Bishop Hill The future of the BBC
Apr 7, 2013 BBC From the comments at Biased BBC, we discover that Culture select committee chairman John Whittingdale is talking big on reform of the BBC:
The Culture, Media and Sport committee chairman John Whittingdale, said the Government and the BBC should discuss an alternative to the licence fee. More than a million households do not pay the £145.50 annual fee.
John Whittingdale is a fellow Mensa member and was interviewed for a three page article in the April edition of the Mensa magazine.
It is not yet clear about what future action is due as regards the 28 Gate scandal at the BBC, but I think that the May edition of the Mensa magazine and future Space Special interest group newsletters and emails from Mensa members may shed light at what seems to be an unprecedented attack from Mensa members upon the BBC as regards its censorship of science, scientists and scientific debate about Climate Change. They told me not to expect much before May, but they have not told me that Whittingdale is leading the Mensa attack on the BBC. Last year he said that the BBC had a “failure of management at every level” and that there was “something fundamentally wrong with the BBC management structure”.
...
Someone should be telling Blogs such as bishop-hill and wattsupwiththat to submit information to Whittingdale
...
It is worth noting that a mutual friend passed my 28gate pamphlet on to Whittingdale, but unfortunately I never received any feedback. I am therefore fairly pessimistic about whether Whittingdale's suggestions about the future of the BBC amount anything more than trying to send out the correct vibes to disgruntled Tory voters.
Reader Comments (33)
I assume that the 1 million who don't pay the license fee have a TV and that they don't pay because they use the loophole (watch only catchup/iplayer programmes) or only watch DVDs or play video games. So because they can't get these 1 million to pay the "tax" they are thinking of alternatives. I can think of a couple of different methods. 1) Put the tax on the broadcasters such as Sky who can then collect it back via their subscription fees. Or in the case of ITV via the advertisers who then charge more to their customers for the increased cost of advertising. In both cases the general public pay instead of license fee holder. 2) Another alternative would be put the "tax" on everyone, watcher of broadcast TV or not. Basically change it from a license to a general taxation item. How it's collected is another thing, but they'll think of it. The second method pretty much puts the BBC into the category of state broadcaster of propaganda. There is a third method, but it's unlikely to get any backing. That's to scrap the BBC license fee. Make the BBC funded by subscription or advertising. Make it compete on equal terms with all other broadcasters. It's won't cause too much harm to the BBC as it has a huge head start what with it's huge backlog and quality programmes that are sold around the world.
The beeb is the organ of the EU, with its biased unswerving support for all the left wing diktat, of EU inspired policy, has been in large part responsible for the trashing of the UK.
For more than fifty years, the BBC they've been the chief propagandists for Cultural Marxism and the hackneyed left wing view of everything including of course - the intellectually dilapidated political policy - the lunacy of the green agenda.
The BBC needs breaking up, it needs privatizing and it needs to be made to compete with other broadcasters on a level playing field but until there is an earthquake in the closed shop of Westminster - expect more propaganda, ideology and lies from the BBC - you can't teach an old dog new tricks and in the end you have to put rabid dogs down.
Is it my imagination but the BBC these days put forward the reaction to an events before the official version. This has been evident on the debate on social security in recent days. With regard to climate change there simply is no debate or reaction, only papal infallibility.
The powers that be are most unhappy with Lord Patten's stewardship regarding it as a right mess, especially as "his man" lasted only a few weeks. Then what does Lord Patten do - he calls an ex-BBC head of News who has been away from the BBC for over a decade, and who failed to get the DG's job more than once, and says to him "The job is yours if you want it." Amazing
Subscription following de-nationalisation, would be the best way forward. The government might even generate some income from the sale.
The best part of the present arrangement is the choice of opting out - the money saved can help contribute to the ever rising winter fuel costs.
It's simple really. Halve the subscrition after one year, then do away with it after 2 years. They would have to get rid of all the dead wood and learn to operate in the real world.
Honestly, I don't know why we bother with politicians when there is so much sensible advice available for free at the Bishop's manse.
Anyone else watch 'France24English', via Sky?
Round the clock NEWS in proper English.
I'm actually more interested in the wars in Syria and Mali than in DiCanio's 'Roman salute.
If the French can provide such an excellent service to us free, why can't we do it for ourselves ?
Even AlJazeera, RT, Euronews, and especially Fox News are better.
No wonder the Beeb and its allies pulled out all the stops to prevent the takeover.
