New.Journalism.Review

It's Saturday and The Guardian is running yet another story about BBC funding. So what's new? Well, stories with an anti-BBC slant normally appear on a Monday and are confined to the Media section rather than splashed on the front page, so I'm already confused.

This time the Tories are saying that the BBC's growth must be curbed or it should expect the worst come the license fee renewal in 2012.

Tory spokesman, Jeremy Hunt, who The Guardian describes as an 'affable figure' and a 'moderniser' (so that's okay then – he's not one of those really nasty, right-wing types, who want to kill-off the BBC) says that the Corporation's growth represents a threat to democracy and there must be curbs placed on its websites and its executive's pay.

Of course, The Guardian reporters do NOT challenge him on the fact that the license fee remains incredible value at 39p a day ( You couldn't even buy a copy of The Guardian for the price). OR the totally unfounded portrayal of the BBC as being an evil predatory beast -  which is just looking for new markets to expand into. This is a myth that is repeated time and time again.

I convinced that most normal people (i.e. those who don't work for national newspapers or media companies with commercial agendas) believe that, at 39p a day, the BBC offers pretty good value for money. 

Well, there is the normal disclaimer… I am an avid listener to Radio 5 Live, I don't really care much for Radio 3 or, indeed, Radio 4. But I still want them to be there and at some stage in my life I will probably listen to it. I probably will never listen to BBC 1Xtra, but I teach some students who love it.

I've a feeling that when the Tory axe falls on the BBC, it will do so unevenly. The type of output that is loved by middle-aged white male MPs will stay, the rest will see cuts. 

To give a recent example of some great BBC output, BBC Sport's Formula One Grand Prix coverage online is simply superb. I'm loving these interactive circuit guides. Even those without slightest interest in Grand Prix should check it out.

Tory-boy Hunt, backed by new mate Rupert Murdoch, would probably prefer that we didn't get to enjoy this. They would perhaps argue that a commercial provider, given the chance, will offer an even better service.

Well, in my view, this argument doesn't wash with F1 coverage – ITV had F1 last year after all. There are a lot of F1 sites out there  and this assumption that they would all beneifit if the BBC didn't exist is just idiotic.

What is too often ignored is the fact that the BBC raises the  game. To put it crudely, for websites to succeed they have to be good -  there is nothing wrong with that when it improves quality. Anyone can create a really bad website and moan that it is terrible because we're in a recession and nobody is advertising.

When a terrible TV channel like Quest launches nobody watches it because we are used to decent TV in the UK. Although I realise that Quest has one good show -  TJ Hooker.

Taken to its logical extreme, free market broadcasting would mean perhaps all TV channels will end up looking like Quest…. now that's scary. Only someone like Jeremy Hunt or Rupert Murdoch would want that.

In the highly fragmented online and broadcast media market, where
advertising revenue is split between numerous players, the BBC is
required now more so than ever to ensure quality.

Those who attack the BBC say that it limits commercial competition, as Hunt puts it "the BBC could be the only show in town". But this needs to be challenged.

This argument always ignores the work that  the Beeb does throughout the UK in encouraging creativity and training talent (which the commercial sector benefits hugely from).  And let us not forget it  outsources much of its programme-making to independent production houses, which it has carried on doing throughout the recent advertising downturn.

I am convinced that the public really values the BBC and the huge variety of (mostly) high quality output.  These arguments from the Tories just won't rub. But the Tory party will offer the 'carrot' to media companies of curbing BBC power in return for political support, something that The Guardian does highlight in its article.

But The Guardian has a duty to challenge Tory policy on the BBC, as  it does brilliantly in just about every other area of policy. It can not and should not simply act as a mouthpiece for those critics of the BBC.

Come 2012 and the BBC license renewal, whoever is running the government will have the power to either enhance the BBC or, alternatively, cut its funding and legislate it out of existence. 

An absolute classic clip. The BBC Newsnight presenter, Jeremy Paxman, inviting audience contributions in a very non-web 2.0 way.

In an interview with Media Guardian, Time Out publisher Tony Elliott criticises the role of BBC Worldwide. (Tony Elliott: Calling time out on the BBC).Yes, it's back to that decades old "BBC stifles commercial innovation" argument.

Random quote:

"The Lonely Planet thing
has clearly triggered a lot of people thinking 'What the fuck is going
on at BBC Worldwide?' and they have started asking questions," says the
61-year-old publisher, seated in his office at the heart of Time Out's
headquarters on Tottenham Court Road."

In the same issue, we get a supportive op from The Guardian – (The BBC has created a Worldwide cause for concern by Jane Martinson).

She writes:

A few random points

1) The "BBC stifles innovation" argument is years old. Elliott is nuts if he thinks this debate just kicked-off when Worldwide got its hands on Lonely Planet. British web publishers, newspapers and commercial radio stations have been moaning about this for decades.

2) Why has the BBC gone "well beyond its boundaries"? Is this The Guardian editorializing? Will Lonely Planet get a load of free promotion on the BBC? I doubt it, not any more. Top of the Pops magazine got its advert after the show every week. Was this fair? Probably not. Although whilst TOTP TV show is long dead, the magazine continues to thrive. Who said it wouldn't survive on its own without BBC promotion?

3) BBC Worldwide has created successful magazines NOT based around TV formats and without on-air promotion.

4) BBC Worldwide saves us license-fee payers money. Profits from those sales of The Office on DVD and Radio Times gets pumped back into making TV shows.

5) Why should a commercial rival dictate to Worldwide what it can or cannot acquire? Should Worldwide be compelled to close TOTP magazine just so I can re-launch Smash Hits and appoint Neil Tennant to make the tea ( come to think of it, that sounds like a good idea – I'll put Five Star back on the cover where they belong!)

