Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Monday, 26 August 2019

BBC Charter renewal 2027

The BBC's charter - the agreement that allows the organisation to collect income from a TV Tax - is due for renewal from 2027. Since the millennium, the world has moved on rapidly. The way in which people obtain and use broadcast output has shifted radically. Technology has enabled low cost, high quality commercial streaming; device quality and capability has made quantum leaps. We started the millennium watching Blair and the BBC bring in the new year on a TV set in the corner of the room; today, the flat screen mounted on the chimney-breast shows only Netflix.

Many are now questioning whether it's not now time to end the BBC charter. It's time to start the national debate. So let's kick off with the Five 'Public Purposes' which have been at the heart of the BBC's unique and privileged position and see how they've been doing. Here are the objectives, and here are my rankings. What are yours?

The Public Purposes of the BBC are as follows. 
(1) To provide impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them: the BBC should provide duly accurate and impartial news, current affairs and factual programming to build people’s understanding of all parts of the United Kingdom and of the wider world. Its content should be provided to the highest editorial standards. It should offer a range and depth of analysis and content not widely available from other United Kingdom news providers, using the highest calibre presenters and journalists, and championing freedom of expression, so that all audiences can engage fully with major local, regional, national, United Kingdom and global issues and participate in the democratic process, at all levels, as active and informed citizens.

(2) To support learning for people of all ages: the BBC should help everyone learn about different subjects in ways they will find accessible, engaging, inspiring and challenging. The BBC should provide specialist educational content to help support learning f or children and teenagers across the United Kingdom. It should encourage people to explore new subjects and participate in new activities through partnerships with educational, sporting and cultural institutions.

(3) To show the most creative, highest quality and distinctive output and services: the BBC should provide high-quality output in many different genres and across a range of services and platforms which sets the standard in the United Kingdom and internationally. Its services should be distinctive from those provided elsewhere and should take creative risks, even if not all succeed, in order to develop fresh approaches and innovative content.

(4) To reflect, represent and serve the diverse communities of all of the United Kingdom’s nations and regions and, in doing so, support the creative economy across the United Kingdom: the BBC should reflect the diversity of the United Kingdom both in its output and services. In doing so, the BBC should accurately and authentically represent and portray the lives of the people of the United Kingdom today, and raise awareness of the different cultures and alternative viewpoints that make up its society. It should ensure that it provides output and services that meet the needs of the United Kingdom’s nations, regions and communities. The BBC should bring people together for shared experiences and help contribute to the social cohesion and wellbeing of the United Kingdom. In commissioning and delivering output the BBC should invest in the creative economies of each of the nations and contribute to their development.

(5) To reflect the United Kingdom, its culture and values to the world: the BBC should provide high-quality news coverage to international audiences, firmly based on British values of accuracy, impartiality, and fairness. Its international services should put the United Kingdom in a world context, aiding understanding of the United Kingdom as a whole, including its nations and regions where appropriate. It should ensure that it produces output and services which will be enjoyed by people in the United Kingdom and globally.


Stephen J said...

The BBC is almost as counterproductive as the NHS.

Both need to go.

Mr Ecks said...

The BBC/C4 need to be shut down in 24 hrs flat.

Redundancy for ordinary folk--technicians /tea-ladies etc.

The boss class and the managers, the middle class Marxists and Proggies go out with nowt. Not a fucking penny. And any pension contributions confiscated as well.

Time Crapita was gone as well.

DiscoveredJoys said...

Any organisation that has lasted for 70 years or so almost inevitably becomes 'captured' by the people working for it.

Despite many fine people doing their best the NHS tends to be run for the benefit of the workers and bosses. As is the BBC - who appear to regard the public as irritants rather than customers. The Roman Catholic Church appears to be more concerned about its own organisational well being than that of its 'flock'.

You can argue that the long-standing UK political parties have also been taken over by their committees/central offices but at least the public get to choose their MPs (and there is no guarantee of any particular party lasting for ever).

DeeDee99 said...

