The Role of the BBC

And He entered the temple and began to cast out those who were selling, saying to them,
"It is written,
'And my house shall be a house of prayer,' but you have made it a robbers' den."

I fail to grasp the relevance of biblical passages quoted without any interpretation.

This quotation could:

(1) Suggest that Jesus was really talking about private television producers (not merchants).

(2) Imply God's general approval for the BBC.

(3) Suggest that its writer really wants to make a post but completely lacks the ability to come up with something of his or her own to say.

(4) Suggest that the Bible regards Commerce as un-Christian.

Is commerce un-Christian? That's up to you to decide for yourself. What I want to talk about is the Role of the BBC.

The posting addressed your erroneous statement "prospered (even spiritually)" as indicated in the quote box, which you tried to use to bolster your argument for being pro-commerce free market enterprise. So having brought in this erroneous and irrelevant point, you should not be surprised that it was addressed.

None of the points (1-4) you have outlined above are valid or relevant.

Regarding the free market television which you have been so keen to champion in its supposed ability to maintain free and unfettered speech, I would be interested to know how many programs
ABC or CBS or NBC has made dealing with the philosophies of the free market?

It would appear, that in fact the free market tv networks leave it to PBS to provide air time to discuss the advantages of free market capitalism by the leader in this area.



And in the UK, was it the commercial tv companies which chose to promote the philosophy of free market?

Corin, life is full of ironies .

And, yes, I do admire Milton Friedman...Keynes would make far less sense without Friedman's contribution to the endless debate that is Economics. Although, some of Friedman's claims about the role of money supply are extremely ridiculous (he's what's called a "monetarist" and he has gone so far as to claim that an improper "money supply" was entirely responsible for the Great Depression...this claim has been subsequently disproven by empirical work).

But examining something as aesoteric as free-market capitalism versus any other form of economic organisation is something best left to a public broadcaster. I know very few people who would be interested in watching such a programme (let alone spending any time thinking about it).

I'm glad that PBS and BBC made themselves available to be a venue through which these ideas could be made accessible to the public. I'm also glad that you are sufficiently interested in this to take a viewpoint opposite mine, and we can have a good discussion of our ideas.

But I'm not sure what the Bible quote has to do with Friedman?

Private broadcasters like ITV, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. take free-market capitalism as a given when the decide what to do with their programming. For instance, you'll never see ITV put on a show whose aim is to provide a conceptual justification for the continued existence of ITV.

The BBC, PBS, CBC, etc. case is special, though. They are public broadcasters operating admist myriad private broadcasters (the latter of whom can't quite understand why public broadcasters might need to venture into what they regard as their territory).

Different countries obviously have different balances between public and private broadcasting. But, in many places, there is some sort of division of labour between public and private broadcasters.

So there seems to be a recognition (in a number of cultures) that certain broadcasting services are public goods that won't make it on to the air if left up to companies motivated by private incentives.

This concept of balance is all fine and good. But the whole crux of my questioning through this thread is whether or not the BBC is tipping this balance by doing things like "The Weakest Link" and BBC THREE.

Now, the BBC claims that it's just extending its reach, and that this can only be good. But would the BBC be as understanding as it wants others to be if, for example, ITV asked for part of the licensing fee so that it could start up its own version of a community public broadcaster? You know, something more local than the increasingly centralised ITV1 network.

And if it was not for certain ironies, we all would be a lot less educated and informed.



So you do acknowledge that there is a role to play for a public broadcaster!



The well worn phrase "You need to get out more" comes to mind. Have you not considered joining the GOP or Libertarian parties? Even in his intellectually limiting style, Rush Limbaugh has tried/ tries to address some of these issues, and at one point (I do not know the current ratings but believe them to have slipped), he was the most listened to daily current affairs/phone in show on the radio in North America (if not the World).



Maybe you are mixing with the wrong sort of people who do not wish to use the brains with which they have been gifted?



This acknowledges that the commercial networks, by virtue of their nature, deny access to, and the discussion of, certain issues. Is this not in effect "commercial censorship", and I am not in this instance trying in any way to address the issue of "political censorship" in the sense that it is in their own best "political interests" not to have these issues addressed.



It has nothing to do with Friedman. Since you failed to comprehend the point which I hoped was evident, but which is clearly in need of clarification, I shall try to explain.

