BBC Could Be Broken Up

[Admiral Valdemar]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 28,00.html

BBC threatened with break-up

Robert Winnett and David Leppard

THE BBC could be dismantled and its editorial independence curbed in the wake of the row over Iraq, according to leaked government papers.

The Whitehall documents, drawn up by senior civil servants, suggest that the BBC could be split into “separate entities for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland”. The papers signal a policy which corporation executives fear would end its 80-year existence as a national institution.

The break-up plans form part of a wider review of the BBC’s future and come at one of the most vulnerable moments in its history after the resignations last month of its chairman and director-general.

The internal documents also reveal that the government is considering a wider role for Ofcom, its new media watchdog, with greater controls over BBC services and output. The governors could be stripped of their job of overseeing the BBC’s “impartiality and accuracy” with the task handed to the quango.

Other ideas, which are likely to form the basis for a green paper on the BBC’s new charter, include: o Taking the governors “outside the BBC” to make them more independent. o Increasing parliamentary scrutiny with an annual review of the BBC’s performance. o Sharing a portion of its £2.6 billion a year licence fee revenue among other broadcasters. o Closing new services that fail to fulfil the corporation’s role as a public service broadcaster.

Although the 30 pages of drafts, headed BBC Charter Review, appear to be at an early stage, the disclosure of the documents will be embarrassing.

Critics will claim that the government is gearing up to exploit the fall-out from the Hutton inquiry in which the BBC was savaged for the quality of its journalism and management.

In the most contentious section — entitled The BBC’s Constitution — the papers say there could be more scope for national and regional autonomy “to reduce perceived metropolitan bias”. But then officials ask: “How far is it essential for the BBC to be organised on a UK-wide basis?

Is there a case for separate entities for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, or at least a more federated approach than now?” The disclosure will alarm Lord Birt, former director-general of the BBC and one of Tony Blair’s closest advisers. He described any such move as one which would eventually turn the BBC into “a weak, federal institution”.

In his autobiography he said this would mean the BBC being “broken up with an English Broadcasting Corporation . . . and its status as the world’s most successful cultural institution much diminished”.

Any such move could mark an end of UK-wide news bulletins and nationwide scheduling. Each regional and national station would commission and broadcast its own shows.

The document raises the prospect of the post-Hutton BBC having its radio and television networks divided up, further undermining its national status.

In a section on regulation and governance it also questions whether to “shift” the balance of editorial controls, for example through a “wider Ofcom enforcement role”.

There could be “new controls on quality, fair trading and cross-promotion” and an extension of Ofcom’s remit to oversee the “impartiality and accuracy” of the BBC’s output. “Is there some way of measuring compliance?” the papers ask. “Would it be right to do so?” Ofcom was set up under the latest Communications Act as a single regulator of the entire broadcasting and communications industry. However, the quango has been criticised for being too close to government.

Another radical idea is to take the governors outside the BBC “to enhance their status as independent regulators” and change the credentials required and way they are appointed.

The move follows criticism of the governors when they robustly defended Andrew Gilligan, the BBC journalist, against government criticism without first checking the truth of his reports.

The documents question whether the BBC should retain its royal charter status guaranteeing its independence. Despite ministers having publicly insisted the structure will not change, the papers ask: “Reconstitute BBC as statutory body? Give it NDPB (quango) status? Should it (the charter review) leave the BBC with an effective power of veto as at present?” An alternative, say the documents, could see it being regulated and accountable to parliament via an annual review of its performance. BBC governors and executives could also face “full scrutiny” from the public accounts committee.

The papers question whether new services such as the digital channel BBC3 should continue: “Do new services continue to fill (public service broadcasting) criteria? (If not they should be closed).”

Some of the BBC’s licence fee money could be handed to independent broadcasters to help pay for their public service commitments such as news and education. The papers indicate ministers wish to make BBC programmes more upmarket and educational. They suggest it could be run as an “arts council for the air . . . wholly or mainly devoted to areas where commercial broadcasters are unlikely to provide the required level of service, irrespective of audience share”.

The documents say a clearer definition of the BBC’s public service obligations might be needed so that its performance could be more easily assessed. [/B]

Labour can go fuck themselves if they think they can do this, the motion will be thrown out and Labour loses to the Conservatives again for another century.

The Hutton report was a whitewash, anyone with half a brain cell can see that and I doubt even the troglodytes in the public fell for it for a second.

[El Moose Monstero]

[Stuart Mackey]

A news organisation being accoutable to Parliment {read the government}? sounds like a return to the bad old days when the government really did decide what was news.
So much for freedom of the Press in Britian if this goes ahead.

[Joe]

Explain. While I'm fairly certain the BBC made shit up, how does that warrant a gov't investigation? Is it because the BBC is publically owned or something?

Whenever an American media outlet makes shit up, there's usually a civil suit or something like that, not a government investigation.

[Stuart Mackey]

Explain. While I'm fairly certain the BBC made shit up, how does that warrant a gov't investigation? Is it because the BBC is publically owned or something?

Whenever an American media outlet makes shit up, there's usually a civil suit or something like that, not a government investigation.

The BBC has always been publicly owned. Historically the government had an enormous influence on what was broadcast {going from some things W.S. Churchill said during the 30's.}. If the British government thinks it can regain the influence it lost from the 70's on it will. Be in no doubt, what a Westminster system government can do can put the US government to shame...untill the next election.

[Howedar]

Moreover, how does breaking them into a bunch of miniBBC's fix that problem?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Moreover, how does breaking them into a bunch of miniBBC's fix that problem?

