BBC and the Big Society
And so it begins. Another call for the BBC's licence fee to be scrapped, this time from the glorified wanktank of the Adam Smith Institute. (Why they didn't simply dig up Adam Smith's corpse and skullfuck it instead is beyond me - it would have achieved pretty much the same outcome without having to publish so many neoliberal 'papers').
As ever, the Beeb steadfastly covers the story, like a turkey writing a particularly unbiased article about Christmas dinner suggestions. (It's to their credit that they do so, of course, though just for once I'd love them to do a spectacularly partisan article or report sticking two fingers up to the critics.) They'll probably do a Have Your Say on it as well They've even done a Have Your Say on it as well, so that a few chimp-brained fuckknuckles can say "Wurgggh, I hate the BBC, cut everything! I don't like the fact that the BBC is running a forum where I can say that the BBC shouldn't be running a forum" and so on.
Here comes Big Society. Big Society was one of David Cameron's most feeble and hard-t0-sell policies during the election campaign, but like any bad boss who thinks they've had a good idea, he won't let it go. That swimming pool that's closing down? Labour spent too much, you can run it for yourselves if you like, for no money, seeing as you've got nothing better to do. That youth project that's closing down? Labour spent too much, you can run it for yourselves if you like, for no money, seeing as you've got nothing better to do. And so on.
Do it yourselves, or it won't happen at all. Of course, people are very accepting of the need for cuts - that argument appears to have been won, rightly or wrongly - and so an awful lot of them are going to happen, needlessly or not. People seem willing to take the bad medicine in the hope it's going to make them better. Whether it will or not remains to be seen.
And so to the BBC - a state-funded broadcaster who dares to provide programmes, news and things that people like, with a world-class reputation. And which is, therefore, next in the firing line. Of course, the neoliberal Coalition aren't behind this latest report, but no doubt we'll see a trickle over the coming weeks and months. A campaign is being prepared.
It might be too cynical to imagine that this will be not entirely unadjacent to the feverish campaigning for David Cameron conducted by the BBC's commercial rivals during the election. I think it's probably the case that the shock doctrine Coalition don't like the BBC anyway - it smacks of big state and not big society, and therefore it must be shown to be wrong. A successful BBC, or NHS, or anything, means that state funding is capable of being the right solution - this isn't a question of what works and what doesn't. It's a question of blind belief in a particular type of solution - the 'big society' neoliberal solution.
Of course we don't need 'big society' to step in where broadcasting's concerned. I don't think the Tories will close down BBC1 and say that we're more than welcome to have a bash ourselves, if we like, so long as we're prepared to pay for all the programme-making ourselves. But the arguments will begin.
The 6Music and Asian Network debate was just the start, though that was a self-inflicted wound that meant the BBC was itself buying into the 'cuts are inevitable' narrative. But now the whole operation is going to be put under the microscope - not just by the likes of the Adam Smith Institute - although they will of course be the kind of people only to happy to provide the justification and the relevant ammunition - but by the BBC's direct competitors in the media, the people who really have something to gain from their popular and much-loved rivals being broken up, or sold off, or made into a subscription service, or whatever.
The arguments are beginning now, and they're only going to get stronger and louder. If you do like the BBC and don't mind how it's paid for - and I don't remember any political party campaigning very much about this at election time - then you're going to have to get ready to fight for it. Big Society means things like the BBC and its funding method must be seen to be obsolete, outdated, unnecessary... if you disagree, you must be ready to challenge these assumptions.
The first place to go might be that BBC Have Your Say discussion, then. It's already filling up with dozens of commenters who say they don't want the BBC to be funded by anything other than subscription, and they don't even watch the TV anyway. Is that what you think? Maybe it's time you made your voice heard, too.
No related posts.
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
- The power of publicity
- Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio…
- Children died
- The letters you never get around to sending
- Applying again
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- emmaspen on Children died
- emma on The letters you never get around to sending
- Iain on Applying again
- Roger on The letters you never get around to sending
- Dave Hodgkinson on The letters you never get around to sending
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
August 2nd, 2010 - 12:35
I always thought that – as much as they complain – commercial broadcasters don’t want a “free” BBC.
Would you rather advertise in the middle of Eastenders of Celebrity Toad Eating on Sky One?
Given that advertising budgets haven’t haemorrhaging over the last few years, who is going to advertise on ITV1 when they can get more eyeballs from Doctor Who?
