The BBC

Blades Business Crew

Serious sheffield united hooligans

.....................strike me down..............

Ipswich Total Violence

(OK, I made that up and in fact when we supposedly had a "firm" they decided to call themselves The Spanners, why they did is anyone's guess)

BBC blamed for attacks on Poles

wtf @ that guy

Tories, eh?

Sub-Passantino at best

At 6 feet 8½ inches (204 cm), Kawczynski is believed to be the tallest MP ever to sit in the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

But the average height of doors in Westminster is six feet eight and now he wants ministers to take account of an increasingly tall UK population.

"Being officially a giant myself... you want to raise things which pertain to yourself and people like you," he said.

ISSUES4U

Damn those liberal elites...

Britain is the country of choice for many 'feckless' Poles

'Polish Borat' claims groping women is normal in Eastern Europe

IMMIGRANTS TO BLAME FOR SURGE IN CRIME SAYS POLICE CHIEF

Also I'm sure he said all this a couple of months ago somewhere else. Why has it come up again now?

Oh, yes, in the Independent.

He'll be blaming the BBC for attacks on giants next

I'd guess he has a point if he's talking about Tory voters mouthing off on the mid-morning phone-ins on local stations like BBC Radio Shropshire etc.

Conservative Friends of Poland

Like Neville Chamberlain, he means?

Pretty sure it's mostly Channel 4 running the anti-Polish stuff. But it is tricky spotting the difference between Panorama and the Völkischer Beobachter most weeks.

EXCLUSIVE: Max Mosley confirmed as new Panorama presenter.

A step too far, this is causing as much kerfuffle as when the moved women's hour.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/06/change_to_international_pages.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/14/ben-bradshaw-bbc-management

the bbc does seem amazingly inept at covering its arse. it is kind of a symptom of a wider elite-class self-aggrandizement that the likes of byford and thompson think they deserve mad money, but it's still going to come back to bite them.

beeb has kind of an impossible job in dealing with its critics, since they simultaneously claim the licence fee isn't justified because the bbc isn't populist enough and that it isn't justified because it doesn't provide enough specialised content that the commercial sector won't touch. i can't see that sharing the licence fee does anything to help except spreading it thinner.

agree that bbc bosses don't help the cause though.

is it really going to be dismantled?
― D Aziz (esquire1983), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 00:03 (5 years ago)

Possibly, if - when - the Tories get in.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/19/wed-abolish-bbc-trust-hunt

Has to be a troll:

Pay per view BBC news would allow the lefties to view their own biased news reports while the rest of us could choose ITV news for more impartial reporting.

this business about "damaging commercial competitors" really pisses me off. we should be celebrating the fact that the BBC creates quality products and services for "free", not requiring it to dumb down its offerings so that something inferior and expensive can maintain market share.

Whenever that comment is made, it is usually voiced by someone with vested interests eg. Murdoch. In America, Murdoch goes after Obama but here he goes after impartial news media. This should be a good compass for anyone wishing to locate the centre of power in any given country. Who does Murdoch go after in, say, China?

yeah, you do wonder whether this is the quid for the quo of The Sun's support.

tories don't need any outside encouragement to go after the bbc, tbh.

So is the Mail anti-Beeb purely because of DMGT's regional newspapers? Or is there something else, aside from Jonathan Ross and the telly tax?

it's ideological - the bbc is full of lefties.

not only that, the whole concept of the BBC is lefty.

and yet they've employed Jeremy Clarkson, Carol Thatcher, Michael Burke, Patrick Moore (latter two mentioned just due to sexist comments made in past)...

Patrick Moore is very right-wing on immigration too, unfortunately.

and yet they've employed Jeremy Clarkson, Carol Thatcher, Michael Burke, Patrick Moore (latter two mentioned just due to sexist comments made in past)...

... and Andrew Neil and Michael Portillo and Nick Robinson and Quentin Letts ad nauseum

Michael Buerk is a Conservative?

Only when it comes to the BBC employing women, I think... women who get jobs he wants, that is

sexist, conservative, racist - all the same

Regardless of how many sexist conservative racist rightwingers are employed there, the very existence of the BBC as a huge part of the media landscape is a slap in the face to Tory free market ideals, so obviously they want to pare it back. I don't think it's all about Murdoch.

In my own experience, sexism is not limited to conservative men!

LOL, far from it!

