Beset by scandals on all sides, the BBC simply can't go on like this

The Herald Scotland

a day ago

So, does all this mean that the future of the BBC is in serious doubt? The top ten most watched programmes at Christmas were all BBC productions. And the concern is that if the Beeb ends up with police chalk marks around the edge of her body, will the likes of Gavin and Stacey ever be made again?
And can we really knock a broadcasting service which, for £169.50 a year, regularly offers up exquisite drama in the form of Line of Duty, Blue Lights, The Gold, or This City Is Ours? And, seriously, who wants to stand up and say that comedy such as Motherland is infantile, or that Still Game isn't still funny?
Read more
Yes, our tastes are subjective. The BBC fan base reaches out to the widest tastes and demographics. And the task of winning viewers is ever demanding given that over 35s have their eyeballs glued to YouTube. It's hard to hold onto big numbers when you're narrowcasting on radio with programmes such as Loose Ends, Front Row and the Moral Maze, as clever and informative as these shows are.
It's not hard to see why the BBC has its detractors. It's been quite obscene over the years to learn, for example, of the payments made to its presenters for appearing on a public service channel. Gary Lineker did a very decent job fronting the football but did he and his buddy Alan Shearer have to be paid £1.3m and £440k respectively? Did Zoe Ball's wages have to top half a million?
But rampant stupidity over pay scales apart (how can political editor Chris Mason be paid 120k less than the professional northerner that is Vernon Kay?) what has to be factored in is that the BBC is trying to be all things to all people. So, is it fair when director General Tim Davie is hauled over the coals for the likes of the failure to edit a punk-rap band at a pop festival, or the bad behaviour of his cookery competition show presenters. Is it warranted?
He has to trust his managers to get it right on the day, or the independent producers who sell their shows to the BBC. But clearly when things go wrong, those who hate the BBC (although there are still 24m who pay their licence) are ready to bury him.
Yes, the BBC is accused of being right wing, drawing on right-leaning newspapers. But it's also attacked continually for being left wing by the right-wing media. It's also accused of bias by omission, of pursuing impartiality to such an extent that it fails to tackle the obvious for fear of creating upset. Scotland, as we know, is a divided country, with a continual propaganda war being raged on both sides. And doesn't the BBC all too often finds itself in a no-win situation?
The BBC drew furious criticism after punk-rap duo Bob Vylan led the Glastonbury crowd in televised chants of 'Death to the IDF' (Image: free)What we should also remember is that Auntie continually holds herself up to account by the likes of Radio Four's Feedback, and in timely fashion this week Radio Scotland's Mornings show turned the focus on the issue of the public's trust of the BBC.
This isn't to say the BBC can carry on as it is. There is a real question of accountability given the Byzantine management structure so laughable there has been comedy series (the BBC-made W1A) made about it.
But it will have to change its corporate structure. Its imperialism (look at how BBC online news has impacted upon independent news) suggests it can be an architect of its own misfortune. And there is no longer a clear relationship between owning a television set and watching programmes.
When the BBC was established 100 years ago, if you could have suggested that one day you'd be watching telly on your phone you would have been committed to a Gothic institution.
However, in close years to come, young people won't wish to pay for Not Going Out or Alma's Not Normal. They won't care about the sublime shows fronted by the likes of Paul Gambaccini or Bob Harris or listen religiously to Woman's Hour. They won't laugh hard at the likes of Radio Scotland's Noising Off, Breaking the News or Off the Ball. (Yet, for that demographic the BBC is level pegging with Netflix and ahead of Disney.)
Read more
Some 60 per cent believe the current licence fee to be iniquitous, unpopular and regressive. Recent figures reveal some 300,000 more households have stopped paying their fee.
Some say: privatise the BBC. But at what cost, literally and figuratively? Do you pay separately for television? Will this be broken down into channels? Will listeners sign up Radio Four, or Radio Scotland? Will there be a pay-per-view/listen subscription? Or do we take steps toward building a workforce and fee payer democracy at the BBC with a semi-elected board. Make it a charitable trust?
It sounds beyond confusing. And the search for answers will create arguments on a monumental scale. But then again, isn't that the point of Auntie?
Surely the mantle of being the best, most trustworthy broadcaster in the world is dependent upon continuous rammy, whether in the form of funding debate or demanding a far better class of cookery show presenter.
Brian Beacom is a Herald arts writer, author and playwright