TV Home Forum

A Decentralised BBC?

Info from BBC's 2003 Annual Report (see p 6) (February 2004)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
:-(
A former member
Over in this thread: http://www.tvforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=165350#165350,

stuartfanning posted:
I don't think people in Scotland and N Ireland would agree with you, as they are hoping for complete independence from BBC London.


To which I made the following reply. I'm posting this in the main forum because I think the issue of whether the regions deserve more attention at the BBC is worth considering, especially as we approach charter review.

Phileas Fogg posted:
They ought to have complete independence from London (says I!).

Except, you see, these superficially anti-imperialist modernists at the BBC, who would axe the Globe as a despicable symbol of cultural tyranny and elitism, would naturally expect the Scots, Irish and Welsh to subjugate themselves to London for the good of British Broadcasting.

Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland are more important than the English regions, because there are greater cultural distinctions and differences that should be recognised by a decentralised BBC. At the very least one of the BBC's channels, say BBC1 or BBC2, should be almost entirely regional in its output (like France3 is). Furthermore, the BBC should move some of its administrative offices out of London and to places like Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh/Glasgow simply because stable and good government jobs shouldn't be crammed into London exclusively. Can't accounts receivable clerks work away from the production studios in an age where the Internet and electronic communications makes it possible for American companies to outsource tax preparation services to India? I agree very much with this point. For the last 75 years the BBC has been organised under a concept of grand centralisation which no longer lends itself to value for money or to forward thinking. Furthermore, over these years the Irish, Welsh and Scottish cultures have had to play second-fiddle to English culture as they are expressed on television. Wales waited until 1982 for S4C, and before that it was necessary for the Welsh to content themselves with sporadic Welsh-language programming on the BBC (and never, ever in prime time). And what about viewers in Northern Ireland who had to contend with a BBC National News that was more interested in reporting on the latest IRA bombing incident than in stressing the complexity of the dispute and showing how it affected normal people in their day-to-day lives.

What utter, total and despicable irony!

The French language Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (the SRC) is independent of English broadcasting, although both report to the same board of directors. Just as there's a Canadian Broadcasting Centre in Toronto, there's the Masion Radio-Canada in Montreal. The BBC might consider doing this.
Last edited by A former member on 20 February 2004 2:29am - 3 times in total
BB
BBC unTALENT
A decentralised BBC may be better for the regions, but we all know why ITV is moving away from this model - because it is inefficient.

With the TV licence under threat, the last thing the BBC will and can do is spend more money on decentralisation. And anyway, what is the point? Regional programming and identity can be made stronger without decentralisation...

It will simply lead to a defragmented BBC, with varying levels of quality between stronger and smaller regional centres.

All of the benefits, such as stronger and consistent branding and a more unified and 'connected' network have only been achieved now by ITV since the consolidation of the franchisees. It would be a tragedy for the BBC to move away from this model.

Some people say that the BBC is very London-centric. This may be true but doesn't need to be broken up to be tackled - there just needs to be a change in the BBC's mindset - The BBC cater for minority groups very well. If only they put as much effort into the regions of the UK, they'd be laughing...
MA
marksi
Quote:
I don't think people in Scotland and N Ireland would agree with you, as they are hoping for complete independence from BBC London.


Are we? There you go. You learn something every day.

Rolling Eyes
GS
Gavin Scott Founding member
Phileas Fogg posted:
Furthermore, over these years the Irish, Welsh and Scottish cultures have had to play second-fiddle to English culture as they are expressed on television.

Would you mind citing examples to support your statement? In my experience the opposite is true. Forgive me for asking, but are you not resident in the US? If so then how can you possibly pass judgement on the various outputs?

As a BBC Scotland viewer I have no desire to see the current set up changed. BBC One and Two Scotland have a full mix of home-grown current affairs, drama, light entertainment and documentary throughout the schedules. Every junction is announced from Scotland (on BBC One at least), giving a VERY strong Scottish identity.