BREAKING: Boris Johnson has asked former Mail editor Paul Dacre to run thr broadcasting watchdog Ofcom. Charles Moore is close to a done deal to be BBC chairman https://t.co/rlQmfcDSGq

— Tim Shipman (@ShippersUnbound) September 26, 2020

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/jan/24/comment.comment

I can't see this, if true, ending well for the BBC but reckon its popularity is greater than Boris's. Does he want to be known for destroying the BBC?

Also, there was an interesting letter in today's guardian pointing out that the BBC is already neutered - it's not allowed to distort the market by being too good, too innovative.

Also that the government gets 10m a week from licence fee, way more than any of the other streaming services.

here's Nick Robinson showing us how the new impartiality will look

The wartime leader is back. Brits want to "fight & defeat the virus" not "throw in the sponge" he says. The PM calls for “collective forbearance, common sense & willingness to make sacrifices” in the battle against coronavirus & warns that tougher measures could be introduced pic.twitter.com/5cci63sbVw

— Nick Robinson (@bbcnickrobinson) September 30, 2020

The first of hopefully many PLAY FOR TODAY box sets is being released by the BFI in a few weeks. Many of the best ones have been released already (e.g. the unbelievable Alan Clarke box), but this is still incredible

Nice

> PLAY FOR TODAY box sets is being released by the BFI

there seems to be a PLAY FOR TODAY season on bbc4 starting tonight, not sure how extensive it'll be - documentary at 9 tonight with Country on immediately after.

episode guide lists:
Country
Abigail's Party (wed)
A Hole In Babylon (next tue)

play for today stuff is great. interesting to me that my mum mentioned it, saying how good it was, and i felt the same way. we have a bit of a generational divide in some ways, but it's an example of national intellectual or artistic pride which seems to me to be entirely healthy. it had a focus outside of London, looked at difficult, painful or awkward subjects in a strongly dramatic way.

in other stuff, i've been impressed, in a quiet sort of way, with tim davie so far. good overview of him here, though it repeats the assertion, debunked by Stewart Lee in the LRB, that he said he'd reduce left-wing comedy. but he's got credibly strong commitment to diversity and promotion. there's a really good interview with him by the CEO of the Royal Television Society Theresa Wise.

My general point here is that although many media pieces and articles (including the prospect piece) focus on the challenges of the editorial position and journalistic presentation in their news programmes, the key challenge presented by Ofcom in their second annual report is actually about how they meet generational diversity in terms of consumption - ie delivering to both traditional sofa-broadcast generations, and younger people consuming media across a number of distribution providers (eg Netflix) on various devices. The key weakness for the BBC is that they are being attacked on funding while being asked to reach more people. That's as much a technology problem as it is a content problem.

Tim Davie's answer in that interview is really good on this: that it's a case of the frame of competition widening, but that the BBC shouldn't be distracted by that, and should focus on what it's good at.

I think the challenge will be that the licence fee will be removed on the basis that it's unjustifiable where the BBC is no longer the sole or even main provider of entertainment to a lot of important demographics, and that this will be used as a way of manipulating their editorial position (tho it seems hard to me to imagine it being more client journalism than it is now, despite the presence of Lewis Goodall for instance, who must feel quite lonely).

Tim Davie strikes me as someone who will defend his organisation and his employees in a smart way, business focused and difficult to argue with.

That's an intelligent, well-informed post, Fizzles.

On the other hand, TD was once very actively involved in the Conservative Party. That seems to indicate that he is an unforgivable scumbag.

in the upper echelons of any industry unfortunately Tory scumbags are a given

both otm posts.

I think the challenge will be that the licence fee will be removed on the basis that it's unjustifiable where the BBC is no longer the sole or even main provider of entertainment to a lot of important demographics, and that this will be used as a way of manipulating their editorial position

Can you say more about the bit in bold? (Big disclaimer, I work there.)

What's the listener base like for Radio 1 these days?

Slow and steady decline. It will continue.

The bit before the bolded bit is absolutely the challenge and the point - that the BBC's entitlement to the license fee stems directly from the fact that it reaches 95+% of the population - either via radio, telly, or online - and younger audience habits look very ominous for this.

Actually I think that number is down to 91-92% now - so it's a hot seat that Davies is inheriting.

I kind of meant in age demographics really - how many under-21s, or even under 25s, are listening on a regular basis?

I'm curious as to what extent Radio 1's daytime playlist shapes/reflects the now stream-heavy chart compared to ten years ago. Much less shaping now than ten years ago presumably.

Yes much less. The torch has pretty much passed imo.

