ITV should be allowed to drop some regional news bulletins, reduce regional programming by 50% and cut back on some current affairs programmes, according to media regulator Ofcom, which has forecast that up to £235m per year will be needed by 2012 to maintain public service content on commercial TV.
The proposals, revealed today in Ofcom's second review of public service broadcasting, will please ITV, which wants to make £40m a year in regional savings.
*The proposed amalgamations of Border and Tyne Tees and West and Westcountry will take place. It seems each region will get a dedicated 15 minute sub-opt in the combined programe.
*The amount of non-news regional programming will go down to an average of just 15 minutes a week in England and 90 minutes a week in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - in other words half what it was set to go down to next year anyway.
*The mid-morning regional bulletins and the lunchtime updates at the weekend can go.
Full consultation document at Ofcom's website. Of course this is more or less exactly what ITV proposed in the first place. I'm saying nothing but.....
There is a difference between state-funded and state-run, and it is indeed worrying when you think about how such forcefully-put and academically-worded arguments manage to miss that fundamental point - which to some audiences (say, working as a consultant to media executives or a Commons Select Committee) could have the dangerously subliminal effect of 'adding weight' to the argument that social and corporate responsibility have no place in the modern media marketplace.
Mark - I fully appreciate the distinction between public management and public financing. But the BBC is still a bureaucracy. That simple fact arises from its government funding. The BBC - like all bureaucracies - has an incentive to secure greater funding. They are budget-maximisers. That is precisely why at a time when the internet and digital TV has helped to greatly diversify the media landscape (and to that end has inevitably reduced the degree of market failure in that environment) that the BBC's operations have actually expanded. Indeed, on this point, I encourage everyone to read an essay penned by Sir Antony Jay - of 'Yes, Minister' fame - for the Centre for Policy Studies. He advocates a greatly slimmed down public broadcaster. You can view the PDF here. At any rate, I don't believe anything I have said implies state control of the BBC.
As for "social corporate responsibility", which you seem to be alluding to, I'm happy to say that I think the concept is a load of rubbish. Although I believe I made my argument on that some posts ago.
noggin posted:
Yep - many assume "State Run" is the same as "State Funded". One of the key ways that differentiates the BBC from such state-controlled operations, is that whilst the state sets the funding model for the broadcaster, in a form similar to a tax (though not the same - as it is not collected by the state), the Royal Charter and the licence-fee settlement is not an annual mechanism, but is once every 5 or 10 years, and the inertia that this brings, combined with a charter that enshrines editorial independence from funding, and restricts any attempt at government control.
Well, I think I might have had this debate over at Metropol, but I'm opposed to the licence fee model of funding. It is an inefficient mechanism for funding, and in reality provides no greater guarantee of 'independence' - itself a misnomer, frankly - than direct funding from the existing tax system. Additionally, I think there are some serious questions that have to be asked about how the BBC will be funded as the importance of the internet to the BBC's operations continues to grow.
Well, I think I might have had this debate over at Metropol, but I'm opposed to the licence fee model of funding.
Yep - I think most of us consider it the "least worst" rather than an ideal form of funding. However until someone can come up with an improved one, which delivers the same universally accessible, high quality services, which are now effectively part of the fabric of the UK, it is likely to remain.
It isn't for nothing that many other countries have based their broadcasting models on that of the UK. (Educate, Entertain, Inform) IN other words - provide high quality factual content, but not at the expense of shows that also entertain the audience. (So you end up with Strictly Come Dancing AND Planet Earth on the same channel - possibly on the same evening)
I'm sure alternative models for funding will develop in the future - but the crude "fund by tax", "fund by subscription", "fund by advertising/sponsorship" models are certainly not likely to deliver the same public value and universality.
If you meddle with broadcasting too much you'll end up with a system whereby high-quality content is consigned to subscription channels. Contrast the UK - where Planet Earth is shown free-to-air for all TV viewers to watch, with the US, where shows like Planet Earth are only available to those who subscribe to a pay-TV platform and have to watch it on Discovery. Result - a loss in public value - as only those who subscribe have access to high quality factual content.
PBS couldn't afford to make Planet Earth, due to the appalling funding model they suffer from, and ABC/CBS/NBC/Fox wouldn't commit to such a long form factual series in prime time, would they?
Quote:
It is an inefficient mechanism for funding, and in reality provides no greater guarantee of 'independence' - itself a misnomer, frankly - than direct funding from the existing tax system.
The advantage over taxation is that the collection is independent of government, so you aren't paying "the state: you are paying a separate body, which means that mentally you have a direct link between the fee you pay for your TV licence, and the TV, radio and online services you receive in return.
You know that every penny you pay for your TV licence goes to broadcasting (minus the overheads of licence-fee collection) - it provides a direct link between what you pay for your licence, and what you receive.