In fact, before I go on, I would like you to address the questions I have put to you.
BB
BBC unTALENT
Gavin Scott posted:
As a BBC Scotland viewer I have no desire to see the current set up changed. BBC One and Two Scotland have a full mix of home-grown current affairs, drama and documentary throughout the schedules. Every junction is announced from Scotland (on BBC One at least), giving a VERY strong Scottish identity.


I actually think the other nations have a stronger on-screen identity than BBC England (which doesn't exist) does... doesn't bother me in the slightest...
:-(
A former member
psnowdon posted:
A decentralised BBC may be better for the regions, but we all know why ITV is moving away from this model - because it is inefficient.


Centralisation in ITV's case is supposed to create more shareholder value. But, I suspect that they're using all these mergers to clean up their heavy debt loads and quitely write off their losses in ITV Digital.

But the BBC isn't supposed to be a monster of efficiency. It's a public broadcaster paid for by the public. The BBC should provide programming that private enterprises choose not to provide. So your efficiency argument is not valid in my view.

psnowdon posted:
With the TV licence under threat, the last thing the BBC will and can do is spend more money on decentralisation. And anyway, what is the point? Regional programming and identity can be made stronger without decentralisation...


People in Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and even places like Manchester and Bristol don't want programmes about their "neck of the woods" made in London by Londoners for them. I suspect they want some ownership over their own media resources. While ITV, Rupert Murdoch, etc., may pursue centralisation strategies that leave the regions out of the decision making and creative processes, I think the BBC should include the regions.

psnowdon posted:
It will simply lead to a defragmented BBC, with varying levels of quality between stronger and smaller regional centres.


I disagree with that also. The government could allocate the BBC's funding in such a way that compensated smaller centres so that they wouldn't have to take a cut in quality. Or regions could be defined in such a way that funding disparities were minimised.

Furthermore, are you seriously willing to tell the Irish, Welsh and Scots that they culture need not receive greater attention simply because you're too cheap to pay for it? Or, rather, that you'd prefer the lion's share of the funding be spent in London?

There's a reason that separatist parties exist in NI, Wales and Scotland, you know.

psnowdon posted:
All of the benefits, such as stronger and consistent branding and a more unified and 'connected' network have only been achieved now by ITV since the consolidation of the franchisees. It would be a tragedy for the BBC to move away from this model.


Why is a unified network necessary? ITV ran very well for years with no dominant central office. And consistent branding hasn't produced astronomical ratings gains for the BBC (after all, people knew what the BBC was long before the concept of branding was popular). Do you work for an advertising or marketing agency of some sort that's connected to the BBC? I suspect that all this nonsense about branding is really an excuse to spend lots of money on adverts and billboards and logos and other nonsense without having to really focus on improving the programming (which is what everyone watches anyway).

psnowdon posted:
Some people say that the BBC is very London-centric. This may be true but doesn't need to be broken up to be tackled - there just needs to be a change in the BBC's mindset - The BBC cater for minority groups very well. If only they put as much effort into the regions of the UK, they'd be laughing...


They don't put the effort into the regions because the focus is on the hub of the empire in London. How do you suppose you might bring about this change of focus without decentralisation? Another expensive study? Maybe another expensive marketing campaign? You'll spend money researching options for years while an intelligently organised decentralisation could bring about these results quickly.
TV
TVDragon
Phileas Fogg posted:
People in Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and even places like Manchester and Bristol don't want programmes about their "neck of the woods" made in London by Londoners for them.

There's a great amount of programming made locally in Wales, and for Wales, for BBC1+2, S4C and 2W, that are about "their neck of the woods". But there's only so much woods you can talk about. As for 2W, quite honestly if there are any more programmes made about Wales involving boats, countryside or Iolo Williams, then it really will be too much.

And Welsh programming doesn't have to be in Welsh, and didn't start in 1982 -- there was plenty on BBC Wales before then in English, in primetime, and there continues to be plenty. I don't particularly want any more decentralisation or "more attention" as you put it, for Wales, it's just right as it is. And I don't think the average viewer would thank you either.

