Conservative counterpart, Jeremy Hunt, who pledged to scrap its governing body and said he was even considering ripping up the Corporation's historic charter.
In an interview with the Financial Times, Mr Hunt said that the BBC Trust, which was set up after the Hutton inquiry to regulate the BBC, had "failed". He also accused the Corporation of being "out of touch" with the licence-fee payers in comments that suggested the BBC would be in for a painful future if the Conservatives came to power at the next election.
"[We will have] a very fundamental root-and-branch discussion with the BBC about all its activities across the piece," said Mr Hunt, who warned BBC executives that the corporation's online activities were too ambitious and were damaging the rest of the British media. The BBC is planning so-called passion websites. It might sound well and good for them to have, say, an angling website, but if it drove out of business every angling magazine in the country, you would have to question if it was the right sort of thing to do."
The BBC might draw some comfort from Mr Hunt's comment that he was opposed to plans set out in the government-commissioned report Digital Britain that the corporation should share £130m in television licence fees with other broadcasters.
He was adamant that the BBC Trust, which was set up in 2005 and forms part of the royal charter of the BBC must be replaced with another system of governance. The charter runs for 10 years up to 2015. "We haven't made a decision on the timing of [changes in the governance structure], but we do think the structure...has failed," he said. "We are looking into whether it would be appropriate to rip up the charter in the middle of it, or whether one should wait."
The idea of "ripping up" the BBC's royal charter is highly provocative. The charter, which was first granted in 1927 when it was led by Lord Reith, decreed that the corporation's views should be independent of government influence.
The future of the BBC has become an election issue and the corporation now finds itself as a political punch-bag, with each of the major parties seeking to outdo the other in softening it up.
The Liberal Democrats' media spokesman, Don Foster, said last night that the language of the debate on the BBC's future had become so extreme that it was now "characterised by a threat to the independence of the BBC".
He added: "What's happening at the moment from both the Tories and Labour is an attack on the independence of the BBC, and that's something we should be worried about. Even if on occasions their criticisms are legitimate, if you start saying, 'We will cut you down to size or rip up your charter,' you have a recipe for the loss of independence."
Mr Foster did, however, echo Mr Hunt's opinion that the BBC Trust was a flawed structure, acting simultaneously as both regulator and cheerleader of the BBC.
The Trust yesterday tried to play down Mr Hunt's threat to its future. "The BBC Trust is getting on with the job set out for it in the charter of protecting the interests of licence fee payers, defending the independence of the BBC, and reshaping the BBC to meet the challenges ahead," said a spokesman.
"The point of having a charter that runs for 10 years is to give the BBC stability and keep it at arm's length from the political process. This charter was drawn up after lengthy, detailed and intense debate about the BBC's mission. It still has seven years to run. It establishes the Trust as the way of protecting the independence of the BBC. Let's respect that."
The BBC and the Tories: A history of bad blood
*October 1979
BBC filmed gunmen holding up traffic in Carrickmore protesting at increased activity by British security forces. No footage was shown, but Margaret Thatcher was said to go "scatty" when she heard about the filming. New clearance procedures were put in place.
*March 1985
Thatcher set up a committee to look into BBC funding chaired by Sir Alan Peacock in anticipation that it would recommend scrapping the licence fee.
*April 1986
Peacock dashed Thatcher's hopes by saying the licence fee should stay, but proposed selling BBC Radio 1 and 2.
*April 1986
Norman Tebbit, the Tory chairman, issued a dossier alleging BBC anti-Tory bias after the US bombing of Libya. He described coverage as "riddled with inaccuracy, innuendo and imbalance".
*April 1995
A BBC Panorama interview with John Major was not shown in Scotland after a ruling it would influence local elections.
*March 2009
David Cameron called for the BBC licence fee to be frozen for one year to "set an example" in reducing costs in the public sector during the recession.
*June 2009
Jeremy Hunt, the shadow Culture Secretary, called on the BBC to "actively" recruit more Conservatives to its news staff to improve balance.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
The BBC is a national treasure which should be cherished and nurtured.
In fact lets all watch it for free, alternatively just charge those who do, including expats.
How exactly would you arrange for those who watch BBC to be charged?
Terrestrial commercial channels have been using a system which relies on neither licence fee or subscription from inception?