Funding broadcasting through the general taxation system removes that direct link, and more importantly it also allows governments to alter the amount they contribute to broadcasting dynamically, effectively running the risk of the terrible US PBS set-up, where the service is effectively under semi-constant threat, and suffers extreme self-censorship in order to avoid causing too many political issues for itself.
I don't see how a move to taxation based funding will guarantee independence - and it would certainly undermine the non-governmental aspect of the BBC...
In the UK the general public certainly don't see the BBC as a government-funded broadcaster, nor as a mouthpiece of the govt. The minute you move to the govt directly funding the BBC, that editorial independence is seriously compromised.
Allowing parliament to set the licence fee settlement every 5 or 10 years is bad enough (though it is at least longer than the normal term of a government, so provides inertia in political meddling)
In countries with small populations then a mix of licence fee and taxation is usually required (as the licence fee would probably be seen to be too high if broadcasting were funded entirely by the fee) but in countries with a population large enough to sustain an entirely licence based system it seems to work.
Quote:
Additionally, I think there are some serious questions that have to be asked about how the BBC will be funded as the importance of the internet to the BBC's operations continues to grow.
Yes - very serious questions.
The BBC Licence Fee legislation effectively includes mains-powered PCs used for viewing live streaming - so if you are based in the UK and watch any of the streamed TV channels broadcast in the UK - then you need a licence.
However, it currently excludes non-live content, as download and streaming on-demand is not considered "broadcasting". I suspect that the next BBC Royal Charter and Broadcasting Act combination may revise this.
I'm sure alternative models for funding will develop in the future - but the crude "fund by tax", "fund by subscription", "fund by advertising/sponsorship" models are certainly not likely to deliver the same public value and universality.
I don't accept that the licence fee delivers "public value" in the first place though. You have to create an entirely new taxation collection regime just for the purposes of the licence fee at a cost of well over £100m per annum, and potentially up to £200m depending on what you include. Alternatively, you could just raise the money through the existing tax system - no new bureaucracy.
Quote:
If you meddle with broadcasting too much you'll end up with a system whereby high-quality content is consigned to subscription channels. Contrast the UK - where Planet Earth is shown free-to-air for all TV viewers to watch, with the US, where shows like Planet Earth are only available to those who subscribe to a pay-TV platform and have to watch it on Discovery. Result - a loss in public value - as only those who subscribe have access to high quality factual content.
Well, perhaps - but as you suggest, that's commercially viable content. That's why subscription services exist. They cater to niche audiences. If people place value on something like Planet Earth, then they would be willing to pay some amount for it. Your argument is that they shouldn't have to pay anything for it - that they're essentially entitled to stuff for free. Now, there might be an equity argument in terms of access to educational content, but the question is, does that necessarily have to be delivered through the medium of TV, or could it be delivered through the internet or other forms of media?
Quote:
The advantage over taxation is that the collection is independent of government, so you aren't paying "the state: you are paying a separate body, which means that mentally you have a direct link between the fee you pay for your TV licence, and the TV, radio and online services you receive in return.
Well, the question you need to ask is, is that a good thing? I'm not entirely convinced. There are many demands on the public purse. People want schools, hospitals, roads, welfare and countless other projects, programmes and services. Yet the government at any point in time notionally only has a fixed amount of money it can spend. So it needs to make choices. It has to be selective in how it spends its money and what it spends it on. This mightn't be a popular thing to say around here - a site dedicated to TV-enthusiasts - but I actually feel quite uncomfortable about the idea that somehow broadcasting gets exempted from that decision-making process.
I accept that public service broadcasting is important. But so are many other things that taxpayers want and expect from government. The licence fee mechanism prevents a complete assessment of spending priorities from being made. It gives special favour to the BBC, serving the broadcaster's interests but not necessarily the public's if they would actually prefer more money to be spent on, say, education rather than on launching a new channel. The public expenditure on the BBC should stack up against other areas of public expenditure. Maybe it does - but we can't make the direct comparison because the licence fee shields the BBC from that process. I consider that inflexibility to be a problem.
Quote:
I don't see how a move to taxation based funding will guarantee independence - and it would certainly undermine the non-governmental aspect of the BBC...
Not at all - the reviews associated with the licence fee present the exact same pitfalls as general taxation. You still have politicians involved in the process. The licence fee certainly isn't set in a political vacuum. When you're talking about something that is publicly funded, politicians have to get involved somewhere along the way - that's what they're elected to do. I'm not inclined to trust a politician, but I still prefer democratic accountability over what would essentially be an autocracy if the people's representatives didn't have any say at all.
Quote:
Yes - very serious questions.
