What does the future hold for the BBC?

Hello again,

Another of my Tremr.com articles republished for my lovely readers on How To Be a Teenager. This one is about that beloved part of the British life, the BBC, and what changes to the Royal Charter mean for its future.

Enjoy!

               _________________________________________________________________

The history of the BBC is a long and winding one, but in many ways it is also one of consistency. It has been in our lives for more three generations, but with the Royal Charter drawing to a close at the end of next year, what does the future hold for the British Broadcasting Corporation?

A Brief History of the BBC

Founded in October 1922 by John Reith, the BBC has given us a unique combination of news coverage, political opinion, sports commentary, soap operas and dramas for many years. However, time is seemingly running out for the broadcasting corporation, causing the Government to wade in. George Osbourne announced on Wednesday that the BBC must provide over 75s with television licences for free, causing an estimated cut of £650m.

However, interference from the Government is a slippery slope. With increased input from the Chancellor, and by extension, Parliament, Sir Christopher Bland, former chair of the corporation, fears that the BBC will become "an arm of the government". 

"Rather subtly and unattractively it draws the BBC closer to becoming an arm of government which is always something that the BBC and government have resisted... It's transferring social policy onto the licence fees and it's shifting from direct taxation where it properly belongs the cost of a Gordon Brown giveaway that was doubtful in the first place anyhow."

The BBC is worryingly close to becoming an arm of the Government, says its own former chair

Sir Christopher Bland, who chaired the BBC between 1996 and 2001, said the Chancellor's plan to offload spending priorities onto the…

independent.co.uk

The Future

So where does all of this leave the national broadcasting service? There are several options, or combinations of options, being discussed:

1) Scrap the £145.50 annual licence fee, making television viewing free for everyone, and begin to incorporate advertising. 

Advertising is a tricky issue for the BBC, as the company prides itself on being "unbiased". Though this article does not tackle the accusation that this is a dubious claim as the BBC is frequently criticised for being left-wing, the issue of advertising will undoubtably cause conflict of interests to arise, thereby opening the BBC up to yet more criticism.

Additionally, one has to wonder what will happen in the time it takes for the BBC to adjust to whatever changes may occur. Indeed, a very real possibility is that another company will take the helm at the top of the programme-making tree. With programme scripts and concepts temporarily not being pitched to the BBC, in that hiatus a company already acclimatised to the advantages and limitations of advertising in the medium could quite easily step into the breach. Arguably, Sky Atlantic and Sky Arts are already poised to consolidate their recent gains in the areas of high-quality drama and the arts, areas in which the BBC has historically been a world leader.

2) Alter the nature of the licence fee and make it variable.

The idea comes from the criticism that £145.50 is a huge cut of some families' income. One solution to this, volunteered by Conservative MP John Whittingdale, is this:

I have been looking at other countries, how they [pay licence fees], there is quite an attractive option of linking it to a specific household tax like the council tax, or maybe utilities. That's what happens in a number of European countries."

He also says that he would like to see research on the issue move into whether the population could pay a reduced fee, such as £100, but could pay for access to other BBC channels in addition, as and when they want to watch them.  

3) Begin to charge users of iPlayer.

This option is in the hope of eliminating those viewers who continue to watch live television on catch up services without a pre-paid licence. 

In June 2014, it was estimated that almost half a million users of BBC iPlayer were doing so without a licence. 

If the bill payer of the house were to, on purchasing the licence, provide the number of family members living in the house, and then was in turn provided with a code which could be entered into the iPlayer, to verify the licence, the problem could well be reduced. This problem could be as easily solved by an extra level of security on the BBC's part. 

4) Keep the current licence fee for as long as possible.

This is an interesting idea, and one that seems, unsurprisingly, to be a favourite in the eyes of the BBC. One thing that many people like about the BBC is its lack of advertisements: programmes can be watched in their entirety without having to sit through mindless sofa company adverts. However, the licence fee is an awful lot of money, especially when viewers can in fact watch the vast majority of television for free.

A senior BBC executive announced this week that the BBC will ask over 75's to pay the licence fee voluntarily. The results could provide a barometer for the views of the public on how the BBC is viewed and whether there is the will to keep it in its present form to the point that people are prepared to pay for it. One must be careful with the results, however; older people may have a different view and also sometimes are in straitened circumstances.

So, in return for paying the licence fee each year, could the public make demands in return? 

One area that requests could be made in is comedy. With the upcoming transition of BBC Three onto solely an online platform, there will a gaping void in showcasing new comedy. Where the BBC will put any new comedy that comes its way is a tricky timetabling dilemma. The repercussions of this move could be vast, given that in recent years, BBC Three has premiered some massive successes, including Little Britain, Gavin and Stacey and Being Human. However, given that the annual budget for the channel in its current format is £85m, the BBC feels that in order to save some money, this is its best option. 

Additionally, one of the things that is quite often called for is a re-distribution of ethnicities on television. Currently, black, asian and ethnic minorities make up just 5.4% of the broadcasting workforce, a percentage that I think can be universally considered a disgrace.

Lenny Henry calls for law to boost low numbers of black people in TV industry

The actor and comedian Lenny Henry has called for new legislation to reverse the "appalling" percentage of black and Asian people…

theguardian.com

5) A final option... but probably a somewhat unpopular one.

