Dissolve the BBC?

[littlebabyjesus]

At no point have I advocated any commercial equivalent, everything I've said relates to a state funded model. And infrastructure is required either way so again - they'd keep on doing what they're doing. I'm not suggesting that infrastructure management should be directly voted on. And FWIW I struggle to see how a more democratic process around programme commissioning would relate to the work of engineers, who presumably don't care who's choosing what gets made.

e2a: As jobs seems to be your concern - I also think culture and media should be funded by taxation, not a license fee and that there should be a lot more funding for it. Especially for enabling access to the skills and tools necessary to create content, including the infrastructure side of things.

Don't think I'm with you on your democratic commissioning process tbh. I think gatekeepers serve a purpose. Even John Peel didn't just play any old shit on his show. He was the gatekeeper who listened to everything he was sent and let us listen to what he thought was the best of it. Where time and space are limited, there needs to be that kind of process, and in theory at least, it's a process best delegated to someone who has some knowledge plus the time to put in to research. What is needed then is democratic accountability for the gatekeepers. We should be able to get rid of them if they're doing a bad job.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

Dunno really.

It's fairly common for the BBC to be criticised for doing 'mass market' stuff which (if you're arguing against the BBC) 'should be left to the commercial market', and at the same time be criticised for doing 'minority' stuff which (likewise) 'shouldn't be wasting the licence payers' money on it'

as with a lot of things, the BBC is not at all perfect. i just have a distinct feeling that any of the alternatives (leave it all to mr murdoch? tiny, amateur / community programming?) would be worse.

aware the BBC has tended to be 'establishment' for years, but find their massive tory bias in the last few years hard to forgive. it's more pernicious than the daily fail and so on, as most people who read 'news' papers know where that paper is coming from, but some people still believe the BBC is impartial and unbiased...

 

[YouSir]

Don't think I'm with you on your democratic commissioning process tbh. I think gatekeepers serve a purpose. Even John Peel didn't just play any old shit on his show. He was the gatekeeper who listened to everything he was sent and let us listen to what he thought was the best of it. Where time and space are limited, there needs to be that kind of process, and in theory at least, it's a process best delegated to someone who has some knowledge plus the time to put in to research. What is needed then is democratic accountability for the gatekeepers. We should be able to get rid of them if they're doing a bad job.

I'd say Peel was more of a reviewer/aficionado than a gatekeeper though, he decided what he played in his time slot and there's nothing contrary to a democratic model in that. The issue lies more with those who decide who gets those time slots in the first place. I didn't listen to him/the radio in his time tbh but it says something that he looms large as the one who opened the gates to a whole range of music and voices which may have been underrepresented otherwise. Why was he the 'one'? Why has so much other music radio output historically been dominated by a direct line between label/industry gatekeepers and radio ones? Why weren't there a lot more Peels? It's not for a lack of audience desire, music is a good example of that - subcultures and trends have always emerged from the ground upwards and even more so in the internet age but instead of that manifesting in real time it's left for those 'gatekeepers' to either catch up or learn to care about what already exists. And even when they do it usually means moderating or qualifying it to fit their own desires for their platform, rather than the thing as it is.

On a wider cultural level, looking beyond music, representation of minority groups is another good example of that. Reliant on gatekeepers BAME, LGBTQ, religious minorities, those with disabilities and other groups have all had to either wait indefinitely or campaign incessantly for the media to find a reason to care that they exist and feature/cater to them in any substantive way. A direct democratic voice circumvents that, it allows people to actively bring about a reflection of themselves and their lives.

Also people these days do put in the time to explore culture and reach their own conclusions on it, pretty much every online media platform is evidence of that. Not that I've any love for massive YouTubers who churn out shit but by and large they were discovered and pushed forward by an active, exploring audience. Not selected by a tiny minority of authorities in the media. And beyond them there's a whole realm of smaller and far better creations finding a following, whether directly or when people choose their own curators to guide them. Applies to video platforms, music, indie publishers, indie game makers, art - everything.

 

[YouSir]

Dunno really.

It's fairly common for the BBC to be criticised for doing 'mass market' stuff which (if you're arguing against the BBC) 'should be left to the commercial market', and at the same time be criticised for doing 'minority' stuff which (likewise) 'shouldn't be wasting the licence payers' money on it'

as with a lot of things, the BBC is not at all perfect. i just have a distinct feeling that any of the alternatives (leave it all to mr murdoch? tiny, amateur / community programming?) would be worse.

aware the BBC has tended to be 'establishment' for years, but find their massive tory bias in the last few years hard to forgive. it's more pernicious than the daily fail and so on, as most people who read 'news' papers know where that paper is coming from, but some people still believe the BBC is impartial and unbiased...

