PART THREE: IS THE BBC LICENCE FEE JUSTIFIED?

The stated mission of the BBC is “to inform, educate and entertain”. The BBC does this by making programmes paid for by the licence payer. The BBC licence payer finances the BBC and its operations through the Licence Fee, which can be described as a regressive tax. Unfair because everyone has to pays the same amount no matter how well off or they are. Or whether they have one or several TV sets. As a result of this tax the BBC does not have to serve the interests of advertisers or shareholders. The BBC also aims to provide a wide range of televised broadcasts that suit everyone, free of adverts and independent of commercial or political interests or so they say!

PART THREE: IS THE BBC LICENCE FEE JUSTIFIED?

Currently the TV licence fee stands at £139.50 for a coloured set and £47 for a black and white set. It’s free if you are over 75, and half-price if you’re registered blind. So that means basically if you’re past your prime, you still need a TV Licence!

The TV licence pays for 8 interactive TV channels, 10 radio networks, more than 50 local TV and radio services, the BBC’s websites and the on demand TV and the radio service, BBC iPlayer. On the other hand, the familiar BBC World Service is funded by a government grant and not the TV licence fee. Profits from separate BBC commercial services help to keep the licence fee low.

The BBC became the licensing Authority with responsibility for the administration of the television licensing system in 1991. The first licence fee for radio was issued in November 1922. The first combined Radio/TV licence for £2 was issued in June 1946 and later radio only licences were abolished in February 1971. The first supplementary licence fee for colour TV was introduced in January 1968. More recently in January 2007 the Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell announced that the TV licence fee would rise by 3% every year until 2012. Interesting, then what? Is it going to be privatised?

Is the TV licence then value for money? David Elstein former Executive of ITV, BSkyB and Channel 5 believes that the BBC is spending too much time fighting for the audience share to justify their licence fee. He suggests that the BBC should abandon the licence fee and become a subscription service like BSkyB, offering their customers the choice of whether they want to watch their channels or not.

Last year nearly over 150,000 people were prosecuted for failing to buy a TV licence. Elstein says the BBC has no real idea of what its audience wants because it’s not an ‘accountable institution’. He adds that by having a monthly subscription the BBC has more choice to give the viewers what they want to see and will also have the income to produce and make better programmes rather then rely on income from the licence fee which will restrict them on how much they can spend and on what.

More than 50% of British homes now have multi-channel TV with a choice of 428 channels to choose from. Mark Byford Deputy Director General, and head of all its BBC journalism has defended the licence by saying that the TV licence is vital for the development of the BBC. He added that the TV licence allowed the BBC to make distinctive and specialist programmes then any of the other channels; there is no interruption with commercials half-way through the programmes; the range of programmes is broader and most importantly he says the key for the BBC is ‘REACH’. The BBC is reaching and giving the licence fee payers something unique and better than anything offered anywhere else. I doubt that very much as the BBC is now closing down BBC Asian Network, so what’s available for Asians living in the UK?

Mark Byford is also the Chair of the BBC’s journalism Board, he has overall responsibility for the world’s largest and most trusted news organisation and extensive news and current affairs services across the radio, TV and interactive media for the UK and the world. His is also Chair of the BBC’s Editorial Standards Board responsible for promoting the highest standards in ethics and programme-making across the BBC. Chair of the BBC Complaints Management Board responsible for the efficient and effective handling of complaints across the corporation. Chair of the Learning Board responsible for developing training and staff development across the BBC; and the Chair of the BBC’s London 2012 Olympic Games Coordinating Group. Byford believes that the BBC does reach out to everyone and caters for everyone’s taste. The real truth is that only a select few members of the audience are catered for and you only have to watch the BBC channels to find out who they are. It’s no surprise BBC television caters for the White-British population. That it offers every licence fee payer something back for his or her money is simply not true and this is one of the reasons they are losing the battle of the ratings against Sky.