August 2nd, 2010 - 12:42
Did anyone see a Leader column in the Scum a couple of weeks ago? The rag called for a reduction in the Licence Fee to help “cut the deficit”.
The BBC Licence Fee has fuck all to do with the fucking deficit of course, but Murdoch’s rags will use any method to confuse the fuck out of its shit-for-brains readers.
August 2nd, 2010 - 12:48
I recommend everyone writes to their MP. 38 Degrees makes it easier to do that sort of thing.
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/speakout/bbc-license-fee
And, just for good meaure.
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/contribute/Murdoch-inquiry-now
August 2nd, 2010 - 12:52
Excellent work sir! Your translation of Shiny Faced Dave’s ‘big society’ actually means is bang on and needs adding to the Oxford dictionary pronto! It’s like ‘Care in the community’ all over again … and we all remember how well that worked out!
Increasingly I hear people from all over the rest of the world saying “can we pay the license fee please and get full access to the BBC’s TV, radio, and web services” – surely a sign that Auntie Beeb is doing everything right.
August 2nd, 2010 - 13:11
Looking for a volunteer to do my bilateral knee replacements I’m going to need in ten years’ time. Any takers?
August 2nd, 2010 - 18:18
Another good blog.
As the whole media want the BBC dead (and after Terence’s point above i’ve no idea why) the attacks are only going to get worse. I’m writing to my MP via the link above, cheers Luddite.
Hypothetically if the BBC in its current form was subscription i’d happily pay double. For the price of all the BBC offers you could alternatively just get (an advertising packed) Sky Sports, or just Sky Movies, or perhaps both MUTV and ChelseaTV!
It never ceases to amaze me how down as a nation on the things we as a nation own, be it the BBC (quality telly), Royal Mail (send a letter anywhere in UK for 41p), the Monarchy, the NHS (and what it achieves on a shoestring budget) etc etc. Yet when commercial companies behave far worse the public just shrug their shoulders – ITV intentionally stealing £8M from phone calls that never counted for the competition, it just gets a kind of “oh well Ant & Dec are lovely, i’m sure they didn’t mean it” reaction.
August 2nd, 2010 - 19:26
Of course those who are going to be picking up the slack in this whole Big Society won’t be bound by the same kind of principles that bind government departments. Churches are going to be one big group. Youth groups etc will be bound to churches, who won’t let in the ‘wrong kind’ of people, by which they mean non-Christians and homosexuals. We’ve already seen yoga groups banned from parish halls because they’re a distraction from the Christian faith. Are these the kinds of people we want providing public services the government wants rid of?
August 2nd, 2010 - 22:09
Yep, here we go. We all saw it coming a mile off, though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHlr3wMtjNE
August 3rd, 2010 - 11:42
Have to say, while I have nothing against the BBC as such and do think they do a great job I couldn’t agree more with looking at new ways of funding. I absolutely resent being forced to pay £148 a year just for owning a TV, regardless of whether I watch BBC or not. I think the change to a subscription based service is more about the fact that people’s attitude to how they watch TV has changed.
For me personally, I have a PC connected to my TV in the living room. Almost everything I watch is downloaded and with the exception of using the BBC news website and occasionally watching F1 I don’t go near the BBC channel (or any other for that matter). This is absolutely where things are going, the change from broadcast to broadband and the BBC I’m afraid need to start realising that people don’t just have 5 channels in which to view things or get information any more. More importantly, getting that information is for the most part free and if more is needed, you pay a subscription.
£148 is how much it costs me to insure my flat per year, it’s how much my annual water bill is and it’s probably how much I spend on Gas/Electricity per quarter. I and others should not have to pay for the BBC if I don’t use the service, and if I do… well, subscription.
August 3rd, 2010 - 19:03
As someone who only watches TV news and the odd documentary, I don’t think there’s anything particularly “world class” about the BBC, given the kind of budgets at their disposal. They’re just dining out on a reputation garnered in a different era.
As far as I can tell they’ve got about 80 journalists sat in the same office in Westminster churning out the same – admittedly, technically proficient – story to vaguely different audiences.
The level of investigative journalism (considering the cash available) is abysmal. You might get a genuine piece once every 3 months, maybe, on Newsnight. The rest of the time it’s just ultra-cheap round table discussions and aimless interviews.
As for their local news offer, here in Bristol, it’s worse than the Northcliffe-run local newspaper. It’s junk by any standard.
BBC news – on paper – has the skills and finance to have a transformative effect on this country setting new and important agendas. Instead it’s a force of conservatism and the Westminster line.