Why should community programming be either tiny or amateur? The money that currently goes towards the BBC plus the infrastructure and expertise it has could be moved over to supporting more independent work. Those doing the work could be paid, just as they are now, standards could be set high, as they (broadly) are now. The BBC is just a funding model at the end of the day, if that funding can be retained (or rather matched) then a better model needn't lose anything.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

Why should community programming be either tiny or amateur?

Those doing the work could be paid, just as they are now, standards could be set high,

they could be...

 

[YouSir]

they could be...

Aye, I know we live in a Tory world and hope is a mugs game but unless the conversation about better ways to do things starts to happen then there's nothing to do but despair anyway. Sure, if trad. media had started having serious, self-reflective discussions about how it could evolve years back then we might not be where we are now. Generally they didn't.

 

[mauvais]

I still don't think you really understand what you're on about, but then I'm no expert on content programming either, so whatever.

Something I wonder though: why do you think your democratised model will be better than a gatekeeper one? You seem to think that it would be more diverse, independent and exploratory. Have you considered that it might be none of those things and instead might further turn into a populist host that in fact ends up platforming the fash, 5G nutters, etc etc?

 

[Boris Sprinkler]

Just get rid of Eastenders it's been shite for years, and all those lame dancing and singing shows. Maybe Jools Holland too. His time is definitely up.

Eastenders serves its purpose.
order et chao.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Why should community programming be either tiny or amateur? The money that currently goes towards the BBC plus the infrastructure and expertise it has could be moved over to supporting more independent work. Those doing the work could be paid, just as they are now, standards could be set high, as they (broadly) are now. The BBC is just a funding model at the end of the day, if that funding can be retained (or rather matched) then a better model needn't lose anything.

One of the problems with that idea would be apathy. Most people won't actively engage in the commissioning process. They won't want the work. Potentially, relatively small but motivated groups could pursue their agendas. I agree with mauvais on that. Maybe not fash, but religious groups certainly. I'm sceptical that it would be an engine of innovation, and in practice I'm not sure how democratic it would be.

 

[krtek a houby]

What's wrong with the beeb having a bar? All relatively large workplaces should have a bar, imo. And a subsidised, or at least nice and cheap, one at that.

Sure, and at least when visiting, never noticed any "celebs". Seemed to be for the rank and file staff...

 

[NoXion]

Eastenders serves its purpose.
order et chao.

Panem et circenses, more like. Although admittedly the panem has been a bit thinner on the ground as of late.

 

[skyscraper101]

Eastenders serves its purpose.
order et chao.

Considering their new set ran £27 Million over budget, the audience is in rapid decline, and it is laughably unrealistic portrayal of the East End (virtually everyone in it is British ffs) I'd question its relevance and return on investment financially and culturally. It's not even good mindless entertainment anymore.

 

[isvicthere?]

Keep it. For Radio 4 if nothing else.

 

[krtek a houby]

Considering their new set ran £27 Million over budget, the audience is in rapid decline, and it is laughably unrealistic portrayal of the East End (virtually everyone in it is British ffs) I'd question its relevance and return on investment financially and culturally. It's not even good mindless entertainment anymore.

Still traumatized by the Fowler family trip to Ireland

 

[ManchesterBeth]

It’s entire morning, day time output seems designed to outrage viewers, vilify the poor and foreigners and drive the fantasy buy to let market

that and shonky political coverage

fuck em, so what if Attenburgh occasionally voice overs some top end digital Natural world wank fest

pile of pooh

yeah true that, goa trance got old as soon as it was invented in 92-93.

 

[skyscraper101]

Still traumatized by the Fowler family trip to Ireland

Oh God. That was terrible. I recently discussed this with someone and scoured the internet to find some evidence of how awful it was. It seems to have been wiped from existence.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

Only time will take care of the Radio 4 hardcore I'm afraid, no matter how good the system.

anyone ever played criminal minds on there?

 

[krtek a houby]

Oh God. That was terrible. I recently discussed this with someone and scoured the internet to find some evidence of how awful it was. It seems to have been wiped from existence.

Not even mind bleach works for those of us who watched it. Did not go down well in Ireland. And rightly so.

 

[YouSir]

One of the problems with that idea would be apathy. Most people won't actively engage in the commissioning process. They won't want the work. Potentially, relatively small but motivated groups could pursue their agendas. I agree with mauvais on that. Maybe not fash, but religious groups certainly. I'm sceptical that it would be an engine of innovation, and in practice I'm not sure how democratic it would be.