So there are two options.
Perhaps you question was rhetorical?
No, Snotcricket, it was not a rhetorical question, Sky TV, subsriptions and advertising, terrestrial channels by adverts alone, which is presumably the only way the BBC could operate. You would be happier with that would you ?
The BBC is as independent as the politician wants it to be & even less so as each licence fee review nears.
Who wants more Murdoch, well Sky had 9:5 million paying customers 2009, & all choose to pay, & thats the point they choose to pay.
If you want independence thats fine, totally agree, how about my independence to decide if I want to fund/view the BBC.
Thats where the negative Murdoch argument fails, they give me the choice.
I can take any part of their packages, I can take sport during the season & cancel during the close season, I can take the film channels for a month when there are a number of films I might want to watch & cancel when the months don't suit my own taste, & there are any number of cost effective add on's & I have the option of, which when & if unhappy I can cancel the bloody lot with one (free) phone call. Now I find that hard to crticise, Murdoch & sprog? don't know them from Adam & quite honestly are an irrelevance to me.
I have not one problem with your love of the BBC nor am I of the ilk who wish to see it trashed etc, but I do suspect that my rights are actually violated by the demand that I fund the BBC & their viewers choice through a licence fee without an option for me to say Oy BBC, fank you, but no fank you.
The plainly unbiased Tory media mouth-piece, Hunt, who wishes there should be - if the BBC knows what's good for it - more recruits, actively, if you please ( cracking the whip before even being in control,) more conservatives, to improve balance" Dear oh dear, where have, us old ones heard statements in the past, not unlike this, ? All this presupposes that there has been hitherto, a lack of complete, unbiased reports down the decades, simply because there were not enough Tories in place. What hubris, rich isn't it ? Do any any of these pratts have even the smallest grip on reality ?
It is the usual tale of shooting the messenger, and both main parties have declared open season on what is still the most respected broadcasting network in the world which is why these political pygmies want to bring it down, to put it in its place, for nothing more more than naked, shame-free, political gain. The strategy is simple, splinter the BBC, and let Murdoch cherry pick his way through the remains, and, at the end of all this carve up, don't be too amazed if we still end up paying for TV licences.
Once the BBC has finally been disposed of- like a troublesome priest- the floodgates will open, few things will be impossible, how much would Buckingham palace make , Stonehenge, oh yes, National Trust properties will be sold, as will the Albert Hall and Windsor Castle, both could be turned into exclusive and lucrative hotels. Hyde Park should fetch a bit too...
For example, on page 72 of this BBC report PDF linked below, the BBC admitted to rigging the Question Time audience. When the BBC behaves in such a dishonest manner, it's hard to trust any of it's output.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/fi
Quote form page 72:
"When the Question Time audience in the ultra-white city of Lincoln was leavened with black and Asian people bussed in from afar, was this a legitimate attempt to skew the audience to fit national proportions - in which case what was the point of going to Lincoln? Or was it an unacknowledged distortion of the true character of Lincoln? Are such decisions made deliberately - or automatically, as part of the BBC's own progressive culture?"
So if the BBC has been rigging Question Time audiences and faking phone in competitions, what else have they been up to? Can we trust *anything* the BBC comes out with?
That is true of all media (drop in the name of any media you wish instead of BBC to that sentence and it is equally valid: try it) but both the Charter and Trust gives the BBC the best chance of being independent and immune from political or commercial pressures to slant, distort or otherwise bias. So though editorial judgement is always at the end of the day a personal judgment reflecting the values and beliefs of the production team and the management, at least with the BBC if feel I get a better chance oaf some sort of independent view coming through.
Of course we should never rely on one source on a story. If it is of key interest to be I will Google search stories and read the Guardian’s, the Daily Mail’s, Sky's, Fox's, BBC's et al's views and then make my own mind up.
But if I was forced to watch and read just one source then the BBC would win that one for me.
As for the document you cite: The fact that the BBC openly and publically have such discussions about how impartiality is achieved and acknowledge, discuss and seek feedback on the best way to produce a proper balance should be commended. The document shows an openness and awareness of the practical complexities in broadcast from a regional specific location and deal with issues of national interest and concern. I doubt if Fox News would have such a document on public access or that Sky News even discusses it. It those editorial policies are top down, ultimately from the proprietor, Murdoch.