1. I can no longer comment on the BBC's News output, since I gave up watching it completely about a year ago due to the relentless Remain bias and its very selective "news" content. I finally stopped watching Andrew Marr in May following his disgraceful "attack interview" on Nigel, in which he harked back back to alleged comments made many years previously and completely ignored the meteoric rise of the Brexit Party.

2. I see very little quality in the BBC's programmes intended to educate the public. Their history programmes are deluged with diversity propaganda - with "the token black" inserted into roles which are historically inaccurate but demonstrate the BBC's commitment to determining and counting the ethnic background of actors used in its programming.

3. Looking at the schedules, most of the BBC's prime time shows on 1 and 2 have been running for decades. The daytime schedules are stuffed with re-runs and various forms of "improvement" shows. Not much creativity on show there.

4. From my, albeit limited experience now, if you considered the BBC to be representative of the diverse communities that make up the UK, you'd be forgiven for thinking that 30% of the country is of African origin and 30% Asian. Where I live in the West Country, the population is, I estimate, 90% white British. The BBC only reflects the population of London.

5. The BBC doesn't seem to know or understand the cultures and values of the UK, so it's hardly surprising that it doesn't represent them. Instead it tries to force the BBC's own left-wing culture and values on the rest of us.

I watch very little telly now. If it wasn't for family and friends visiting occasionally, I would do away with it. When the TV tax is scrapped, I won't be subscribing to the BBC.

Dave_G said...

Nice summary DeeDee and I agree entirely.

The exodus of viewers is already underway and their licence fee must surely be suffering as witnessed by their 'inability' to service the free licences for over-75's.

I suspect there are many like myself who simply refuse to pay - on the basis that the BBC are in flagrant disregard for their own Charter and I refuse to sanction what is effectively a 'crime' and I very much doubt they would have much of a cause to prosecute should anyone be taken to court for non-payment of their licence tax under these conditions. Cite the Balen Report as an example and demand the evidence be produced to support your defence.......

The BBC might not be so bad if they were circumspect about their methods but they are totally IN YOUR FACE with their bias (and their global warming stance in particular pisses me off) and, as DD mentions, their 'orgasmic desire' to place multi-racial aspects on every situation is NOT representative nor accurate in cases of historic (or future if you watched Dr Who!) content.

You can see the BBC attitude progressing across all the major channels though and the commercial advertising showing EVERY family as mixed race (and I mean EVERY family) is so insulting as to make me change channels almost constantly to avoid the abuse.

But, as Raed infers, there is massive change in progress and the BBC simply are not up to the challenge.

As an aside, someone once suggested that Smart Meters could be used to take fines and, ostensibly, TV licence fees from anyone/everyone........

Stephen J said...

Excellent stuff from DeeDee99.

In point 2 she mentions the "token" concept, which is used by such organisations as an object to wave in demonstration that one is not only "right on", but also technically on message.

This has the easy ability to become utterly nauseating, so it is not unexpected to witness civil servants doing much the same elsewhere.

One recent example that struck me was when I recently visited a softwood forest on duneland in Wales. The forest was planted 50 odd years ago to slow down the effects of "global warming" which was undermining the dunes.

Lo and behold, we now realise that this is not doing what those people thought it would do, and the dunes are still fragile. So the solution is to remove the forest, which of course benefits the hardwood/softwood ratio (we are currently only supposed to be improving stocks of hardwood), that they have decided to remove it anyway...

One less 200 hectares of softwood forest is equivalent to an extra 100 hectares of hardwood forest...

… obvious innit? stoopid!

RAC Esq. said...

I wholeheartedly detest the bbc and quite honestly would score them at zero in every category.
Zero not because I detest them but because they are a globalist propaganda machine, a total mind fuck which represents a danger to this country.
On a lighter note, being as they espouse only the eu globalist ideals maybe the continental europeans should carry the burden of bankrolling their mouthpiece.

Span Ows said...

I agree with almost everything above! As per D_G well done DeeDee for detailed and considered reply, with which I concur almost 100%

To be honest I do not see how the BBC even got 2/10 for impartial news.