I think there's more of a case for areas of England getting a bit more provision, using local companies.


Phileas Fogg posted:
There's a reason that separatist parties exist in NI, Wales and Scotland, you know.

I can't speak for Scotland, but the number of Plaid AMs halved at the last election in 2003. They may exist, but they're not very popular percentage-wise.
Last edited by TVDragon on 16 February 2004 8:43pm - 5 times in total
:-(
A former member
Gavin Scott posted:
Would you mind citing examples to support your statement? In my experience the opposite is true. Forgive me for asking, but are you not resident in the US? If so then how can you possibly pass judgement on the various outputs?

As a BBC Scotland viewer I have no desire to see the current set up changed. BBC One and Two Scotland have a full mix of home-grown current affairs, drama, light entertainment and documentary throughout the schedules. Every junction is announced from Scotland (on BBC One at least), giving a VERY strong Scottish identity.

In fact, before I go on, I would like you to address the questions I have put to you.


I live in North America now, but I've also lived in the UK.

Examples:

1. S4C not formed until 1982. Welsh-language programming not in prime time on the BBC before that.
2. BBC National News has shown bias against the IRA and been skeptical of Sinn Fein.
3. The lion's share of BBC production money is spent in England.

When was the last time you heard of a Belfast firm being awarded the contract to produce idents for any BBC channel? What about producing documentaries, or network-wide prime time shows?

The full-mix of home grown current affairs you talk about is true in Scotland, but less so in the other regions. Nobody else has a regional opt-out for Newsnight anymore. Why not?

I'm trying to emphasise the need to spend the government's money where it is collected. People in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland all pay the 112 quid each year and I wonder if an amount equivalent to what is collected is then spent by the BBC in each region?

Ultimately, if there is a finite amount of money to be spent on a cultural institution like the BBC, why should Londoners benefit from expropriating the license fee from the regions?
Last edited by A former member on 16 February 2004 8:43pm
BB
BBC unTALENT
Phileas Fogg posted:
...


But hang on, who is actually saying there is a problem? Everyone here so far who actually lives un the UK is happy with the way things are. AS far as news on N24 and the National News, there has been critism about a London-bias, but a far as the rest of the BBC empire is concerned, I'd say that nobody is really left out...
:-(
A former member
psnowdon posted:
But hang on, who is actually saying there is a problem? Everyone here so far who actually lives un the UK is happy with the way things are.


You don't have any statistics to quote on BBC approval ratings, do you?

I'm trying to argue that the regions deserve their fair share of expenditure, since they pay the license fee too:

Phileas Fogg posted:
I'm trying to emphasise the need to spend the government's money where it is collected. People in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland all pay the 112 quid each year and I wonder if an amount equivalent to what is collected is then spent by the BBC in each region?

Ultimately, if there is a finite amount of money to be spent on a cultural institution like the BBC, why should Londoners benefit from expropriating the license fee from the regions?
BB
BBC unTALENT
Phileas Fogg posted:
2. BBC National News has shown bias against the IRA and been skeptical of Sinn Fein.


Not bias, just over-senitivity... something that most British people supported, including myself. I don't see the US networks acting with as much objectivity towards Al Qaeda and other 'terrorist' groups...

A matter, as a foreigner, you have no right to comment on unless you fully understand the sensitivities that surrounds it.

Phileas Fogg posted:
Nobody else has a regional opt-out for Newsnight anymore. Why not?


The Politic Show is new. That has a regional opt out.

Phileas Fogg posted:
Londoners benefit from expropriating the license fee from the regions?


How do Londoners benefit exactly?
PE
Pete Founding member
Phileas Fogg posted:
Nobody else has a regional opt-out for Newsnight anymore. Why not?


Scotland still does and it's totally pointless. What a load of tripe Phileas, apart from the news there isn't a London bias on the BBC, if anything there are not enough English people.
Last edited by Pete on 16 February 2004 8:55pm

Newer posts