The BBC recognises they must represent the British public as a whole and hence have open discussion, and, like here, admit faults or difficult issues.
First chance they get
Or is bias ok?
Ah, so it is, thanks !
If you want unbisaed opinion/views (often informed) the web is now the place.
Their is no defence for charging those who do not want to view. The BBC can never be independent of government as it relies on their opinion, both in the licence fee, its increases, not forgetting the separate funding of the world service etc, somewhere or another it must lick the arse that agrees to feed it.
No mention of the damage being done to local radio/TV news etc, or the damage been done to local/regional papers etc by an organisation that now has more funding than all the commercial sector/ann, roughly £4 billion/ann to the BBC as agianst £2:6 billion revenues for the whole of the commercial/private sector radio/TV in the UK.
Biased, not arf!
For too long the suffering public has put up with so called liberal intelligentsia who think they know best. They have not observed the tenets contained within the Royal Charter. In fact, they continue to ignore it. Labour Minister Bradshaw was furious when they did not toe his Party line. This dysfunctional and pompous Minister, through his complaints, has highlighted the urgent necessity for rescinding the BBC's Royal Charter. Perhaps a welcome scrapping of the liscence fee (Tax) would follow?
Seriously, this whole agenda is about more mindless Tory vandalism of the public sector. If they get away with it, we will be left with Murdoch and other foreign plutocrats ruling our media and our country and we will have wrecked a national treasure. I doubt you have ever seen public TV abroad, but the BBC is far better. Fine to look at questions of bias, but to pull down a house because you don't like the colour of the wallpaper seems a bit stupid.
You would prefer. would you, News Corporation, led by the shy and sensitive Rootless Murdoch, who of course is totally unbiased, and only has our best interests at heart? And, has the BBC, which was founded back in the 20s, always been a " front" for the Labour ?. Trouble is, there are far too many people like you, with axes to grind spouting rubbish about bias. The BBC is the envy of the world, but it won't be for long if the likes of you get their way. Keep your grubby hands off!
Look at the facts.
You have read the Charter I presume, if you have, perhaps you could tell us how it has been " torn " up"
I look at the schedules every day and can find no evidence of torn charters, perhaps you could put us all in the picture, good soldier...
Have you read the Charter ? I' m with you on Ross, his pay exceeds the Charter does it good soldier ?
Of course, about 5 million care a lot! But the majority are infrequent visitors to the BBCs schedules.
BBC executives are even more out of touch than the politicians, and just like Labour it's all "top down" control of the detail of programming so all we get are the views/prejudice of the BBC exec reflected in BBC programming.
A shame, but the concept of the BBC is not dead. It will return one day.
When did you become my spokesperson. Speaking purely for myself, I care very deeply for the BBC, I visit it every day, and where do your figures come from about the " casual" five million visitors, and who "are these executives, and in what way are they out of touch, do you know them all, do you socialise with them ?
The recent revelations about the plagiarist Yentob beggar belief, he has a salary for his initial job and is then paid a fortune for undertaking other work yet still seems to be drawing on his pension!
This employment fiasco must be ended. it is quite simple, senior managers should be employees of the BBC and paid a salary just like others who work for the government. If they refuse, then they must be dismissed and can they spend more time with their families or in the private sector.
A sensible solution might be to break it up into regional entities, funded locally and answerable to local communities.
The BBC collects money from all TV users to provide services to some. There is a good case for making its income relate to demand. If the BBC is as wonderful as many commentators say it is, then why don't more people watch or listen to its programmes? With the advent of satellite TV and internet radio we can get our entertainment and information from anywhere. I often listen to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, or the US National Public Radio - to avoid the hysteria and bias of the BBC.
" Hysteria and bias ", Really ?
Yes, I'm afraid that could be seen as bias. :-)
My perception of the BBC is as a mouth piece of any lefty PC parties: Labour, Greens, Lib Dems. It is riddled from top to toe with supporters of this political leaning, a Guido commentator once listed all the to and fro between Labour and BBC and it went into the hundreds. Their bias is very apparent, their profligacy with money and assets also apparent. They typically send 3 times the number of personnel to an event compared to a commercial company. e.g. Olympics, US election, etc. The BBC has, like the the rest of Britain, been so corrupted by Labour, it needs a major overhaul.