I sort of feel that r_writes esq. and Mr. Ecks suggestions are a bit severe but then think that the harsh polling (trimming!) necessary would only be temporary or superficial and the internal cancer would take hold again.

Anonymous said...

I haven't willingly watched broadcast TV since 9/11, so it wouldn't bother me if it all closed down. (I do see TV unwillingly in friends' houses, doctors' waiting rooms, etc. It seems to be all dipped in glitter.)

The BBC could make documentary films for sale on DVD. I have bought a number of these -- for instance, Michael Wood has a good series of history films.

But it would be a pity to see BBC radio go. ClassicFM is not really a full alternative: compare the Radio 3 "Through the Night" program with what ClassicFM offers over the same hours.

Don Cox

JPM said...

The BBC is part of the British Establishment, the state-within-the-state.

Does anyone seriously believe that it would let go of such a massively-resourced communications agency, which proved so vital to its interests during the Irish Troubles, the Miners' Strike, the Falklands War, and more recently, during the run-up to the referendum, when Farage appeared more than any other politician?

People should be very concerned, about the silent ease, with which it slides seamlessly from reporting general fact - however selective - to peddling bald falsehoods, as it apparently sometimes does when anything of crucial importance to those whom it serves arises.

A confidence trick depends on building up a misplaced trust in people. The BBC is time-proven to do this.

Dave_G said...

Never one to let the opportunity of a snide remark pass are you JPM? The idea that Farage was 'all over the TV' in the referendum runup is sheer bollox of the first order but, even if he had equivalence of the pro-remain side the BBC would still put any appearance by Farage in the context of 'lies and distractions'.

I trust your mention of 'peddling bald falsehoods' is a reference to their climate stance? Or maybe their 'peddling bald falsehoods' in suppport of all-things-EU? What about 'peddling bald falsehoods' about immigration then?

The list of 'peddling bald falsehoods' is massive with the BBC - none of which are representative of popular opinion least of all the actual FACTS.

RAC Esq. said...

Presumably the bbc's output will be archived somewhere. Putting to one side all their other biased propaganda and concentrating only on Brexit, the run up to the referendum till present. There should be an easily provable case of their blatant partiality with remain.
Once Brexit is achieved it should be Boris's second task to make the case that the bbc's behavior has been so unacceptable re Brexit that they don't get till 2027.
Get your legal bods to work Boris, pull their funding now. Make it pay to view and hear the luvvies squeal. Of course if they are as irreplaceable as their egos tell them they are, they'll get work with with the same pay with the commercial broadcasters.........or not.

Anonymous said...

Don Cox said @ 12:51:

'I haven't willingly watched broadcast TV since 9/11..'

Funny you should mention 9/11 in a thread about the merits of the BBC because at 21:54 GMT on the 11th September 2001 the BBC announced that WTC 7 had collapsed. There was just one problem with this news: WTC 7 did not collapse until 22:20 GMT (21:54 GMT is 16:54 (4:54 PM) East Coast time, 26 minutes BEFORE WTC 7 actually collapsed).

After the collapse of the twin towers (with astounding luck all three buildings collapsed onto their own footprint instead of asymmetrically like every other damaged high-rise building in history) millions were tuned in - me included - to watch BBC World's Phil Hayton talking live to the BBC's New York correspondent Jane Standley. When she announced that the Solomon Building (WTC 7) had collapsed you could still see it standing over her left shoulder at a distance of about a mile. Unfortunately the live feed was lost a few minutes later.

Fortunately they were insured, and thus:

A federal jury on Monday ruled that the assault on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center was in fact two occurrences for insurance purposes. The finding in the US District Court in Manhattan means leaseholder Larry Silverstein may collect up to $4.6 billion, according to reports - 12/06/04

Just as well really..

It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an ageing dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings - Arctic Beacon


JPM said...

No, proven falsehoods, Dave, like the admission by the BBC when repeatedly challenged, that it edited footage of the Battle Of Orgreave to show the miners first attacking the police, when the correct sequence of events was that the police attacked first and the miners merely defended themselves.

There was similar misrepresentation of events in Ireland.

The chief problem with the BBC is its misrepresentation by omission though.

