The BBC's output is no longer of a standard that justifies the licence fee
SIR – I agree with much of what Simon Heffer says about the present output of the BBC (Hinterland, April 19).
With a few notable exceptions, such as the documentaries of David Attenborough and Simon Schama, it offers little that interests or instructs, and spends too much time attempting to appeal to younger viewers.
The BBC also shoots itself in the foot when it shows older programmes, reminding us what the standards used to be. It was such a joy to watch reruns of Yes Minister, say, or Porridge, which assumed an intelligence in their audience.
Meanwhile, the daily news bulletins, although essential viewing, do not always concentrate on the most important matters, and occasionally display bias in favour of one side or the other, rather than the impartiality that we expect from our national broadcaster.
What is the solution, now that the corporation has to compete against ever more dominant streaming services with deeper pockets? I wish I knew.
Alan Reeve
Taunton, Somerset
SIR – Simon Heffer's suggestion that there has been no good content on the BBC this century is laughable. Line of Duty? Happy Valley? The Office? Fleabag? All of them woke to the hilt, as I recall.
There's an argument for getting rid of the licence fee, but it has to be made in the context of secure funding and editorial independence. 'Parliamentary scrutiny' is a Trojan horse for state censorship, from whichever party is in power at the time. Conservatives should beware of what they wish for.
Daniel Karlin
Bristol
SIR – One way for the BBC to improve its intellectual and cultural standards would be to revive The Brains Trust. This has been tried before, with little success, but another attempt is definitely in order.
The BBC has an obligation, under its 'inform, educate and entertain' remit, to allow younger generations – along with their parents and grandparents – to hear the most fertile minds and articulate speakers debate the issues of our time, just as we were able to listen to Bertrand Russell, Isaiah Berlin, Jenny Lee, Jacob Bronowski and many others in the 1950s.
John Birkett
St Andrews, Fife
SIR – Simon Playle (Letters, April 19) rightly notes the increasing number of popular pieces by Ravel, Debussy and Handel being heard on Radio 3. I don't object to this in the case of Handel – he is my favourite composer – but I do wish we could hear more from his numerous operas, especially the less well-known ones, in which Radio 3 seems to have curiously little interest.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
44 minutes ago
- The National
BBC bosses draw up plans to win trust of Reform UK voters
Minutes from a meeting of the broadcaster's editorial guidelines and standards committee from March show that BBC News CEO Deborah Turness gave a presentation in which she discussed plans to alter "story selection" and "other types of output, such as drama" to win the trust of Reform voters. The minutes, which were reported by The Byline Times, also show the committee identified "the importance of local BBC teams" to their plan to win over supporters of Nigel Farage. There is reportedly a belief that the coporation's news and drama output is creating "low trust issues" with Farage backers. The minutes states: "The CEO, News and Current Affairs provided the Committee with a presentation on plans to address low trust issues with Reform voters. READ MORE: Richard Murphy: What to expect from Rachel Reeves's spending review "The committee discussed the presentation. Committee members recognised the importance of local BBC teams in the plan, given their closeness to audiences. "Directors discussed how story selection and other types of output, such as drama, also had a role to play. An update on progress would return to a future meeting." The committee includes former GB News executive Robbie Gibb, who is also a former director of communications at Number 10 and an outspoken Brexiteer. Gibb was appointed to the board by former Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson in 2021. He was identified by former BBC Newsnight presenter Emily Maitlis in 2022 as an 'active agent of the Conservative party'. Farage has repeatedly used his own GB News platform to attack the BBC, calling it a 'political actor' and threatening to boycott the corporation. In language also used by the BBC Editorial Committee, the Reform leader suggested that BBC editors were using 'story selection' in order to target his party. In an incident last year, Farage refused to appear on the BBC until the broadcaster apologised for allowing members of the public to ask him questions during a special episode of Question Time. READ MORE: UK sends spy plane over Gaza as Madleen threatened by Israel Byline Times said BBC staffers it spoke to are concerned about the plan to win over Reform voters, due to the risk of increasing allegations of bias. The BBC has previously been criticised by some viewers for heavily featuring Reform UK politicians on its programmes, despite the party only having a handful of MPs. In July last year, sociology professor Tom Mills – author of The BBC: The Myth of a Public Service – claimed the BBC were giving such a platform to Farage because they are such a big part of a 'political establishment which has drifted to the right'. 'I think the simple answer to why they [the BBC] like Nigel Farage is they are much more comfortable with an anti-establishment figure on the right than the left. It's as simple as that," he said. 'He's on their political spectrum and the political spectrum for the BBC runs from the centrists out to Nigel Farage. 'They still see those guys [like Farage] as being rogue figures of the establishment, but they are just given legitimacy by the fact that there's lots of voices they [the BBC] see to be legitimate in these media organisations which speak from a similar sort of perspective.' The BBC has been approached for comment.