They already do participate and it isn't a huge amount of work either. Patreon, YouTube subscriptions, KickStarters - they all represent people making a choice to support creative output without gatekeepers. Same happens with live entertainment, to a degree, the culture industry doesn't take mad blind punts on complete unknowns - mostly it brings in those who've already built up a following of some sort. They pick up on what people have already invested time, effort and attention in. Whats more both of those manifestations exist in the private sector, they require even more work given that offering that support means financial outlay.

I still don't think you really understand what you're on about, but then I'm no expert on content programming either, so whatever.

Something I wonder though: why do you think your democratised model will be better than a gatekeeper one? You seem to think that it would be more diverse, independent and exploratory. Have you considered that it might be none of those things and instead might further turn into a populist host that in fact ends up platforming the fash, 5G nutters, etc etc?

Democratic models of content are already more diverse, independent and exploratory - the internet exists. That a wider range of people than would ever have been possible in a trad model have access to the tools to create and share content without gatekeeper involvement is already a fact, not an ambition. The question is more how to take advantage of that potential and how to fund the creative industries than whether it'll happen.

As it is that creative expansion is being left entirely in the hands of the private sector, advertisers and the ability of any single creator to push their own funding sources (like Patreon). Sure, if you want to talk about the platforming of nutters and Fash that's a great example of where a gatekeeper free model can go wrong - Far Right voices get near infinite funding for their grift, churning out videos, books, podcasts and whatever else through social media. Left wing ones, absent any real funding (and often expertise) of their own have a far lesser reach. Provide a democratised model of funding and there would be some greater balance in that. People could organise and push for representation without it being contingent on wealth. The BBC gatekeeper model on the other hand will give you Owen Jones being argued at by a Tory once a month and label it fair and balanced.

That said I don't view any model as a panacea. Opening up democratic access to the culture industry won't amount to a utopian landscape, but then a gatekeeper model certainly hasn't done that either, it's given us lots of Farage and Johnson.

And one last thing - culture and news/journalism are two distinct things, two different industries - I no more think people should vote on the news they get than the BBC should choose it through politically compromised gatekeepers and editors. News should be objective and factual, nothing else. British journalism is another huge topic in itself though.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

They already do participate and it isn't a huge amount of work either. Patreon, YouTube subscriptions, KickStarters - they all represent people making a choice to support creative output without gatekeepers. Same happens with live entertainment, to a degree, the culture industry doesn't take mad blind punts on complete unknowns - mostly it brings in those who've already built up a following of some sort. They pick up on what people have already invested time, effort and attention in. Whats more both of those manifestations exist in the private sector, they require even more work given that offering that support means financial outlay.



Democratic models of content are already more diverse, independent and exploratory - the internet exists. That a wider range of people than would ever have been possible in a trad model have access to the tools to create and share content without gatekeeper involvement is already a fact, not an ambition. The question is more how to take advantage of that potential and how to fund the creative industries than whether it'll happen.

As it is that creative expansion is being left entirely in the hands of the private sector, advertisers and the ability of any single creator to push their own funding sources (like Patreon). Sure, if you want to talk about the platforming of nutters and Fash that's a great example of where a gatekeeper free model can go wrong - Far Right voices get near infinite funding for their grift, churning out videos, books, podcasts and whatever else through social media. Left wing ones, absent any real funding (and often expertise) of their own have a far lesser reach. Provide a democratised model of funding and there would be some greater balance in that. People could organise and push for representation without it being contingent on wealth. The BBC gatekeeper model on the other hand will give you Owen Jones being argued at by a Tory once a month and label it fair and balanced.

That said I don't view any model as a panacea. Opening up democratic access to the culture industry won't amount to a utopian landscape, but then a gatekeeper model certainly hasn't done that either, it's given us lots of Farage and Johnson.

And one last thing - culture and news/journalism are two distinct things, two different industries - I no more think people should vote on the news they get than the BBC should choose it through politically compromised gatekeepers and editors. News should be objective and factual, nothing else. British journalism is another huge topic in itself though.

You make good points. However, I would still question just how many people are involved in kickstarters, etc. It is still very much a minority activity. I know from experience in other areas - trying to get members of my martial arts association more involved, for instance - that most people don't want to make the effort, even where the matter involves them directly.

Apathy is one of the major drawbacks of direct democracy. You see it in Switzerland with their referendum system - the minaret ban passed not cos the majority of Swiss wanted it, but because fewer than 40 % of the electorate bothered to vote in that particular ref, and a motivated minority got it through. In matters less serious, participation will be even lower.