Once in a while when the BBC does show programmes for the Asian and black minority audience, it airs them at times that are not convenient to them. South Asian films from Bollywood are shown after midnight and past the watershed, when most South Asian families would prefer to watch them during the day.

On the otherhand Channel 4 airs similar Bollywood films during the day. The Bollywood film Lagaan was aired on Channel 4 on a Sunday and at midday therefore giving a large percentage of minority viewers the chance to see the film. More recently Channel 4 is currently showing two South Asian related programmes during the early evenings.

The BBC is also responsible for placing Asian and Black people under scrutiny in their programmes and projecting them in a negative way. The BBC’s Multicultural Departments for example, has demonstrated an overriding interest in emotive issues such as sex, crime, violence and abuse. Take for example, All Black (BBC2, 1993) and East (BBC2, 1990).

The sensational choice of topics (prostitution, pornography, polygamy, abortion of female foetuses/suicide rates, self-mutilation). The hypothesis journalism (presenting resent findings in a report, then setting out to prove them), and the voyeurism way in which the analysis was often conducted in these series (awkward dramatic reconstructions, darkened rooms, anonymous case studies) routinely veered towards a sordid picture of Black-British life.

The myth of static, politically naïve, Asian community, particularly in relation to the traditional iconography of the passive female condition in Asian cultures, was also a common subject, feeding into racialized fears and stereotypes of cultural difference.

Channel 4’s policy is somewhat different from BBC’s. ‘Channel 4 is unique: a channel run on commercial grounds not for profit but for distinctive public purposes. It was set up specifically to do things differently from other channels. It exists to be different. There are also differences of approach between the BBC, ITV and Channel 4; in how they deploy their production staff. Within the BBC there is a tension that is different: the one occasioned by size; the creative professional may feel he or she is at odds with a sprawling bureaucracy. As BBC broadcasting has grown it has divided into many parts.

First, it-begun life with engineers then there was a nascent bureaucracy, followed by programme-makers. The key to programme making lies with the producer. The producer is the programme in its early stages, the sole repository, in many cases of what a programme may become.

The tricky issue then is to how to present investigative journalism about and addressed to Black and Asian audiences, without alienating a mainstream audience, and which has the BBC bosses coming back for more. This balancing act involved in holding onto cultural aims, while competing equally in the mainstream marketplace inevitably puts further pressures on minority perceived programme-makers.

The BBC’s answer was East the only Asian current affairs programme which originally went out on air on BBC2. The trouble with this was, because it’s screened only for a few months a year and in predetermined slots, it did not pick up on events as they unfolded. Leaving the coverage of big community issues such as the troubles in Kashmir (1995), Bradford riots (2001) and the more recent Pakistani floods in the hands of mainstream news and the occasional odd documentary. Today the only South Asian programme on air is DESI DNA which has more or less the same makeup as the East programme of the 1990’s.

Channel 4 on the otherhand has capitalised on the notion that somehow its programmes are not made in the same way as the BBC’s. Channel 4 uses a number of independent producers, and filmmakers and nearly all are fully trained professionals from different backgrounds. There is also a greater scope of freedom. This could explain why it could offer a wider range of programmes that are more attractive to a wider range of audience then the BBC’s. Channel 4 has a wider range of diverse producers and unlike the BBC, Channel 4 also has a policy, which allows its entire staff to come up with ideas for programmes. If the ideas are accepted then a Channel 4 employee could find himself or herself in the producer’s chair making that programme.

Tim Madge in 1989 commented in a documentary entitled “Beyond the BBC” that it was also possible to see Channel 4 as a giant Community Programme Unit, committed to letting minorities have more airtime proportionately than their numbers would ordinarily permit. Channel 4 is instructed in the Broadcasting Act, but vaguely as to ‘ensure that the programmes contain a suitable proportion of matter calculated to appeal to tastes and interests not generally catered for by ITV and to encourage innovation and experiment in the form and content of programmes.’

