Ofcom tells BBC to show more UK-made programmes

All very interesting I'm sure but I don't see what the coverage of the various networks in the US has to do with being a 'flag carrier'.

Yep - and my original point wasn't about 'flag carriers' (what ever they are in a news context) they were about strong, national public service broadcasters.

NBC, CBS, ABC and Fox are not PSBs. CNN isn't a PSB. PBS is the main US TV PSB - and is a very cut-down, budget operation, with smaller audiences to match.

The point that I was trying make is that BBC TV wants to be everything.

1. A public service broadcaster
2. A gargantuan institution
3. A finger in the pie of almost every genre of TV programme imaginable
4. A flag carrier for Britain on the global stage

PBS only ticks box 1.

It's not quite right to suggest it's the BBC that wants to be a "flag carrier". The WS2020 project for example has been instigated by the government to assert soft power, rather than an example of the BBC's imperial ambitions.

Agreed

Don't agree - I don't think the BBC has any particular ambitions about being a gargantuan institution, if it did why did it sell off :

Its Playout arm
Its Transmission arm
Its Technology arm
Its OB trucks
Its Magazines
and why did it spin off it's studios and production departments into separate companies (ripe for sale), and close large chunks of its online presence.

It also now makes fewer and fewer programmes itself. The BBC, as an institution, is getting smaller not bigger. (It's headcount dropped by 4% between 2010-11 and 2015-16)

It has a healthy income, but when you compare the funding of PSBs elsewhere in Europe, it is by no means the best funded. Germany is a place to look for 'gargantuan' institutions...



The BBC's mission is still to educate, inform and entertain. It has a duty to deliver programmes that the people who pay for it want to watch, as well as deliver shows that wouldn't be delivered by others. Why shouldn't it delver shows in most genres (it doesn't do big cash prize game shows)?

This is the eternal balancing act for European PSBs - you have to be popular but also public service to justify your existence. If you look across Europe - the successful ones are still getting healthy viewing figures, delivering high quality public service content - but importantly delivering it to a healthy sized audience, and not becoming a worthy ghetto.



The 'Nation Shall Speak Peace Unto Nation' bit of the BBC is important - and has been a big part of the BBC's international role for many years. (Talk to people who lived through WWII on continental Europe to realise how important) Flag carrier doesn't feel like the right word to me. It's about providing unbiased, factually accurate information, again with some entertainment and education, particularly to those areas that don't have it available domestically.

Whether the BBC 'wants' to do some of this is slightly muddled with the requirement to do it legally.



PBS is a very basic PSB, unrecognisable from most mainstream European PSBs. Thankfully Europe still values public service broadcasting - unlike the US.

Hate to argue, but, which parts of those divisions were they forced to sell off, or needed to sell off by choice, for some loose change because the government held the license fee leading to a real year on year revenue cut?

No but you did mention CNN’s reach and availability. So I decided provide numbers of the networks.

The trouble is I believe every person should be taken as they are seen in terms of attributes for the job. I also think employers would rather choose the person who's going to be the most successful in a job regardless of gender. The issue is if you say 'at least 50% of people in these roles should be one gender', you're also going to create a an in balance the other way, and no one in 10 years time is going to be making an issue about men finding it much harder to fairly get work when these forced targets hit.

I don't think anyone should be going into an interview room knowing they won't get a job simply because they are either male or female and the quoters aren't currently correctly balanced but that's what you are advocating.

I think a mixture of people from different backgrounds that can bring different things is a positive. I also think that different groups being fairly represented on air is important. I do not think the BBC should have their hands tied behind their back when it comes to choosing the best people for any given job. I'm not even necessarily against quoters but 50/50 leaves little room for flexibility.

You think you are advocating equality, but your it's actually inequality that you are supporting.

You cant really compare PBS to the BBC or any other national PSB. Especially in the case of BBC, as the citizens arent forced to pay for it by the government and its not a single network. To describe it as "cut down" and "budget operation" is is not accurate in the least because its not run the same as the BBC. As it doesnt operate as a single entity like BBC with singular funding structure, so you cant compare the two at all. The BBC is a network, PBS is not. If more like an association of channels.

I’m not sure anyone was comparing PBS to the BBC, and that’s the point.