Wednesday, June 14, 2006
BBC Magazines Should be Sold Off
I hear that the BBC is planning to launch a current affairs magazine to compete with the Spectator and New Statesman. An outrage. The BBC has no business being in magazine publishing at all. Indeed, all its magazines should be sold off to the private sector and the money used to make proper public service related programmes - and I don't mean Strictly Come Dancing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
And I really wonder if it will have left wing politics.....
Couldn't agree more. Why gives this organisation the right to think that it can spend our money on these silly ventures. When is anyone going to tackle these people?
I know we aren't supposed to mention silly things like policy, so at risk of asking a stupid question...has Dave given any indication as to what role he sees the BBC playing in the future? Surely it is time to end this farce.
I disagree - if the magazine can make profit, it can be ploughed into programme making. Nobody is forced to buy the magazine if they don't want to. If the Spectator or New Statesman suffer, they should up their game.
Before its closure in 1991, The Listener, although a general arts magazine, had a political edge to it. Its political column by John Cole (then the BBC's Political Editor) transferred to the New Statesman on its demise.
Many Conservatives fall into the trap of bashing the BBC. Sure, it infuriates and has a definite leftie bias. But on a pragmatic point, many people (and voters) are very emotionally attached to the BBC, and would resent a Government (for ideological and even logically justifiable reasons) meddling with its basic set-up.
Personally, I think the BBC's proposed magazine will fail (just like its Songs of Praise mag lasted only a few issues.
The Beeb does not like competition especially if it comes from the right. They are the "60 ton gorilla" in the middle of British creative life.
Mikey is right. There is a gap in the market for a general political mag. And no private company has produced one, so why shouldn't the BBC? The Staggers is inherently well to the left of the political mainstream. The Speccie talks only to public school types in the City or on country estates who go shooting, and earn (or inherit) more than £100k a year.
Yes, the BBC is mainly crap, but it's the least crap there is, and some of it is actually excellent.
And what's wrong with Strictly Come Dancing?
I could just about put up with the work of BBC Enterprises if it wasn't for the constant cross promotion of them, with just the weaselly 'other listings / gardening / antiques / chicken molesting magazines are also available' as an appended sop. Perhaps if the Staggers or the Speccie were granted this advantage we would have a rather more level playing field.
Mikey, your analysis is falwed. Conservatives believe in the free market and fair competition. As a state funded monopoly the BBC is distorting competition in the magazine market, which had meant that several magazines have been forced out of business due to their presence. Babapapa says the fact that no one else has started one up is an argument for the BBC initiative being welcomed. I disagree because the BBC is a publis service broadcaster - not a public service magazine publisher.
Iain's analysis is correct. Even if the Listener Mk II makes a profit, any incursion by the BBC into new markets will inevitably distort those markets because of the huge of amount of public money with which the BBC is able to underwrite projects. But magazines are really not the issue in this context. The real elephant in the living room here is the BBC's plan for "ultra local" websites, which risks putting the entire local online news media out of business.
Iain is correct when he notes that the BBC, funded by the public at the point of a gun, distorts any market it enters. It also hands the BBC, which is not private enterprise by any stretch of the imagination, an immense advantage in the market.
They have no business being in the magazine market, it is not in their remit, and their ambitions in this area speak of the corporation's overweening, some might say insane, arrogance.
These magazines should not be sold off. They should be pulped and their employees removed from the project (of course, they wouldn't be sacked, although that would be my chosen means of disposing of them.) In other words, they should be destroyed.
If any real publisher wishes to pick up the name and start a similar magazine, the name and concept should be considered to be in the public domain as they were paid for by the public.
The BBC needs to be slashed right back. It has no reason to exist. Private enterprise will always do things better than the state.
- Anonymousette
I think that anonymousette rather demonstrates Mikey's earlier point.
By saying that "the BBC has no reason to exist", it implies that the BBC should be scrapped.
This may be ideologically pure, but in the real world no sane government is going to scrap it.
