Forum Topic

The Slow Death of the BBC

I was vaguely aware of how these might be difficult times for the BBC but until I read some coverage of recent event and spoke to people with some direct knowledge this weekend, I had little conception of how bad things where. The four hundred or so people who were sacked recently were told in no uncertain terms that they lost their jobs because the corporation needed to make savings after all the pay increases that became necessary after the Samira Ahmed judgement. They are so terrified of legal action about unfair pay (even from men) that they have erred on the side of caution. As they can no longer use the excuse of celebrity or public profile for paying someone more then they have to pay 'star' wages to people who are clearly not stars.  If this was the extent of their problems then they could weather the storm but this government (particular Dominic Cummings) really wants the corporation dismantled. The decriminalisation of non payment of the licence fee might seem a rational and fair move but it will have a massive impact on the BBC's finances as well having to fund over-75s licence fees. Restrictions on licence fee increases means that the ongoing squeeze on the BBC will continue and accelerate. Like most organisations forced to cut costs they seem incapable of trimming in the middle management executive positions where most of the fat is and content creation is where most of the jobs are going. They also have quite intractable unions to deal with and a pension fund deficit of £1.9bn and rising. Increasingly what's left of the BBC licence fee will go to fund this deficit and the pay of an unsackable but unproductive layer of middle management and fewer and fewer programmes will be made.

Gordon Southwell ● 2249d26 Comments

I don't know about the government but the BBC certainly tried to threaten me with the loss of my pension unless I agreed to stay on for longer when I resigned way back in '83.I was rather taken aback at the discovery that they had the right to do this.But not as taken aback as the engineering manager was when I informed him that I did not have any pension contributions for him to threaten to confiscate as I had not made any in the first place due to a quirk in the payroll processing within BBC HR.One frequently hears of people losing their pension for all manner of reasons - many of which make me feel distinctly queasy. And then there is the ability of employers to "fine" one one's whole income for life based on them simply disagreeing with something that has happened.  A penalty which absolutely dwarfs any fine that a court might see fit to issue.

Tony Colliver ● 2238d

I think it needs to be recognised that like many large organisations the BBC has a significant amount of embedded cost which simply can't be reduced by efficiencies including the need to fund pensions. It is on a fixed income and will have rising costs to deal with like any other business. That means if you reduce its revenues what gets cut will disproportionately be in the production of programmes so advocating what the government is doing is effectively dismantling the whole organisation.It should not be pretended that any other than the BBC faces an existental threat right now and so you are either for it or against it. Certainly it has flaws, what major institution doesn't?, and it could save money here and there to make better use of the licence fee which in itself is effectively a regressive tax. However, if you want the BBC to survive now is not the time to be focusing on its faults.

Andy Jones ● 2238d

There is some evidence of change along the lines that you outline afoot - witness the recent proposed reorganisation of news so that programmes (such as Newsnight) will no longer have their own dedicated correspondents but draw upon a common pool of subject area expertise which will be employed by all programmes as and when needed.

Tony Colliver ● 2238d

They behave as though money grew on trees. They already have North American correspondents so why send Emily Maitlis out there. I can never get it out of my head Huw Edwards being flown out TWICE to read the news from the Beijing Olympics- as though they would be different! And why, pray, does a whole Army need to be sent to Glastonbury. There's also the wasteful overlap of each radio & TV station sending out staff to cover the same news. Do they not talk to each other & send a rep for all. I could carry on but we'd be here all day.

Bettina Margaret Thwaite ● 2238d

Where have I suggested 'dismantling the whole organisation'?

Keith Iddon ● 2240d

Sorry I thought I had made myself clear. Some but not all of the things I list would not be provided by a commercial channel. I wouldn't dispute that non-licence fee funded broadcasters can make excellent programmes but nobody is claiming that the BBC is the only channel that could do this.If you believe there is 'no effective mechanism to hold aspects of the beeb to account' why isn't more regulation your answer rather than the dismantling of the whole organisation?

Andy Jones ● 2240d

I agree, Andy,  but there seems to be no effective mechanism to hold aspects of the beeb to account.Staff there don't seem to be able to self regulate when it comes to awareness and forethought.I agree that  many of the programmes on your list are worthwhile, but it's not really what the debate is about imo, and you can't argue when it comes to taste.There are probably as many or more equally worthy shows on commercial tv, there being so many channels nowadays.

Keith Iddon ● 2240d

I think you would come to rue the day a government could take away the pension entitlements of current and future employees of an organisation they wanted to target for political purposes.As has been pointed out, the sprawling entity that is the BBC has many flaws and I'm sure there are many more examples you could quote but against that you need to put the following which are just a small sample of what the BBC provides:David Attenborough's nature documentariesIn Our TimeDoctor WhoThe World ServiceQuality regional news programmes on radio and TVIPlayerLine of DutyFawlty TowersThe ArchersRadio Six MusicKilling EveYou and YoursLive football commentary on 5 Live uninterrupted by adsThe Two RonniesFree to air broadcast of protected sports eventsPanoramaTest Match SpecialEastendersSherlockPride and Prejudice (The one with Colin Firth)Book at BedtimeBlue PeterYou may not like some or all of these contributions but people across the country do and many of them would never be provided by a subscription or ad funded broadcast network.