The BBC is also ratings driven. Whilst Channel 4 isn’t. It does not cater for all licence fee payers. Instead its needs for an increase share in the ratings figures drives it to show its Trust that it is providing a better service then the other commercial channels. It does this is by comparing the BBC viewing figures with ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5. The company that carries out this audience research is called ‘Broadcasters Audience Research Board Ltd’ (BARB). The BBC will not show something (even if it’s for the ethnic minorities) at watershed times when there is a chance that it will bring down the viewing figures. The BBC needs to show a big share in the audience figures for a renewal of the TV licence. Recent viewing figures by BARB show that 25.6% of the audience watches BBC1 followed closely by 23.7% of the audience watching ITV. The rest watch BBC2 (11%), Channel 4 (9.6%) and Channel 5 (6%) etc.

Although with the large number of digital channels on offer many South Asian people are now switching to digital South Asian channels like Zee, Sony and B4U. Sir David Attenborough a veteran of BBC1 has recently said, “The BBC should judge its success by the width of the spectrum of interest it covers. The greater the width of spectrum the better it’s doing.” In a poll conducted on a Panorama programme titled “What’s the point of the BBC? In 2004, more than 1,000 people around the UK were asked “compared to other broadcasters are the BBC’s programmes’ distinctive or similar? 37% said yes they were distinctive, 58% no they were similar, whilst 4% said they were not sure. Recent findings by the corporation also show a huge drop in the number of people tuning into the BBC’s flagship channels. The findings also suggest programmes have become less memorable and that fewer people are making the effort to watch them.

Channel 4, ITV and channel 5 are funded commercially by advertisements. They are not answerable to the licence fee payer as the BBC is. Whereas the BBC may receive complaints about some of its programmes, the other channels will not, unless of course it’s because of indecency in which case these complaints will go to the Complaint’s Commission, rather then to the board of ITV governors.

The former BBC chairman, Sir Christopher Bland, has voiced his concerns for the corporation to establish an independent appeals body to give politicians, individuals and companies the right to challenge the BBC’s fairness policy. He has said that during his time at the BBC he had suggested the setting up of an independent appeals system on matters of fairness, in the same way as taste and decency, which an independent body outside the BBC such as Ofcom would regulate. But this had been blocked the then Board of Governors.

Changes in the BBC are also being made as a result of the Hutton enquiry. There has been a radical change in leadership of the BBC with Greg Dyke and Gavin Davies having resigned and a new BBC structure having replaced the old Board of Governors. Furthermore advertisers have also joined the growing clamour for reform of the BBC.

There as also been talks about what the Conservatives may do to the BBC now that they’ve won the next general election. ‘The core recommendation is the phasing out of the statutory licence fee in three years’ time, as BBC television moves to a voluntary subscription system; and that public funds for pure public service broadcasting – those programmes on topics that neither advertising nor subscription will support – must be spread around a variety of channels, in the interests of plurality.’

Political pressure for the government to introduce a more transparent system for renewing the BBC’s charter is also growing. The BBC’s current Royal Charter runs till December 31st 2016 and it remains to be seen what BBC new Trust can do before then. Improving the relationship between the viewer and the corporation will not be easy. Just as the findings of The future of Multi-Ethnic Britain: The Parekh Report (Runnymede Trust, 2000) found the word ‘British’ was taken by a large section of the public as belonging to the White English and deemed as racist. The BBC is also viewed by many Black and Asian people as being for the White people.

BBC’s legacy stems from its early days when it was accused of being White, middle-class and mainly made up of men. This was reflected in the programmes that were made during that period as can be seen in some of the earlier shows. Today programmes still have that ‘White British’ outlook seeping through them although the BBC’s make-up is slowly changing and people are being encouraged to apply from different backgrounds, thanks to BBC Talent.

Applicants from ethnic minorities are also encouraged. But the process is slow and the already few people working in the BBC from these backgrounds are finding that their work is being dictated from above.

