BBC license fee ‘to be abolished in 2027’. What will that mean?

[YouSir]

I agree with this, but I suppose the argument others here are making is that the alternative is corporate-controlled culture driven entirely by profit. It's the devil or the deep blue sea.

Of course with the rise of social media people do actually produce more of their own culture outside these hierarchies than has been the norm for quite a while now. The platforms may be corp-controlled but the content is much more variable as a result (with both good and bad content coming as a part of that, including politically speaking). Probably the best hope is neither BBC nor Netflix, but we have to admit there's still only a small percentage of the population (mostly younger) involved in cultural creation online.

The either/or argument is what'll kill the BBC. As you say, more and more people are creating and decentralising their own cultural output. Step one of any defence of the BBC, or more importantly the concept of public funding for culture itself, is to push the model towards that open culture system. Middle Class media types defending their right to institutional power as a default good does nothing to involve or mobilise most people.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

But other than the perennially mediocre Doctor Who and a handful of quiz shows (University Challenge, Only Connect), all of which I could frankly live without, there is literally nothing that the BBC makes that I watch. So which other content am I supposed to be worried about? And as for subscription — what do you call £14 per month? As subscriptions go, that’s a pretty expensive one.

My thoughts exactly, but with added 'ghosts' and 'pointless' if it happens to be on when I switch the telly on and no other member of my family is in the room.
It feels like it's already dead, and I was considering not paying the licence fee this year because I really don't use it. Not £15s worth a month for sure.

 

[YouSir]

we know what it exists for. but the extent to which it in fact achieves those objectives seems to me to be rather different. does it inculcate the legitimate values, forms of speech, forms of behaviours, the boundaries of discourse and entertainment? it may aspire to. it may attempt to. it may even have some success in those fields. but in the changing way people access news and entertainment, with sky, netflix, amazon and so on in competition with the terrestrial channels (not to mention the range of non-bbc radio stations) i think it's a big ask to say it manages to do all those things. i think your post requires some qualification.

That can be taken as read can't it? In pointing out its intent I don't think anyone would say the BBC was omnipotent in its success. It is a big player in the process though.

 

[Brainaddict]

The either/or argument is what'll kill the BBC. As you say, more and more people are creating and decentralising their own cultural output. Step one of any defence of the BBC, or more importantly the concept of public funding for culture itself, is to push the model towards that open culture system. Middle Class media types defending their right to institutional power as a default good does nothing to involve or mobilise most people.

So perhaps the best way to defend the BBC is firstly to fund it from general taxation, which is much more progressive than the license fee, and secondly to push it towards being a catalyst for content creation in a much more open way than it currently is, so it becomes in part a platform for people-generated or people-commissioned content, but with more quality controls than you'd see on social media.

 

[chilango]

we know what it exists for. but the extent to which it in fact achieves those objectives seems to me to be rather different. does it inculcate the legitimate values, forms of speech, forms of behaviours, the boundaries of discourse and entertainment? it may aspire to. it may attempt to. it may even have some success in those fields. but in the changing way people access news and entertainment, with sky, netflix, amazon and so on in competition with the terrestrial channels (not to mention social media and the range of non-bbc radio stations) i think it's a big ask to say it manages to do all those things. i think your post requires some qualification.

I suspect that's why they feel safe in 'decommissioning' it now.

 

[Pickman's model]

That can be taken as read can't it? In pointing out its intent I don't think anyone would say the BBC was omnipotent in its success. It is a big player in the process though.

will you read the post? because the issue i was pointing to isn't are they successful / aren't they successful but the extent to which they're successful. i know so many people here love their 1s and 0s, their binary divides. but as tj hooker pointed out it isn't black or white, it's a million shades of grey

 

[Pickman's model]

I suspect that's why they feel safe in 'decommissioning' it now.

i don't think they want to decommission it for any reason related to the bbc's aims or objectives but for their more staunch media allies' benefit.

 

[YouSir]

So perhaps the best way to defend the BBC is firstly to fund it from general taxation, which is much more progressive than the license fee, and secondly to push it towards being a catalyst for content creation in a much more open way than it currently is, so it becomes in part a platform for people-generated or people-commissioned content, but with more quality controls than you'd see on social media.

Absolutely. Revive regional structures too as part of that opening up, create space for definite local output which can feed up to national networks as well as offering more local control to those interested in creating/contributing. The fact that the BBC has so much infrastructure and technical ability inbuilt is probably the most valuable thing about it imo. No other entity could so easily be put to mass social/cultural democratisation.

 

[The39thStep]

Before my time.

The Young Ones was good though.

Am I doing this right?

No , your post about the BBC was too one dimensional imo. It omits the opportunity to explain why the BBC also broadcast programmes like The Spongers, Cathy Come Home, Days of Hope, Boys from the Blackstuff. etc

 

[Indeliblelink]

this popped up on my facebook feed last week. How much of this still applies?