Overall, I have a lot of time for Time Out and its attempts to remain 'independent'.

(I am not quite sure what that means, although if its journalists don't take freebies and write what they like, then that sounds good to me).

But attempting to get the BBC to sell-off Worldwide, ditch its much-loved magazines and  its travel guides won't solve TO's  funding problems. It's the Internet, STUPID!

Guardian Media Group (GMG) say “The BBC and BBC Worldwide are encroaching into online areas where
commercially funded players could provide the content required.” [Yahoo Pans Ofcom’s Search Plan, Says BBC.co.uk May Be Too Big - PaidContentUK]

The report also states, rather too vaguely for my liking, Yahoo! has “joined the growing ranks grumbling about the BBC’s scale.”

Really? Who the f***k are these grumblers?

The only sound of grumbling I hear (apart from that coming from gastro pubs in Farringdon) is from the British Internet Publisher’s Alliance (BIPA). This rather secretive organisation is bankrolled by large media companies, including  Rupert Murdoch’s News International (no surprise) and, oddly, the ever-so liberal – Guardian newspaper.

So whenever you read a news story or opinion in a broadsheet newspaper regarding the BBC, it’s worth checking whether its publisher declares its membership of BIPA [Check its membership list NOW!]

Those that wish to curb the power of the BBC are in a minority in the UK. Unfortunately, they are a minority who happen to work in publishing, have massive public influence and tend be vocal sods.

The Guardian has the facility to spread the BIPA anti-BBC message to the great and the good using its well-read Monday media section.

It also now has a new platform  – PaidContent – which GMG bought recently. Can the Guardian possibly resist the temptation to dominate the online news funding debate using its new baby as a tool?

BIPA would like to see a ‘level playing field in the online news environment’ – sounds okay, right? In reality, many would like to see funding withdrawn for key BBC services enjoyed by millions. At the extreme end, some even would like to see the large and very popular news site pulled completely.

Commercially, The Guardian would find it very, very, handy if license fee funding for BBC.co.uk was abolished or it service significantly scaled back – not just in the UK, but USA. BBC News is a massive player in  the US online market, a market which The Guardian is hoping to also dominate.

The reality is that BBC.co.uk is a fantastic site and the on-demand, iPlayer, stuff is great. As it does with TV and radio, the BBC sets the standard in online journalism in the UK.

It is enjoyed and relied upon to give honest and accurate information by millions of people around the world, but this means nothing to those commercial rivals at BIPA who will do anything to attack the BBC.

I suspect that many Guardian readers enjoy the BBC site and see it for
what it is – a fantastic resource which is an absolute bargain in terms of what we pay for it per a month. They would be shocked to hear that their respected newspaper is privately lobbying against it.

Commercial rivals need to get real. Work out how to raise your game and compete. Quit complaining into your chardonnay and DO NOT INSIST ON FURTHER CRIPPLING REGULATION THAT WILL EVENTUALLY KILL THE BBC.

But competing in a poor economic climate is difficult and that’s why we can expect the grumbling from commercial rivals to get louder and more frequent in the pages of newspapers like The Guardian.

The Chinese government appears to be encouraging foreign students in the UK to blog in protest against alleged Western media bias.

The move follows days of negative reports in the media about the Olympic torch ceremony and the Tibet riots. 

The headline in the pro-government China Daily newspaper [yesterday, 26th March 2008] reads: Students rap media ‘hegemony’. The strapline reads: "Western coverage of Tibet riots prompts online rebuttals, appeals."

The article encourages students to visit the website anti-cnn.com and report media bias
from leading global media organisations including CNN, the BBC and the
Washington Post.

The report states: "They have set up a website, www.anti-cnn.com, to collect evidence of
what they believe is one-sided and untrue Western reporting, and posted
an open letter asking all Chinese to rise up against "the Western
Goebbels’ Nazi media", a reference to the Nazi-era propaganda minister
Joseph Goebbels."

It continues: "Some Western media, in the name of freedom of the press, have long
relentlessly denigrated developing countries to achieve their hidden
objectives. They have gone to the extreme in mixing right with wrong,
black with white, and fabricating rumors," the website said.

Appearing to be registered with an employee of a leading Beijing university, the site has a chaotic design and surprisingly few contributors despite free front page promotion in one of China’s highest circulation  government propaganda newspapers. The site does contain some interesting examples of alleged distorted media reporting on websites such as Times Online.

China is keen to present a controlled image in this Olympic year and it seems that the Chinese TV censor was working over-time on Monday. As I sat on holiday in Beijing watching BBC World and CNN, TV screens would go blank during reports about protests at the Olympic torch ceremony. CNN also had the images distorted during a live link from a reporter in Beijing.

Access to news sites was variable. The Guardian reported that the BBC site on Tuesday appeared to have been unblocked.  On some occasions just the headline about a story about Tibet would be viewable on BBC.com/news, but you would be unable to access the full version. Accessing The Guardian presented similar challenges.

What’s interesting is not that China censors TV and Internet, but it’s the fact the government is encouraging foreign students to use the same tools it censors to to launch a counter-attack.   

There is evidence to suggest many people in Beijing do believe in a ‘united China’ and support the government in its stated aim of improving living standards for the people in Tibet. But with total media censorship, you can never quite be sure if  people are just speaking what they read. 

Also how will the large news sites react to Chinese censorship as they look to expand audience reach in the Far East. Will the commercial goals of these news sites take priority over an ethical stance?

Finally, it’s very early days for the reporting of the Olympic games. The IOC has placed controls over what journalists can report in their blogs and we’ll have to wait and see whether the media will stick to to the rules.