"A refreshing addition to the world of think-tanks" Daily Telegraph, 18/10/2007
PROGRESSIVE views on ...
|
||||||||||
|
BROADCASTING
Last updated: 31/03/2008
The BBC provides a great service. Despite biases[1] the BBC News is one of the best television news service in the world and the quality of the dramas on the rest of the network are world class. However, Britain would be better off if the state broadcaster was broken up and privatised with the television licence fee being abolished.
For all the quality provided by the BBC, it is an anti-democratic, elitist and unethical institution. It harms innovation in the broad and narrow-casting industry; stifles democratic debate; provides programming that elites believe that the masses should watch or listen to and requires non-viewers or listeners to pay for the choices of others.
The BBC is not an innovator. Indeed, it kills innovation by following the innovators and killing any market developed by them. The BBC didn’t create television or radio – these were invented by the private sector only to be taken over by the state. In recent times, the BBC didn’t invent the 24 hour news service or the news website, but by entering these markets, backed by enormous resources from the licence fee, they have squeezed competitors into smaller market shares. Worse the dominant position of the BBC in these areas prevents others from entering this market depriving the public of additional choice.
Undoubtedly the BBC’s drama and general entertainment programmes are world class. However so are those created by HBO. While a lot of poor television is created by American commercial television networks, they also create a significant amount of quality drama and comedy. Do the defenders of the BBC believe that Britain is incapable of replicating this without a licence fee? If so, this demonstrates a low opinion of British television industry. It is fair to acknowledge that there is a lot of tat on commercial television. However, in a free society people who wish to watch tat, should be allowed to watch tat. It should not be for a group of elites to decide what the public should watch. Increasingly, with the growth of satellite television and the Internet, it is also a futile attempt as viewing figures show[2]. The BBC has two important effects on poor levels of programming: The BBC, with its subsidy largesse squeezes out the opportunity for the private sector to develop this market and the BBC is not immune from broadcasting tat, despite the luxury of the licence fee.
Advocates of state intervention often cite the dubious concept of “market failure” to justify the state’s intrusion on a private domain. While not conceding this point, one may currently ask what would lost if the BBC was no longer in its current form? Most services, such as BBC One, BBC News 24, and BBC Online already have commercially funded alternatives. Others, such as Radio 4 and Radio 5 Live, have a strong enough following to be commercially viable. BBC Worldwide and others such as BBC Arabic Television are funded by the Foreign Office as part of Britain’s foreign policy. These broadcasts make an important contribution to Britain's foreign policy and like the provision of a diplomatic service cannot be provided by the private sector. For as long as this is deemed by the Foreign Office to good value for money, this should continue. Others, such as BBC America are already commercially funded[3]. No major service currently available to British viewers or listeners would be lost through privatising the BBC.
Valid arguments have been present for many years about privatising the BBC. However, technological changes make this argument even clearer. The licence fee would purchase a broadband Internet connection and a basic computer is as cheap as most televisions. Any service that is not economic in a broadcast environment would easily be viable as an Internet based service. Not to be ruled out would be a service funded by voluntary subscription in the event that such a service was not commercially viable.
In privatising the BBC the government would need to be careful that the dominant market force that is the BBC is not simply transferred into the private realm. Any service with the market dominance of the BBC would wield undue market power. To prevent this, the BBC would need to be broken into smaller units.
Defenders of the BBC have the easy task of demonstrating what they believe Britain would lose by privatisation. However, as has been demonstrated, it is unlikely that any well liked aspect of the BBC would be under threat. What is harder is to demonstrate what the BBC costs. The costs are not simply the £130.50 licence fee, but the impact on the market preventing competitors. While beating BBC News 24 in the ratings battle since the launch of that channel in 1997, Sky News (launched 1989) is now consistently beaten by the well funded BBC News 24. The fact that the advertising supported channel is even competitive is an indictment of the lack of genuine public support for the BBC channel. Britain can easy have two or more 24 hour television news channels, but the presence of the BBC deters and drives off innovators as demonstrated by ITV News in 2005. Finally, defenders will resort to the dubious concept of the BBC as a “public good” – that the demise of the BBC would leave Britain a poorer place. As stated earlier, most of the popular services of the BBC would continue in a commercial environment, so these good would continue. Based on the “public good” theory, PROGRESSIVE vision should receive large amounts of government largess as the policies it advocates will make Britain a richer place (Progressive Vision seeks nor accepts any government funding) .
[2] www.barb.co.uk
[3] www.bbcamerica.com/faq.jsp
KEY POINTS
• The BBC stifles innovation
• A greater variety of services would be provided if the BBC was broken
up and sold.
• Few services would be lost in a move to commercially based services.
• Commercial television produces some poor quality broadcasting, but so
does the state broadcaster.
• In a democracy, people should be allowed to watch rubbish TV is that
is their choice.
• Attempts to define what is quality TV and what is rubbish is arrogant
an elitist.
• Technology is already allowing alternatives to the BBC.
________________________
.jpg){kind=small}