Lets stop the state controlling our media

The current unease with 'the corporation' (as the BBC is known on this blog) can be divided into four areas. Obviously you may slice the cake differently but here is my take.

The first topic is standards. Since the dawn of time 'the corporation' has been telling us that the existence of a "non commercial" broadcaster raises standards across the board. In order to prove themselves wrong they then spent a great deal of money employing Jonathan Ross. Obviously Jonathan's lack of moral judgement causes him to stand out but in the general trend to chase ratings his is not an isolated case.

Secondly there is trust. We grew up naively placing our trust in Blue Peter. "Let nation speak truth unto nation" was Reith's motto. We believed it all. But now we know that Blue Peter was playing fast and loose with the truth, so how can we really trust the current affairs programming any more.

Which leads neatly to the topic of bias. Perhaps this a minority view but it is a significant one. Personally I think that the BBC is overly trusted by many people and that therefore its bias is often not percieved. In general its bias is fairly subtle and will not be picked up by those who do not watch other news providers.

Finally there is cost. Like most government organisations 'the corporation' is not very efficient in managing its budget. In order to get the money it sometimes employs rather unethical tactics to collect from the vulnerable.

What can be done about any of this? Unfortunately there is no easy answer. 45000 people complained about Ross and Brand's Sachsgate abuse. Has Ross been fired? In less than a year 32000 people have complained about the tactics of TV Licensing. Has anything changed? How can an organisation be so unresponsive to its customers? Only because it has no financial accountability. The Licence Fee (or Tax as it should be called) is collected from anyone watching any channel. Clearly if a commercial broadcaster had employed Ross then they would have ditched him when he became a liability. Only a state sponsored organisation has the backing to tough out that sort of storm.

The state has no place running broadcasting media. Perhaps during the war the government could argue that in order to combat the Nazi menace it needed control of the airwaves, there is no such credible argument these days.

The idea of nationalised industries is deeply discredited these days. Indeed Britain has led the world in showing that toxic government owned industries can be turned round in the private sector. The British government has given up running railways, airlines, telephones, coal mines, electricity generation, gas distribution, steel manufacture and various other enterprises. In most cases the outcome has been a newly profitable industry and vastly improved consumer choice. The question is why the British government feels that it needs to run a television station and numerous radio stations.

Some will say that the BBC provides for public service and minority interests that commercial channels based on advertising or subscription would ignore. Fair enough, the government should provide public service obligation contracts which any organisation can bid for. A similar system already exists for allocating railway franchises. If there is a need to fund a Gaelic language broadcasting service in the Scottish Highlands; then bids should be requested for this job. Similarly, operation of Radio 4's Droitwich transmitter has a role in the governments emergency planning which may justify direct support. As incumbent the BBC might well win these contracts but only if it was able to demonstrate that it was providing a quality product and value for money. Clearly there is no need for the government to fund entertainment channels in England as this is a commercially viable operation.

The BBC claims that it provides value for money. Indeed there are people who state that they are happy to pay the licence fee. I have no quarrel with these arguments, I simply ask that they accept the logic of their own argument and put their claims to the test. The technology exists to encode transmissions and ensure that only subscribers can view transmissions. If people are happy to pay for the BBC then that is thier choice and I will respect it. As of today my choice is not to watch the BBC and I would ask that my choices are respected and my rights not infringed.

Allowing consumers choice is the best guarantee of quality output. Simply throwing government money (the licence fee) at a single organisation will inevitably produce a complacent and slack system which can ignore what the consumers want.