A shameful step in the disintegration of what was a fine country.
The truth is the BBC funding is more of a threat to independent reporting in the UK than Murdoch could ever be as they are damaging almost every part of the commercial/independent media through the seemingly limitless funds taken from many who don't wish to pay indeed watch the BBC. All with the blessing of government who watch the truly independent disappear with glee & will soon control all they need to do ie the supply of news to the UK population.
With regards to the supposed Tory threats, hogwash, historically the Tories have often seemed to threaten the BBC & yet just as often given the BBC more than it actually asked for. The Tories (in case you hadn't noticed) are politicians & control of the media/news is just as attractive to them as to Labour indeed any of the tosspots who claim to have our best interests at heart.
It wasn't the BBC who broke the expenses scandal, it was independent media, the BBC now reacts to breaking news they never seem to be at the heart of it, unless of course it is the agenda of the politician.
You keep the BBC, but stop demanding those who have no use for it to subsidise your passion.
There are advantages to 'Murdoch' if you don't want it, simple don't pay, seems a fair deal, the BBC however!!!!
I do recall the Tory attitude to the BBC and its consequences:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5263816.s
If the BBC had bought the data published by the DT (aka "independent media"), there would have been hell to pay. Perhaps they are too responsible.
Who said: "The only reliable, durable, and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit"?
And please, it does your argument no help to say the BBC is my passion. You, if I might make so bold, seem to be rather over-heated on this matter.
I shall write no more in this thread.
The BBC supporters almost always bring Murdoch into the debate usually with a passion so overheated one often wonders if they work for Beeb Corp.
Personally I'm more than happy for all/both options to be available, however the funding of the BBC is neither fair or reasonable to those who can easily do wihtout & yet somehow are still expected to fund.
Yes , Murdoch does enter into these debates, and with good reason, you seem to reasonably intelligent so you should know why, Murdoch's young sprog, talks of " the chilling reach of the BBC " Bit rich that coming from the heir of the one of the largest. if not the largest media empires in the world.. No sir, Murdoch and his cronies are not here for yours or my benefit.
By those who can do without, do you mean internet users, as well as Sky subsribers. Not every one has access to the Net. I do not work for the Beeb, one wonders whether the BBC bashers in this forum, and elsewhere, work for the shy and sensitive Murdoch Corporation...
I think the 'not everyone has access' is losing some of its strength as the broadband 'dongle' & mobile phone technology brings the option to almost all who want access to the inetrnet.
Nope never worked for Murdoch/News Corp etc, just an individual who would like to diconnect from the BBC, although if it was all of the quality & variation of 'Later with Jools Holland' then perhaps I'd pay either the licence fee or a subscription I just feel it would be nice to have that option.
Yes, I like Jools Holland too, so does my son, who even as I'm typing, he is on his way to London to see tonight's show. As for Rupert and Sprog, only time will tell whether or not my view of them is skewed, or yours and those like you are correct. What I would ask you all to bear in mind is this, once the BBC has been pulled to pieces by people with their various agendas, that will be that- remember Humtpy Dumpty ?
The argument about access IS possibly on the wane, as those without the required technology, are dying off, some of the others of my age group ( I'm sixty six ) are not that savvy with dongles or mobiles, some because they can't be bothered, or cannot afford it, though some are able to keep up with technology that changes almost by the hour ! Even so, in terms of numbers I'm sure they make up a significant part of the audience of the BBC, though obviously I have no idea of the numbers.
Finally snotcricket, I have enjoyed these exchanges, and am pleased it did not get personal, abusive, as so often happens in this forum and others, as we are all anonymous so to speak, and many write here stuff they would not dare say face to face. That's it for me today, I have done all I can for the finest broadcasting unit in the world, and get ready for " Later" Yoko's on this week, according to that excellent publication, The " Radio Times"
I don't usually speak about the BBC other than my right (or lack therein) to opt out of funding.
But! The BBC expansion is way outside that of its remit (Reith or otherwise), its move into areas of the web is doing great damage to independent news, freedom of press & perhaps the right of the individual to illustrate their own point. Its radio progs seem able to continue through the current crisis whilst many small, local (thus useful) stations struggle to compete in a market the BBC don't, all this & much more negates independence not embraces.
