Steven disagreed.
Sorry David, you are completely misinterpreting those Ofcom surveys, that is not what the public is saying. The public is saying it actually wants to see the BBC funded across the board in all the genres that they are at the moment.
I may have pushed that data a little too far, but I am not aware of any recent poll that has shown majority support for the BBC License Fee.
2004: an ICM poll for Panorama found that 31% were in favour of the existing licence fee, 36% said the BBC should be paid for by a subscription, and 31% wanted advertising to pay for the programmes.
2008: an Ipsos MORI poll commissioned by the Guardian found that 41% agreed that the licence fee was an "appropriate funding mechanism". 37% disagreed.
2009: In the Guardian/ICM Poll licence fee support also rose slightly to 43% amid doubt over commercial viability during a recession.
These are the polls I am aware of. There maybe others.
Posts
But did the Guardian poll anyone other than Guardian readers ...
ReplyDeleteICM Research interviewed a random sample of 1001 adults aged 18+ by telephone on 2-3 September. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults.
ReplyDeleteI have a love/hate relationship with the BBC - but I'm not a statistician or researcher - so you''ll have to forgive the lack of figures.
ReplyDeleteYou have to begin any debate by examining the point of the BBC. And that means accepting that it enriches UK cultural life in a way that others would not.
To expect the majority of UK taxpayers to want to pay for that privilege through a licence fee seems wildly optimistic. Time and again we see the consumers make choices that give short-term satisfaction but are not good for them. For example, if people cared what they ate the junk food industry wouldn't exist. But of course it thrives particularly in a recession, because people are not only poorer they are more stressed.
Therefore, looking for support for the licence fee is doomed to failure.
My best hope is that the BBC gets its house in order to ensure it stills exists in 20 years and that means getting out of areas served by commercial entities.
What on earth does the BBC think it is doing by running Radio 1? Why does it pay executives and performers vastly more than they would earn in the outside world?
With a depressing number of kids growing up with their only desire to be famous I predict the BBC will have to fight ever-increasing resitance to its very existence.
I really like Stephen's comment. It reflects a thinking person who recognises complexity. Two small points: (1) I think the majority of people do think as citizens as well as consumers more often than you give them credit for-- but often get little help and guidance; (2) yes, we have to figure out the "point" of the BBC -- but given its history we have have to accept that the thing now called the BBC has a number of "points" which we will soon have to sort out and address in a new way.
ReplyDeleteFirst version of this posting made a mistake with Steven Barnett's name. Thanks for the correction.
ReplyDeleteFrom the outset let me state that I am a long-term supporter of the BBC and the licence fee that should allow it to broadcast material that is both informative and entertaining.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, I believe that the Corporation has lost its way in trying to compete with commercial television and to be all things to all people.
For example, consider the pap served up by regional news programmes. Based on nothing more than the fact that I live near Oxford, I choose to watch the BBC’s Oxford regional news programme that appears immediately after the national news.
The first thing that annoys me is that I get a local weather report which, by dint of the actuality that Oxford is situated in the United Kingdom, does not differ in any meaningful respect from the national weather forecast that was broadcast a few minutes earlier as part of the national news coverage. That a different presenter uses different visuals broadcast from a different studio to explain the same conditions – with the consequent cost duplication – seems to be entirely lost on the Corporation’s accountants.
Worse, the content of the local news presentation frequently challenges the description of “news”. If the reportage is of any real importance it will already have been covered in the preceding national programme and attempting to add a local dimension simply means that a second reporter with a second camera/recording team attends the same location to talk about the same story – with the same escalation in costs.
I will ignore the recent story about an Oxfordshire-based motor cyclist who, at considerable personal expense, likes to decorate his motor cycle with paintings of Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz – that is not news (it might not even qualify for a news magazine programme). It merely indicates what I have long suspected: regional news programmes add nothing to the sum of “information” that should be communicated in a news programme and producers are often forced to broadcast garbage in order to fill their allotted space.
Therefore, respectfully, I would like to propose that all BBC regional news programmes be scrapped. By all means use the regional centres as collection points for news that is important but stop broadcasting meaningless local items that do nothing to inform. Deleting them from the schedules would go some distance towards reducing the profligate spending that has landed the BBC in its current financial predicament.