It is worth noting that a mutual friend passed my 28gate pamphlet on to Whittingdale, but unfortunately I never received any feedback
Softly, softly catchy monkey. When one holds damaging information it is often imprudent to release said bomb on your victim in a rush. Maybe, just maybe Whittingdale is holding back for a reason.
Patten has some powerful friends in the current gouvernment.
Great to see them having a go. They did such a lot of good entertaining the troops during the last war
Forgive me, but what has Mensa (the skill of being very good at solving stupid puzzles) got to do with it?
Alan Reed. 5.54pm
It ain't 'arf cold mum !
nice one !
@Alan Reed. 5.54pm
Thanks Alan, made me chuckle.
Yes. Let's get Densa on the case.
Patten's appointment sums up all that is wrong with the BBC. Scrap the licence fee and let them compete in an open market via a subscription fee.
I'm of the privatise it persuasion, but I see that the BBC is and always has been an organ of propaganda on behalf of the establishment funded by money from the proper geese. They are not about to give it up for a subscription model. They are happy with the status quo. With the fake independence and the Royal Commission-backed immunity from criticism. What we see as egregious behaviour is the BBC working as designed.
rhoda
proper geese, I like it!
Rhoda, spot on again. I just made a complaint that they introduced Lord Oxburgh to discuss energy policy as the ex-Chairman of Shell, to talk about energy policy when that was a temporary job 8 years ago and now he's upto his armpits in CCS. I received a dismissive response from the assistant editor responsible, so it went to the complaints department. They agreed with me that Lord Oxburgh's current interests should have been made known to the listeners but as, in their opinion, he hadn't touted the interests he had in the interview then they hadn't breached the guidelines, which clearly state they should let the listeners know if an interviewee has financial interests in the subject under interview. (He did by the way, but as they're technically incompetent they didn't understand that the old forte gave the impression that CCS was a viable solution to our problems, when it's as far away as a Mars manned space landing in terms of implementablity).
It's a bit like telling the police that although you're three times over the legal limit, you haven't committed a crime because you've not been involved in an accident. But that's the BBC, arrogant and contemptuous of those not in the opinionocracy. (Love that word, it came from someone on this blog who I'd h/t if I could remember who it was).
Don't forget that the BBC pension fund, according to the blogosphere, is heavily into carbon credits and renewable energy. If true shouldn't this interest be declared in all relevant documentaries where they comment on climate change?
Stuff the licence fee and subscription just do advertising, the subscription may follow eventually. But then there are so many other channels do we really need the BBC.
Don't waste time expecting Whittingdale to do anything about BBC climate change reporting. He used to be my MP so I wrote to him after climate gate and received a staple warmist reply, replete with 'the science says we must act' and other bollo. The man's a committed warmist.
A privatised BBC?
It's pretty much there already if the program production credits reflect where the money's going - "crony capitalism" incarnate. Throw in Dave, BBC books, Lonely Planet etc. etc.
It's the dumbing down, the contempt for honest reportage, the cult of celebrity, the galactic self regard, the wholesale patronising, the refusal to actually engage with
victimscustomers, the PC jargon infested self justification, the evasion of accountability - the list is long....For reasons I can't recall, I ended up in 2004 with several days spare and only the BBC's annual report for "entertainment" - and pencil and paper. People go on about however many billions the telly tax brings in and the income from supposedly peripheral activities..... The report obligingly did some simple analysis on cost centres (BBC accountants seem competent) - which when some simple arithmetic was applied resulted in an estimate of actual average production costs on a per channel basis - these numbers I have to say were startlingly high - so high that I had to revisit my arithmetic several times.
I can only say that "over funded monumentally self indulgent spoilt brats squandering other peoples money" was my reaction then - and remains so.
I haven't had a TV in the house since and all the evidence I can see and hear indicates to me that things have not improved - at all.
Switch off the money.
Toad...Anyone else watch 'France24English', via Sky?
I watch it on Freesat over here in Dublin. None of the tedious repeat,repeat, repeat of Sky and also gives a perspective of other events in other countries which Sky has never heard of. Chnl 205, Freesat.
Handling of 28gate is a long, long process. It will come to fruition some time in the future.
Athelstan - love to have a drink with you, you sound fun! This blog is like reading Obnoxio The Clown!
good, this colossus needs cut down.
they have more money than sense (our money of course) & need culled (would like some ITV input as well).
for example - bbc1,2,3,4 & radio x-y & website x-y, foreign correspondents x-y (input minimal), etc...
get rid of 50% & nobody would notice (I think).
Why is a government run television station so special that it must be fed by compulsory licence fee.
How about make it a free broadcast like other comercial stations. They can make their money by advertising or subscription.
