The only thing the BBC should do is pay it’s top stars less and if the argument for keeping them is to keep them from moving to sky or itv….then let them go.

Get real lib dems

http://tinyurl.com/5utke5

The BBC has already tried rubbishing this because it wasn’t carried out by one of their flavoured companies which are run by former BBC employee’s like the ‘Work Foundation’. It should send alarm bells ringing that the government and the BBC never use YouGov, Mori or ICM to get a true reflection of the hatred the public feels towards them and the BBC TV Licence -

5 Do you think the BBC’s £139.50 TV licence fee is good value for money?

Yes 10%

Just about but they could do a bit more 24%

No, it’s a rip-off 64%

Don’t know 2%

http://nickreynoldsatwork.wordpress.com/2008/11/30/strictly-come-dancing-and-john-stuart-mill/

Mill wrote that a good test of the public institutions was if they increased the moral and intellectual virtues of the population. The BBC clearly does not do this. Yes, it produces some excellent stuff, especially nature programmes. But this is drowned out by the torrent of tawdry, celebrity-focused rubbish. It would not be an exaggeration to say that it proselytises a celebrity-obsessed lifestyle.

I remember feeling guilty as a child that I was not interested in the ‘latest showbiz gossip’ that was already creeping into the BBC’s children’s output. Now young people are even more aggressively targeted. The Newsround website has an entire category dedicated to ‘showbiz’ news, containing such edifying stories as ‘Ashlee Simpson names baby Bronx’ and ‘Madonna: Is she the Queen of pop or just plain past it?’

Here’s a radical idea, why not have those who love the BBC pay for it and then the millions who want setting free will be!

Of all the words to get wrong…

“There is just too much on the BBC that has nothing to do with public services and compulsory taxes should not be funding them.”

In the words of the Virgin Mary – come again.

Oh no, I see, is the point that much stuff the BBC produces isn’t a “public service”, so it should be scrapped, but some of it is, so should be funded?

In which case who decides this? No, don’t tell me – committees? And what if we disagree with these committees who are throwing our money, sorry, “public money”, around as they wish? Ah yes, we can debate it through the media, especially when the Daily Mail gets all offended after a hairy nimpho-comedian reminds the world that they wrote kindly about the Nazis.

There is a need for public service broadcasting. Just as their is a need for public subsidies to the arts, there are quality programmes that wouldn’t get on TV, or radio, without a public subsidy.

The conclusion must be to scrap the licence fee and fund public service braodacsting through general taxation. This could include local radio. Providers can bid to deliver the needs of public service broadcasts, with bids based not just on price but their record in communicating with key target audiencies.

The worldwide power of the BBC brand is enormous. Compare the respect for the BBC world service with any other country’s alternative. There may be a case for continuing to brand public service braodcasting with the BBC, but the case for it to be delivered by a single monolithic corporation has gone.

I surprised to find myself writing this, as one who generally objects to the the worship of the market in delivering public services. There is just too much on the BBC that has nothing to do with public services and compulsory taxes should not be funding them. With the arrival of multi-media, the TV licence is just out of date.

Scrap the TV licence, help people on low incomes and probably a great many other people too.

Sector/Service, typo, should say service.

In respect of defining PSB, I’ll buy inform and educate, but entertain…? Maybe in the 1940s, but we now have plenty of TV entertainment provided commercially. What possible justification is there for state-funded soap operas and reality TV? Both formats, I might add, invented by the private sector.

In respect of obligations, I agree the current system is messy, with different obligations on different broadcasters, but I don’t follow your logic that it’s good thing, particularly not now that network television no longer has a natural monopoly.

On your TV license definition, you rather duck tackling the problem that it is a poll tax, whether or not you are personally offended by the imprecision of the reference to furniture. I further don’t think highlighting that some wrist-watches and mobile phones fit the legal prescription helps your case. This is a mad bad tax left over from a world of near ubiquitous state monopolies, long gone.

You are right though that commercial money can fund PSB, and on your 1940s ‘state entertainment’ definition, well nearly everything that ITV and Sky do is apparently a warm-hearted public service, as is Triple-X-TV. My question though is should it, or should there be a level playing field between the BBC and other institutions to compete for that money? And frankly should the definition to be tighter to exclude light entertainment, porn and other items which evidentially don’t need public subsidy.