Many decent people in this country have grown up with the BBC and are very emotionally attached to it. It may have too big a remit, but it feels that it has to change to survive, so it can't really win.
And private enterprise does not always do everything better than the state. Look at what has happened to the big commercial broadcaster, ITV. By being left to the market, it has dumbed down immeasurably. At least the BBC still shows some standards. If you throw all that away, middle England (as opposed to political puritans or Murdoch fans) will not forgive you.
You may argue with their logic, but face the reality. For good or ill, the BBC has been a central pillar in the lives of many Britons over the past 80 or so years. Mess with that at your peril.
OK Ariel, I'll trade you the continuation of the BBC for licence fee top slicing.
Is anyone seriously going to suggest that the BBC's Saturday night schedule is more worthy of being funded by a compulsory licence fee than the serious output of the commercial channels.
Sorry Iain but I disagee with the basis of your position that "as a state funded monopoly the BBC" shouldn't publish magazines - no Licence Fee money will come anywhere near this title as it'll be published by BBC Worldwide not the publicly funded BBC.
Despite what some people seem to think none of the LF flows into these commercial activities and the money they raise goes back to the centre for spending on core BBC functions.
I don't want to divert this thread too much, but in direct response to Croydonian, let's look at last Saturday..
BBC1&2 had thrilling family drama Dr Who, while BBC2 had Imagine (fascinating documentary on architecture), the Culture Show (on original British arts in Nottingham), intelligent quiz panel game QI and a good documentary about the summer of 1989.
ITV had World Cup Windups and Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. Channel 5 had imported US cop shows. Channel 4 had Big Brother and Deal or No Deal...but I admit that it also had a worthy documentary on UFOs.
So the point is...despite your prejudices, the BBC's quality stands up rather well to the commercial channels!
Surely the essence of 21st Century, electable conservatism isn't whether it's public or private but whether it works. Yah-boo-private's-best dogma lacks vision, creativity and forward momentum. If the BBC can make money to pay salaries and secure/improve programming through magazine ventures, children's character merchandising or Vietnamese noodle bars, let them do it. As mikey points out, others in that space will simply have to improve or get out of the way.
Personally, I think a political magazine would fail, given the lead times to produce such a thing set against the depth, currency and interactivity of blogs (amongst other developments). Plus I already have enough of the wisdom of Robinson, Humphrys, Paxman, Wark et al at my disposal. But in principle let's let everyone, whether their salary is paid by shareholders or taxpayers, have the freedom to try innovative, useful and ground-breaking things - that, I believe is the sort of language people want to vote for.
The BBC is greedy, overweening, arrogant and fulfills the role of Fifth Column in British public life. The latest (see biased-bbc.blogspot.com)outrage is the out and out lies they told about that picnic in Palestine where the Israelis supposedly shelled an innocent family. It sounded so crazy that other agencies began investigating the story and it is a fabrication. Remember Barbara Plett bursting into tears when she was reporting on Arafat's death? Have you been following the raid on that Muslim home by the police? It is being reported 100% from the point of view of these two boys, with nothing but contempt for the police or the safety or the worry of a public which has already been subjected to one horrifying terrorist incident on their home soil.
They toe the hard Labour left line with gusto and contempt for opposing points of view. There is no reason for them to exist, no matter how many people grew up regarding them as a central pillar in their lives. The free market will always provide more efficiently and with more original thinking. What is more, it is funded at the point of a gun.
- Anonymousette
ariel
O/T take daytime tv.
there is no justification for the sort of programmes we're funding eg 'flog it' etc.
there is no justification for the salaries being paid ...BBC radio,Johnaton Ross on £350,000 p.a. How many old ladies does it take to pay his salary?if he's so funny,how come a commercial station hasn't poached him for more?
Like most of the public sector,The bbc needs someone to come in there and go through the payroll with a red pencil.
The BBC lost any respect it had in my back yard when they hired Vanessa to commiserate with fat people for half a bernie a year
I say, steady on!
The guy was shot for goodness sake.
He didn't just have his door kicked in with an apology afterwards. He was shot.
