Bashing the BBC
Recently the Prime Minister of England, one Boris Johnson, decided to look into decriminalising the television license fee. For those who might not live in the UK, the license fee is essentially a tax that goes to funding the BBC, a publicly owned broadcasting company that also happens to be the largest broadcasting organisation in the country. While I wouldn't call myself an ardent supporter of Boris Johnson, his stance on the decriminalising the license fee is one which I whole heartedly agree with. I and many others have long decried the license fee as an archaic relic, a tax that serves little purpose than to fund a massive media company that has shown throughout the years to be grossly biased, incompetent, corrupt and increasingly irrelevant. In response to this inquiry the BBC offered a solution to the licensing conundrum by saying it would be open to a levy on broadband connections to fund their operation. In short, they want to change it from a television license to an internet license.
There's a good reason the BBC is advocating this change, they need the licensefee to continue to exist. Thanks to the license fee and it's status as the largest television and radio broadcaster in the country, the BBC has grown increasingly arrogant and assured of it's own self importance. The backlash to the BBC over the last few years has been profound, from criticism to it's self evident bias, repeated progamming and information, the lack of any kind of significant comedy or drama programmes and the ignorance of child abuse that was being done by some of it's more prominent broadcasters, to call the BBC a “beloved” institution of British culture is giving them far too much credit than they think they deserve. And yet despite this growing unpopularity, the BBC still thinks of itself as an important part of British culture. Director general of the BBC Tony Hall recently stated that streaming platforms like Netflix could not be relied on to maintain investment in British culture as stated in an essay he wrote for politicshome.com titled “Why the BBC matters”. I highly recommend you read the essay in question because it's an excellent showcase of the arrogance and self important world view the BBC has of itself. Here are some highlights, “No other institution is woven so deeply into the fabric of British national life as the BBC,” which might be true if your over sixty but more on that later, “My view is that the role the BBC plays for the UK both at home and abroad is more important today than at any point in our near hundred year history,” yes I'm sure with the rise of the internet and alternative news services the international community is begging for BBC coverage. “The BBC welcomes a debate, we always do”, ha! The asshat even refers to the BBC as the “cornerstone of the UK's creative economy.” I could keep going folks but the essay is simply far too long and we have other things to talk about but I will post a link so you can read it at your leisure but rest assured it's self aggrandizing nature is unceasing.
Now I know what you're saying, “Jackson, your just one man. Not everyone hates the BBC”. Well I can't speak for everyone obviously but let's look at the BBC reviews on trust pilot. Both the BBC and BBC news websites have a one star rating. Ouch. Well, let's read some of those reviews shall we. One user wrote, “Blatantly Biased Corp. It reeks of an anti-India agenda and it's evident its reporters are constantly scouting for sources who'd show the country in poor light.” Another user's review was longer and even more negative, “This broadcaster was once a byword for trustworthiness, excellence and balanced reporting. Today it is a pale imitation of what it once was. Agenda driven programming, diversity issues pushed to the extreme detriment of all shows, their news coverage has become barely veiled propaganda for the left wing and blatantly anti-British reporting. Their license fee is nothing but theft which takes no account of a persons ability to pay. They are unrepresentative of the bulk of the British public and should be sold off as soon as possible.” this is a recurring trend in these reviews, the clear bias the BBC shows. Let's look at some more reviews, “The BBC used to be capable of producing fantastic programmes. Unfortunately over recent times, the organisation has been infiltrated by those who seek to promote a 'woke' left wing biased, anti-British, anti white. multi-cultural propagandist agenda. They seem to think that British people are stupid and don't notice what has been steadily creeping into every programme they produce. The BBC seem to believe their own agenda reflects what the nation needs or wants - SORRY BBC- IT ISN'T. Well loved programmes such as Doctor Who have been destroyed and are no longer fit to be watched except by those who subscribe to the Guardian. Propaganda is rife in Children's programmes. Essentially the BBC has morphed into the Guardian on TV and whilst many would not buy the Guardian to use as toilet paper, they are forced to fund the BBC propaganda machine. Unless this ship turns around drastically it will sink without a trace. Very sad.”
