Minette Marrin
Download 'Too Hot', an exclusive Specials track from iTunes
The BBC is no longer the much loved, if rather wayward, Auntie of old. Auntie has changed into a monstrously obese, greedy, demanding, confused and destructive old bat. She has traces of her old charm and brilliance; on her good days she’s wonderful. There’s nobody like her.
However, if she is to avoid being sent off to oblivion in a distant old folk’s home, she needs a severe talking-to. Someone must tell her she simply can’t go on like this, and fortunately she has just the favourite nephew to do it - Sir David Attenborough.
In his gentle, lucid way Attenborough explained last week what public service broadcasting is, or ought to be. He gave the first in a series of speeches arranged - admittedly - by the trustees of the BBC, in advance of its submission to the regulator Ofcom’s public service broadcasting review in June. What he said, with all due respect to this national treasure, was obvious. Public service broadcasting is about serving the public and there were moments, he said tactfully, when he wondered whether that was what the BBC did.
Public service broadcasting means an effective network that produces a range of well-made programmes, particularly in the less popular genres, which are financed according to their intrinsic needs and not the size of the audience. Who can disagree? Chasing ratings is not what Auntie should be doing. Yet the BBC TV schedules are stuffed with cheap, populist rubbish, which can hardly be said to be needed since the commercial producers make them with even greater enthusiasm and vulgarity. “Intoxicated”, as Attenborough put it, with the popularity of such genres, BBC1 and BBC2 have allowed them to run rampant like some nasty kind of pondlife and crowd out other programmes.
“Do we really require so many gardening programmes, makeover programmes or celebrity chefs? Is it not a scandal . . . that there seems to be no place for a continuing series of programmes about science or serious music?” . . . It was “very, very sad” that the science show Tomorrow’s World no longer had a place in the schedule. “If you want an informed society there has to be a basic understanding of science.”
My delight that Attenborough said it is equalled only by my fury that the BBC has been wilfully deaf to it for decades, and my rage that it will almost certainly ignore it now. Is it likely that Attenborough, for all his influence, will be able to break Auntie’s delinquent mindset now, if he and countless others have failed so far?
When I first worked in BBC TV, in the late 1970s, in different departments, I went to countless meetings where middle and senior management discussed with programme-makers the primary importance of audience figures, the absolute necessity (in order to survive) of competing across the board with independent television and therefore the inescapable duty of dumbing down and becoming more “accessible”, meaning ever less “elitist”.
I was amazed. I had naively assumed that the point of the BBC was that the taxpayers’ money had set us free from all that. Occasionally I suggested that the BBC should be doing the opposite of dumbing down. Once or twice I muttered that there was surely no need for the BBC to aim at being on air round the clock: that would force up costs and bring down standards. I was made to feel rather silly.
So it has proved. And it did not protect the BBC either - rather the reverse. Auntie now shrieks for ever huger sums from the licence fee, to general resentment, while at the same time axeing or sidelining some of what’s best.
Auntie is wilfully producing lowbrow drivel and comfort viewing, at the taxpayers’ expense, when the open market can supply it in unlimited quantities. Broadcasting such stuff drives the BBC’s rating, but “ratings” are no way to determine the value of public service broadcasting. In the world of free market competition, the numbers of viewers and the numbers of profits are the right way of rating oneself. It is just the opposite in the protected world of public service broadcasting; that is precisely why it is protected at public expense - to preserve and promote good programmes, good ideas and new possibilities that might not survive in the open market.
People are increasingly sceptical about public service broadcasting. In my view that’s partly because the BBC has dropped its standards. Despite all that, I remain a supporter of Auntie, if only she would behave herself, remember who she is and lose a lot of unhealthy fat. At a time when the media are so cynical and exploitative of their audiences, it is wonderful to have one organisation that need not be driven by greed and ignorance but by the best of our shared standards and interests. It could even be the salvation of our failing education system.
The BBC doesn’t need to compete for audiences with commercial media and would be much better if it didn’t. It is also true that the BBC ought not to compete. It is unfair. Not only has it undermined itself in doing so, it is gravely undermining those who aren’t protected by the state - those commercial producers whose livelihood is sport, reality shows, lifestyle, showbiz gossip, imported third-rate sitcom, and so on, which the BBC has no need to do. Arguably, this applies to the BBC’s website, which is subsidised at the expense of commercial newspapers. It cannot be right that the BBC uses public money to grab at and distort a market that has little or nothing to do with public service; Auntie is being a bitch in the manger. Independent media executives have been vociferous about this for some time, some even demanding a share of the subsidy.
