I wonder whether it’s because the BBC, being the largest broadcaster in the world, the world’s biggest news gathering agency and news provider reaching the most homes globally, triggers some kind of short-circuit in some American’s heads.
“A publicly owned corporation couldn’t possibly outperform a market-based one. Free market always best! Invisible hand! Wah!”
Let’s not get dogmatic about this. Measured in purely commercial terms, the BBC does indeed underperform US networks. It costs what, 3bn a year to run and doesn’t earn much apart from selling a few shows abroad. But presumably you don’t want to judge the BBC on purely commercial terms, so arguments about the merits of free markets are kind of irrelevant.
You can’t even compare the BBC & American network television. They operate under two completely different models & have different missions.
The BBC’s mission:
Whereas the mission of American broadcasting companies is to make their shareholders as much money as possible…
And they both are very good at what they do…
Well, 6 episode seasons can be too short, for a sitcom. I wished for there to be more episodes of The Office, The Thick of It…etc. I think a 15-18 episode season but only 3 seasons at most, unless exceptional, is ideal. For situational dramas with a concrete story arc, the BBC length of 6-13 episodes is apt.
Usram, I much prefer HIGNFY to Stewart & co., although the latter do have their uses.
Yeah, but the commercial networks make their money by entertaining and informing. I don’t know about “educating”, but then I don’t see many educational programmes in BBC1’s listings today either. Watching a Dale Winton gameshow or the Lottery draw is probably not going to improve me as a person.
Maybe you’re not going to find the educational programming on BBC1 in primetime on a Saturday, but on BBC2 tonight:
19.05-20.05 Coast - The team is in north-west England, on a journey with a new location - the Isle of Man.
20.05-21.05 Stephen Fry in America - Stephen Fry heads south from Montana to Texas, admiring the Rocky Mountains along the way.
21.05-00.10 The Fallen- Families of those who have died in Afghanistan and Iraq talk openly about their loved ones
And on BBC 4 tonight:
19.05-20.05 Picture Book - A look at the books we first learn to read, from Alice in Wonderland to Winnie the Pooh.
20.05-21.05 Natural World - Award-winning film about about Echo the elephant in Kenya’s Amboseli National Park
21.05-22.05 Natural World - A portrait of a British river, chronicling the the wildlife that lives in and around it.
‘Educate’ doesn’t necessarily mean explicitly ‘educational’ programmes. Documentaries and other factual programmes can educate, too.
I haven’t noticed anyone mention anything about editorial control. But if the channel is funded from the tax coffers, congratulations, you’ve not a government run TV channel. You can’t argue that definition.
You’re conflating two different interviews. Abrams, et al, did reveal in an interview that they had a definite beginning, middle and end mapped out, but the in between was a blank slate. They also stated that originally that in between could be told in 3 or 4 seasons, but that they were prepared to stretch it out if the show became a hit as long as they were able to use their definite beginning, middle and end.
See reply #17.
I don’t quite get what point you’re making here, but the BBC isn’t funded from tax revenue, anyway.
Just because it’s called a “license fee” doesn’t mean it’s not a tax.
And no one implied the government has direct editorial control over the BBC, just that the programmers know that the vast majority of their funds come from a government tax (75% per Wikipedia).
WGA Writer weighing in to say: GOD I WISH THEY WOULD.
(Some Cable/Public TV allows us to do this with the mini-series / MotW approach, but it’s nowhere near the same…)
I think the truth lies somewhere in between. The licence fee is not a tax in that it does not come out of government revenue – it is collected by the BBC directly from TV owners – but it is a tax in that it is a mandatory fee for a public service, its amount and the authority to collect it being ultimately controlled by the government.
As for BBC editorial independence, likewise. The BBC is, basically, editorially independent. Indeed, on the rare occasions when the government does try to lean on the BBC, the government usually comes away bruised and battered. However, when charter renewal is approaching, or future licence fee levels are up for discussion, there must be pressure on the BBC to not rock the boat too much.
But if the BBC really is above government interference, that raises the question of who this huge, mandatorily-funded organisation is answerable to? The only thing that does seem to affect it is massive, hysterical public outcry, as we have seen recently. That, and ratings, but I thought the point of public service broadcasting was that it wasn’t ratings-driven?
I think that avoiding “chasing the ratings” altogether is impossible, however, it shouldn’t be the prime motivator, and yet they do have to remain relevant. If the major productions get low ratings then people will complain that the broadcaster is no longer relevant and therefore not providing a public service and therefore no longer worth funding.
I do think that the BBC do a better job of producing quality programming, both populist and minority interest, than any of the UK commercial broadcasters. Channel 4 has recently taken somewhat of a nosedive in this respect, what with it’s reliance on generic yoof TV, Big Brother/BB Spinoffs and US imports at the expense of its more alternative offerings of the past. Channel 4 news is still exceedingly good though, as are a lot of the Dispatches programmes and ofcourse “Bremner, Bird and Fortune”.
Compare the BBC to Sky and the difference is stark. Nothing gets made by Sky that isn’t populist, and as a result you get 25 episodes of “Ibiza Louts Uncovered” and “Ross Kemp is haaaaard and likes meeting nutters who are haaard” per week interspersed with reruns of “The Simpsons” and “StargateTrek:Franchise Extreme”.
Is the BBC perfect though? No definitely not, but I’m glad it’s there because I believe it does elevate the level of the other broadcasters just a little.
The BBC has been involved in several pro-government scandals in recent years. Take the Hutton Report for one.
There was also a case of a high BBC official fired because the government didn’t like what he was doing. (My Google-fu fails on finding a link.)
Supported by taxes? Knows which side its bread is buttered on? Yup, it’s for all intents and purposes a branch of the government. The rest is just labels.
Wait, are you saying the BBC supported the government’s side in the David Kelly/Iraqi WMD affair?
Because, it was the BBC that alleged that Alastair Campbell “sexed up” the Iraq dossier, to enable the government to make the case for war in the Commons.
When Lord Hutton found in his report that the dossier hadn’t been “sexed up” (a government whitewash by nearly all accounts) Greg Dyke, DG of the BBC at the time, was forced to fall on his sword.
That’s not pro-Government as far as I can see, pro-government media outlets support the government-line they don’t publish stories which could lead to a government falling.
You plainly do not understand the circumstances surrounding the Hutton Report. It was the government versus the BBC, not in any way a “pro-government scandal”.
Which also makes me doubt your claim about a BBC official being fired for not toeing the party line. That’s not how it works here.
IIRC, they have shortened the season for Lost to about 13 seasons and it has helped that show immensely. I believe they are considering that idea for Heroes. This is idea is slowly creeping on us. I think it will catch on as shows get more expensive to make.
There are some shows from Great Britain that I enjoy but there are some problems with them. When you get a good show the seasons are short and they can often times be infrequently produced.