Is there point from the governments point of view, for public compulsion of funding support?
At least by making the public pay there is some semblance of cost and accountability.
In Australia, where the money flows automatically from govt, "our" ABC carry on propagandising without tears.
Toad...Anyone else watch 'France24English', via Sky?
Yes and I have never seen such a biased and pro-alarmist coverage of climate issues in my life. Even though they do have people on it who have a brain and can talk (better English than most native speakers) their coverage of anything to do with climate science or energy issues is just a free platform for NGOs pedalling their own versions of 'let us run the world and everything will be sorted'.
So just the BBC with a very slight accent.
With friends and some Irish throat nectar only.
A state funded broadcaster - so 1984 and back to our future.
Some people, most on here can see through the beeb and that's good. Though, some 47% still believe and take their news via the beeb - and that's a frightening statistic.
Shiny happy BS reportage, especially on the local news - which has become a panegyric to local government and charities fund raising and cluttered about with paeans to more shiny shopping centres - investigative journalism thrown out along with the brains of the presenters.
Telly for morons - who do not have a choice about payment - Sky are just as bad - but at least with them - you have the choice. In a modern society, compulsory annual fees for an 'entertainment box' where most of the schedule is unwatchable puerile guff - is an imposition and anachronism.
Until the compulsory licence fee is removed - it will never come into the real world: because there is no need to.
The BBC is run for aspiring middle classes who in North London, who have each other around for 'dinner' to solve the worlds problems. They can also 'network' together so the push people like themselves into positions of influence. They can all feel the warm glow of having done 'right' by the worlds poor and the environment. They have little intellectual depth and cannot follow an argument through.
Typical of them is the modern New Labour of Blair and now the liitle twonk millibrand and his ilk. They have never known want but have a lingering guilt about what their grandparents went through in the '20s.
They want to feel good about themselves but, because they have done' well', they say to themselves 'hasn't the greatgrandson of a miner/ditch digger/welder done well in getting into the chatterati of London, having dinner with the movers and shakers'.
They are moral cowards and the BBC is full of them.
Move it from London to a place less than glamorous say Hartlepool and the shit will slide off it to reveal a real gem inside.
/rant>
The licence fee only goes to fund the BBC.
If people do not want to watch the BBC, why should they pay anything towards its operation? ITV, Sky, Channel 4, 5 etc raise their capital requirements in a different manner. In a free market, people should be free to decide how they support any organisation. They should not be compelled to support an organisation.
I can see major moral objections towards being forced to pay to support a biased organisation whose views one does not support. For example, should every member of the public be forced to pay a tax to support a mosque from which hatred is preached, or should muslims be forced to pay a tax so catholics can build some churches, or should all workers pay a levy on their wages to support trade unions which may not represent them, etc? What about paying a tax/a political levy which is then used to fund just the three main parties? This is all a matter of personal choice, and should not be a forced obligation.
Further, we now know how instutionalised sexist the BBC was and how it created celebrities like Saville and allowed them to do what they wished. Why should ordinary citizens be forced to become complicit in all of this by paying towards the costs of the creation of such people?
As I see matters, the issue for the BBC is whether iplayer should be restricted to licence holders only, or if accessed by those who do not hold a licence a fee is levied on a pay to view basis. This would get around the iplayer loophole.
Personally, I would like to see the BBC scrapped, but then again I see no reason why my views should be forced upon others. After all, I can exercise personal choice and simply not watch the BBC.
The BBC are entirely responsible for my AGW scepticism,and conversion from centre left politics to being a ukip voter.
After years of comfortably buying into the bbc worldview even the most blinkered supporter surely has to ask
`Why does the bbc ALWAYS agree with MY views?` That alone should set off your personal alarm bells.
So after years of donning my climate hair shirt i asked the question of google
`Is the bbc biased on climate change?`
Within a couple of hours i`d read through recent posts on Dave Vance`s Biased BBC,also here at Bishop Hill, WUWT...What an eye opener!
Not just me either,many family and friends have radically changed their views,for pretty much the same reasons.
Oh the /fe!
As a radio drama fan, I would not want the BBC licence fee to be abolished.
The BBC commissions about three hundred radio dramas per year, and is famous for them. Many writers begin their careers by writing radio plays.
No commercial radio station in the world broadcasts regular high-quality radio drama. Commercial stations usually broadcast news, popular music and adverts.
Nevertheless the bias of the BBC in reporting climate-related science is appalling. It seems to cater only for a juvenile or uninformed audience, and unfailingly supports those pushing green propaganda.