Now Ofcom has come up with the perfectly absurd idea of forcing the BBC to “top slice” millions of pounds from its £3 billion licence fee income and hand them over to commercial companies to support their public service programming. It defies belief. What Auntie should do is stick to public service, which she used to be good at until she got all hot and muddled about markets. She should stop grabbing at what other people do and come to her senses. Otherwise the old dear’s days will be numbered.
Minette Marrin is a journalist, broadcaster and fiction writer. She is a columnist for The Sunday Times, and has also written for The Sunday and Daily Telegraphs and The Spectator and The Asian Wall Street Journal. She regularly contributes to television and radio programmes
Win a luxury weekend to Newcastle and its neighbour Gateshead, find out more here
Risk, resilience and embracing new technology
Industry sectors news at a glance. Interactive heatmap, video and podcast
Discover the power of collective thinking. Submit a solution and be in with a chance to win a Media Hub Home Entertainment System
The inside track on current trends in the charity, not for profit and social enterprise sectors
Everything the Business Traveller needs to know to make a better trip
Make the most of the summer and enter our fabulous photographic competition, you could win a £5000 holiday
Corsica is an island of beauty and contrast, an ideal holiday destination
Enjoy further reading from Travel to Fashion, Business to Sport, discover more
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
The clever way to lease a new car is with Car leasing made simple™
2009
per month on 36-month
Personal Contract Hire (PCH)
2008
42850
Car Insurance
£24,250 - £30,346
MI5
London
£60,000
The Environment Agency
Bristol
Up to £90K
Boots
Midlands
OTE £85k
Credit Protection Association
Nationwide Opportunities
Completely London
Luxury Condo's in Manhattan with NYC views
The best new homes in Wimbledon?
Nationwide
Fabulous Cruise And Cruise & Stay Offers Including Virgin Atlantic Flights Prices Start From Only £699pp!
Last Minute Cruise And Cruise & Stay Offers. Med From £499pp, Caribbean From £699pp!
5 star quality at a 3 star price.
8 fabulous Canadian cities ...you won’t find cheaper
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.
Times Online Services: Dating | Jobs | Property Search | Used Cars | Holidays | Births, Marriages, Deaths | Subscriptions | E-paper
News International associated websites: Globrix Property Search | Property Finder | Milkround
Copyright 2009 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
Those running the BBC are cleverer than Ms Marrin, because they realize that if they stopped broadcasting popular 'rubbish' the number of people wanting the licence tax abolished would escalate rapidly. It's called bribing people with their own money while indoctrinating them at the same time.
Morvan, Saulieu, France
To Minette Marrin: "Hear, hear"
To Auntie: "Listen, listen"
David, Maybole, UK
I do not care what is on the BBC.
I do not have a television. I refuse to be bullied into paying a "license fee" .Especially, to what is,effectively, a state propaganda ministry.
The television license fee has to be the most outmoded, absurd tax on the statute books.
N Wilson, Bourne, England
I abhor advertising as much as junk mail and spam. The Beeb is my radio and tv spam filter. Radio 4 and BBC2 have no peers and remain national treasures. They should be grade I, or at the very least, grade II* listed! I consider my licence fee at £2.68 a week, less than a pint, very well spent!
Mike L, Chippenham, Wilts
What went wrong? England was once the most civilized of countries & it's TV programming was top notch. Now the Brits have overtaken the states in most violent crimes & it's TV fare is dumb downed, flimsy & vulgar. BBC America is mostly crude cops, insipid reality TV & home repair. Reruns rate best.
cathy hansen, ruckersville, virginia, USA
There's no need for publicly funded highbrow TV, either, since all that means is some ponce like Attenborough dictating to us what's good for us. How dare anyone command to us that specific niche interests are of higher value than the spending power of those interested in them?
_Felix, Nottingham,
You seem to have a higher opinion of David Attenborough than I have. Obviously I didn t listen to his speech, but I can observe that he has had plenty of opportunity to make, or assist in making, the corrections he may be suggesting, and has failed to do so. In Attenborough speak, the remark, If you want an informed society there has to be a basic understanding of science, means in that context, WE do not want an informed society. The standard of provision of information on BBC radio is abysmal. There is not just a complete disregard for accuracy but an attitude that that is proscribed.