 

[YouSir]

will you read the post? because the issue i was pointing to isn't are they successful / aren't they successful but the extent to which they're successful. i know so many people here love their 1s and 0s, their binary divides. but as tj hooker pointed out it isn't black or white, it's a million shades of grey

I read the post, snarky. And I disagreed with you, I don't think people do take it as a success/failure binary.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

The BBC exists to manufacture, and impose, a legitimate British culture. One that has tended to be white, conservative and middle-class. It inculcates the legitimate values, forms of speech, forms of behaviours, the boundaries of discourse and entertainment.

It is, and apologies for the use of Althusser here, an ideological state apparatus par excellence.

There is historically, without doubt, substance to what you argue Chilango. (although, I would suggest that the culture that the BBC of 2022 is centrally interested in reproducing has long been modified to reflect the dominant interests of the professional middle class that it is an integral part of: liberal, obsessively invested in liberal understandings of multicultualism, 'socially aware' in the most limited terms, beguiled by neo-liberalism, beguiled by big tech, instinctively hostile to the working class etc). I'd also argue that, once, the BBC also produced - at a visible level - and gave voice to working class cultural production: through plays, music and series, the collapse of this can't be explained away through reference to the BBC and its cultural priorities only.

Totally agree that a middle class 'defence campaign' led by celebs and narrating class figures is doomed - although we can already see that one is inevitable. Defending the BBC as is automatically ghettoizes it to a particular segment of society. That's why promoting, talking about and defending the concept of public service broadcasting - and understanding what the concept is - is important. As is re-remembering why public ownership was once popular and why it once held popular meaning

 

[Pickman's model]

I read the post, snarky. And I disagreed with you, I don't think people do take it as a success/failure binary.

good

 

[NoXion]

So perhaps the best way to defend the BBC is firstly to fund it from general taxation, which is much more progressive than the license fee, and secondly to push it towards being a catalyst for content creation in a much more open way than it currently is, so it becomes in part a platform for people-generated or people-commissioned content, but with more quality controls than you'd see on social media.

The argument I've heard against funding the BBC from general taxation is that such a funding model would leave it vulnerable to pressure from the government.

Looking at the current awful state of BBC journalism under the current licence fee funding model, I'd say that such arguments are unconvincing cobblers.

 

[Pickman's model]

The argument I've heard against funding the BBC from general taxation is that such a funding model would leave it vulnerable to pressure from the government.

Looking at the current awful state of BBC journalism under the current licence fee funding model, I'd say that such arguments are unconvincing cobblers.

you cannot hope to bribe or twist -
thank god! - the british journalist
but seeing what's they'll do
unbribed there's no occasion to

yeh much of the bbc's journalism is abject and abysmnal but the bbc is hardly alone in this - it pervades the world of journalism

 

[chilango]

No , your post about the BBC was too one dimensional imo. It omits the opportunity to explain why the BBC also broadcast programmes like The Spongers, Cathy Come Home, Days of Hope, Boys from the Blackstuff. etc

Again, all before my time. I'm familiar with the names but have never seen any of them.

Of course, people found space, at times. and opportunity within the BBC to go beyond the somewhat deterministic remit I gave it above. Of course. The same will be true, to an extent within any institution of such scale.

 

[Pickman's model]

No , your post about the BBC was too one dimensional imo. It omits the opportunity to explain why the BBC also broadcast programmes like The Spongers, Cathy Come Home, Days of Hope, Boys from the Blackstuff. etc

the reason the bbc could broadcast those programmes is because it - and by extension other organs of the state - felt confident enough to do so. any state broadcaster has to maintain its legitimacy through expressing a range of views, acting in a way as a safety valve lest the state broadcaster become only a broadcaster of government approved material. the current animosity for the bbc among the tory party is part ideological, influenced by people like murdoch, and partly their insecurity despite the 79 majority the current administration enjoys in the commons.

 

[The39thStep]

the reason the bbc could broadcast those programmes is because it - and by extension other organs of the state - felt confident enough to do so. any state broadcaster has to maintain its legitimacy through expressing a range of views, acting in a way as a safety valve lest the state broadcaster become only a broadcaster of government approved material. the current animosity for the bbc among the tory party is part ideological, influenced by people like murdoch, and partly their insecurity despite the 79 majority the current administration enjoys in the commons.

So when did the BBC lose its confidence to continue to broadcast the sort of programmes that I posted ?

 

[bimble]

The announcement yesterday was 100% just a lifeline for Boris Johnson and it’s worked, all of the people who were focussed on his current perilous situation have just been going on about the bbc instead, like flicking a switch. It’s not even news, there’s going to be plenty of time to wrangle about the new funding model.

 

[Pickman's model]

So when did the BBC lose its confidence to continue to broadcast the sort of programmes that I posted ?

i would hesitate to put a date on it but i'd say at some point around 2007-11

 

[Pickman's model]

The announcement yesterday was 100% just a lifeline for Boris Johnson and it’s worked, all of the people who were focussed on his current perilous situation have just been going on about the bbc instead, like flicking a switch. It’s not even news, there’s going to be plenty of time to wrangle about the new funding model.

except on the toady programme which i don't think mentioned it at all in the news at 7am

 

[metalguru]

The announcement yesterday was 100% just a lifeline for Boris Johnson and it’s worked, all of the people who were focussed on his current perilous situation have just been going on about the bbc instead, like flicking a switch. It’s not even news, there’s going to be plenty of time to wrangle about the new funding model.