The biggest news story in the UK is the one which is never, ever reported by the BBC. That is, that the UK's democracy has been subverted for generations, by an eleven-billion-a-year industry, the press, which has systematically gaslighted the public, with helpful silence and the odd nudge from the "impartial" BBC as needed.

If it reported the facts, with due priority to those which had a material bearing on the lives of most people, then there would not have been a Tory government since 1922 in all probability, and the country would not be in its present mess.

Dave_G said...

If it reported the facts, with due priority to those which had a material bearing on the lives of most people,

like climate change? The ridiculous drive to EV's? The corruption and inefficiency of the EU? The banks theft from people? The fake eco-arguments? The lack of sensible immigration policy? Black crime levels? Insidious Islamic crimes? I could go on......

Which one of these few examples are the one that require the 'due priority' then? Can we see just ONE subject addressed adequately?

If the FACTS of these subjects were told to the people we wouldn't have politicians, let alone Tory/Labour etc. If/when people realise how they are constantly lied to and have their lives manipulated simply to allow a select few to control us and milk us for our hard-earned there should be blood on the streets.

There does, however, seem to be a common denominator across the subject of controlling the agenda though.

rapscallion said...

Steve @15:07

"with astounding luck all three buildings collapsed onto their own footprint"

This is simply not possible unless it was done via a controlled demolition,

John Brown said...

(1) (4) (5) The BBC is not acting as a public service broadcaster by only having a single view on the major issues of the day. Other broadcasters can manage to produce a more diverse output. The bias is also evidenced by all the (good?) news they deliberately omit.

(2) With the BBC’s current bias on so many issues I wouldn’t trust the BBC with any teaching at all.

(3) “Because of the way the BBC is funded” they should be able to produce new and creative output. They should not be spending vast sums to keep employing the “stars” of entertainment who should be moving on to the commercial channels.

The BBC comedy W1A is worth a watch on iplayer.

Span Ows said...

Don Cox 12:51

Same except for a bit of rugby and footy. Their QT after 911 was an absolute disgusting, shameful horror. I hated and was evangelical against the BBC from at least a decade before but since 911 they are all cunts. BBC Radio went the same way after R5L were equally as shameful a year later and radio 4 constantly prove they haven't changed (don't listen really, just the snippets on Guido, Craig, Newswatch and aimilar about the chronic bias). Having said that I used the BBC messages boards in the first decade of this century to sow discontent until they were closed down bit by bit.

JPM 13:14...almost, almost a completely valid comment except for - as D-G says - the snide dig at Farage. The rest of your comment is valid! Ever since Reith and Co saw - immediately - the "danger" of what Marconi could do they clamped down on the airwaves.

Steve 15:07

"with astounding luck all three buildings collapsed onto their own footprint"

Luckily, none of them actually did that.

JPM 18:36 "If it reported the facts, with due priority to those which had a material bearing on the lives of most people, then there would not have been a Tory government since 1922 in all probability, and the country would not be in its present mess."

Nor labour... nor any other that came along. hey ho.

Doonhamer said...

Compare the staff you see in documentaries of real hospitals with those in fictional hospitals.
Beeb cannot even squeeze one Bristol accent into Holby.
As for Chinese, Beeb-town is the only one in the country without a Chinese population, not even a restaurant.
News?, I always find myself thinking "Why are they telling me this and what are they not telling me?"
Even that repository of good old radio, BBC Four Extra is now issuing modern right-on pap.

rapscallion said...

JPM @ at 22:34

Actually, all three building did just that - they collapsed within their own footprint. I suggest you look closely at the footage again.

Anonymous said...

Apologies to Raedwald in advance for putting these two links up but I have to challenge this:

Span Ows said @ 22:34 yesterday in reply to me:

Steve 15:07

"with astounding luck all three buildings collapsed onto their own footprint"

Luckily, none of them actually did that.


NIST Admits to Partial "Freefall" Collapse of WTC 7

Beyond any doubt:

9/11: Short WTC7 Video Compilation

The truth shall set you free..


Raedwald said...

OK all - no more 9/11 stuff please