Should the BBC license fee be “slashed”?

Having requested an increase in the license fee, the BBC is to be sorely disappointed when the government refuses to play ball, writes Ned Temko in the Observer (1). It seems to be rather cheeky of the BBC, which did not so much bite the hand that fed it as tear it off, chew over it, swallow it and squeeze it out in the Television Centre staff toilets, to ask for more money from the same government it has attempted to hound from office.

Perhaps the government does not believe we should have so many home improvement shows – it is clear from current scheduling that the BBC is intent to plumb the depths that were until recently the sole playground of ITV; that is, to produce endless identikit daytime shows hosted by ‘experts’ in fields that did not seem rich enough to enable anyone to achieve any sort of expertise in them, and that serve merely as fodder for TV satirists and impressionists who need someone to take the piss out of. We have already seen Channel 4, once an exciting and adventurous station, slowly collapse into a wretched swamp of ‘top 100’ shows and Jimmy Carr vehicles. The BBC clearly wants more money so that it can bring in Carr to nestle snugly beside Graham ‘yes I’m GAY and isn’t that remarkable’ Norton, the not-so-thinking man’s Julian Clary. In short, the BBC, full to the brim with self-importance, wants to be the Chelsea FC of broadcasting. Ant and Dec would certainly have found their way onto the shopping list, though I’m sure their vehicle would not have been called – unfortunately – One Night of Torture Inflicted On Two Talentless Pricks Who are Not Not Not the New Morcambe and Wise.

The BBC has also displayed its political colours, something which has not caused too much worry among Lefties, since the BBC has turned out redder than George Galloway’s favourite Che Guevara poster. As a Liberal and a Democrat, I find it difficult to condemn the BBC for its stance, although I am not comfortable with its virulently anti-Israeli bias, nor do I think everything is the fault of Tony “given that England didn’t win the World Cup should he now resign?” Blair. The BBC has, over the past few years, become a political party in itself, one which is not supported by a large part of the population. The right-wing elements in our society still pay taxes, and it would be unethical to force them to pay for a broadcasting corporation intent on following a particular agenda. Imagine, if you will, that the BBC was right-wing instead of left; the Guardian and the Independent would be up in arms, quite rightly. If the BBC is to take license-payers’ money, it should not have an inherent political bias. It should – as all broadcasters would in an ideal world – cater for everyone, and report the facts, rather than hunt down particular political figures. Who can forget the endless, tedious epic ‘The David Kelly Tragedy’ which ran on for weeks, and which was only of interest to the government, who were running scared, and the various bods who worked for the BBC. Most license-fee payers couldn’t have cared less (OK, I exaggerate – it was interesting for about two or three days).

What would happen to the BBC if it lost the license fee altogether? Well, that would be a bad thing, because it would mean more adverts for cars only England managers could afford. However, with the rise of the internet and forums like YouTube, coupled with the plummeting prices of video and recording equipment, it is safe to suggest that the web will be hosting most of the Great New TV of the 21st century (and there’s always HBO). However, BBC radio would be harder to do without. We would all miss that great sports coverage, an interest in literature and the arts (unlike the Beeb’s TV schedules, which are violently anti-art (2) and desperate not to appear in the least bit ‘high brow’) and top-notch reporting of facts, not biased and credulous pseudo-fictions.

Should the license fee be split between BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5? It would seem absurd to say yes in ITV’s case, since ITV’s schedule has been known to melt brains; Channel 4 has done its level best to debase and lampoon itself, and has lost much of the critical favour it garnered in halcyon days (can Film 4 persuade me to forgive them for Big Brother? Not quite… I have a Blockbuster card). At least Channel 5 shows soft-core porn and Jackie Chan movies, and doesn’t assume (unlike the bosses of the BBC and Channel 4) that all clever people can afford cable, and that those who can’t afford it must be mindless plebs who revel in home improvement shows featuring celebrities they’ve never heard of doing up houses for complete strangers they’ll never meet. Yes, Channel 5 is rubbish, but it doesn’t pretend otherwise, hence my grudging respect.

Ultimately, the BBC is cheeky to ask for more money, and is unlikely to get it since it has made itself the scourge and bane of New Labour (who will be in power for the next 1,468 years). Now, I loath the hypocrisy of New Labour, I abhor Tony’s choice to acquiesce to the sick and depraved born-again Evangelical nut-jobs who can now, thanks to him, buy secondary schools (yes, BUY secondary schools!!!) and teach British children that the world was made in six days by a being for whom there is not one single shred of proof, who was invented by a troublesome group of rebellious misfits 2,000 years ago, who got hold of a few Jewish and Pagan myths and ripped them off wholesale – but I digress, and in doing so, mutilate my neat concluding paragraph: in short, the balance between good material and bad material produced by the BBC has swung too far the wrong way for too long. Let the Beeb find the money someplace else – perhaps the Lib Dems will toss a few pennies their way after the next fundraiser.

By Christopher Hobday

Published November 2006


Notes

(1) http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1945865,00.html
(2) Good art is to the benefit of everyone; BBC TV’s arts and culture coverage boils down to Newsnight Review, on for 30 minutes, at 11pm, once a week. Pathetic.