The BBC Licence Fee legislation effectively includes mains-powered PCs used for viewing live streaming - so if you are based in the UK and watch any of the streamed TV channels broadcast in the UK - then you need a licence.
However, it currently excludes non-live content, as download and streaming on-demand is not considered "broadcasting". I suspect that the next BBC Royal Charter and Broadcasting Act combination may revise this.
That's great, but how do you actually enforce that? Is the BBC now going to be monitoring people's internet usage to determine whether they are liable to pay the licence fee? I suspect many would see that as a quite substantial incursion into their privacy.
I don't accept that the licence fee delivers "public value" in the first place though.
Do you question whether the licence-fee as a payment system doesn't deliver public value, or whether the services delivered via the licence-fee don't deliver public value.
They are two separate arguments - though linked as the UK has probably the most succesful public broadcasting system in the World - and it is licence fee funded. (NHK could be considered as well - though in terms of global production it isn't in the running, in R&D it is world-leading)
Quote:
You have to create an entirely new taxation collection regime just for the purposes of the licence fee at a cost of well over £100m per annum, and potentially up to £200m depending on what you include. Alternatively, you could just raise the money through the existing tax system - no new bureaucracy.
Yep - but equally by allowing broadcasting to be seen as just another taxation-funded dept., like the National Health Service (which isn't NI funded directly), Education etc., you break the direct and unique link between the public and the broadcaster, and put government in the way. Not good editorially at all...
Quote:
Well, perhaps - but as you suggest, that's commercially viable content. That's why subscription services exist. They cater to niche audiences.
That's the flaw in the argument. Why should the audiences be considered niche? Planet Earth got far from niche ratings on BBC One - it was more watched than any other show on any other channel in its time slot. It wouldn't have been seen by anywhere near as many people if it had aired on Discovery.
Why should quality content be restricted to those who chose to pay? Why should poor households have to pay more than double the licence-fee to get just basic subscription services that deliver content of that quality?
The public value of your entire nation being able to watch quality educational content, that is watched for pleasure, not for duty, is a definite benefit to the nation as a whole.
You can argue the same for a non-commercial news service. None of the US network news providers cover international news in any depth - leaving the mainstream US populace embarassingly ignorant of international affairs.
When you compare that to the news broadcasts on public service channels like the BBC, SVT, NRK etc. you see the benefits of a well funded, non-commercial, non-subscription, service, that doesn't have to deliver purely ratings driven content BUT can still deliver decent audiences to shows by not being embarassed by good ratings either.
Quote:
If people place value on something like Planet Earth, then they would be willing to pay some amount for it. Your argument is that they shouldn't have to pay anything for it - that they're essentially entitled to stuff for free.
NO - not at all. I'm not arguing that TV should be free. I'm arguing that it is universally funded, and a decent public service is universally available to all, irrespective of their income, and that there is an inherent national benefit to this.
Why should bright kids in low-income inner-city homes not have access to stimulating and informative factual content, (and younger kids, well made non-commercial kids shows)? It is in the national interest that your population is as well educated as possible - and quality broadcasting has a strong wider educational and informational role.
Quote:
Now, there might be an equity argument in terms of access to educational content, but the question is, does that necessarily have to be delivered through the medium of TV, or could it be delivered through the internet or other forms of media?
Indeed - though TV is still a very powerful medium - and you have to avoid putting "educational" content into an unwatched ghetto. Watching Michael Palin travel round New Europe has a very strong educational content - but it is a linear TV show, with stunning HD photography, not a webcast.
Sure IPTV and other delivery methods will arrive - just as cable and satellite arrived after OTA - but funding content creation irrespective of delivery methods is still the challenge.
Content is the key after all...
Quote:
Well, the question you need to ask is, is that a good thing? I'm not entirely convinced.
Yes - I believe it is a good thing. Distancing public funded TV from government, particularly TV that has a role in investigating and reporting government, has to be important. The closer you link funding to government, the more pressure you will put on a broadcaster not to broadcast content that the government doesn't like... You end up with a "State TV" model if you aren't careful, with government intervening in content production, which is totally unacceptable.
Quote:
There are many demands on the public purse. People want schools, hospitals, roads, welfare and countless other projects, programmes and services. Yet the government at any point in time notionally only has a fixed amount of money it can spend. So it needs to make choices. It has to be selective in how it spends its money and what it spends it on.
Yes- which is why funding TV via direct or indirect government taxation wouldn't be a popular move.
Quote:
This mightn't be a popular thing to say around here - a site dedicated to TV-enthusiasts - but I actually feel quite uncomfortable about the idea that somehow broadcasting gets exempted from that decision-making process.
It doesn't - the decision is taken by the viewer. If they don't want to watch TV, they don't own a TV, then they don't pay for TV... Quite a simple link.
