Bishop Hill The unique way the BBC is funded
Aug 18, 2015 BBC ;)
Back in 2011, we had fun at BH with the remarkable story that the BBC's commercial arm was accepting readymade programming from green groups and PR agencies, either for free or for negligible cost (see here, here, and here). This story has now reemerged after Ofcom received a complaint about the practice of illicit sponsorship of current affairs programmes.
According to the Ofcom report, over a two-year period between 2009 and 2011, BBC World News accepted no fewer than 186 different programmes at low or no cost without telling the audience.
Each of the programmes was approximately 30 minutes in duration. All were funded by not-for-profit organisations operating largely in the areas of developing world issues and environmental concerns.
Worse still, some of the programmes were taken from FactBased Communications (FBC), a PR agency working for the Malaysian government.
Ofcom now tells us that canned propaganda was a way of life at other broadcasters too, with CNN and CNBC also involved. Amazingly, CNBC seems to have been paid to broadcast the programmes.
The BBC is disclaiming all knowledge of the funding of FBC by the Malaysians, saying that they thought that FBC planned to make up the deficit by subsequent syndication of the content. And, as all good regulators do, Ofcom has taken them at their word, concluding thus:
In Ofcom’s view, the evidence did show that money had been paid by Malaysian interests to FBC. However it did not demonstrate that the money had been used to fund programme production, as opposed to non-television public relations and lobbying activity.
So that's all right then.
Reader Comments (57)
tomo, I agree with you about crowdfunding and private benefactions. Trouble is, the PC brigade, together with jellybacked bureaucrats and a compliant judiciary, can reverse even these.
In the US, the recent purging of Confederate history has included the removal of statues and memorials funded by private benefactors to universities, for example. Who in their right mind would leave a benefaction in their will when it can be obliterated by this week's version of PC?
As for Ian Martin, he is pretty good, but Peter Capaldi's rendition of the lines is absolute genius. He is my favourite British actor of the last few decades. He has taken up, IMO, the crown of Alec Guinness. There's nothing he can't do, superbly.
I should have added, that like the great Alec Guiness, he is nothing special to look at (to be kind to both of them.) But while Hollywood keeps churning out pretty boys and girls, I can't think of a single one who holds a candle to Capaldi.
johanna - I agree about Peter Capaldi - Malclom Tucker was something else :-)
As to the return of crowdfunding - moral relativism and self serving revisionism is something that in my experience few people actually confront - for a variety of reasons. As far as I'm concerned if a piece gets made it stands on its own - if some folk come along later and pull it down - then the sensible question to ask is why? Busking variations on the Streisland effect :-) Getting back to the BBC - one of their primary tactics is bias by omission - but they also have an institutional filter that overtly distorts much that should be delivered unvarnished..... when eventually compelled to explain they usually fall back on "high production standards".
Political and religious activists have always played fast and loose with the historical record to suit a present agenda - sometimes to the point of complete farce and with absolutely no regard for context in any way, shape or form - and if you've had sight of the record and know something of the context - well, that tells you something about said activists :-) - almost invariably that they are ars****s.
Not that I'm an unalloyed fan - but Kerry Packer had his moments dealing with the jellyback toads - my favorite from 1991 - he must be up there playing havoc with God's croupiers....
Having pondered on what's gone wrong with the BBC's science coverage I've come to the following conclusion:
The BBC is an Institution that creates British Cultural Norms. The BBC is not primarily a broadcaster.
That sounds silly but hear me out. The BBC decides what our culture is and then builds cultural infrastructure to support it and magnify it.
This is good. We have the Proms and the non-action sci-fi hero Dr Who and the pageantry of big State occasions.
Thus this defines what it means to be British. But it also arbitrary.
-Why is Glastonbury (hippy pagan festival) the official festival of the Summer? Why not Reading with it's Rock and urine bottles thrown at bad singers? That is (was) still a part of British youth culture.
-We all remember those British '50s war movies. But they are not seen on the BBC anymore (except in documentaries). Other B&W movies still are.
-Who decided that London's East End was a vibrant culture that needed immortalising in a mimicry of Coronation Street? The biggest city is not ethnically, culturally or economically typical of most of the country.
So why is the BBC biased? Because it is supporting the establishment view. And it is defining the establishment view.
And the establishment view is that Green is Good - unquestionably.
(For further study, look at the decline in Church attendance and the rise in TV viewing alongside the rise in 'Green is the epitome of virtue')
Aug 19, 2015 at 12:10 PM Jeremy Poynton
Just because people sometimes follow the same road doesn't make them allies. Yes, there are liberal elites in all political parties and at the BBC. In no small part because the BBC has been pumping out its version of how the world should run since before most politicians were born. That's why certain issues become taboo - like immigration. It's a brave politician that stands at odds to Aunty. Even the electorate are cowed into lying when put on the spot. Only when they get into the privacy of the voting booth do they pluck up the courage to show some of what they really think.
"The BBC is an Institution that creates British Cultural Norms. The BBC is not primarily a broadcaster." M Courtney
I totally agree with that but I don't think it's a good thing for much of the time. It is too much the product of the people it contains and its public money structure. For all I love some of its output (including its hideously biased comedy) I'd vote to shut it down immediately. I wouldn't even let it try to survive as a commercial entity.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11813249/Lord-Hall-threatened-to-overshadow-Budget-after-TV-licence-row.html
Every time there is a suggestion that the BBC acts more efficiently, it holds a knife up to the throats of its more vulnerable children. Well do it. Axe BBC4, 3, 2 and local radio. Do it.
If they axe BBC2 they'll kill the source of some of their few successful shows. The rest are a waste of time anyway. Trim the BBC down to the bare minimum at which point everyone will be asking why we pay billions to such a self indulgent bunch of luvvies. The few decent programs will migrate to other channels and Gold will continue to screen the BBC back catalogue from when they were genuinely original.