Henry Percy, London, UK
Get rid of all that rubbish for babies and very young kids or put it all on one channel. They will only grow up to be morons if they watch that crap. Put sport all on one channel as well.
m wilson, bidache, france
David Attenborough also focused on the BBC specialist units with Bristol the only survivor as a consequence of enforced outsourcing of program production. If the BBC had other units whose expertise brought wonder to our screens like Bristol, perhaps we would get the point of the BBC again.
John, London, UK
BBC Radio 4 has no rivals for current affairs coverage. My newly purchased iPod is packed with its podcasts.
Barry, Gander, Canada
Those in the UK who seem to think BBC programming is not the correct mix need to come live in the US where there are hundreds of channels pumping out unintelligble rubbish 24 hours a day.
The only news worth watching is Public Broadcastings "The News Hour and the BBC News which is also on Public
Alexander Hogg, san diego, usa
Make the BBC subscription and see how many people pay to watch the rubbish they broadcast.
I object to having money taken off me with menaces for a service I don't use if Sky disappointed me I would cancel it, the beeb take my cash either way so its a tax on TV
mitch, Wolverhampton, England
Thank God for people willing to go the extra distance like Stuart Syvret.
Thank David for bringing it to the wider publics attention.
Sarah, Lisburn, Antrim
It's a long time since I ever watched BBC1 and for the last several years programmes on BBC 2 have had little appeal. Channel 4 does entertainment and serious current affairs far better and somehow the left liberal agenda doesn't grate so much on a non taxpayer funded channel. Great Radio 3 though!
Gina, Staffordshire, England
I think the BBC reflects modern Britain very well actually. I complained to the BBC about several things recently that were so obviously wrong and yet it was clear I was in an absolute minority - most people think the drivel is fine. It is depressing how people really think in modern Britain.
lara, Oxford, England
An over rated politically biased dinosaur that needs its wings clipping. Again people should have a choice whether they wish to fund the bbc or not. I never watch anything by the bbc, and I never listen to any radio program broadcast by the bbc, yet I still have to pay.
clive lowe, stockport, uk
The BBC is a mere shadow of its former greatness, now it is a safe enclosure for left wing guardianista's who wallow in public cash and push issues only they deem worthy! When you no longer trust a public service organisation the only option is to end it! the sooner the better....
Richard, Epsom,
What is 'rich' and 'cultural' about cursing? It's not new. It does not prove anything. It often offends. It does not contribute any more than we have already and is mostly mis-used. It does not require any brain power to use. However when it is, it fills space which could better be employed.
Jim Currie, Funchal,
'Public service broadcasting means an effective network that produces a range of well-made programmes, particularly in the less popular genres'
You get this exact coverage from the internet,, and no public money is involved
Nicholas Iles, Oswestry, Shropshire
Steve Moxon is right. The BBC is schizophrenic, hating the great unwashed (because their opinions are politically incorrect) while simultaneously pandering to the lowest common denominator (through a dread of poor ratings).
JF, Canterbury, UK
As for the BBC's politics, the management cannot get their heads round, let alone agree with, any opinion not their own. An insider told me that he'd predicted that Boris would win, only to be made to feel (like Minette) "rather sillly". The prediction was (to the bosses) quite absurd. Who did win??
JF, Canterbury, UK
From the US
BBC at it's best is wonderful and much admired on PBS here in the US. In reality the BBC has suffered a severe overall decline as I have noticed in my yearly visits to the UK over the last 30 years. Must the BBC really have to roll in the gutter with commercial TV ?
Paul, Charlottesville,Virginia,
We have the same problem with our once respected CBC Radio here in Canada.
Swearing, obscenities and expletives seems to be regarded as honesty, integrity and intelligence by those behind the micrphones.
Late at night the old CBC returns. Daytime listening is for underachievers. RIP - CBC
Frank Madigan, Capreol, Canada
The BBC is part of the political information wing of the present Nanny state. It is run by London, for London.They don't listen and will go the same way as the Govt. OUT!!