Matt there's a lot! They've been pretty good at driving older listeners off. You might hear 'average age' get thrown around, which for Radio 1 is around 32 yo, but that's a very misleading stat. First of all, no one under 10 is measured by RAJAR. Second, think about how many people there are in the UK aged 10-25. Now think how many people there are aged 25-up. In order to have an average age of, say, 25, you need an absolutely massive number of the younger listeners to balance out all the older ones who just happen to have it on, have flipped it on at work, etc.

The controller (when there was one) liked to brandish 'the most common age' of listener to Radio 1, which is usually about 18 yo. Imagine a bar graph where each age has its own bar. The tallest bar is the 18 yo one.

1Xtra too for that matter. xp

Everyone I (we?) know over 40 has unwavering devotion to 6 Music I'm still a little surprised by. Not a criticism at all, just a little alienating for me!

Kier Starmer

is radio 1 dance permanent or just a temp thing? (i notice the schedules aren't on the main sounds schedule page)

(the first show i looked at was an essential mix that started with nick drake and i can't imagine anyone dancing to nick drake)

Lol. The app has the schedule but yeah, it’s not on web. That’s weird. I don’t know why that is.

Here to stay! It’s my favourite thing R1 have done in a long time. I’m just sad Mistajam has left.

That one was somebody called Midland, who apparently had the Essential Mix Of The Year in 2016.

A couple of months ago I was moaning about some garbage radio doc about the Spifire that was presented (with the kind of gushing questionable + mostly jingoistic claptrap that might cause D Egerton to have a stroke) by some tory sounding actor called Tuppence I kid you not. They must have been some complaints because now it seems to have resurfaced but they've ditched Tuppence for an apperent historian but using the same awful music (sounds like fucking Tame Impala i think) - not that I could suffer listening to it for more than a minute still.

Wait til you hear what her surname is.

(I'm assuming it's Tuppence Middleton who is now in every single period drama the BBC or ITV make)

that's the one!

christ, what kind of demented posho names their kid Tuppence ffs. Back in the 70's in old-school Yorkshire dialect my partner's mum used to say to her daughter's when they were going out on the lash and to the discoteque in Batley: Keep your hand on your h'apenny and there weren't be neigh trouble!

I think the challenge will be that the licence fee will be removed on the basis that it's unjustifiable where the BBC is no longer the sole or even main provider of entertainment to a lot of important demographics, and that this will be used as a way of manipulating their editorial position
Can you say more about the bit in bold? (Big disclaimer, I work there.)

― Li'l Brexit (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 15 October 2020 14:22 bookmarkflaglink

So, this partly comes from a reading of the second Ofcom annual report. There are several weaknesses highlighted there (i still find a para that effectively says 'we can't see how you're delivering against your goals, or how your reporting relates to that process' to indicate a staggering failure of corporate governance - although that relates to diversity, it's a running theme. the BBC should just be good at governance.)

anyway the key bit here is:

Like all PSBs, the BBC is vulnerable to the rapidly changing media landscape, particularly in its struggle to attract and retain younger audiences. Unless it can address this, its ability to deliver its Mission and Public Purposes to the same level in future will be at risk. The BBC has made changes to its services and its content to attempt to address the issue. These include the launch of BBC Sounds, changes to the BBC iPlayer and putting more BBC Three content onto BBC One. However, time spent with the BBC by younger audiences across TV, radio and the BBC’s main online sites has declined further in 2018/19. Our review of the BBC’s news and current affairs output also suggests that the BBC is struggling to engage younger audiences with news and current affairs, particularly online. If the BBC can’t engage young audiences with its content, it risks losing a generation of viewers. If young people don’t consider the BBC as a core part of their viewing, then it may be hard to encourage them to pay the licence fee which will have significant implications for the BBC’s revenue and its ability to deliver its Mission and Public Purposes.

that is effectively saying your funding stream is under threat. for these reasons i know no one in the industry who thinks the licence fee will be possible to maintain beyond 2027, and there are several indications that the 2022 licence fee negotiation could see it radically reduced.

but in terms of any negotiation, it's a weak spot that The BBC is basically third behind Netflix and Youtube in terms of distribution brand familiarity amongst teenagers. it's no longer the broadcaster of choice or default for that demographic, which removes the justification for having everyone pay a licence fee if they want to watch television (if a licence fee is feasible in an OTT (over-the-top, internet delivery, think Netflix, or iPlayer) world.)

any negotiation will involve things that each side wants. what i perceive to be a government desire to have a Public Service Broadcaster media space that matches to a degree the print media space will be on the government wish list. the government can publicly pursue an argument to do with lack of justification for licence fee on the demographic side, while effectively seeking to trade more editorial control in their favour, traded for more funding spend. what 'editorial control' looks like here, as a meaningful negotiating ask, is somewhat opaque. an example might be, for instance, a de facto ban on, say, Lewis Goodall publishing a piece in the New Statesman, while overlooking an Andrew Neil equivalent's position wrt The Spectator. It might be about requiring more oversight of reporting. It might just be a continual pressure point exerted regularly in terms of day-to-day editorial, with the knowledge they've got them over a gun barrel.

