BBC to cut 2,000 jobs, Scale Back Services
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/media/news/a344145/bbc-to-cut-2000-jobs-scale-back-services.html
Yesterday the news was annouced about the changes to BBC services. After the current government chose to freeze the licence fee last year, effectively cutting it's budget by around 16%, it was obvious that changes would be made soon. I was so mad about it at the time and I have to just speak a little bit more about why it angers me and why the decision from the government was taken so easily by the general public.
The government seem to view the BBC as 'just an entertainment channel', and if it has less money, who will really care. What they forget is that the BBC has a world wide reputation as being an innovative and respected broadcaster. This is not an image that can be gained overnight. With consistant quality programming and broadcasts, the respect for the BBC's output has been gained over time; trusted over time. The government don't seem to realise that massive cuts mean a massive risk to this reputation as a great exported British product. Once that reputation is lost, it can't be gained back so easily.
One of the most common complaints you hear from viewers is on repeats. How sick they are of repeats, why isn't there more new programming. Well those viewers should get used to repeats from now on. With reduced budget to spend on new programming, the BBC will be forced to churn out the greatest hits. At one point in time, this wouldn't have been too bad. Maybe they'd show an episode of a classic tv show which had not been broadcast for a long time. However, in the current technological climate, where we can access shows from our past in a touch of a button, who wants to watch a show we can watch at any time?
I think the first point which really hit hard at how harsh the cuts are forthe BBC was the partial loss of the Formula One to Sky. From next season Sky will be showing all the races, while the BBC will only be showing half. I wrote a rather longer piece on this at the time, but I wanted to mention it again as I believe it was the significant turning point. Until that point the force of the cuts hadn't yet been fully recognised, as old contracts were still in effect. However, this year as new negotiations and commisions happen (or don't as it now seems) we can see the full picture. Formula One, since it came to the BBC has not only had huge ratings, but been critically acclaimed, even winning a prestigious BAFTA award. In short, it is considered the best sports production on television. Bearing that in mind, the cuts to the BBC sports budget have been so widespread, they have not been able to keep hold of their greatest success. This was a quality made production that brought an intense knowledge and new fans to the sport. Yet, Sky, with all their money now get the major rights. Those of us who can't afford Sky, or don't want it, now only have the scraps of half the races. Those who do have Sky will have all the races, but only half the quality.
I said before that, with a little exception, the BBC licence freeze hasn't been majorly objected to by the public. I think this is for two reasons. Firstly, it hasn't been made clear that when they say freeze, it actually means that it is cutting the budget. Secondly, people believe they shouldn't pay any more for the licence fee. In recent years there has been a notable section of the public asking why we should have a licence fee at all. They claim that many people don't take advantage of hardly any of the BBC output, so why should they pay for it, espcially if they pay for Sky/Virgin etc? I don't believe there is one single answer to that question although there are huge points to be made about the television infrastructure the BBC has developed, the lack of political or financial input and the strict regulations it has to abide to ensure fairness. However, I think I'd like to talk about how why, as a customer, I don't at all object to paying for the licence fee.
I, like everyone else, pay the £145.50 licence fee. For many people, like myself, this is a lot of money. It is a huge bill, but then I also pay phone bills and internet bills which I got by choice and I also bought a nice tv. Those items are the vessels, without content they are nothing. We seem to accept this without much objection. The licence fee you are paying for, is for content, and this is where many people seem to object. I don't. Assuming you live alone (and many people don't), per person the fee costs around £12 per month. That will be the maximum, if you dont live alone then the fee per person will be significantly less. That means at the most, for the licence fee, we pay £3 per week. Last week I went to the cinema and it cost me over £5 for an hour and a half of content. For the £3 I paid for my licence fee I got BBC1 (24 hrs), BBC2 (24hrs), BBC3 & BBC4 (all evening), BBC News 24, BBC Parliment, the red button, the website, all the many BBC radio channels as well as access to the BBC IPlayer to watch or listen anything I had missed. How can anyone complain about paying that?
I've just mentioned the quantity that the BBC provide for my £3 per week, but to me it is the quality that really stand out. In my opinion, and this can of course be debated and disagreed on many fronts, the BBC as a whole provides the best content of any channel. I believe that because of the strict regulations of the output it delivers, as well as it's long history of innovative programming it is strides ahead of it's competition. While understandably, due to advertising pressures, it's competitors such as ITV tend to produce flashy, but safe programming, the BBC has always taken a chance on innovative dramas and comedies. I know you can argue that ITV does do the odd one off period drama and a number of detective shows, in my mind these are often safe commision choices and, again in my opinion, not as dynamic. It may be a controversial opinion, but to me even Downton Abby falls into this category. Don't get me wrong, it is a very good show, but it falls into a very cliched period drama category. There is no innovation there.
If you look at last Saturday night's output from BBC and ITV then the comparrison is clear. BBC did have a reality show, Strictly Come Dancing. But it also had Doctor Who, Merlin and Casualty. That's almost 3 hours of drama. ITV had Family Fortunes, The X Factor and The Jonathon Ross show in this time period. Where's the variety? These shows for ITV may get the big ratings, but where was the quality?
Even if you think the cuts are justified; there is an argument to be made that in the current climate, we have all made sacrifices, why should the BBC and it's audience be any different, what about when the licence fee is next negotiated? It has been cut back to it's bare basics, to be honest, what about in a few years time if the government decides to freeze it again? What will be lost then? How long before the BBC can no longer survive on a skeleton budget? Will we then only have the choice of commercial television? We will be lost in a tirade of shows that are cheap and cheerful to make. Is this the furture of British television?