And that's just the regular BBC website, lets look at some reviews for the BBC News website. “One could trust the BBC news in past times but they have now appear to have morphed into a mouthpiece for those with an agenda that only appeals to Guardian readers and left leaning activists who buy into identity politics and live and believe in some sort of urban multicultural bubble. The 'diversity' agenda is creeping steadily into every programme not just the news. In truth 'diversity' as spouted by the left is actually the death of British way of life and history. The BBC needs new leadership and soon before it dies altogether.” This next review is short but it gave the site three stars, “While I find the reporting itself very good it is very biased in it's views.” How about one more, “The BBC is a disgusting, immoral organisation that is ripping off over 75's by stealing their free tv licences. The BBC agreed a financial settlement with the Tory Government in 2015 in which they would be allowed to raise the cost of the tv licence each year in return for maintaining free tv licences for over 75's. The BBC has reneged on this deal by scrapping over 75's free tv licences yet it is still raising the cost of the tv licence each year. Boris Johnson is a total disgrace as he promised during his election campaign to keep free tv licences for over 75's yet since his election victory, his silence on this issue has been clear for all to see.” That last one I cut short but you get the basic point it was making. Now I should make it clear that the opinions expressed here are the opinions of those that wrote them and not my own but you get my point. The BBC is not popular with a good chunk of the British population. While I won't be addressing all of the individual complaints lets look into that last one a little more.
In 2015 the UK government announced that the BBC would take control of providing free television liscences for those aged over 75. Why the government was providing this when the BBC is not a governmental organisation is a mystery to me but whatever. This change would effectively cost the BBC £745m in license fees. Now at this point any sane organisation would look into other avenues of monetary funding in order to make up the cost but because the BBC is far from legal sanity they decided to charge over-75's for their license, barring certain circumstances such as those on a pension that live alone. This has received wide spread backlash, some have blamed the government for this but does the fact that the BBC decided on this rather than even consider other avenues of revenue not speak volumes of their inability to change. To go back to Tony Halls wank-fest for a second, one aspect he mentioned is, “ the BBC needs to accept that no change isn't an option”. Bold word sir Hall but where's the action to back them up. It's curious, the BBC seems more than willing to talk itself up but when it comes to actually doing anything, suddenly there coming up more empty than Cardi B's skull. Oh and that story about the over-75's not getting free licenses was reported by the BBC, which referred to itself in the third person. This might sound little more than a minor complaint but why does the BBC when writing about itself refer to itself in the third person. It's just weird is all.
What makes the over-75's debacle all the more tragic, or hilarious depending on how you look at it, is that over-75's are one of the last few dedicated audiences the BBC even has. As with most other legacy media, the BBC is having trouble connecting to a younger audience. In a report published in 2017 by BBC Trust, right before it was shit-canned by the way, the average BBC viewer is over 60 years old. While younger viewers have taken to the internet for their entertainment the BBC is struggling to keep up with them. The study states that the demographic aged 16-34 years old only engage with BBC services online for 11 hours per week and the daily viewer ship for television in the same demo is only 66% and it shows no signs of improving. Now compare that to YouTube, which gets 3.25 BILLION of hours viewed per month and you can imagine why the BBC should be worried about losing younger audiences. A sentiment that is shared by Ofcom, the organisation that took over analytical duties from BBC Trust, who reported in October 2019 that the BBC is at risk of losing an entire generation of younger viewers. There are multiple reasons for this but the biggest one, by far, is the rise of digital media such as Netflix and YouTube. In fact, in the Ofcom study I just mentioned, one of the key take aways was that younger viewers are likely to recognise BBC programmes from them being on Netflix rather than the BBC Iplayer. They have a bit of an uphill battle when it comes to attracting a younger audience.
While the BBC has shown a brave face in such a challenge there are some tell-tale signs that they are accutely aware of how dire their predictament is. One such example is their review of the David Attenborough Netflix documentary “Our Planet”. While the review in question was a mostly positive affair, it's the comments made near the end that are the most, interesting shall we say. To quote, “An eyebrow or two was raised when Netflix announced it had signed Attenborough to narrate the series” yeah it might mean he was in danger of being watched by more than just the elderly, “I do wonder, though, if the experienced producers at BBC would have sharpened the first episode a little” says reviewer Will Gompertz, despite the series having the same production team behind BBC's own Blue Planet series. Folks their ain't a movie screen big enough to contain that projection right there. Let's be honest with ourselves here, “Our Planet” terrified the BBC. Here was David Attenborough, beloved national treasure and one of the few people who can regularly draw in viewers to the BBC, making a series for one of their most prominent threats and drawing in more viewers than they could possibly imagine. Can you blame them for being scared?