The BBC has to make changes if it is to survive. It has to change from a bureaucratic dinosaur to more approachable and accessible organisation. This will also depend on at what speed it will make that change. The quicker the better. The transitional change will also have to meet the public’s favour after all we want an improved service not another mandatory tax.

Beirut Bradford or Beautiful Bradford?

Speaking as a concerned resident of 'this Northern Mill Town', once famous for its velvets and high quality materials, I find that a voice must speak out against the slow and painful decline of this once grand and hard working city, but let us temper it with hope and creative solutions.

Like so many UK cities Bradford has faced a decline and extinction in manufacturing through world market imports. The brave new world of sixties development should now be seen as a failure and discredited; the concrete collar ring road and nasty boxed shopping malls have all contributed to the decline and impoverishment of the city. Bradford now finds itself at a crossroads again of either development and investment or of renewed decay and abandonment.

There are so many concerns and issues. The scandal of the Westgate development, whereby a large hole now sits in the centre of the city, the construction site abandoned indefinitely (so read 10 years) by a private corporation under no obligation to fulfil its remit and the council powerless through its agreements to enforce its completion. It has however opened up a new vista of beautiful and hidden buildings, including the cities Cathedral, previously hidden by sixties development ..... . Perhaps this hole should be the lake and 'Park at the Heart' and not up to the kerbstone of the cities' Venetian Town Hall. Should not the councillors march down with hammers, tearing down the hoardings and reclaim the land they gave away? Surely a vote winner.

And of the Alsop Masterplan? What of it? Considering the diverse people living in the region; and as Bradford's marketing team correctly point out, 'One landscape, many views', Alsop's own 'Vision a City' seems in reality to have ignored and sidestepped local people. Instead we have an all encompassing futuristic vision from outer space, without connection to place, culture or heritage, with rubbed out high rise buildings replaced with more Corbusian high rise. This though has been accepted by the city council due to their own inferiority complex over the technical totalitarianism of an architectural maverick wanting to make his mark, where ever that may be. Where is the sagacity of our previous city elders, the Salts and Lister's?

With the call from Central Government for individual and collective voice and the strengthening of local government, (The Sustainable Communities Act 2007) what in fact do the people of Bradford want? It surely is a time and opportunity for local people to take a positive role in their place and mend the fractured society of now Cameron's 'Broken Britain'. Perhaps this should mean city as city state, in the Venetian ideal as implied by our Victorian fathers. Local governance means local directive with local enterprise and trade, even a loosening of central government taxation! A step too far...!

Bradford is used as a litmus test for minorities and especially for a measure of Muslim sensibility and reaction but what of this particular and itself diverse community? It's not just curry and bhangra. These stereotypes should also be overcome, with a recognition of intercultural values as opposed to the awful and largely multicultural philosophy which has reinforced a segregation and ghettoisation of society. It must be of self expressed identity but with the opening of exchange and meeting. This could best be met through local trade initiatives and open air markets. The heritage of Muslim trade has been retained somewhat with the traders from a South East Asian background bringing vitality to our streets in an otherwise mundane and somnambulistic cut and paste shopping mall. Meeting and exchange always helps with a good deal and money in ones pocket!

And of the Muslim community themselves? They have to stand up and be counted. As the popularity and success of the Mela showed, people can meet and exchange, share and benefit. Utopias can be had. They represent a dynamic force for good within the city, despite crime, arson, fraud, extortion et al!! It's all in the mix. However there are people of quality and conscientiousness, who can be leaders of benefit to the whole of Bradford's diverse community. It remains for these keys of governance to be handed on in trust to the very capable younger generation who in fact need and have earnt this capability. This also applies to the Grandees of Mosque committees who should recognize the excellence of their sons and daughters as well as to the local councilors who remain wary to this latent energy and optimism.

Utopias can be had, but they also must be grasped. Better Bradford Beautiful than Beirut Bradford don't you think?

Written by M. Manning