Auntie should know what's good for you, apparently
The BBC’s under fire again, this time for being a ‘me too’ broadcaster trying to compete in a saturated market.
Its remit should be reduced to only making programmes that commercial broadcasters do not provide, according to a report by right-leaning think tank the Centre for Policy Studies published today.
The report’s author, Martin Le Jeune, said a scaled down BBC would respond to “what the consumer wants, and what the BBC can uniquely and legitimately provide – we’d be looking at a smaller and more focused BBC.”
Apparently commercial broadcasting has reached new levels of sophistication and breadth, making taxpayer-funded content unnecessary, and even damaging the freemarket. As James Naughtie said through gritted teeth on this morning’s Today, it’s a familiar argument.
There is a case for it though. Some believe the ongoing battle for audiences has meant dumbing down, increased celebrity programming, and a flavour of commercialism hitting standards at the Beeb (Strictly Come Dancing was cited on Today). The Ten O’clock News, for instance, now carries an entertainment or celebrity story as standard.
The BBC also has unique and soaring levels of online funding, meaning other organisations risk being squeezed out of that growing market. ‘iPlayer’ has become part of the cultural lexicon, while the word ‘Kangaroo’ has not, after the competition commission quashed a joint online video venture between BBC Worldwide, ITV and Channel 4.
Yet Today’s all-too-short debate on the subject was hardly convincing. Le Jeune, a former head of public affairs at Sky News (Naughtie himself highlighted this Murdoch-connection), said the BBC had become a Godzilla-like creature, subsuming all commercial media trends. Sound like a conglomerate we know?
BBC director of strategy John Tate put up a tight defence, claiming if the Centre for Policy Studies had its way, Auntie would be delivering ” Cod Liver Oil” programming to audiences.
I’m inclined to agree. Surely that BBC would be harder for Britain’s audiences to swallow than the supposed Godzilla we have today. Or is the BBC going to act as a life-support for commercially unviable programmes from now on? BBC Model Railways Show anyone?
That’s when licence fee payers (or Le Jeune’s tax payers) will really start to moan.
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 31, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Annabel
I once heard a half hour programme on radio four about salt. No other broadcaster on the planet could produce a half hour programme about salt, and that’s why I love the BBC. (Salt of the earth jokes unnecessary here, non?).
I’m less sure how I feel about the BBC producing programmes such as Total Wipeout ( http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=total+wipeout&sourceid=mozilla2&oe=utf-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=gp_SSeCCHpXU-Qbw1oi3BQ&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title#)
Hilarious? yes, utterly. Guaranteed to pull in audiences? yes. Public service? no.
At the same time, I agree with various arguments from commentators more qualified than I who argue that the BBC shouldn’t be this patronising “auntie” figure who gives us what it thinks is good for us whether we like it or not (cod liver indeed).
At the same time, things that are commercially viable *are* commercially viable and will happen – it’s not the job of the BBC to make those things.
Maybe rather than sticking to cod liver oil and other old wives’ tales, the BBC needs to use its to use its unique ability to be commercially unviable to take risks and be daring, so that others become the “me too” channels. To do this, the BBC must be able to fuck up and get it wrong, and I fear it won’t do that in its current beleaguered state.
April 1, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Nick
Spot on – I agree that the Beeb should be allowed to take risks and justify its unique position. It was once capable of doing that, but two things now hold it back: fear and competition.
The Ross-Brand/fear issue speaks for itself. But with such a saturated market now, do we really think great swathes of the population will switch over to contemporary dance on a Saturday night or improvised theatre, or whatever?
The industry has changed, and the BBC has to offer dumbed down shows like Total Wipeout (Takeshi’s Castle was far superior: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takeshi's_Castle) so that it remains the go-to broadcaster, not some serious, leftfield anomaly that eventually disappears along with its relevance.
Let’s hope it can always offer the full package and allow itself to push some boundaries as well.
April 1, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Annabel
Takeshi’s castle much much better obviously! Love it, and love the fact it’s not my licence fee flying 20 idiots out to argentina.
April 2, 2009 at 12:57 am
cjhall31
“With all the money they get from licences, why don’t the BBC concentrate on making good quality programmes instead of these rubbish ‘celebrity’ programmes?”
Comments like this from the Mail’s article sum up everything that’s wrong with this debate. Does this guy complain when Channel 4, 5, ITV or satellite channels make rubbish celebrity shows? Doubt it. If the general quality of TV were higher, the BBC wouldn’t have to compete at the lowest possible denomination of entertainment, but that isn’t going to happen any time soon.
But if the BBC decided not to offer ‘dumbed-down’ gameshows and reality TV, the very same people would be bashing it for being elitist and not offering enough to appeal to ‘average’ viewers. They’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t.