After going through all of this, are you beginning to see why the BBC is proposing changing the television license to a levy on broadband utilities? Granted they still want to keep the current system, at least in the medium term, but the fact that they're open to such a system should show how worried they are of losing their current revenue stream. The BBC have defended their approach, calling itself a “universal service” and that “everyone contributtes and everyone recieves something in return”, unless you disagree with them in which case you're shit out of luck. Which brings us, at last, to the obvious bias the BBC has. Left wing, Right wing, centre, socialist, capitialist, anarchist or whatever other political philosophy you adhere too, I think we can all agree that the BBC has a very clear bias. If you go to the Trust Pilot page for either BBC site you'll see several reviews calling out the BBC for their left leaning bias, I even showcased some of the earlier, but do a little extra digging and you'll even find people on the left calling the BBC out for right leaning bias. Not sure how that happens but at the end of the day we can all agree that the bias exists.
Their coverage of Brexit is emblamatic of this, with only 3% percent of some 4,000 guests brought on to talk about the European Union expressing the opinion that we should withdrawl. The resulting victory in both the referendum, not to mention the 2019 election which effectively acted as a second referendum, should show just how out of touch the BBC is with the country at large. There's even morre examples out there but one such example of bias would be the BBC's selective reporting on events. In short, if the news story agrees with them, they'll report it no questions asked, if it disagrees with them, they'll either write about it while downplaying it or, in a worst case scenario, ignore the story entirely. That sound like a “universal sytem” to you folks? Worse still, after a recent layoff of over 450 employees the BBC admitted they would be limiting the amount of stories they would be showing to people. Now, I actually don't mind the BBC being biased because, frankly, all media organizations are biased, but here's what seperates the BBC from those other organisations, they don't get funded by the public, the BBC does. Whenever you see the BBC outright lying or mistaking people for others in an interview, I'm not kidding look it up, just remember that you paid for that. Worse still, for a media organisation that considers itself a “cornerstone”, their actual news coverage is little different from othe competing news sites and thanks to the internet that competition is becoming fiercer and fiercer by the day.
This isn't just affecting the news side either, it's affecting the entertainment they produce. I've already talked about the interjection of politics into art before but if you want a primo example of how bad it can get, look no further than the recent season of Doctor Who. Doctor Who is the most important show the BBC has, outside of David Attenborough's output, it has international appeal and is beloved by fans the world over, is what I would have said prior to season 12. thanks to Chris Chibnall badly inserting progressive messages into his stories, while also failing to write compelling Science Fiction and completely disregarding long established lore, Doctor Who's viewership has collapsed to it's lowest ratings in over 31 years. And yet the BBC, doesn't seem to care. Piers Wenger, the head of BBC drama, basically said that the only reason the BBC is still producing the show is because it fills out their need for family programming, as ordained in the BBCs own charter and said that, “I don't think it's been in better health editorally”. They don''t care if viewers aren't watching because they don't need viewers to keep watching. So long as the license fee exists they can continue to produce whatever they want, no need for innovation, no need for creativity, so long as they have the safety net of the license fee they don't need to listen too viewers, especially since the viewers don't have a choice in paying them. Unlike a paid subscription like Netflix, Prime video or Disney+, where you can opt out at any time and only lose access to that service, if you're one of the few people who still watch regular TV, you have to pay up even if you don't watch the BBC. Meaning you have to pay to fund a service you don't use, just to access channels and programming you actually care about. This is a fucking scam. You mean to tell me that even if I don't even watch the BBC, but if do want to watch Channel 4, I still need to fund them? How is that fair?
