Change the channels?
Francis Sedgemore, Thursday 14 January 2010
At last we have an intelligent contribution to what has so far been a ya-boo-ey debate about the role of the BBC, and public service broadcasting in general.
Says Mark Oliver, author of the Policy Exchange report, “Changing the channel”,…
“The current UK broadcasting system was set up in the 1950s and now struggles to keep up with the extraordinary changes of the digital age. It is clear that the 20th Century analogue institutions that were created are now worryingly out of date. We need a dramatic rethink if we are to continue to deliver public service broadcasting in an entirely new age.”
Where is the left in this conversation, and why has it taken a right-wing think tank to come up with serious proposals to strengthen the BBC, and promote public service broadcasting across the board, on commercial channels included?
Feed the writer! 
Friday 15 January 2010 at 19:26 UTC
I’ve read some of the initial recommendations at the end of the report you link to, Francis. I’m not as convinced as you that this report is really about strengthening the BBC. It seems that in no small measure it is about clearing the field for ITV in certain areas that would be very profitable for them from an advertising point of view. I’d be interested to know why I’m wrong. I start from the point of view that sport on BBC and local news on BBC are not per se bad things – quite the contrary given that I think that the BBC does them much better than ITV and has done so for a long time – although I fondly remember some of Ray Gosling’s “On Site” 70′s/80′s work and I think that was on Granada.
Friday 15 January 2010 at 20:41 UTC
I’m certainly not in total agreement with the report, but it is a more constructive contribution to the debate about public service broadcasting than anything that’s come from the left. And it is about public service broadcasting in general, and not just the BBC.
As it happens, I agree that much of the ‘entertainment’ output from the BBC could safely be dropped, so that the corporation could concentrate instead on more substantive, quality programming. That would include sports not covered by commercial channels, but there is no way that the BBC can or should compete with them when it comes to football. In any case, the sport obsessed are all watching Sky.
Saturday 16 January 2010 at 13:16 UTC
If they can afford it. In that respect it is interesting to dig out the figures for people who watched Rugby League when it was on the Beeb and those who who watch now it is on Sky. In comparative terms I am sport obsessed (though I would admit to being unusual in that I tend to go to live matches rather than watch it on TV). But I am not going to sign up to one of Murdoch’s packages and don’t see why I should. I really fail to see why football – an important aspect of the national culture, whether you like it or not – should not have a degree of coverage on a public service broadcaster.(And again, like it or not, the Beeb has tended to do it better than ITV historically.) I may well be with you when it comes to pro-celebrity tango featuring over the hill newscasters and celebs who I’ve never heard of….
Saturday 16 January 2010 at 13:21 UTC
“I really fail to see why football – an important aspect of the national culture, whether you like it or not – should not have a degree of coverage on a public service broadcaster.”
But that’s not going to happen, given the current business model of football, with obscene amounts of money sloshing around in that “sporting” community. No government is going to challenge Murdoch’s control over the broadcasting of live football on the telly.