It doesn't. It is, however, a typical government solution.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It doesn't. It is, however, a typical government solution.

If I may make an observation:

The government may have intentionally leaked these documents so that a huge firestorm will erupt. The result will be that a "concession" will occur in which the BBC remains intact, but the proposed oversight boards--the real teeth in the proposal--are still implemented.

[Stuart Mackey]

Moreover, how does breaking them into a bunch of miniBBC's fix that problem?

Because it squarly puts the power of patronage back in the hands of a government apointed quango. It also has the advantage of rdusing the resources of the organisation. All of these things should mean less chance of the BBC embarassing the government.

[Sarevok]

It would be realy sad to see the BBC broken up in a free country like Britain.

[Vendetta]

It's just one more step in Blair's ascent to Supreme Life President, I suspect. Assuming Brown doesn't get him first.

And the worst thing is that we won't be able to get rid of the fuckers at the next election either, because the opposition lack either popular credibility, in the LibDems, or a Clue, in the Tories.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Politics is always about the lesser of two evils, but I've had quite enough already of Teflon Tony.

[Tribun]

Tony knews that he is done. The Brit's won't want him any longer. So he now thinks that he could do as he want. He don't know that he will put himself in an even erlier grave....

[TheDarkling]

Tony knews that he is done. The Brit's won't want him any longer. So he now thinks that he could do as he want. He don't know that he will put himself in an even erlier grave....

He still has his third term to get yet.

[Lord Pounder]

I doubt he will get a 3rd term. It's bad enough his alienated the opinion of the media, and his party, but he's done the stupididt thing possible for an elected official. He's heard what they have to say and completely done the opposite. I still find it itonic that a man who sent british troops to the other side of the world to fight terrorism still has tea and biscuits all the time with unconstructed terrorists in his own back yard.

[Sharp-kun]

The Hutton report was a whitewash, anyone with half a brain cell can see that and I doubt even the troglodytes in the public fell for it for a second.

Why? From the parts of it I've read, it seemed to be quite accurate. The BBC were the ones far more at fault. Had they simply checked the story when the complaint first came through, the whole affair could have been avoided. They didn't, and continued to stand by it all the way, despite the lack of investigation.
Had they believed to strongly that the inquiry was wrong, we would not have seen those resignations, they would have fought it.


On this specific matter, it won't happen. This is simply a suggestion, likely one of many. It will however, be used against the government, regardless of the chances of them actually implementing it. A lot of fuss over nothing.

[TheDarkling]

I doubt he will get a 3rd term. It's bad enough his alienated the opinion of the media, and his party, but he's done the stupididt thing possible for an elected official. He's heard what they have to say and completely done the opposite.

The Labour party still has a 14 point lead in the polls and they have up to 2 years to put distance between themselves and the war on Iraq, unless something rather dramatic happens between now and election time I think Labour is a shoe in.

[Sharp-kun]

Interestingly, the BBC have no story on this.

[FBHthelizardmage]

The Hutton report was a whitewash, anyone with half a brain cell can see that and I doubt even the troglodytes in the public fell for it for a second.

Why? From the parts of it I've read, it seemed to be quite accurate. The BBC were the ones far more at fault. Had they simply checked the story when the complaint first came through, the whole affair could have been avoided. They didn't, and continued to stand by it all the way, despite the lack of investigation.
Had they believed to strongly that the inquiry was wrong, we would not have seen those resignations, they would have fought it.

Actually, the Hutton report contains some rather large flaws. For one thing, he crtized the editorial police at today, without calling the people in charge of it as witnesses.

He also set his remit in a very narrow fashion, thus avoiding any damage to the goverment.

And without wishing to mount an Ad-Hominum attack on the judge, he's the same guy who cleared the the police and crown prosecutions service of any mishandling of evidence in Conviction 8 years ealier of Gary Mills and Tony poole, A case in which a key witness, Crucial to the defence, was told by the police not to turn up at court and a police officer gave a hearsay version of his account.

[Sharp-kun]

He also set his remit in a very narrow fashion, thus avoiding any damage to the goverment.

That was made clear from the start. It was an inquiry into the death of Kelly. It was the media who've given the impression it was something else, much as they distorted the 45 minute claim.

[Lord Pounder]

I doubt he will get a 3rd term. It's bad enough his alienated the opinion of the media, and his party, but he's done the stupididt thing possible for an elected official. He's heard what they have to say and completely done the opposite.

The Labour party still has a 14 point lead in the polls and they have up to 2 years to put distance between themselves and the war on Iraq, unless something rather dramatic happens between now and election time I think Labour is a shoe in.

Labour may win the election, but I'd say it's a fair bet Phoney won't be the man they put forward.

[Sea Skimmer]

When it comes to reliability and leaked papers the British government is about 50 times worse then the US Senate. Why would anyone give this article more then a glance and a laugh?

[Andrew J.]

England should really have a written constitution to guarantee freedom of the press, speech, the right to a fair trial, etc, I think.

[Stuart Mackey]

When it comes to reliability and leaked papers the British government is about 50 times worse then the US Senate. Why would anyone give this article more then a glance and a laugh?

In a Westminster system there are better than even chances that something like this is being activly looked at by the minister.

[Stuart Mackey]

England should really have a written constitution to guarantee freedom of the press, speech, the right to a fair trial, etc, I think.

Wont happen..infringes on Parlimentry Soverignty. Of cource Parlimetry Soverignty is based on the crowns ability to get a mandate at election time . Besides there is always the reasons behind the civil war to remind the politicians not to go to far.