Disestablishing the BBC
The ties between the State and the BBC need to be cut
I’ve long been of the view that the Anglican Church should be disestablished and old bishops in the House of Lords should be denied their automatic places in the upper house.
But a similar rule should apply to the BBC. It should no longer be provided its automatic role as the establishment’s media and signals arm.
I’m not going to rehash, here, the BBC’s connections to the secret services, or its acting as a stenographer for the establishment. Nor am I going to remind you of its provision of safe harbour for child abusers, sociopaths, traitors or propagandists. Most of this is pretty well known.
Rather, I think it’s time to state what needs to be done with the BBC. One thing is certain. It can’t continue as it is. The most recent resignations make it very obvious that the Corporation cannot continue its bizarre relationship with the government and so-called ‘licence-payers’ i.e. the ever-diminishing BBC viewing and listening audience.
The BBC is funded by a tax. That method of funding - especially when the BBC acts against the public interest, or spews misinformation - means that it has an unhealthy relationship with the state. Therefore, end the funding arrangement, and make the BBC a proper public corporation answerable to its shareholders, and the problem is largely fixed.
The BBC is now in the process of appointing a new Director General. Presumably its Board will do what it always does and seek to appoint a new boss from the pool of broadcasting ‘talent’ in London or Manchester. But that’s the last thing that’s going to fix the problem. So I’m going to suggest a few things that will.
The BBC needs a transitional CEO (not a DG) who will change the tax-funding arrangement and transition the BBC to commercial broadcasting. This should mean ending the BBC charter and licence-fee - and working towards the incorporation of the BBC as a public limited company. The Articles of Association could restrict share ownership to UK residents only.
The new funding arrangement could include the ‘gifting’ of all BBC assets to the new company - with a view to the sell-off of assets (e.g. regional broadcasting centres and non-core services, as well as Bush House) to generate sufficient working capital to sustain the organisation for the short term. However, this would require considerable staff downsizing.
The BBC could remain a significant broadcaster and commissioner but its role would be primarily to provide creative content to subscribers - its primary revenue generators medium-term. However, head-count in the short term would reduce from over 20,000 employees to around 2,000. However this could grow as subscriber revenue increases. (Netflix currently employs around 13,000). In the short-term, however, the BBC would need to close non-core services such as BBC News, the BBC World Service and regional broadcasting operations. Regional broadcasting is already well-served by the commercial sector. But the BBC would need to actively compete with international media organisations to become viable.
As a commissioning organisation the BBC could build on its reputation in drama, light entertainment, sport and documentary. It also has a well-developed digital distribution platform in iPlayer - which could also be repositioned for live broadcast and on-demand programming.
In short, the BBC does have a rich legacy. It has added much to the UK cultural landscape and has provided hugely entertaining programming - a godsend, often, in the dark Winter months in the rain-sodden British isles. But the BBC’s brand, in terms of news and current affairs, is too sullied to be redeemable. It needs to focus on what it’s good at. And that will require the ending of the licence fee and its relationship with the State and establishment. It’s time for the Corporation to be the people’s BBC.
You raise some very fair points Jeffrey. The content sell off will be tricky though as from what I remember of the enormous ‘digital content rights’ debate in the early 2000’s - assigning ownership of that content is quite torturous - which is why so much old content doesn’t make it onto the I-player or sounds platforms.
For all the reservations I shared with the late Dennis Potter about John Birt - Birt did at least establish a culture of external program making which should make the ownership rights (& content valuation discussion) somewhat less tricky?
On the issue of programming governance - I am with you on hiring - especially the external bit. Institutions like the BBC & the NHS waste millions a year externally advertising job opportunities for ‘external candidates’ when the ‘talent’ pool internally has already been shortlisted. As an external hopeful you’d have a better chance of hooking up with Lord Lucan for a beer than landing a role in these organisations as an outsider!
On the actual programming itself, corporate culture makes money for shareholders - rather than ‘road testing’ young and/or “off the wall” talent. It’s why Hollywood likes plots based on Shakespeare & endless remakes - which probably explains why I hardly ever get excited about many films coming from California any longer. People are even complaining about ‘nothing worth watching’ on Netflix - which might be trimming a whisker or two off their 13k headcount soon unless they get a bit better creative talent on board? Imagine suggesting to Netflix commissioning management a ‘Fred Dibnah’? That came from the regional broadcast unit attached to BBC North - so a similar system needs to be found? Ditto John Peel launching a whole fleet of obscure bands the corporate record labels wouldn’t touch.
The BBC hiding undesirable abuses of power I’m completely with you on though. Sonia was excellent for joining the dots on that aspect of the corporation’s history.
I’m really interested in this subject - and will be engaging with everyone enthusiastically on it.
Michael Prescott - author of the dossier into the BBC - himself doctored Trump quotes in the report, making his evidence seem more damning. The New World's political editor James Ball joins James O'Brien to discuss the 'devastating' revelation that calls into question Prescott’s journalistic judgement.
https://youtu.be/RYPRQj0NtIU