Guilty people get found guilty and innocent people get found guilty or innocent (depending on the post code).
Shoot first-deny any responsibility afterwards.
If an asylum seeker is let out of prison and runs, you want everyone sacked and Dave has a field day at PMQ's.
A guy gets shot and it seems you want him to apologise for a wasted bullet!
Come on, it's not British.
gary
Ariel, I'm not disputing that the BBC, on balance, outputs more serious programmes than the main commercial channels overall and that is why I suggested comparing the more 'worthy' output from 4, 5 and ITV with that of the BBC.
So, I will reframe it thus - what is a better use of proceeds of the licence fee, 'National Lottery Jet Set' (which somehow escaped your gaze) or the C4 UFO documentary?
I cannot believe there is anything to debate. The BBC is not a business but a public service broadcaster. Its activities should be restricted to BBC1 and BBC2 and five radio stations. The rest is expensive and wasteful empire building. Parkinsons Law applies here. A Corporation will expand to the funds made available to it. Restrict the licence fee to £60 pa. This will get the BBC back to bloody basics.
Croydonian and Rigger Mortice. Yes, I agree that some programmes on commercial channels may be better than much of the BBC output (although you'd be hard pushed to think of much good stuff on ITV nowadays - their only political programme is at 6am on a Sunday morning!). Channel 4 has some good stuff sometimes, but also a lot of downmarket bilge.
But my point is: the BBC is so revered by a sizeable (and influential) minority in this country - for a political party to upset these people would be madness.
Compare the situation to public conveniences. Many local councils provide these facilities, funded out of Council tax. When short of cash, some Councils close the public conveniences at the first opportunity. Most people are not bothered. But those who do use them (and are thus furious about the closure) tend to be incontinent old women (I'm obviously generalising here!) who are PRECISELY the people who kick up a fuss and are influential voters. And provision of public conveniences is one of the key services which provide an impression of how much a Council cares for its residents. Closing a WC has been shown to be bad politics for councils throughout the country.
It's similar with the BBC, but on a much greater scale, because many people tend to be more emotionally attached to the BBC than a public convenience.
To bring this back to politics, some Conservative politicians speaking on this brief (the BBC, not public conveniences)have appeared to realise this : David Mellor and Julie Kirkbride did. John Whittingdale didn't appear to. Hugo Swire is keeping his head down.
God bless the BBC, whats wrong with the BBC having its own current affairs magazine, there fairly unbaised. There were times in the darkest hours of Mrs Thatchers reign when extreame pressure was put on the BBC by Tory Bullies, but now with multichannel choice why not allow them as one of the few neutral voices to give political reporting a platform
Iain - You've got it the wrong way round. BBC TV should be sold off and let the magazine business continue as a profitable business together.
The BBC History Magazine is excellent.
No, taxcutter, the BBC is the British (sic) Broadcasting Corporation. Not the British Magazine Publishing Corporation.
babapapa writes: "Mikey is right. There is a gap in the market for a general political mag. And no private company has produced one, so why shouldn't the BBC?"
Errr, "and no private company has produced one" ... I wonder why. Maybe because there ISN'T a gap in the market and it wouldn't be viable in the world of capitalism? Capitalists are not slow to find gaps in the market.
Private enterprise will always do everything better than agenda-driven Sovietesque behemoths.
Nuke Labour puts it with strength and I don't need to reiterate this individual's point.
Ariel said: "ITV had World Cup Windups and Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. Channel 5 had imported US cop shows. Channel 4 had Big Brother and Deal or No Deal...but I admit that it also had a worthy documentary on UFOs.
"So the point is...despite your prejudices, the BBC's quality stands up rather well to the commercial channels!" No. People want trash TV, trash entertainment and trash stars. That is what they are willing to pay for. Fact of life. Your personal sensibilities are worth absolutely nothing. People are willing to pay for commercial tv by watching commercials. They like it.
Would they pay for the BBC if they weren't required to at the point of a gun? Why don't we find out? Remove the licence fee from British life.
- Anonymousette
Post a Comment