 

[YouSir]

You make good points. However, I would still question just how many people are involved in kickstarters, etc. It is still very much a minority activity. I know from experience in other areas - trying to get members of my martial arts association more involved, for instance - that most people don't want to make the effort, even where the matter involves them directly.

Apathy is one of the major drawbacks of direct democracy. You see it in Switzerland with their referendum system - the minaret ban passed not cos the majority of Swiss wanted it, but because fewer than 40 % of the electorate bothered to vote in that particular ref, and a motivated minority got it through. In matters less serious, participation will be even lower.

Aye, Kickstarters are probably a fairly marginal thing but making cultural choices isn't and that's the core factor. Everyone does that in one way or another and the effort that goes in is hugely variable. For some people their only interest is the football, or Mrs Browns Boys or whatever. So all they'll do is put their name to the list calling for those things to be funded and they almost certainly would be regardless of what bar you set for support. What happens beyond that is where the potential for the, imo, interesting stuff lays but either way the barrier of entry for participation could be (and should be) incredibly low. There's a lot of potential to build a model for that too, beyond anything I could really speculate on.

As for apathy letting the motivated and the racist in - aye, that's an issue. That's a social issue as much as anything though. Apathy already lets bullshit voices flourish in the media (not BBC specifically, but not excluding it). Think that manifests mostly on the news/journalism/political side though and how you counter it is a different issue really imo.

 

[Boris Sprinkler]

Considering their new set ran £27 Million over budget, the audience is in rapid decline, and it is laughably unrealistic portrayal of the East End (virtually everyone in it is British ffs) I'd question its relevance and return on investment financially and culturally. It's not even good mindless entertainment anymore.

Do you think the mass hypnosis of watching low grade shitty storylines with dysfunctional familes and situations is entirely by accident? Given how much thought they gave into what we couldnt watch.

 

[mauvais]

Haven't got much time right now but:

- the Internet and Internet services are not democratic, for a variety of reasons. Democracy would look like a big pipe of resources apportioned to commissioning by popular selection - what programming shall we make? What we actually have is free marketism led by existing capital and viewing figures and it's not the same thing.

- people shouldn't have to fight for cultural representation. Should let's say BAME people have to fight to be represented in the workplace?

- public service broadcasting is a different thing to demand-driven broadcasting, again for many reasons. There is value in showing people things they didn't know they wanted.

 

[YouSir]

Haven't got much time right now but:

- the Internet and Internet services are not democratic, for a variety of reasons. Democracy would look like a big pipe of resources apportioned to commissioning by popular selection - what programming shall we make? What we actually have is free marketism led by existing capital and viewing figures and it's not the same thing.

- people shouldn't have to fight for cultural representation. Should let's say BAME people have to fight to be represented in the workplace?

- public service broadcasting is a different thing to demand-driven broadcasting, again for many reasons. There is value in showing people things they didn't know they wanted.

- You're right, nationalise the internet too. Even now though it is drastically more democratic than trad media. You, I or anyone can start creating content and sharing it online where it can, potentially, find an audience. As I said earlier though - and you seem to agree - the current main gauge of how that audience is built and manifested relies on commercial interests. Let's have state funding for those creators as well as access to a non ad-driven platform and we can get away from that.

- No, they shouldn't but they've had to, for decades. Still do, the wider culture industry is often incredibly exclusive and unrepresentative and the BBC itself has a deeply variable history on that front too. What far predates even the first attempts from the mainstream cultural media to offer actual considered representation of BAME communities though is BAME communities and their cultural lives. A good example of an existing audience and existing creative/intellectual output having to wait/fight for recognition from a small minority of gatekeepers amongst whom they weren't represented.

- Democratising commissioning opens up the landscape for huge range and variety in content, given the capacity for production that the BBC has and a potential new entity could build on there's the scope for people to spend a lifetime experiencing stuff they never knew existed, never mind knowing they wanted.

 

[ska invita]

From The TImes:

A million households abandon BBC over two years​

The BBC has lost one million UK households in the past two years, its annual report has revealed. The dramatic drop in the number of licence fee holders comes with the BBC facing a further revolt from 260,000 pensioners who have so far declined to make arrangements to pay the £159 fee for the first time.

 

[ska invita]

Bolshevik Broadcasting Company hires another left wing propagandist

Ex-GB News editorial director John McAndrew joins BBC

John McAndrew, who was editorial director at GB News upon its launch last year, has joined the BBC as director of news programmes.

pressgazette.co.uk