What will the British government do about the BBC?

Great Debates
21

The thing that truly disturbs me is that Alistair Campbell makes noises about condemning the BBC, yet he is in fact a completely unelected appointee whose sole task is to present Blairs policies in the best light, using spin.

In other words he is a pure propagandist, and notheing else.

He is not accountable to the electorate in any way, yet it seems he can call for action against the BBC as a matter of government policy, he absolutely and compeltely lied about the 45 minutes readiness of WMD, he totally lied about the credibility of the plagiarised report on Iraq WMD, he slams tables with his fist when he gets upset when asked awkward questions, to me he is not very far removed from a PC version of Goebbels.

Every government minister has to put their press releases out through him, he either approves or alters the output, or even advises on policy changes to suit the media and thus public opinion, and I again repeat, he is not elected, he seems to have more power by haing the ear of Tony Blair.

Campbell is not a state employee either, so he cannot be held accountable by the usual civil service personnel policies, he is a crony that Tony Blair finds useful.

I personally believe that Alistair Campbell is damaging the democratic process in this country, even when he is gone, whenever that might be, he has demonstrated a model of media control that is unlikely to be rejected by any other incumbant government.

As for uncorroborated evidence, well we still have no WMD, and every reported item, such as those so-called germ warfare trucks turns out to be false, and yet the BBC has duly reported them quoting the supposedly accurate ‘government sources’.

At the moment Tony Blair is looking for someone to either get him off the hook for his own actions based upon allegations of WMD rather than facts, or he is simply hoping that journalists will simply lose interest and it will all go away.

Alistair Campbell is crucial in that role, and the BBC has such credibility for its independance(which I find is somewhat a reversal of its usual pro government stance) that it must have that credibility demolished.

Sadly I feel that what will happen over time is that the head of the BBC will be appointed to fit in with the current administration, and it will slowly come into line.

22

Yes, this is the point. The government has the legal power to impose editorial control, to replace to staff, or anything else it wants to do. But, using that power would cause the govrnment to suffer unacceptible political repercussions. The BBC’s reputation and tradition protect it from government interference.

This is different from a private media empire in the US, which is protected by the laws and the Constitution. The government doesn’t have the legal the power to change its staff or structure or finances.

I gather that the government does appoint a board of directors of some sort, who, in turn make further appointments. I would think that the government could gradually change the nature of the BBC by who it chooses to put on the board. But, maybe that’s wrong. Maybe the board is more self-selected. Does anyone know about the structure and practice of board appointments.

Anyhow, this pissing contest between the government and the BBC hurts the reputations of both of them. From what posters here have written, the government is coming across worse than the BBC. Still, if the BBC’s reputation falls far enough, then some sort of change might be conceivable, I would think. At the very least, the BBC might have more difficulty making changes that require government approval or help, if there are any such.

Can the BBC increase the TV tax on their own, or would they need government approval? If they want to modernize their structure, would they need government approval? Would then need government approval to enter new or emerging fields, if they wanted to? Do they need the government’s help negotiating with Israel over the current imbroglio?

Note that the Executive Editor of the New York Times was forced out recently. Is there some way that the managing director of the BBC could find his job threatened? If the BBC lost a big judgment in their lawsuit, could that lead to his reignation?

If the answer to all these questions is “NO,” then I would have to agree that the BBC is in no way a government agency and that the management’s hubris was justified. They’d be totally secure.

23

The government only has the power to oppose editorial control and replace staff in the sense it could storm the BBC building with the army, otherwise it doesn’t have any power in these areas.

24

A spanking! A spanking!

Enjoy,
Steven

25

Don’t forget the “Woe is poor Israel, beseiged on all sides by enemies foul!” gambit. :wink:

(Just from reading the Title and the thread originator, I knew it was time to break out the :rolleyes: )

26

See any lint in your bellybutton, december?

27

Really? Doesn’t the TV tax itself come from a government law. If the government enacted the original law, they could change it.

Suppose a majority of the House of Commons voted for a law allocating TV tax money to all TV stations in proportion to viewership, rather than giving it only to the Beeb. What would stop them from doing so? Would it be unconstitutional? I don’t think so.

28

Yes, they could mke a law I suppose enacting editorial control over the BBC, but the BBC itself can’t exert editorial control over it’s staff. So one; they’d have to change the law, two; change the BBC’s charter and three; sack all the journalists there.

29

Well, in that same sense the US government could exert editorial control over CNN. Just change a few laws, and hey presto! Censorship!

30

That’s the hard way. Suppose the government appointed new BBC governing board members who sacked the MD. Suppose the new MD sacked a few journalists. The others would get the message PDQ. (I’m not recommending that they do this, but they could.)

31

No, as has already been stated.

Wouldn’t have thought so.

If you mean launching new channels/services then this applies to any TV station.

Not sure what that’s got to do with anything??

Does this not apply to the MD of any private company equally?

Suppose a large enough majority in the US Congress decided to pass laws controlling editorial policy of TV stations what is to stop them? Fortunately for us, your scenario is not going to happen. Unfortunately for you the lapdog nature of the US media means that mine does not need to happen.