Take East-Enders, I haven't seen a jellied eel or a pearly king or even some "cockney walking" ever. Complete tosh.
BYE BYE
John , Up North,
I saw some of "Have I got News for You" last night and am usually impressed by its wit, intelligence and irreverence but they used the F word frequently and other obscenities. Whilst this is OK in fiction or bleeped as a quote it is unacceptable in guests in my house, which effectively TV is.
R Mason, London, UK
By operating as a worthy, cultural ghetto, the BBC will be ignored by the masses; then the bleat is: the license fee is elitist.
Remember, Murdoch benefits from articles like this and publishes them regularly. The BBC gets damned if it competes but will disappear if it doesn't. A life less rich.
Anthony, Thame,
I watched HAVE I GOT MORE NEWS FOR YOU on Saturday night.
Brian Blessed was guest chairman. His language was absolutely disgusting. The f word was used throughout the entire show, together with crude references to body parts/functions. Please BBC don't ever have him again.
D Walker, Burnley, England
Of course, there is also the Balen report scandal, which has cost over £200,000 of the licence payers' money.
marco, edinburgh, scotland
The BBC hac never listened to any criticism - they have displayed a belief that anything and everything they do must be right.
Peter of Somerset talks of avoiding adverts! The BBC now has as many adverts as the commercial broadcasters - albeit dressed up as 'trails' .
How about dropping sport?
Jerry Latham, Uttoxeter, England
I agree with much in this article, however I think Minnette missed the political point. The BBC no long represents the mainstream; it is driven by multi culturalism and a love of all things EU.
Often it fails to tell the truth! An example would be the lack of coverage or debate surrounding the EU.
John Stretton, Albrighton, Shropshire
I don't see any alternative to what is being proposed by Ofcom. The BBC won't change by just contunuining 'as is' so we now have to find a different formula.
I have no problem with the BBC's politics or its cheap & tacky programs. Its just I don't see why I should be compelled to pay for it.
Margaret , Berkhamsted,
Tony - You say scrap News24, meaning leave it to Sky News - no thankyou.
Remember that many people are happy to pay a licence to avoid repetitive adverts for DFS and ambulance chasers.
Peter, Somerset, UK
No need to look further than Live on Five. Victoria Derbyshire, that diva of political correctness, still young enough to have babies but so judgemental and 'knowlageable' . once she has a pet agenda she never lets go, smoking, obesity and racisim. Its not her job to campaign on issues such as these
gmonk, Nottingham,
To pay the presenter of the One Show a rather dull football fan so much of my licence fee is obscene.
Frederick, London, UK
The TV licence fee is an insistence that we all pay for our own indoctrination with the politics of the BBC and the wider establishment, which is the new fascism of 'political correctness': which in short is the hatred of the very masses for which the BBC is breaching its own ethos to boost ratings.
Steve Moxon, Sheffield,
I have another beef about the licence fee. BBC World is a commercial organisation within the Beeb that is shown everywhere in the world except the UK. Apparently, we are not allowed to see it because it carries adverts. This despite the fact that the BBC endlessly advertises itself on mainline TV.
William Thomson, Madrid, Spain
As an overseas resident in the Middle East I regularly listen to BBC radio via the internet - quite simply it is way ahead of its closest rivals! At its best, BBC television is equally impressive but I am all too often reminded of Bruce Springsteen's lyric 'Fifty-seven channels but nothing on'!
Alistair Pugh, Bahrain,
Auntie needs little more than BBC2, Radio 3, and, definitely, Radio4; Oh, and its website. For my part the rest is little more than dross.
John Lee, Ellesmere Port, UK
Why should I pay for sky AND the beeb? It annoys me as much as putting my kids through private school, and still having to pay towards state schools in my taxes.
Maverick, Oxfordshire, UK
Why does the future of the BBC have to be dictated by the desires and needs of commercial broadcasters? In return for my licence fee I receive the ability to access an excellent range of services and yet year-on-year the BBC is told to reduce the scope of its output in order to appease its rivals.
Andy Baxter, Milton Keynes , UK
The licence fee has become far too expensive to be justified. The BBC should not compete with the myriad of commercial channels or chasing audiences. BBC2 and Radio 4 are the jewels; BBC 3,4 , News 24,Radio 3 are worthless in the commercial market so why continue with them. Radio 1 should be sold
Tony Gee, London,