The Captain’s Blog ™

According to a new report from the Centre for Policy Studies, the politically independent think tank, the BBC is trying to be too many things to too many people, resulting in spreading its resources across too many TV and radio channels.

The report, entitled “How to Save the BBC” was authored by Sir Anthony Jay, the co-writer of the popular “Yes Minister” and “Yes Prime Minister” television series.

In it, he argues that the BBC is wasting much of the £4bn it takes each year from licence payers by funding the production and broadcasting of programmes that people either don’t want to watch, can already watch elsewhere (eg on satellite, freeview or cable TV) or are simply very bad quality.

The inherent irony, he reminds us, is that anyone who refuses to pay their licence fee can currently be fined or even sent to prison. Given the pace of development of alternative channels - and especially of programming delivered via PCs - he also argues that the licence fee itself will probably become impossible to either justify or enforce within 10-20 years.

So what future path should the BBC follow? The report suggests that moving immediately to a subscription and advertising-based BBC would both fail to raise the current level of funding and also impact negatively on other commercial broadcasters.

The answer lies instead, he argues, in re-examining some of the fundamental assumptions that currently underpin what the BBC does. Specifically, does it need to provide as many TV and radio channels as at present? He suggests not. Local radio, digital TV channels, educational television and Radio 1, 2 and 3 are just some of the examples that he places under a microscope in respect of justifying their expense as an appropriate use of licence payers’ money in the light of similar services provided by other broadcasters.

The solution, he feels, is to turn the whole thing on its head and remodel the BBC from the ground up - a “zero-based reconstruction” - to redefine the role of a modern day public service broadcaster.

Perhaps more to underline the basis of his argument than with any realistic expectation of a literal implementation, he talks about starting with a single TV channel and a single radio channel, both broadcast nationally and using material sourced in the UK. Whilst self-acknowledged as simplistic, his illustrative figures show that massive cost savings could be achieved.

The BBC needs, he says, to make two main, basic changes.

The first is a “spiritual conversion”, through which the BBC needs to shed grandiose perceptions of itself as, for example, “the world’s greatest broadcasting service” and “a cultural beacon” and instead measure itself by the quality of programme production - including by focusing greater attention on viewer ratings.

The second is to reduce its scope of broadcasting activity to focus on, as a minimum, one television channel and one spoken radio channel. (As the BBC’s World Service is funded by the Government, this is excluded from the scope of his recommendations).

Jay is confident that a refocused BBC would be able to produce a reduced output of high quality programmes for a much lower annual cost if it followed his suggested strategy.

He also feels that any additional activities like BBC Online, Publications and so on should be axed unless they are able to generate profits to help fund programme production. He feels that much more can be achieved in that regard than the BBC currently manages.

His vision is of a self-funding public service broadcaster, based around one TV channel and one radio channel. One that produces the best quality programmes and that doesn’t compete with commercial broadcasters for sports and other events that people can watch elsewhere.

In closing, he stresses that his thoughts aren’t intended to attack the BBC, but to help ensure its future role in enriching the nation’s cultural life in the modern day world of broadcasting.

So what should we make of all this?

On the whole, I’m personally inclined to agree with the general cut and thrust of Jay’s arguments, although I certainly don’t feel well enough informed to know whether the full severity of his recommendations is merited. But surely I - and you - should be?

After all, everyone who owns a TV set is paying for this, year in and year out. Shareholders get more information about what their companies are doing than we receive about how our licence fees are being spent. Sure, we see the odd headline about many £million Jonathan Ross or Graham Norton might be getting paid, but that’s about it (although perhaps that’s informative in itself?)

Over recent years, we’ve all watched the BBC spread itself across more and more areas of broadcasting, much of which certainly seems to have been driven by some agenda other than a sensible use of public money. 

On a micro-scale, I’ve long harboured a pet hate about how BBC news programmes waste money. They routinely send film crews out so reporters can be shown standing outside a “relevant location” when there’s no need for them to be there at all. Save the cash and report from the studio!

With the economy reportedly teetering on the brink of recession (or not, depending upon who you believe), there surely couldn’t be a better time for a proper debate on the BBC’s future and how it’s funded.

You can read Anthony Jay’s full report free of charge here. For a think tank report, it’s an easy read and very thought-provoking.

You’ll need Adobe Acrobat Reader. You can download that for free here if you don’t already have it (there’s no need to install the optional “eBay Desktop”, which is currently being offered alongside it).

Alternatively, you can order a paper copy of the report for £5.

There are a lot of things I love about Sky TV. Like Sky+, with its easy-as-pie recording tools and the ability to pause and rewind live TV.

But one thing that really annoys me is how Sky’s team consistently ruins the experience of enjoying a good film.

They do this in two ways:

Pre-film spoilers

If you press the info button when browsing films in the planner, you get a description of the film. Sky seems to revel in using this facility to spoil your enjoyment by revealing key elements of the film’s plot. For me, watching a film is about escapism and watching a story unfold. It doesn’t take much effort to describe a film without revealing too much of the story, but it’s clearly too much effort for Sky.

I use a technique that tries to overcome this - I bring up the info box and skim it very quickly, picking out only actors’ / actresses’ names, film dates and any star ratings. As these elements are all quite distinctive (ie names come in two parts, both starting with capital letters, dates are numbers and stars are, well, stars), it works quite well.

I also, as a matter of routine, mute Sky’s verbal introduction to any film I watch, because I’ve had too many good films ruined that way, too.

A recent example of this was the film “Adrift”.  The name is already suggestive of one or more people finding themselves adrift, so that doesn’t need spelling out. But other things it could be nice to know might include who’s in it, when it was filmed, where it’s set and whether it’s a drama, romantic comedy, thriller, horror, etc.

What’s definitely not welcome is the revelation of a key plot twist that only occurs a quarter of the way into the film. If you haven’t seen it yet and don’t want to know the story, scroll down to my next point, which has the heading “Post-film spoilers”. 

So, to continue, Sky’s info for this film reads: “When six friends jump off a yacht without lowering a ladder, it’s only a matter of time before the bickering stops and terror takes hold. 2006. ***”

What galls me is that the revelation that the ladder hadn’t been lowered a) only happens 1/4 of the way into the film and b) is clearly supposed to be as much of a surprise for the viewers as it is for the characters.

If Sky published books, I expect they’d reveal so much on the front cover that you may as well open their books to halfway and start reading from there!

Post-film spoilers

Now imagine, if you will, that you’ve managed to enjoy a film on Sky without having had the plot laid out in advance and that it had an emotional ending or touched you in some other way. You’re sitting on the sofa, perhaps with tears rolling down your cheeks as the end credits begin to roll and the signature theme tune begins (eg the Bruce Willis blockbuster “Armageddon”, with Aerosmith’s “I Don’t Wanna Miss A Thing”). You want to savour the moment, enjoy the music, reflect on the ending and turn off / over in your own time.

What happens instead? The theme tune is suddently muted just as it reaches the chorus and some jolly announcer starts spoiling the plot for some other films. Such an unwanted intrusion is jarring on so many levels and there’s no way you can regain the mood if / when they finally shut up.

People subscribe to - and pay good money for - Sky movies because they enjoy films. How ironic, then, that Sky seems to go out of its way to spoil them. Please, Sky, stop it!

> Want to get Sky, Sky+, Sky HD? Click here

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

CAPTAIN’S BLOG™ COMMENTS: Want to comment on this post? Register using the comments link below and submit your comment for publication.

FORUM: You can also share experiences about Sky TV and other companies on our forum. To post you’ll need to register. There’ll be a short wait before your account is activated (a day or so at most). Then you’ll be up and running!