If it's still a Conservative government, you can be sure they will leave it until the very last moment to come up with some kind of bodged model.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

...and it's deeply worrying to see responses here, and especially elsewhere, walking into the same trap that Brexit laid. A defence of the BBC based upon liberal middle-class tastes with same appeals to cultural and intellectual authority blindly pushing those who don't get the same value out of the institution into the arms of the latest slash n burn, disaster capitalist enterprise of market extremists.

I would have thought the most powerful defence of the BBC in terms of tastes would be from those who like its most 'downmarket' light entertainment content, which is also often the most expensive stuff to produce given the 'star' wages they pay.

Regarding taste, only a small fraction of the BBC's budget is spent on anything I'm interested in. But its remit is supposed to be to provide something for everyone, and I do recognise that I'm not in the majority in this case. It does still do that to a certain extent, and that is the aspect of it that would be most likely to be lost. For instance, mainstream commercial radio has never come up with anything remotely like 6Music or Late Junction on Radio 3. (There's a wider cultural function there as well - music stations like Radios 3 and 6 provide an outlet for current artists to gain exposure.)

I see no harm in bringing up its content - its broad base is supposed to be the rationale behind public service broadcasting after all. And any defence of the BBC that doesn't reference its actual content also seems to me to miss the point - it is its content.

 

[agricola]

The argument I've heard against funding the BBC from general taxation is that such a funding model would leave it vulnerable to pressure from the government.

Looking at the current awful state of BBC journalism under the current licence fee funding model, I'd say that such arguments are unconvincing cobblers.

Any government funding, from whatever source, is going to leave it vulnerable to pressure from the government.

TBF that is what baffles me the most about this latest wheeze; if they were evil and competent surely they'd break it up first, as removing the licence fee (and all political control over it) could easily just result in a BBC that (thanks to its size, programme library, brand, talents and its already existing audience) quickly eats many of the lesser media fish whilst being even more critical of the government or even openly anti-Tory (which is where the gap in the market is of course).

 

[Smokeandsteam]

So when did the BBC lose its confidence to continue to broadcast the sort of programmes that I posted ?

I would date this to the late 1980's/early 1990's as the BBC, and others of its class ilk, accepted that the 'end of history' had been reached and that the working class had lost. The BBC's output didn't change purely because of confidence, it changed because working class cultural production also changed/was smashed. The real success story of Thatcher wasn't merely the defeat of the organised working class but also the planned destruction of working class culture. One effect was the ability/desire of the working class to tell stories about itself or at least, in the main, in the way it had from 1945 onwards.

 

[The39thStep]

Again, all before my time. I'm familiar with the names but have never seen any of them.

Of course, people found space, at times. and opportunity within the BBC to go beyond the somewhat deterministic remit I gave it above. Of course. The same will be true, to an extent within any institution of such scale.

Looking at this period of the mid 1960s through to the mid 1980s there was a very impressive number of plays and series produced by authors on the left including Communist Party members, Trotskyists, and fellow travelers that you just wouldn't see today. All from a working class perspective. It makes the current claims of the BBC being left wing in any shape or form seem ridiculous. Sadly the tradition of such authors and playrights, perhaps the move to independent films in the 80s, perhaps Thatchers crushing victory and her antipathy towards the BBC aided its decline. It's fascinating that they ever saw the light of day on a state funded broadcaster.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Again, all before my time. I'm familiar with the names but have never seen any of them.

Of course, people found space, at times. and opportunity within the BBC to go beyond the somewhat deterministic remit I gave it above. Of course. The same will be true, to an extent within any institution of such scale.

The Office, This Country, People Just Do Nothing and Alma's Not Normal are some more recent examples of the BBC taking a punt on some outsider comedies that became critical successes.

 

[The39thStep]

I would date this to the late 1980's/early 1990's as the BBC, and others of its class ilk, accepted that the 'end of history' had been reached and that the working class had lost. The BBC's output didn't change purely because of confidence, it changed because working class cultural production also changed/was smashed. The real success story of Thatcher wasn't merely the defeat of the organised working class but also the planned destruction of working class culture. One effect was the ability/desire of the working class to tell stories about itself or at least, in the main, in the way it had from 1945 onwards.

Yes totally agree I was trying to tease out from posters a more than functional, ie no class dynamic , explanation of why such output ended.

 

[xenon]

Red meat bullshit.

The license fee was up for review at some point in the next few years, I forget when, anyway.
Secondly, as already mentioned, this puts it past the date of the next election.
Thirdly, it would presumably have to pass a vote in the HoC even then.

There's much I dislike about the BBC, it's establishment bias in news presentation, the patrician upper middle class attitudes and voicing inherant in it's programming and editorials. It does need to modernise, be more open. More of a platform for developing new talent, taking risks on letting content creators reach a wider audience. But for all that, I wouldn't want to see it disappear.

 

[DaphneM]

I thought I would be upset about losing the BBC however when I actually think about it I never watch anything on it so am fairly ambivalent about it tbh