You made the irrelevant and erroneous statement that



where "this" refers to "commerce".

I provided you with the classic example of somebody who in a particular setting and under certain special circumstances did resist commerce and that it was done for a spiritual reason. This was not to suggest that commerce should be always resisted, but to indicate the error of your statement in its generalization .

So to reiterate in summary -- commerce is appropriate in some areas, but not all areas of life. And those who claim to follow Christ and use their position as a commercial enterprise (I am thinking here especially of certain tv evangelist organizations) should be condemned in the same manner as the Biblical reference.



Time will only tell whether or not this is true with regard to the proposed anniversary series on the history of ITV. However, the issue is that ITV does not wish to continue to exist in its originally conceived public broadcasting form, and this was set in motion by Thatcher's Broadcasting Act of 1990.



And France actually privatized their first national public tv network TF-1. But the programming has certainly not improved.



This is a slightly different issue and actually a confusion of two different points. The BBC should not be going after mass audiences by lowering the intellectual content of its programs to that level of the lowest common denominator. The BBC should be seeking large audiences by the quality of its programs and their educational, informative, and entertainment quality. Entertainment does not have to be at the level of mindless quiz shows and "bums fighting each other in the parking lot of some supermarket".

As to BBC-3, the BBC is supposed to educate, entertain, and inform all stratas of society as part of its public mandate. So by providing a tv service, which was sanctioned by the State Ministry of Culture, they are addressing a segment of society in a particular age range which has been neglected (and also needs to provide them with an alternative to B$kyB subscription services aimed at their age group, and to placate them in order to keep them from rebelling against the tv licence).




The BBC receives its income primarily from the license fee. ITV receives its income from the sale of commercial air time. As part of the bidding franchise conditions, the ITV companies are required to satisfy certain public service commitments. Despite their commercial revenues, the ITV companies are asking for a share of the license fee in order to meet their obligations. Why should the public money be used to fund ITV companies so that their profits can continue to go into the dividend cheques of their stockholders? It is the profits which should be used for providing quality
programming.

ITV has no interest in starting up a community channel because there is no profit motive.

In the commercial world everything is reduced to the bottom line -- if it is not profitable then it serves no purpose to the stockholders.



That is actually what the Tories originally envisaged for ITV, but Thatcher ensured that all that was changed. When the franchises come up for renewal, OFCOM if it was acting in the public interest would ensure that the future holders of the franchise were independent of each other, and that Independent TeleVision was a network of independent companies.

Of course by that time, it will probably all be ITViacom.

I'm still not quite convinced that companies are THAT stupid. I mean a significant outlay of cash for some quality programming that isn't profitable, but will attract audiences or will do a community service that will generate approval, can be positive in the long run.

And I never said there was no role for public broadcasters. I meant to question why BBC THREE is necessary. If the only justificaiton is that BBC needs to placate the younger audiences then that's a very lame excuse.

"We don't even really have to do a good job with THREE...just give 'em table scraps."

And just because the Ministry of Culture approved it means very little. Remember that same ministry having serious problems with the original proposal? And I'm not even sure why BBC THREE is necessary. It's like saying that there's no room on BBC One or Two for this demographic.

Very few corporations are motivated to do anything "for the long run". It is the next quarterly dividend check mail out that they are concerned with. After that the CEO might even be contemplating getting his golden parachute if things do not look too rosy. Your own observations of trends in corporate management over the past 20 years should make this very evident.

Corin, this is due to poor corporate governance, not an inherent flaw in capitalism.

The solution, I would suggest, is to avoid overpaying executives (in monetary terms) and instead give them long-term contracts. The BBC and other almost-government institutions could easily do this.

Furthermore, the UK broadcasting regulator (whoever that is, I'm not sure exactly) could set a rule that dividend payouts by broadcasting firms could be no more than a fixed (small) percentage of total net income. Or, alternatively, it might be required that a specific percentage of net income be reinvested in R&D (better or other programming or equipment).

You could even sweeten this distasteful regulatory medicine by providing an investment tax credit for such reinvestment that would be paid for (conceivably) by the Ministry of Culture's budget (or lack thereof, based on the lost revenues to the Inland Revenue on taxes not collected from the firms eligible for the investment tax credit).

Thinking up ways to give incentives to private firms to behave a certain way is a better alternative than nationalising everything.