Andy Jones ● 2240d

The BBC has a lot to answer for imo..Savile, the hounding of Cliff Richard, I could go on. Whenever they are fined, the money comes for the public purse, so it's me and you who pay. Perhaps payment of fines from their pension pot would help to focus minds on what their role should be and sticking to it.

Keith Iddon ● 2241d

But this overlapping coverage costs a lot of money. Because a story has a national and local perspective we see this wastage in the crews, equipment and vehicles that are in attendance. This has been a long running criticism. But within the BBC the national news has been treated with reverence despite the quality and depth declining since the Birt years. The drama, documentaries and other aspects are still excellent. But newsgathering as such when it came into being was meant to stop that overlap. But it is the internal politics of who covers a story. The should have got over that years ago and accepted it. Channel 4 News is the best now and ITN is better than BBC. as a BBC pensioner it is sad to accept that but that is the truth.

Peter Chadburn ● 2241d

The BBC is far from perfect and it could clearly operate more efficiently but there are probably complex reasons for overlapping coverage which make a simple solution to this particular issue hard to come by. The danger in focusing on the BBC's many flaws is that we realise the far great value it provided only when it disappears. We've already made a mistake of that nature recently. As someone has pointed out an annual subscription to the newspaper that the government chose to leak their intention to scrap the licence fee costs more than twice as much as the licence fee.

Gordon Southwell ● 2241d

I find it worrying that there are people who refuse to be open minded to many aspects of today's society.  That does not mean that you have to agree to or promote everything that you don't agree with.We are part of a bigger world and need to take part in it and not pretend that it is not there.  Our children need to be encouraged to understand and take part in a bigger world.  Painting nails and faces and taking selfies and dreaming of fame should just be a part of it and not all of it.  There is so much more and finding something else to catch your enthusiasm and to make a career out of can bring with it a very interesting and satisfying future.

Philippa Bond ● 2241d

There is waste when we see multiple journalists all at the same place. That is something that has been seen for years. If you look at the news then they run far fewer news items than years ago. There is less depth to that reporting. Luckily we still have Panorama but sadly are losing victoria derbyshire. as for question time i see this as reducing politics to a bear pit. it has been used as entertainment and in our very divided country is making things worse. channel 4 news and itv news are far better

Peter Chadburn ● 2241d

Looks like the idea of a slow death is overly optimistic. The weekend press are suggesting that Johnson is fully committed to getting rid of the licence fee and this isn't just a case of deranged blue sky thinking from Dominic Cummings but a personal crusade of the PM. He clearly has not forgiven the BBC for its election coverage. It is a policy which is likely to prove popular with a large section of the country. The BBC has been inept in the way that it has allowed the conversation to focus on how highly paid many of its staff are. It is true that the licence fee is essentially a regressive tax the proceeds of which go to fund a broadcaster which is focused on the needs of the middle class but without it the BBC ceases to exist and Johnson knows this.  Subscription models such as Netflix have been built up on mountains of debt and are rarely profitable so it isn't a viable alternative for the BBC. The fact that people need to focus on is that the BBC have massive financial commitments such as staff contracts and their pension fund that won't disappear if you take away the licence fee. Any reduction in their income is going to come directly out of programming and if you reduce it enough it will cease to exist as a viable broadcaster but will still need public funding.

Gordon Southwell ● 2241d

For news you have RT and France 24. Watch the debate every evening from 1800 - 1900hrs. Very good and often English experts and journalists from Huff Post etc. If you were given a choice of whether to pay a licence I am sure most people would opt out. Euro news has a really good balance in their news coverage. BBC always cover the British sport not alpine sports and moto racing  not even much about the Isle of Man TT. Nothing about the running in the Sahara. Nothing about the Paris Dakar rally etc. Very insular.

Nicholas Beard ● 2244d

If you speak to people from other countries who don't have a licence fee system they are often very envious of the BBC and the quality of our television.That said, it is essentially a broadcaster largely catering to the middle class and older generations funded by a flat rate of tax which falls most heavily on the poor and criminalises many of them. The fact that In Our Time is one of the most wonderful things in broadcasting is likely to be of little solace to someone facing jail for non-payment. You may accuse people of bitterness James but they might respond by suggesting you are being complacent.If the BBC is claiming it needs to match commercial broadcasters then it needs to operate more like a commercial operation. One answer could be that the licence fee revenue should not be used to fund any broadcast or other production in which any of the participants is being paid over £150,000 per annum. These should be paid for out of income from BBC Worldwide. Otherwise the BBC model seems to be that they have to pay commercial rates but without the constraint of needing to operate profitably.

Christine Mulligan ● 2245d

Anyone who believes the nonsense about Trump buying the NHS CIA clearly caught up in the wrong arguments and is misguided.In my view the BBC’s news reporting has gotten better and the dramas they produce are of a very high quality. They do have to compete with commercial providers and paying market rate is a consequence. The bitterness on here is quite sad.