Put very crudely, the Netflix argument will be rolled out, in public softly, in private with more threats, every time the Government feels that the BBC's editorial position has overstepped its mark. (This, like perhaps a few points regarding The Type of Polity We Have Now was a window opened by Alastair Campbell.)

that's my argument anyway.

i think i've rolled back slightly on some of it. the fundamental and probably incontrovertible need for a new funding settlement paradoxically makes me more relaxed, as basically 'we want to remove the licence fee' as a threat, would probably be met by responses of 'well, yes, which is why we're looking at x (x being tax - unlikely, broadband levy - interesting, subscription - disastrous for a PSB). still 2022 will be a critical negotiation point.

sorry, TH, i've overwritten my answer there, but hopefully that explains my thinking.

ok, i found some of the notes i made at the beginning of the year in response to the ofcom piece, which may be more (or less) intelligible than the above:

Government Pressure

The FT usefully summarised the five areas where the BBC will be under attack:
• General rhetoric and public boycotts of eg the Today programme – what the FT defined as 'guerilla tactics'.
• Licence fee renegotiation and funding settlements. Licence fee level due to be agreed in 2022, with overall funding model due for renegotiation in 2027. '"The calculation the government has to make is how big the backlash and political cost will be, because the BBC is — like the NHS — very much loved by the public.”
• Over-75s licence fee - which George Osborne pushed onto the responsibility of the BBC rather than the government, and to which the BBC agreed in what is hard now to see as a short-term agreement with long-term implications. BBC will be sending enforcement letters out soon, but Johnson has been quite noisy in opposing it. If the BBC is forced through public, media and government pressure to back down this will smash a huge hole in BBC finances and is the nearest term threat to the BBC.
• Decriminalisation of non-payment. Would knock a huge hole in the BBC finances again, and effectively require a different funding model prior to 2027. Would compound issues of enforcement for the over-75s, even if that does go ahead.
• Control over the Director General appointment, currently Tony Hall, due to leave during the course of this parliament, no later than 2022, but surely sooner rather than later.

BBC

It is also fair to say that the BBC has not been the best custodian of its own interest. The second annual Ofcom report that came out last year identified a huge problem with governance:
In the absence of a clearly articulated and transparent plan it is difficult for us to judge how much progress is being made and whether these steps will be far reaching enough to deliver substantive progress for audiences in these key areas.

That's damning - you haven't got a clearly stated plan and haven't produced any metrics by which it is possible to measure progress.

At the same time, one of the key Ofcom report demands – more engagement with young people to ensure sustainable viewing figures, is the crux of a really difficult, almost impossible problem.

Younger people are consuming media across more channels of distribution than ever before (YouTube, Netflix, social media being the obvious and commonly stated examples), with a result that the BBC is no longer channel that has the same for the people who will make up the audiences of the future. Ofcom saying, and it's an argument that will be given more voice by the media and government if they choose to go to war with the BBC on those five points above, that if you can't meet future viewing requirements, you can't justify the funding structure.

As traditional modes diverge more from what are seen as future modes (streaming, OTT etc), the ability to provide for everyone gets harder and harder, and requires maintaining two different technical platforms and sets of workflow. (Digital first).

The requirement for a wider range of content, meeting more widely diverse interests and demographics, across a number of platforms, will drive more cost, with funding decreasing. it's very unclear how that's winnable without a benevolent government. More, the BBC will not make money from news but from the international sale of dramatic content via BBC Studios. It's not clear how current affairs fits into that commercial model. Basically, 'impartial news' will be in a very weakly state.

Well there are lots of ways to make money globally. BBC News is a trusted brand across the world and much more can be done, not just in the US, to monetize rolling news, apps, etc. Studios also owns UKTV which in turn owns Dave, Gold, intl streaming rights to natural history content etc. I won't pretend to understand it all but Tim Davie ran Studios for many years before taking this job so I expect this side of it he'll be taking a particular interest in.