It isn't like other taxation funded services - like health care (if you have universal health care), education etc. - which can't be opted out of. The TV licence means you CAN opt-out.
Quote:
I accept that public service broadcasting is important. But so are many other things that taxpayers want and expect from government. The licence fee mechanism prevents a complete assessment of spending priorities from being made.
Or in another way of thinking - it provides a choice for people - unlike some other forms of taxation.
Quote:
It gives special favour to the BBC, serving the broadcaster's interests but not necessarily the public's if they would actually prefer more money to be spent on, say, education rather than on launching a new channel.
That is why the government has final approval on new services launched by the BBC - not the BBC...
The BBC can't just decide to launch a new channel and do it...
Quote:
The public expenditure on the BBC should stack up against other areas of public expenditure. Maybe it does - but we can't make the direct comparison because the licence fee shields the BBC from that process. I consider that inflexibility to be a problem.
Yes - but other funding models expose the BBC either to direct commercial demands, which it is widely accepted would damage the quality of its services, a subscription model would force some quality factual programmes into a pay-TV ghetto (removing the widely supported universality of access) and moving to a direct government funding would threaten the BBC's editorial independence and independence from government control/interference.
Quote:
Not at all - the reviews associated with the licence fee present the exact same pitfalls as general taxation. You still have politicians involved in the process. The licence fee certainly isn't set in a political vacuum.
No - but because the Royal Charter is renewed every 10 years, and the licence-fee settlement is a long-term agreement, not an annual one, the BBC is far more removed from political interference than if it was agreed over a shorter timescale, or funded by an annual grant from Parliament.
There is also the historic inertia of the House of Lords...
Quote:
When you're talking about something that is publicly funded, politicians have to get involved somewhere along the way - that's what they're elected to do. I'm not inclined to trust a politician, but I still prefer democratic accountability over what would essentially be an autocracy if the people's representatives didn't have any say at all.
That is why the BBC had a board of governors, now replaced by the BBC Trust, which has long-term appointments of members who are there to oversee the key decisions, but not allowed to interfere directly with content.
I think what everyone wants to avoid is a move to the US model - which is widely regarded in Europe as failing in public service terms (Well TV didn't really have any remit for public service until the 60s AIUI?). Australia came very close to following the US model too - though hasn't weakened its public service proposition to quite the same degree.
At the end of the day - there are strongly polarised views of broadcast funding - and differnet countries have chosen different ways of funding their services, and value broadcasting in different terms.
As a Brit, I think that the BBC's unique status as a strong radio and TV broadcaster, with editorial independence and a public service remit that includes both entertainment, education and information, with its unique place in the cultural fabric of the UK, means we meddle with it at our peril.
20 years ago I would have said the same about ITV. However we (i.e. the government of the day) DID meddle with it, we made it more commercial, removed the bulk of the quality and public service creteria from franchise applications, and effectively wrecked the system that had worked pretty well for the previous 30 or so years. Now it is suffering in a commercial context AND is shedding its few remaining public service responsibilities. The worst of both worlds...
The English taxpayer doesn't fund BBC ALBA. It's funded jointly by the Scottish Government (which is allocated a certain amount of money from Westminster and spends the cash as it sees fit) and MG ALBA - an independent not-for-profit organisation established to promote the Gaidhlig language. So please get over yourself.
Australia came very close to following the US model too - though hasn't weakened its public service proposition to quite the same degree.
I wouldn't say it's weakened at all, just not as strong as the UK - arguably a lot more fragmented between different organisations, but there nonetheless. The ABC doesn't agressively compete with the commercial sector like the BBC does but they certainly share many types of programming.
The English taxpayer doesn't fund BBC ALBA. It's funded jointly by the Scottish Government (which is allocated a certain amount of money from Westminster and spends the cash as it sees fit) and MG ALBA - an independent not-for-profit organisation established to promote the Gaidhlig language. So please get over yourself.
watch your tone.
The english taxpayer DOES fund BBC Alba, as both sources of money come indirectly from tax funds. MG Alba may be not for profit, but it has no spource of income other than grant funding. It does not get substantial funds from donations.
As scotland is in tax deficit to england, it is quite valid to view it is funded by english taxpayers. I am not saying here thats right or wrong; but i am correct.
I suggest you learn and understand a subject before jumping up and down . pathetic.
Anyone else just begin ignoring posters when they go beyond 5 or 6 lines?
Anyhow, as for ITV's latest plans. Ridiculous non-news content should be halved yet again - and surely that makes regional centres even less viable as the less they make, the more it costs to make them. I think the minimum of 30 minutes should be kept across England, and at least three times that for the nations, but with the English regions allowed to work together more for upto half that content - or simply make it up with repeats.
