Memorandum submitted by Harvey Edgington
Having witnessed broadcasting abroad, not least
recently in Australia, I passionately believe that we still, somehow,
have the best broadcasting standards in the world. Mostly this
is due to the BBC and its funding which allows it to be innovative
and free from the commercial pressures that result in the sea
of mindless drivel other nations endure. Although it is not infallible
and feels the need to clone ratings hits made by others (Fame
Academy) it should be recalled that the failures are at least
risks and its ideas are cloned in themselves of not stolen. Also
it genuinely tries to provide for every sector of the community.
The abject failure of ITV recently is due to
giving up on the providing for its community or indeed any thing
smacking of quality or innovation, unless you consider bringing
back 10-year-old Cracker. It sincerity in providing news, arts
and children's programmes was exposed the moment Ofcom let them
of the leash. It audience does not care because they do not. Would
ITV produce Planet Earth?—No too costly, The Office?—No
never heard of the lead actor, the World Cup? Yes but only as
vehicle to flog cornflakes which is why nobody watches it when
the BBC has the same match.
They should have their franchise commitments
restored and strengthened. Just because people can get news (usually
biased and shallow) elsewhere or children can watch endless, violent,
badly drawn cartoons on another channel do not mean they should
be allowed to throw in the towel. After all these are the
same people who go on about competition being good. Its quality
not quantity. Quality is choice.
In short British TV is, amazingly, frayed not
broke so do not try and fix it. Be proud of it and safeguard it,
not let it lose. I defy you to find as system that provides a
range of channels and programmes at such value for such a diverse
community anywhere else in the world.
The idea of a public services broadcaster on
a specialist channel is a poor one. It would not have the budgets
(popular programmes subsidises less popular ones at the moment)
for programmes or marketing and would not attract cross over audiences
from other programmes as well as well as diluting the brand identity
of existing channels. Ch4 for instance. The idea smacks of Soviet
style worthy television.
A better alterative would be to increase the
ways of watching the channels. So if I missed a show I could go
to the broadcaster's website and watch it there, for free. This
works very well for BBC radio. And as I am paying for cable channels
run by CH4, BBC etc it would only be fair that I can watch them.
Failing that reduce the pressure on BBC to hit the ratings.
TV audiences are declining not just because
of competition from other forms of entertainment but because most
of the channels are crap. Endless re runs of ancient shows, gonzo
TV, house hunting, ghost hunting, obscure sports, religious money
scams, etc all chasing smaller sections of the audience. As Springsteen
sung 57 channels and nothing on.
There is always a desire to fiddle with long
standing arrangements and you only have to look at the expensive
shambles of the railways, the water companies that provide bonuses
but not water, and the crooks charter of PFI to see that the reasons
some things have remained the same is because it is the best way
of doing it.
November 2006
| 
