I'm not saying that the BBC should abandon populism for elitism (look at the early history of LWT for how that fared for the firm) but a the same time it should be willing to "stick to their knitting" (a phrase from Greg Dyke's book "Inside Story" which is a good read btw) that is to remain loyal to PSB
In my opinion, the BBC made the mistake of venturing into too many areas of broadcasting, areas which it needed not to venture into.
They created far too many channels and brands, and now with the stretched resources, and the constant threat of the future of the licence fee, the best way forward is for them to scale back on the channels and stations and output, concentrating more of their money on what they do best, and not spreading it all thinly and hoping it will all stick together.
I believe the BBC need to review the future role and continued existence of BBC Four, the two kids channels, BBC Scotland, BBC Alba, and the wealth of BBC national and local radio stations. These are the key areas of broadcasting they need to review and change in my opinion.
The BBC have tried to emulate Sky in their channels and that to my mind was a wrong move. Sky is a very different entity to the BBC, they can afford to have multiple genres and multiple channels simply because they have the content to do so.
I believe its right that we should have both PSB and mass market channels in this country but there shouldn't be a situation where one is outweighing the other by a lot. I know its not possible for equilibrium between the two for the reason I explained above but right now I believe The BBC is aping Sky and it shouldn't
What I’m saying is if the bbc is to regain the trust that it’s lost in the last few years then what steps does it need to take. Where does it need to invest, does it need to overhaul its news. What about programming, the licence fee?
I'm not sure the BBC has lost trust with the audience? I don't exactly sense rioting (or conversely jubilation) in the streets over them?
I was literally thinking the same thing moments ago, Mark. Sure, the BBC has issues, like any organisation does. But I’m not sure “trust” is one of them.
Would anyone care to list (very briefly and without digression into fantasy or tangential history) what they consider the top two problems the BBC “has”? I’m genuinely interested. And genuinely wonder what’s creating the sensational “anti-BBCism” all of a sudden.
I’ll start. Two points only:
1) Trying to be everything to everyone;
2) To use a favourite phrase of an old boss of mine: “an elephant trying to run with the cheetahs”. (Too much unhealthy bureaucracy that ties itself in knots).
The "anti-BBC ism" is something that has been a constant thorn in the side of both the political establishment and its allies in the press for the life of the corporation. There have been many examples of the corporation has not been seen as "toeing the line". The General Strike of 1926 one excellent example where I believe there were plans to place the BBC directly under the government's control. There is a book called "Pinkoes and Traitors" which examines in depth the BBC's clashes with the government from 1974 to 1987. Again and excellent book
Every company needs to have rules and regulations that is correct but the mass of red tape that seems be encircling New Broadcasting House is to my mind starving the creative nature of the corporation
"Inside Story" by Greg Dyke
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Greg-Dyke-Inside-Story/dp/0007193645/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=greg+dyke&qid=1598528433&sr=8-1
"Pinkoes and Traitors: The BBC and The Nation 1974-1987" by Jean Seaton
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Pinkoes-Traitors-BBC-nation-1974-1987/dp/1846684749/ref=sr_1_1?crid=14WK3E85K59TS&dchild=1&keywords=pinkoes+and+traitors&qid=1598528488&sprefix=pinkoes+and+traitors%2Caps%2C353&sr=8-1