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
Rachel Reeves wants to teach her critics a lesson
Photo by Hannah McKay -. The toughest job in politics is usually said to be the leader of the opposition – an impression that Kemi Badenoch's tenure has done nothing to dispel. But it is arguably rivalled by that of chancellor. Every incumbent since the 2008 financial crisis has faced a version of the same dilemma: the UK is a poorer country than it once expected to be. At last year's Budget, Rachel Reeves escaped her fiscal straitjacket through two manoeuvres: she raised taxes by £41.5bn and loosened her debt rules to increase investment. The Spending Review is the moment at which the Chancellor gets to distribute the bounty that resulted. Reeves has already launched a pre-emptive strike against critics who liken her to the flinty George Osborne. A graph shows how Labour's spending far exceeds that planned by the Conservatives before the election (one aide calls it 'the honesty chart'). This isn't just spin: Reeves intends to increase day-to-day spending by £190bn – the biggest real-terms rise since Gordon Brown occupied the Treasury in 2000 – and capital investment by £113bn. Austerity this is not. But two things can be true. Yes, overall spending is rising by £303bn but some must lose in order that others may win. The latter includes the NHS – which has secured a 2.8 per cent real-terms rise – and defence (even if plenty regard 2.5 per cent of GDP as inadequate). Ed Miliband's energy security department will enjoy a large increase in capital investment including on nuclear power (allies point to the Energy Secretary's long-standing support for the sector as part of 'the sprint for clean energy abundance'). Other departments, however, face average real-terms cuts of 0.3 per cent to day-to-day spending. Hence the fraught negotiations of the last week. Angela Rayner – that former trade union negotiator – reached a settlement with Reeves last night having warned that cuts to affordable housing would render Labour's target of building 1.5 million new homes impossible. Yvette Cooper – who knows her way around the Treasury as a former chief secretary – is still holding out. After public dissent, the police will receive a real-terms increase but this will entail cuts to other Home Office areas. Last week I detailed Andy Burnham's rhetorical fusillades against the government. This week it's Sadiq Khan who is unhappy, with concern inside City Hall that Reeves will announce no new projects or funding for London at the Spending Review (key demands include Docklands Light Railway and Bakerloo line extensions, a tourist/visitors levy and a significant rise in funding for the Met Police). 'We must not return to the damaging, anti-London approach of the last government, which would not only harm London's vital public services, but jobs and growth across the country,' one person close to the Mayor tells me. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Here is further evidence of why some inside government believe that Reeves needs an 'economic reset' – abandoning her tax lock or further loosening her fiscal rules. But the Chancellor will have a message for such critics in her speech, which aides describe as a chance to 're-educate' these errant foes. Rewriting the UK's fiscal rules, Reeves will warn, would not be a cost-free choice, but one that would entail higher borrowing and higher mortgage rates. An ally speaks of a 'terrifying' gap between a commentariat that pleads for more taxes and more borrowing, and a much more sceptical electorate. 'They think we tax too much, they think we borrow too much, and a lot of people probably think we spend too much.' The Chancellor is seeking to pull off a tricky double act – assailing those who accuse her of austerity while reassuring those who fear Labour profligacy. This week will test whether she can keep her balance. This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here [See also: Rachel Reeves wants to level up your commute. Does she have the money?] Related
Belfast Telegraph
an hour ago
- Belfast Telegraph
The BBC got us through endless Northern nights, Gerry Adams
The BBC is 'The British Broadcasting Corporation', but nobody calls it that except Gerry Adams. Again and again, very deliberately, as he savours his triumph in the recent libel action against 'The British Broadcasting Corporation', he gives it the full official title — almost as if the 'British' part has connotations of inherent badness. He claims that his purpose in taking the action was to 'put manners' on this British Broadcasting Corporation. There were even suggestions — later denied — that the BBC would consider blocking the transmission of its programmes in this country, rather than risk further exposure to our atrocious libel laws.
