Future of the BBC - Too important to be left to politicians.

It is right that there should be review at this time of what the BBC’s future should be, both its funding and its programming. It is also almost certainly true that it is over-bloated and could do with some surgery. Most long standing organisations need this from time to time. But it is such a vital part of British culture and our place in the world that it is far too important to be left in the hands of politicians, most of whom will not still be in power by the time any changes are seen through to maturity. This therefore needs to be the subject of a national debate. Just as a taster I remember a time, perhaps up to the 1980s when many of the BBC’s top performers used to make a joke about how poorly they were paid. ‘Well, what do expect?’ they’d say, ‘This is the BBC.’ Yet they still worked for the beeb and wouldn’t think about going commercial. Rather like doctors who will only work for the NHS when they could earn shedloads in private practice, and many teachers who shun the private system, they worked in public service broadcasting as a matter of principle. I suppose this is still the case, though few ever seem to talk about it. This story has two points. One is that it demonstrates how deeply embedded the concept of public service broadcasting is in our culture; the other is that it is a myth to suppose the huge salaries have to be paid to attract and retain top performers. But back to the main theme. This is not a partisan blog, but I do fear that most politicians currently in power have a default position of arguing that market forces will always ensure better quality and value for money than state-sponsored enterprises. We only have to look at so-called competitive industries such as energy, banking and telecommunications to pick out the holes in that argument. Apply it to the BBC and the result would, I strongly maintain, a disaster. Problem is, the BBC seems recently to have applied it to itself. Whatever the outcome of a hopefully non partisan national debate, I suspect there is a strong consensus that the BBC should not longer try to chase ratings and compete with the commercial stations. So here goes. I shall leave out radio which is largely blameless in this regard (we could have a debate about Radios 1 and 2 I suppose, but they are not the core issue). This is TV only. What should the BBC make or show and what should it not? How about this list: Yes to: • News, comment and current affairs. The reputation of the BBC for honesty, truth and unbiased reporting is absolutely crucial to its future. Look at the USA to observe the dangers. • Documentaries and major investigative journalism (see the first point). • Most sport, even darts. • Film • Theatre and opera • The Arts – programmes showing or broadcasting the arts and music , criticism, comment, educational and documentary. • Music – presentation of all forms of music including pop, rock and avant garde, not videos but live and recorded performance • Pastime shows such as gardening, travel, antiques and cookery (the origins of Top Gear would be OK, but not what it became - a caricature of itself). • Satire and decent comedy (see below) • Intelligent quiz shows such as Pointless, Eggheads, University Challenge • Drama, including one off plays and series, but not soaps. • Natural History, Science, History, Geography, Politics etc. No to: • Soap operas. • Cookery competitions • Reality shows. • Shows concerning buying or doing up houses, moving abroad etc. • Daytime quiz shows for big prizes • Comedy shows reeling round the same old stand up performers time after time. • Trivial panel games and game shows • Sofa programmes being used blatantly as a vehicle for people to publicise their new book/film,/play/TV show • Frivolous chat shows • Antiques competitions • Celebrity competitions • X Factor style shows unless they are genuine talent competitions, not the over-scripted corrupted versions now on offer. The ‘No’ list all belong in the commercial sector. This leaves us with Strictly, a programme I do not watch but I know people love. Now look, there are always going to have to be hard choices and Strictly would be one of them because many people see it as the acme of ‘light entertainment’. The answer is, I suppose, that we should lighten up a bit and let the odd frivolous show through, especially when it is a national institution, just like the BBC itself. So why not let the politicians loose on this lot? The answer is simply that it is just too important and there is a danger that too much ideology would be involved. As the great conservative philosopher, Michael Oakeshott, once commented, ‘politics should be a conversation, not an argument.’ Come to think of it, the future of the BBC is not a political issue, it is a cultural one and the future of British culture, much of which is admired throughout the world, is at stake.