T'old Humpty is more relevant to the commercial sector than that very, very dear Aunt whose income now approaches £4 billion/ann. Perchance its time for it to fall from its perch & reconstruct? Although they'll already have the Hump as any initial thoughts on H.D. have over the years become intertwined with a Christian festival ie Easter & that plainly wouldn't do in the world of diversity, so ole HD's not an option by definition.
I suspect the age group you speak of will soon find the most benefit from the web, as the next generation of Oldies will be a little more PC savvie, & at least able to have cheap/free calls/post to boards etc, with basic health checks/monitoring becoming part of everyday life, & the loneliness that we so often hear of becomes less of a problem as people interact/communicate albeit in a less tactile manner, at least the grey matter will be oiled, & with it hopefully the delay of the dreaded dementia & similar.
Your comment on technology changing by the hour. I'm told my latest mobile handset does that much I'm to have 3 extra fingers fitted next week (FOC) in the hope I can utilise its many facets, although the salesmans claim it does everything but wipe my bum had me waivering as I'm sure next years model will do so, I'm reliably informed its name is to be the Senn-IPod.
I see Yoko's as barmy as ever?
By the by have you realised in 3 years time you'll be 69 & finally able to have it any way you want.
Wishing you & Auntie well.
It is the BBC who have decided to compete against commercial companies offering teh same services. For example, the BBc decided to pout "Come Dancing" up against ITV's "X-Factor" (though I don't really like either !!). ITV need such programs to generate their income. But with the BBC taking viewers ITV's income from their top program is limited. ITV have to look at costs, viewers, income and balance the equation. The BBC do not have the same income pressure. Not very fair.
It is the BBC who have decided to use a large percentage of the TV licence fee to pay for a massive web presence. a large part of this is their news service which is directly competing against commercial newspapers who are trying to maintain revenue and move from printed to web media and maintain income. However, on the web it is the BBCs competition that is effectively blocking the commercial companies from generating revenue. The long term impact will be a far lower choice of news services. The cause is that the BBC have decided to compete against commercial companies on a totally unfair basis.
The license fee should be scrapped and the BBC changed to a subscription service (e.g. like Sky). If their offering justifies the costs then this will not impact them. If they are not offering value for money (as tehy should) then they will need to cut back.
Then look at the pay and bonuses within the BBC. Does Jonathan Ross justify his income for his radio program (a few hours a week). He would never get that from a commercial radio station so why from the BBC. Just another example of how they feel cost justifications are not relevant - they don't think about whose money they are spending.
It used to be that the BBC used the license fee to make quality programs that were not possible for the commercial companies (e.g. nature documentaries). These days their output is "average" (some would think it poor, some would like it but it is not significantly different from the commercial broadcasters).
I had lived in France for many years until recently.
When I used to come home to England friends always asked me –
‘What is French TV and Radio like’?
I would answer truthfully –
‘Terrible in winter’
They would ask –
‘Well how about summer’
I would say, again truthfully –
‘Even worse’
Long live the BBC.
The railway contracts were signed hours before the General Election and the private companies did extremely well out of their nicely prevaricated 'contractual negotiations'.
Thatcher bribed the electorate - the cover story was that all citizens could take ownership of the state utilities through share ownership and become better off. In reality the utilities were sold to foreign/global concerns and citizens were just allowed to borrow miles beyond their means.
This time round, Osborne and Cameron in person have been 'listening to policy contributions' in exchange for party funding.
whole ... No.
For example, just try to make contact with them through their website. I have never found such
a carefully constructed maze, each exit blocked from further advancement by reference to some
other part of yet another maze - and so it goes on. It's a 'hole in my bucket, dear Lisa' scenario.
And if you eventually find a route to make a complaint, your response is either automated email
suggesting that because they have so much mail you have little chance of receiving an answer -
or a note appears on the screen that acknowledges your submission ... and says the same thing.
It doesn't seem to have crossed anyone's mind that they have so much complaint mail because
it's such a dreadful service.
If the BBC are unable to create an online service that meets the level of repute they claim for
themselves I suggest they ask Live Journal to step in and set it up for them ... or get out and
leave it to the professionals.