Raymond Snoddy: The case against has not been proven
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Who would have thought that Labour and the Conservatives would form an unholy alliance to abolish such a social menace as – the BBC Trust?
First, Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw decided the Trust, whose job is to represent licence payer's interests and defend the Corporation's independence, should be abolished. Never mind that it was the work of his colleague, former Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell, or that the body was designed to be more independent of BBC management than the Board of Governors it replaced.
Now, the shadow Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt has jumped on this unusual band-wagon.
A Conservative government, Hunt made clear yesterday, would simply abolish the "failed" BBC Trust and also consider "ripping up" the corporation's Royal Charter. That's the same Royal Charter created in 1927 and has been renewed in 10 year tranches by Governments of all persuasions. The present Charter still has seven years to run – unless Mr Hunt manages to rip it up in the meantime.
But what has the Trust done to excite such cross-party hostility. Indeed, how strong is the evidence that it is a failed institution compared, say, to the Financial Services Authority? True, it is not a completely separate authority and has dual functions. There are those, Hunt and Bradshaw included, who believe this makes it flawed.
But a cursory glance at its record so far suggests it has handled that ambiguity rather well, basing its decisions on its own independent research. Some were questionable, such as finding that the BBC did not distort the market in stars' salaries (despite the £18m Jonathan Ross contract). Many were unhappy when it meekly accepted Ross's suspension, rather than sacking him, over the Sachs affair.
But the Trust has been critical of the metropolitan bias of BBC news coverage, and improvements have been made. It has upheld a third of complaints against the corporation on appeal. It has suspended the bonus culture of BBC management and blocked plans to expand regional TV coverage because of its likely impact on the market. There are serious former broadcasters on the Trust such as Richard Tait, former editor-in chief of ITN, and David Liddiment, ITV's former programme director.
Hunt and Bradshaw also need to answer the question: if not the BBC Trust, then what? Ofcom, the communications regulator? Too much centralisation of power – and anyway, David Cameron also wants that abolished or curbed.
The creation of another regulatory body? You can always do that, but before the disruption and extra expense, perhaps it might be better to provide more coherent evidence for the "failure" of the Trust beyond apparent political whimsy.
The writer presents the BBC's viewer access programme, 'Newswatch'
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
.. but the BBC has lost all credibility as a News Broadcaster. The absurd toadying to New Labour and its spin-doctors has dragged BBC News into utter disrepute. No-one believes the bilge it broadcasts any longer.
But then it doesn't seem like that when, much more frequently, I watch "Newsnight". Especially when Mr Paxman presides ...
Far more important though would be to end the current situation whereby the BBC is funded via a poll tax on TV ownership. Like all taxes of this kind the burden falls disproportionately on the poor. If we are to have a public service broadcaster then why not fund it out of general taxation as in Australia and several other countries? It is ironic that in this country it is those on the centre or left of the political spectrum who most vociferously defend the current BBC set up, when it was the radical, reforming Labor governement of Gough Whitlam that abolished the licence fee in Australia on the grounds that direct government funding was fairer than funding via a regressive tax.
Hear where you are coming from but disagree, despite being in the Anglo-sphere and in terms of a sense of humour at least, very close to us the physical circumstances are totally different. They have a Continent with only 21,000,000 people, we have an Island with 60,000,000 people there are also other political constraints in Australia bought about by the Federal system.
The problem with the BBC being absorbed into a general taxation model is that then, who controls it ? Does it in fact then become the mouth piece of the Government of the Day ? Of course it does.
When OAPs reach 80 or so, they do not pay for TV Licences that principle could be extended to single Mums and so on via "credits" using the Benefits System if desired so why absorb the TV Licence into "general taxation", sorry but a silly idea, just how much of your Road Tax gets spent on roads ? Correct, very little, a tax by any other name is just a tax, at least the Licence Fee is ring fenced, does what it says on the tin ?
Your point with regard to road tax etc is just bizarre. If the licence fee were to be abolished and replaced with government funding there would no longer be a ring fenced tax to fund a public service broadcaster. The point is that the licence fee is currently a ring fenced tax, but it is a regresive one.
I am not an avid TV watcher likely because I spend a lot of the time staring at computer monitors but recently laid up with a bacterial infection, I was obliged to watch a fair amount of TV and came to the conclusion that on all channels, the news coverage was somewhat infantile and lacking in depth. Perhaps it was only then that I realised that like many people and likely many contributors to the Indy, I rely for news and comment not on one source but on many and almost exclusively accessed via the Internet and in fact the BBC has probably one of the best web sites going.
The bottom line for me is that I would not be in too much of a hurry to change anything here overnight and without very careful thought and discussion except for one thing, I would reduce the BBC's income from the Licence Fee by a percentage using top slicing (£10 ?), and for that to be ploughed into upgrading our national broadband infrastructure way beyond 2Mbs which would benefit the "commercial media" as well but without cost to them.
There are a lot of people who object to the Licence Fee which like Council Tax is not "means tested on ability to pay" but for now, leave it be, like a Sky package, you can pay for the TV Licence monthly and it is a lot cheaper than Sky. I don't have a hang up about Murdoch, I admire him as the ruthless businessman he always has been and in that context, the BBC is a very good check on both him and any other Media Mogul.
Some years ago and being no admirer of TV Soaps, I was chatting to a BBC chap at a social event and asked "Why East Enders etc...?" His reply was interesting:
He said that the Licence Fee was always controversial with many people so if all they did was Period Drama, Natural History and the Proms, they would be accused of being "Elitist" and "poor people subsidising the tastes of the better off..." Therefore and although they weren't chasing ratings for advertising revenue as commercial TV had to, they had to chase the ratings with popular programmes if only to prove they are delivering value to all in exchange for the Licence Fee they get.
It was an interesting view that I had never previously considered. My view to all the "Politicos" is shut up, make a reasoned case but always hasten slowly with any change, it really isn't as simple as it seems, the BBC does not sit in isolation, you also must consider the commercial interests whereby they might think "damaging the BBC" might serve their interests but the real question is, does it serve ours as taxpayers and consumers ?