As far as justifying the license fee goes you're right. It's a paradox. The audiences that are growing up without a BBC habit are by definition harder to reach, so how do you do that with a shrinking budget? There's a related structural paradox built into the BBC as well, in the form of the distribution policy, which requires full length programmes to only be available on platforms controlled by the BBC. It's sensible, insofar as if the BBC decided to put out programmes on Facebook, and then Facebook tweaked their algorithm, suddenly the service isn't 'universal', it's just reaching whoever Facebook has decided it ought to reach that week. But it means that the BBC has to try and drive young, diverse audiences to visit - and keep visiting - platforms that are universally old: live TV, iPlayer, Sounds - their audience profiles are all old. And do that with less money.

koogs here's the schedule to R1 Dance, it's just not linked anywhere on the web version of Sounds yet:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/schedules/p080kbtk#on-now

In terms of the new DG, even though he does have this Tory bullshit in his past, he is much more tuned into the the brass tacks of the marketplace than Lord Hall who felt like he was always just kind of floating by on a cloud of elite institutionalism. So I do think that's an improvement.

As soon as I heard that there was an opporunity to play Jimmy Savile I grabbed the opportunity with both hands. I'm well known for playing villians and playing Mr Saville, some would say the greatest villian of all, is not something I could pass up. So I called the producers at the BBC and told them [Eddie laughs] I think I told them if they didn't cast me I was going to kill my family and then myself. Thank good I got the role otherwise I probably would have gone through with it too.

the bizarre and horrible Eddie Marsan opens up his terribly formed thoughts about playing Savile, well he always was a strong Sure Start advocate!

He’s gross.

lol probably some twitter parody, but I can never tell the difference tbh. Being that he is so grossly beyond parody to start with!

xp to Tracer Hand

Well there are lots of ways to make money globally. BBC News is a trusted brand across the world and much more can be done, not just in the US, to monetize rolling news, apps, etc. Studios also owns UKTV which in turn owns Dave, Gold, intl streaming rights to natural history content etc. I won't pretend to understand it all but Tim Davie ran Studios for many years before taking this job so I expect this side of it he'll be taking a particular interest in.

yeah i've been wondering about this. the contractual arrangements between BBC Studios and the BBC are a *nightmare* (they have to be to maintain a commercial/public service chinese wall between the two). But yes, there's plenty of opportunities with BBC Studios - will it be enough to fund a public service broadcaster, without getting rid of its public service remit though? i doubt it and i doubt anyone at BBC Studios would want studios profit put into non-profit programmes designed to cater to the UK's diversity requirements.

I do also wonder about the digital space. I (wrongly) thought that Britbox would be a flop because it couldn't get new flagship productions, which more often than not these days are co produced with the likes of Netflix. In fact it's done wonders as a sort of vehicle of UK sentiment, which of course is a gold mine. it's quite easy to call it Brexit streaming, but that's a bit unfair - i watched Boys from the Blackstuff on it recently, and it's got lots of good stuff on; if you want brexit tv just watch the daytime linear stuff. But there's no doubt which demographic it's catering for.

agree with you on Tim Davie.

Finally got the Sounds app so I can listen to the radio in bed

i doubt anyone at BBC Studios would want studios profit put into non-profit programmes designed to cater to the UK's diversity requirements.

Well the whole set-up is designed to plow money back into the domestic coffers of the BBC. As you say there's a hard divide between commissioning and programme-making and Studios is essentially a mega-indie at this point. They could theoretically make zero programmes for the BBC and pursue big deals with i.e. Netflix and Spotify. The profits would flow back to the BBC though. IME staff are fine with that and even kind of proud of it.

But yes, there's plenty of opportunities with BBC Studios - will it be enough to fund a public service broadcaster, without getting rid of its public service remit though?

No, not even under the most optimistic scenarios. That said I do think there is a massive amount that can be done that's not currently being done. It's not just about what Studios produces, it's about exploitation of existing domestic titles. Why not sell all the dramas straight into the ex-UK Audible catalog for, say, 5 years? etc. Britbox is an interesting example. I also thought it would flop. In a way it's just the next iteration of https://store.bbc.com/ (another Tim Davie joint) - but with optimized delivery and a subscription model. But it seems to be doing okay.

NV if you're over 35 I hope you lied about your age when you signed up for Sounds. We have KPIs to hit.

lol i have no idea what it says on long-standing BBC sign-in, took me a couple of goes to remember the password

If you created your login more than, say, 3 years ago you didn't need to give an age. Ah well.

next tame i'm looking i'll make meself 17 again

Ta!

shocking news, my birth year is the one field it won't let me change :O

Starve the kids not a news story apparently! Basically nothing on the BBC news website about this ongoing controversy but there is some Pro gov anti migrant stuff.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54642788 is on the politics page but yeah