32

Thanks for the info, Avenger. I visited Cardiff once on a business trip and found it charming. I’d like to spend more time in Wales if I ever get the chance.

Anyhow, things are different in the US for private media. The government could not control editorial policy of non-governmental TV stations, thanks to our Constitution. “Freedom of the Press” is specified.

33

That was kinda my point. The British government cannot control editorial policy of the BBC as it is protected by its charter. Yes I imagine this could be ammended, likewise I believe that the US constitution can be ammended.

As has been pointed out previously, previous Tory governments frequently railed at the bias of the BBC, now a Labour governement is doing the same. That, to the vast majority of the country seems a profoundly healthy situation.

December, you should come to Cardiff again, fastest growing Capital in Europe you know :slight_smile:

34

The BBC is constantly criticised by both main political parties. Both parties would like to see the BBC present their version of events. The fact that the corporation upsets both sides seems to suggest that the BBC is fairly independant.
By the way the BBC can’t put up the licence fee. They have to put a case to the government of the day for an increase.

V

35

december wrote:

Yes, here Rupert Murdoch controls the news. Much better.

36

I’m just trying to look and see what percentage of the BBC’s budget comes from it’s foreign sales and commercial enterprises. For the armchair/real accountants out there here’s a BBC page that has links to pdf file “Facts & Figures”. They do mention on another page that these other enterprises are run seperately but help keep tv license fees low.

37

Just after defending the stupid no edit policy in BBQ I go and hit submit by accident.

I meant to say that the “Introduction” pdf link:

  • license fees the “most important source” of income at &#163 2,533m.
  • &#163 133m from 3 commercial subsideries
  • &#163 25m from BBC Worldwide;plus another &#163 106m in direct re-investment
  • a little other stuff too.

I wonder if in time they’ll be able to get to a point where they won’t need to increase fees, exept enough to keep a sense of ownership to license holders. Let North American cable subscribers pay for it. :wink:

38

Read the damn charter you fool and stop barking out total rubbish. The charter is renewed every 10 years, between that tim the govt has little influence. Shut up December, just shut up about stuff you can only lie about from your own pathetic sources and febrile imagination.

What you damn well think is irrelevant, what matters is the british constitution, which you know F all about. Every contribution you make to this thread is rooted in malice and stupidity. It is just trolling.

39

quote:

Originally posted by Avenger
Suppose a large enough majority in the US Congress decided to pass laws controlling editorial policy of TV stations what is to stop them? Fortunately for us, your scenario is not going to happen. Unfortunately for you the lapdog nature of the US media means that mine does not need to happen.

“What is to stop them?” The Constitution and the Supreme Court of the United States, which each take a rather dim view of federal (or state) control of media outlets.

Although december is, well, wrong about basically everything in this thread, he is correct about one issue- the PM appoints (well, recommends the appointments of to the Queen, which is the same thing) the governorship of the BBC. Since it is their job to safeguard the independence of the Beeb, the fox is essentially guarding the henhouse here.

And the British constitution is neither codified (well, most of it) nor inviolable- it simply consists of statutes such as they exist, together with the body of common law (this isn’t a criticism, just an observation). Perhaps more significantly, the freedom of the press and the freedom of a company which is answerable to the Crown, and thus to the ministers thereof, are not the same thing.

Of course, this debate is still pointless, because december answered his own question. In pissing off Labour, the Beeb has mollified the Tories, and in any case Blair and Co. aren’t stupid enough to mess with the tradition of nominal and practical independence the BBC has always enjoyed.

40

Every British government eventually falls out with the BBC, both sides slag each other off, everyone speculates about how the government will get its own back when the Charter comes up for renewal and then the Charter gets renewed on the same old terms as if nothing had happened. This time will be no different.

Which is all the protection it needs or could possibly want. Constitutional guarantees of the ‘freedom of the press’ might sound wonderful in theory but they are only ever as non-political as the courts who have to enforce them. In the case of the BBC, it is not enough for the government to pay lip-service to some legal definition of non-interference; it must be seen to act in such a way as convinces mot people that it is not interfering.

The BBC Board of Governors has over the decades proved itself to be particularly effective in defending the BBC’s independence and it has done so precisely because its members are political appointees - BBC governors invariably want to assert their independence in order to prove that they are not mere lackeys of the government. The present spat is a neat example of this as the current BBC Chairman, Gavyn Davies, supposedly appointed because he was one of ‘Tony’s cronies’, has clearly already ‘gone native’.

Whole swathes of British public life, including the monarchy, the judiciary and the civil service, operate on exactly the same principles of non-interference and impartiality. Experience tends to suggest that, as independence is something which must always be demonstrated, it is a system which is at least as effective as any of the alternatives. We can hardly help it if this all seems too subtle for those who are only familiar with more simplistic systems of government.

(As for the actual argument about the dossiers, my hunch is that it’s going to be a win on points for Campbell as he has been smart enough to choose to fight on the detail over which he can probably be exonerated. It was no doubt an easy calculation for him to realise that the paperwork could be released to support his version of events while, at the same time, the BBC won’t feel able to name Gilligan’s source. Not that what the Foreign Affairs Select Committee has to say will change anyone’s opinion.)