3 ms·

> It’s unfair to criticise an organisation for failing to change something it has no legal ability to change The BBC is the government one way or another. So g

> It’s unfair to criticise an organisation for failing to change something it has no legal ability to change The BBC is the government one way or another. So given the ministers are effectively the CEO then they are the ones who should be adapting as they have the control and report to the citizens who are analogous to shareholders. So yeah I can criticize the BBC for failing to adapt and do things that the people in control are able to do. A government controlled corporation should be held accountable to the people, and the people obviously don't think the license fee is fair given the modern avenues of entertainment consumption. I mean charging a license fee for watching YouTube is absolutely insane. The government did not produce any of that content, individuals did, it's not even their infrastructure. Essentially the government could charge a fee for you emailing a family video to a friend. It's archaic, unfair, and unsustainable. Make it a real tax, allow advertising, monetize BBC content on other platforms, charge subscription fees. I mean the options are wide open, behave like a competitive corporation or tax it. All of this is under control of the people who ultimately operate the BBC. So yeah, first step is to wake up and abolish the license fee as it's just loopy so as much as I dislike BoJo, objectively he's making a bold and inevitable move which is perhaps motivated by his desire to stay in power. It's also worth noting the UK govt' spent $5.1bn on the BBC last year, in contrast Sky operated on $5.2bn in revenue. There are clearly some huge inefficiencies at the BBC that can be remedied internally without government approval. Bemoaning $5.1bn as not being enough is garbage. I mean, ITV operates on $2.1bn in revenue. Cutting back the waste seems appropriate to me.

avianlyric 5y ago
I think you seriously misunderstand the relationship between the government and the BBC. The whole thing is setup to create a clear firewall between the BBC and government to preserve the BBC’s impartiality and prevent it becoming a mouthpiece for whoever’s in power (it’s a separate debate as to how successful that is). Ministers are not the CEO of the BBC. Not even close. The BBC has an entirely separate board that should have no relationship to the current government in power (something that BoJo is desperately trying to erode). The whole point of all this is to explicitly make sure the BBC isn't a government controlled corporation, regardless of how much the government wishes it was. > It's also worth noting the UK govt' spent $5.1bn on the BBC last year, in contrast Sky operated on $5.2bn in revenue. There are clearly some huge inefficiencies at the BBC that can be remedied internally without government approval. Bemoaning $5.1bn as not being enough is garbage. I mean, ITV operates on $2.1bn in revenue. Cutting back the waste seems appropriate to me. You clearly have no idea how huge the BBC’s legally mandated remit is. Comparing the BBC to Sky is like comparing TfL to Uber. Sure they’re both transport companies, but TfL is legally mandated to provide a good transport service to all, regardless of background or income, and treat their employees well. Uber can fuck their drivers, and refuse to provide services to the unprofitable.
- FabHK 5y ago
  Indeed, the BBC cannot give in to government pressure. It sets great store by factual accuracy. And if the defense of the realm is at stake, it has to be very responsible. See the wonderful documentary^W comedy Yes, Minister. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9tzoGFszog https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9tzoGFszog
- monkeynotes 5y ago
  You can have a parent company specifying budget, policy, and mandates whilst being entirely hands off on the day-to-day. > The BBC has an entirely separate board that should have no relationship to the current government in power The director/board all report to the Queen, who defers to the government who enact mandates for the BBC. The government appoints senior members. I just don't see how you can say the BBC is autonomous in terms of what its board decides. > From Wikipedia: The chair and four non-executive members representing the four nations are appointed by the Queen-in-Council, on the advice of the UK Secretary of State. Five other non-executive members are appointed by the board and the four executive members are chosen by the board. I mean, seriously, how is that independent from the government? They literally have government appointed people on the board. > Comparing the BBC to Sky is like comparing TfL to Uber No it isn't. TfL is not a private car service, like at all. BBC and Sky are largely apples to apples in terms of their primary interests. Sky manages to operate a very broad set of programming, a news division, its own distribution technology, Sky employes 10k more staff than the BBC too. I think this article kinda sums up what I feel is the reality of the BBC's government independence: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/ourbeeb/bbc-is-neither-independent-or-impartial-interview-with-tom-mills/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/ourbeeb/bbc-is-neither-inde...

avianlyric 5y ago

I think you seriously misunderstand the relationship between the government and the BBC. The whole thing is setup to create a clear firewall between the BBC and government to preserve the BBC’s impartiality and prevent it becoming a mouthpiece for whoever’s in power (it’s a separate debate as to how successful that is). Ministers are not the CEO of the BBC. Not even close. The BBC has an entirely separate board that should have no relationship to the current government in power (something that BoJo is desperately trying to erode). The whole point of all this is to explicitly make sure the BBC isn't a government controlled corporation, regardless of how much the government wishes it was. > It's also worth noting the UK govt' spent $5.1bn on the BBC last year, in contrast Sky operated on $5.2bn in revenue. There are clearly some huge inefficiencies at the BBC that can be remedied internally without government approval. Bemoaning $5.1bn as not being enough is garbage. I mean, ITV operates on $2.1bn in revenue. Cutting back the waste seems appropriate to me. You clearly have no idea how huge the BBC’s legally mandated remit is. Comparing the BBC to Sky is like comparing TfL to Uber. Sure they’re both transport companies, but TfL is legally mandated to provide a good transport service to all, regardless of background or income, and treat their employees well. Uber can fuck their drivers, and refuse to provide services to the unprofitable.

FabHK 5y ago
Indeed, the BBC cannot give in to government pressure. It sets great store by factual accuracy. And if the defense of the realm is at stake, it has to be very responsible. See the wonderful documentary^W comedy Yes, Minister. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9tzoGFszog https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9tzoGFszog
monkeynotes 5y ago
You can have a parent company specifying budget, policy, and mandates whilst being entirely hands off on the day-to-day. > The BBC has an entirely separate board that should have no relationship to the current government in power The director/board all report to the Queen, who defers to the government who enact mandates for the BBC. The government appoints senior members. I just don't see how you can say the BBC is autonomous in terms of what its board decides. > From Wikipedia: The chair and four non-executive members representing the four nations are appointed by the Queen-in-Council, on the advice of the UK Secretary of State. Five other non-executive members are appointed by the board and the four executive members are chosen by the board. I mean, seriously, how is that independent from the government? They literally have government appointed people on the board. > Comparing the BBC to Sky is like comparing TfL to Uber No it isn't. TfL is not a private car service, like at all. BBC and Sky are largely apples to apples in terms of their primary interests. Sky manages to operate a very broad set of programming, a news division, its own distribution technology, Sky employes 10k more staff than the BBC too. I think this article kinda sums up what I feel is the reality of the BBC's government independence: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/ourbeeb/bbc-is-neither-independent-or-impartial-interview-with-tom-mills/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/ourbeeb/bbc-is-neither-inde...