BBC Parliament ownership discussion

BBC Parliament has very few resources, I'm not actually sure it makes any programmes does it?

Don't get the channel confused with the actual coverage of the houses. Video and audio feeds of the Houses of Parliament are provided by an organisation called PARBUL (Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Ltd) which is owned by BBC, ITV, C4, C5 and Sky. Each of those channels get a place on the board along with representatives from parliament. More details here: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/g05.pdf and
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmbroad/642/64205.htm

All BBC Parliament (and Sky News, ITV News etc) do is rebroadcast PARBUL pictures that exist anyway, as I say it's actually very cheap as a channel!


Incidently PARBUL pictures are quite restricted, I think I remember that even at the BBC there was a limit to archive use. Other broadcasters can use them on the day and then pay for them afterwards. It seems to be quite unusual compared with other countries - the equivalent proceedings in the US Congress and Senate as well as live events at the Pentagon, White House are all considered public domain.

Such tabloid stories are irresponsible distractions from the real issues affecting Europe right now and you will not find me acknowledging them. Like any person with an modicum of sense, I cut straight to the original source wherever possible, digesting full transcripts of speeches delivered by key political figures at the heart of the European Union and the governers of European states. Each day, I drop-in on more than a dozen current affairs blogs written by eagerly observant university lecturers, authors, physicians, politics students and former journalists (one of whom used to work in BBC radio, no less) which expertly collate and analyse information from a myriad of sources from across the world. In order to gauge the public mood on developing stories, I read every single comment on The Telegraph, The Independent, The Guardian, CNN and major European newspapers. The Express and their silly milk jugs are not on my radar.

Now that I have cathartically vindicated myself of jine's vituperative Daily Mail jibe, I will move on to TV coverage of EU machinations. I think the problem goes much deeper than merely a lack of parliamentary coverage. BBC News as a whole is blatantly dismissive towards EU issues. For example: yesterday, the president of the European Central Bank announced his vision for creating an EU Finance Ministry to oversee state budgets, with the power to veto any policies that might adversely affect the economy of another European state. As you know, when the UK government floats radical ideas, the BBC are on it like bees to honey. "Would this be a good idea? Is this what people want? What about when the government said it was never going to do this? How would this impact social group xyz?". They can't shut up. Yet when an EU leader does it... nothing. Complete ignorance. Same, incidentally, with the recent protests. When it happened in Egypt and Tunisia, the BBC couldn't get enough of it, yet now the same is happening in Greece (where members of the Communist party today broke into and began an occupation of the treasury) and Spain... again, nothing. I've had the BBC News channel on all afternoon in the background and not once have I heard the words Europe, Spain or Greece.

It's bizzare. Utterly bizzare.

Well there's Book Talk, The Record, The Record Review and I think The Record Europe. So a small few.

It is probably fair to say that happens with all sections of the news too - very similar events can happen in the US and parts of Europe (I'm thinking natural disasters, shootings etc.) and in most circumstances the US events will make the news but it's rare such events in Europe do - and when they do they're not covered in such detail.

This is going off topic now but do the BBC and ITN have similar working relationships with stations across Europe as they do with ABC and NBC in the US?

Yes, through being members of the EBU/Eurovision

In terms of European Parliament, there is an organisation called Europe By Satellite (EBS) which provides coverage of proceedings in the EU and related organisations: http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/ebs/welcome_en.cfm

and for Five (via Sky) there is the European News Exchange, which is for non-EBU stations:

http://www.enex.lu/site11/?q=Members

Although several of those stations are EBU members!

Inspector Sands:-


BBC Parliament is a cheap channel, but who pays for the carriage? A Satellite transponder doesn't come cheap. Personally I'd prefer the Parliamentary coverage being paid for out of taxation, or not at all. If it comes from the TV Licence-fee, then the licence-fee.payers should have a greater say in whether it's a valuable facility. Otherwise, make it a 'BBC Sport Channel' to cope with event over-runs, for example.

Chie:-

I agree, regarding your point re European coverage. A flood in Poland, or crops destroyed in Spain? Nothing. A politician in The US Senate does something wrong? Full coverage. Or worse-still, a UK MP sneezes... then ' hold the front-page '.

However, the vast majority of British citizens could not give a cent for "Europe".
"Europe" is "Over There", "Nothing to do with us".
We might go to France for a camping holiday, or to Benidorm for a beach holiday, but actually be bothered about a " European "? No chance.

Therefore the UK TV News Channels ignore "Europe" as most United Kingdom Citizens are simply not interested.

It shares a transponder with other BBC services (the days of one TV channel per transponder are long gone). The only charge in terms of carriage is the EPG position on Sky (and possibly cable).


I you look at the link I posted above: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmbroad/642/64205.htm you'll see that it's paid for by all the broadcasters - BBC, ITV, C4, C5 and Sky. They also sell footage to other broadcasters which helps fund it.

It's not really a thing you could poll the public on, the vast majority would say that they don't watch it but that doesn't make it unimportant.

OK, I used the word "Transponder" I should have been much more accurate.

My point is that the BBC

(Why "BBC" anyway why not " UGOVtv "?)

.... the BBC Parliament Channel has to be monitored, uplinked, slotted into the SKY EPG, The Freesat EPG, etc..... which must cost a few pence.
If the audience is so small, why broadcast it?
Anything really worthwhile happening in 'The House', is usually carried on both News Channels simultaneously (and possibly BBC One as well) anyway.
There is also a comprehensive resume on BBC Radio Four every night.
For those that need to know, the material is there, on the internet.

Special debates could be carried under "The Red Button".

To have a channel exclusively for Parliament, when other TV channels with larger audiences are apparently under threat of closure, is a bit wasteful.

Though in reality the amount saved by the BBC by axeing BBC Parliament is unlikely to suddenly remove the threat of closure from far more highly budgeted channels.

It provides a democratic service, available to pretty much anyone who can watch broadcast TV (once DSO has happened), and is no doubt very popular with MPs... (So axeing it wouldn't be a smart move in that regard)

Most of the material carried is being produced anyway - so you could argue in similar terms that removing the channel would be a waste of all that effectively free material. (It's the same argument the BBC have used for Wimbledon multi-screen services - to not broadcast material and to not make it available to an audience is a waste)

Well it's not something the civil service would do so they would have to contract it out to a private company like they did Teachers TV. But then why do that when there's an established and publicly owned broadcaster who's quite capable of doing it. The BBC also has the advantage of being able to cross-promote.


Because it's a public service. Because it's good for democracy to be able to see what parliament is doing


Major policy statements and PMQs are yes, but that's very very little. What about those who want to see a debate on an issue that affects them or a question and answer session about their line of work etc.


But that's just the same as having a channel to itself... apart from the very minor issue of an EPG place, and of course who decides what's 'special'?