Alternatively, it could go back in time and not pay ridiculous amounts of money to its bosses and biggest stars, though this seems unlikely. Realistically though, it could afford to give some of its high-fliers a pay cut. Although the BBC refuses to release any actual figures, many reports in recent years have found the approximately 15 broadcasters rake in a salary in excess of £500,000. One can only assume that one of these stars was the previous host of Top Gear, Jeremy Clarkson, so perhaps the BBC has made a small saving there. 

Although the BBC faces some tough times ahead, I for one hope that it stays just where it is. From Doctor Who to Question Time, the BBC continues to be a source of great entertainment and news to many people in Britain and beyond. Regardless of whether one loves or hates the BBC, I fear that its demise would bring with it a diminished source of inspiration for the next generation of British journalists. However, it is clear that big changes need to happen in some form or another, as the annual payment £145.50 moves into being one of the most hotly contested issues of recent years. 

London centrism in the Arts

Hi all,

Sorry it's been a really long time - I'm now working as a political journalist intern at Tremr.com! This is one of the first articles that I wrote for my new position and thought you might be interested in reading it.

It is actually a very important topic in terms of the impact it has on arts students but it also highlights the problem with having a government based in London, making decisions that only benefit London.

Enjoy!

                 ____________________________________________________________

The news this week of plans to build a new runway at Heathrow has caused the term 'London centrism' to be bandied around a lot, but what does it actually mean? 

I thought rather than simply trying to give a hypothetical explanation, I would tackle the issue in relation to how Arts Funding is varyingly distributed across the UK. 

But first, my attempt at a definition. 

London Centrism: the idea that every decision, political or otherwise, in this country is designed with our capital in mind, disregarding the lives and welfares of the rest of the population. 

Funding

A report published in October 2013, named "Rebalancing Our Cultural Capital", revealed there were more than a few little discrepancies when it came to the distribution of funding by Arts Council England (ACE). It seems that the combined spending amounts of ACE and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in 2013 amounted to just £4.58 per head outside of the capital, compared to a whopping £68.99 per head inside. 

Not only does unfair distribution cost the artists themselves - it also cost tax payers and National Lottery players: the donors of ACE's funds. The report highlighted that County Durham's total contribution to the arts lottery was, at the time, £34m, whilst they had received only £12m. Westminster, on the other hand, has made a total contribution of £14.5m, but has received a shocking £408m. Of the £317m the Arts Lottery accumulated in 2012/2013, ACE distributed 45% to London alone. Just one city received £142.64m, leaving the rest of the UK with the remainder to spread out. 

In the last few years, London-centric funding distribution has threatened artistic venue closures across the North, including Scarborough Futurist theatre, famous for showcasing The Beatles, and The Arches music venue in Glasgow.

It would seem however that London is reluctant to change anything. Munira Mirza, Deputy Mayor of Education and Culture under Boris Johnson was highly critical of Peter Stark, Christopher Gordon and David Powell's report, calling it "shortsighted and disappointing". She also stated:

"To propose further funding cuts to arts in the capital, with the aim of redistributing it amongst the regions, is simplistic at best and dangerous at worst. It would seriously undermine London's status as one of the great world cities for culture, whilst bringing marginal benefits outside the capital."

Where's the mention of Manchester, whose massively diverse music scene could give London's a run for its money any day? Of Scotland's world-class conservatoire, RCS? Of Durham's excellent choral music programmes? But more importantly, what about all of those young and aspiring musicians, who aren't able to learn an instrument at school due to lack of funding? Or artists who cannot go to art classes because there isn't the funding to set them up? There's nothing marginal about the £396 million difference between the funding in Westminster and that of County Durham. 

Not only is the Deputy Mayor against changes to the current distribution pattern, but it would appear the Mayor himself is also against the idea. In November of last year, Boris Johnson made it clear that he did not think cutting arts funding to London in order to re-distribute was a good idea.

"Sacrificing this particular golden goose for a bit of glib London-bashing will do little to improve cultural provision in the regions and would be an act of sabotage for one of our country's greatest assets."  - Boris Johnson

Once again, cities in the 'desolate, barren North' have been swept aside, in favour of the superior capital. Mirza perpetuates the problem, by clearly not wishing to see a fairer re-distribution system that would mean more young people could contribute to the arts. The only logical explanation for this situation is that, the 'powers that be' reside in the capital, making their decisions in London, for London. This means they cannot see the staggeringly unfair distribution of wealth they are embroiled in, even when it is pointed out to them. What's more, they see no reason to even try to change the current situation whilst the capital prospers. 

There may, however, be a glimmer of hope on the horizon. Channel 4's potential relocation to Birmingham or Manchester could mean the beginnings of a re-distribution of major media outlets across the country. Not only that, if George Osbourne's plans to change the economic imbalance between the North and South, by establishing a 'Northern Powerhouse' are actually put into effect, Northerners could start feeling like they're actually part of the country again.

It really is no wonder that Scotland, and indeed some parts of Northern England feel disillusioned with the government's running of the country, and feel like decisions are made without any consideration for them. Although I do not claim that arts funding forms the majority of this disillusionment, it certainly is a factor when considering the ever-growing North-South divide. 

The "Rebalancing Our Cultural Capital" report can be found below.

http://www.gpsculture.co.uk/rocc.php