As for competitive tendering increasing red tape, could you enlighten us as to what proportion of the BBC staff base currently works directly in programming versus management and administrative functions?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6_WEZloX2fQ

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=OY4umBmJHjg

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=nick+reynolds+bbc&meta=

My personal opionion is you should be sacked with the rest of the people abusing their positions. You are clearly being paid by the BBC TV Licence to try to convert those that are extremly annoyed at having to pay for the likes of yourself!

Firstly I object to your definition of “public sector broadcasting” as opposed to “public service broadcasting”.

ITV, C4 and C5 all currently have public service obligations but don’t currently get public money to fund them. And in the current Ofccom PSB review only C4 has asked for public funding, ITV and C5 have not. They want to remain funded by advertising and commercial revenue alone.

If you want a definition of public service broadcasting then “educate, inform and entertain” is good enough for me. The OFCOM PSB review offers many definitions but interesting these tend to be about things like UK origination rather than narrowly defined around types or genres of programmes.

The Licence Fee is not a poll tax on a piece of furniture. It’s levied on any device capable of recieving live TV. It’s about what you get, not what you get it on.

To answer your questions:

Do I think public service broadcasting should be properly defined? Yes, and there are plenty of good definitions around.

Do I think public service broadcasting should be financed from the public purse? Some of it, but by no means all of it. Commercial money can fund public service programmes.

Do I think any public money put into PSB should be put up for competitive tender? No, because I think this is a bad way of funding broadcasting. It increases red tape for one thing.

Should the BBC get all the licence fee? Yes.

Your solution sounds a bit like the “Arts Council of the Airwaves” idea which was ruled out by the Minister at the start of the year.

http://nickreynoldsatwork.wordpress.com/

I’m sure you have opened a lot of eyes here who are extremely annoyed at having to pay your wages if this is the only thing your able to do all day, everyday!. I hope others have noticed that Nick and other BBC employees keep pushing the same old pitch which is what about ITV and what about Sky, well what about them Nick it’s nothing to do with you and you can’t pretend to know exactly what will happen. I myself think the BBC would die if unable to force the public to pay for them and I won’t miss a thing!. Lets be honest if your precious employer is so great they’ll thrive under voluntary subscription so lets have it.

If people wish to know more and how to deal with the harassment you’ll get from the BBC I suggest you check http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info

Ps, again if people don’t believe me about Nick and the time he spends doing this check google

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=nick+reynolds&meta=

I don’t know if BBC Four would or wouldn’t exist, or what advertising it would it wouldn’t carry, it would depend how public sector broadcasting was defined and whether the producers at BBC Four were any good at winning tenders. Similarly on your question on BBC2 it would rather depend what it produced.

It should though be a matter of blinding irrelevance to government policy how many channels the BBC deems itself fit to run and what programmes it puts in them. Those are matters for a regulator if those channels or programmes are in receipt of public money for public service.

The point about people liking the BBC being free of advertising is very dishonest of you. Given a choice people would like all TV to be free of advertising. I doubt though they would be happy to pay a massive tax to fund that.

It’s not then an argument in favour of either the BBC or how it is funded, simply a statement of the obvious that people prefer broadcasting to advertising. That preference though does not justify forcing people who don’t watch the BBC, ads or no ads, into paying for it. Particularly not with a poll tax on a piece of furniture.

For that you need a genuine public service justfication, and for that you must define what public service broadcasting actually is. As noted before, “it’s wot the BBC does” or “TV without ads but only on the BBC” is not coherent, fair, or reasonable.

I further note your point about the commercial broadcasters. Presumably you assume that deregulating the BBC and putting about 80% of it’s output into the commercial sector would crash the TV advertising market. I have to say this is economically illiterate.

While it’s certainly true prices would fall in the short-term it’s also true the market would have become markedly larger creating many more opportunities for different types of advertising. Lower advertising prices would further stimluate marketing budgets, overall the price of the pie might be lower, but the pie would be larger.

And you’ve also neglected the other salient feature of the plan to diversify PSB funding, ITV and Sky could bid for that money as well, so it is simply not clear that ITV or Sky would lose any money at all, they might offset any falls in their commercial revenue by winning tenders against the BBC for PSB funding. In that respect, they might even gain.

So return the questions to you…

Do you object to the notion that PSB should be properly defined?

Do you believe that properly defined PSB should be financed then from the public purse?

If so do you believe that only one organisation, the BBC, should receive that money or it should be open to competitive tender?