James Putland ● 2245d

I guess, as the BBC's competitors are commercial companies, what they spend and pay and borrow is their concern and not for their paying customers to know too much about, so I doubt if Sky has to tell anyone what they pay their presenters, unlike the BBC.  Suggestions that the BBC should be funded 'like Netflix' don't really make sense, as Netflix operates with billions of pounds of debts to fund its operation and to help wipe out any competition.

Peter Evans ● 2246d

is very important to democracy.  The BBC licence fee costs very little compared to some of the alternatives.Do we know how much everybody in the alternatives is paid - or is that just something that those with the knives out aren't interested in?

Philippa Bond ● 2247d

The BBC is a complex operation providing a wide range of services. That the quality is variable and has declined is not in dispute but that is a function of a financial squeeze. It still provides a massive amount of output of a kind which makes it indispensible for the nation. Wishing it out of existance is dangerous nonsense. The flaws which you highlight are real but you are ignoring all the positive things that the corporation provides.Peter is right about how they need to stop paying celebrities such high salaries. In a funny sort of way the road to their redemption may lie in the Samira Ahmed judgment. Although it is causing lots of pain right now it has established the principle that they can't in the future be so subjective about how they pay people and the reward for fulfilling a role remains pretty much the same  no matter who they are.This could end any notion of a star culture at the BBC and it could become the nursery for broadcast talent. If someone excels at a role then a commercial station will recruit them and the BBC will replace them with someone hopefully similarly talented who hasn't yet had their chance. In football terms the BBC have been acting as if they are Chelsea, buying in talent, but now they need to structure themselves like Brentford, developing talent and selling it on knowing there is a system in place for seamless replacement.

Andy Jones ● 2247d

Peter, your argument is entirely financial. The dreck that the BBC now produces and screens is a matter of appalling quality. Like many people following an Abrahamic faith I find much novel programming unwatchable, which the American equivalent series are so much better and the writers appear to be capable of addressing complex politically correct issues without ramming crude moral judgements down the throats of the proles. What is more BBC news coverage at a local level is non-existent and the national stuff lacks basic journalistic form (Who, What, Where, When, How). Likewise grammar is suspect.The BBC is "not fit for purpose" it should be sold off or closed down. I no longer watch its news or programmes.Perhaps Donal Trump would like to buy it instead of the NHS?

Mark Julian Raymond ● 2248d

As a longstanding ex-BBC staffer and ex-union rep, I have to say the BBC has had it coming for years over its excessive levels of executive and celebrity pay.  Back in the day, when we had clearly set out 'rates for the job' and annual increments that covered all staff, including management, it was no secret what everyone got paid.  But then along came Mrs Thatcher with her original campaign to break up the BBC, and it was forced to introduce 'the internal market' and the 'independent quota', cutting the number of staff it employed and putting work out to private production companies. The BBC also moved away from the established pay structures for its staff and started introducing 'personally negotiated salaries'.  It also felt obliged to pay 'the market rate' for upper management and on-screen talent. Nobody knew what anyone was getting paid nor why, and we soon started getting discriminatory pay cases popping up, years before the recent celebrities. And while the number of productive BBC staff became fewer as it produced fewer of its programme in-house, management structures became more elaborate and executive pay went through the roof. It's now increasingly difficult to make a case for the BBC's 'unique role in the UK's public life', or whatever, but the fact remains that the present licence fee is hugely better value than any alternative combination of Netflix, Prime, Sky, Disney and the rest.

Peter Evans ● 2248d

I am just glad it is going, I find much of the programmingoffensive and I do not think that I should be paying for the  prduction let alone distribution of such content. No doubt other people find things that I approve of offensive, and that is where pay-on-demand or subscription TV comes into play, you pay for what you want to watch and not for what you do not want to watch.I would go further and say close the BBC, not just abolish the licence fee. If there is a business there then the Americans will be all over it

Mark Julian Raymond ● 2248d

Think you mean Jeremy rather than Tim.He doesn't do the comparable show any more so cutting his salary wasn't an option. Samira Ahmed was claiming back pay for the difference when the were doing the two roles at the same time.The big unintended consequence of the judgment is that the BBC's salary costs have increased significantly. You can't easily reduce people's salaries so the only way you can equalise pay is to increase that of the lower paid person. In some cases this will have to be a man getting paid more because a woman in an equivalent position is on a higher rate.As the BBC is on a fixed income, if you increase pay you have to decrease the number of people you are paying.

Andy Jones ● 2248d

Perhaps they should have considered cutting Tim Vine's salary instead of increasing Samira Ahmed's?

Susan Kelly ● 2248d

Gordon, IMO the BBC has had it coming for decades. Poor quality programming, endless political correctness inserted everywhere, poor reporting standards. I have watched no TV for months now, quality programming is only available online.The news and current affairs is trivilised beyond belief and the emphasis on making everything politically correct rather than correct

Mark Julian Raymond ● 2248d