And you want to know why I don't watch the BBC anymore? Because they don't have any programs that are worth watching. Let me ask you some questions, when was the last time the BBC aired a good new comedy? Name a drama the BBC have produced in the last ten years that had a significant cultural impact? Is there anything worth watching on there anymore? That's not to say they haven't produced any shows worth watching, it's just hard to find them. “People Just Do Nothing” is a great comedy but I didn't even know about it until my cousin bought me the DVDs for Christmas. Most of the good stuff the BBC has are on their lesser channels or aired so late at night only the nocturnal know about them. Even then the other domestic channels do a better job.Want a good drama? Check out ITV. Comedy? Channel 4 is that way. Do you like reality shows? Please seek help. My point is, there are channels that do what the BBC does, better than the BBC does. And that's not counting cable, subscription services and the internet. All of which offer far more choices for audiences. Actually, considering the license fee was instituted when the BBC was the only producer of television, the license fee is more outdated than I thought. The BBC has had strong competition from domestic and cable channels for decades and none of them require a mandatory license fee. What does the BBC offer that makes it so special. As we've seen, not much.
So the question is, why does the BBC need the license fee? Let's go over what we've discussed. The BBC through bias and controversy is unpopular with the general public, they have an aging audience and are struggling to pull in younger viewers, digital media is becoming increasingly more and more popular and making the BBC increasingly irrelevant and they have not produced any significant content for years. In short, the BBC needs the license fee, because it cannot survive without the license fee. If it were forced to compete in a free market it would get destroyed and because of how arrogant the BBC has become they aren't open to discuss alternative revenue ideas. They would rather tax the elderly than be open to the discussion of allowing advertisements in their programming. They claim to be a “cornerstone” of british culture despite being an increasingly unpopular part of it. They preach about the need for change, but never actually do anything about it. The only thing the BBC excels at, is hypocrisy.
So will Boris Johnson actually do anything about the license fee. Well with the recent Covid-19 outbreak, I doubt it. The BBC were forced to delay their layoffs and plans for taxing the elderly which, when combined with the fact that they get higher ratings regarding the daily updates regarding the outbreak, the BBC may have been afforded some leeway in regards to their existance. Should Boris do something about the license fee? Yes. The BBC has shown itself time and time again to be a corrupt, incompetent organisation that rarely, if ever, shows us a reason why it has a right to exist in the way that it does. Despite this, despite it's growing unpopularity with the general public and growing criticism from both sides of the political spectrum, it somehow see's itself as one of the most important and vital part of the countries culture, in complete ignorance of the fact that the culture is changing at a rapid pace. Culture is not static, if it were we would still be wearing powdered wigs, and if the BBC were as important as it so claims to be it would be at the forefront of that change but they aren't. In many ways they are behind the times and they seam unwilling, or perhaps even unable to change. That's not even getting into the bias and corruption evidenced at the BBC. Like their repeated attacks on Michael Jackson, a man who was accused of but ultimately acquitted of being a pedophile, while also forgetting their own role in the defense of noted, and actually fucking proven pedophile, Jimmy Saville, the resulting investigation to which uncovered multiple people within the BBC being involved in the sexual abuse of children. I could write an entire piece on this but, let's just say certain things the BBC have written since then don't exactly fill me with hope. Don't believe me, have a read yourself. This is what your money goes to funding ladies and gentlemen.
So yes, we should get rid of the license. Not only is it unnecessary given the rise of digital media and the increasing irrelavancy of broadcast television, but also because it's being used as a safety net by the BBC to not grow or change. I say we take away their safety net, if they are as important as they say let them prove it. Let them compete in the free market without us backing them up. If they want our money let them work for it. I wouldn't mind the BBC going for a subscription service because then we have a choice whether or not to pay them. Maybe then they would have the incentive to include more of their back catalogue on the BBC Iplayer. While I doubt anything will actually be done about the BBC license fee there is no doubt in my mind that it is long overdue for annulment and if that takes the BBC down with it then let it. It just means we won't be watching BBC One, so basically nothing changes.
Sources
Tony Halls: Why the BBC Matters
The Guardians report on the broadband levy proposal
Deadlines report on the BBC layoffs
Both reports of the BBC's aging audiences
The BBC review of “Our Planet”
Trust Pilot pages for the BBC
Comments