by the people for the people
The row that has broken out in Britain over the TV rights to F1 motor racing raises a question. Who decides what a public broadcaster should do?
It looks more and more likely that the split coverage deal is a direct result of the BBC running out of money and having to find cuts wherever it can. Why did the BBC run out of money? Two reasons spring to mind - poor management and a government refusal to increase the public funding that the BBC relies on. Given that the whole world seems to be short of money, it's not a surprise that the BBC budget has been cut. But if the BBC was a private company, they would have gone out of business long ago without effective management. Stories abound of inflated crews for outside broadcasts; of high salaries for key presenters and artistes; of huge investment in new buildings. No matter how true those stories might be, the question remains - who decides how the BBC should spend its money? How much does the BBC take notice of what its audience wants? Is the problem that the BBC is still riddled with the old public service mentality - in managers and unions?
There is an uncomfortable parallel in the way that Britain's railways have been run. In the 1990s, the rail network was sliced up and sold off - the direct result was poorer services at higher fares and an almost complete lack of network thinking. Studies have shown a huge waste of money on expensive resources - mostly consultants and extra spending on health and safety issues - with little tangible benefit. Now there is an apparent effort to bring the network back under some sort of rational control with lower costs that might come down to the level that other countries spend.
Do we need the same sort of root and branch study of the BBC to cut out waste and bad management and allow the kind of broadcasting that actually meets the needs of the audience? We can all think of things that are bad at the BBC; who will have the guts to tell the top managers and directors it's time they quit?
It looks more and more likely that the split coverage deal is a direct result of the BBC running out of money and having to find cuts wherever it can. Why did the BBC run out of money? Two reasons spring to mind - poor management and a government refusal to increase the public funding that the BBC relies on. Given that the whole world seems to be short of money, it's not a surprise that the BBC budget has been cut. But if the BBC was a private company, they would have gone out of business long ago without effective management. Stories abound of inflated crews for outside broadcasts; of high salaries for key presenters and artistes; of huge investment in new buildings. No matter how true those stories might be, the question remains - who decides how the BBC should spend its money? How much does the BBC take notice of what its audience wants? Is the problem that the BBC is still riddled with the old public service mentality - in managers and unions?
There is an uncomfortable parallel in the way that Britain's railways have been run. In the 1990s, the rail network was sliced up and sold off - the direct result was poorer services at higher fares and an almost complete lack of network thinking. Studies have shown a huge waste of money on expensive resources - mostly consultants and extra spending on health and safety issues - with little tangible benefit. Now there is an apparent effort to bring the network back under some sort of rational control with lower costs that might come down to the level that other countries spend.
Do we need the same sort of root and branch study of the BBC to cut out waste and bad management and allow the kind of broadcasting that actually meets the needs of the audience? We can all think of things that are bad at the BBC; who will have the guts to tell the top managers and directors it's time they quit?
posted by Simon | 12:14 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home