Oh, this has been the main topic of conversation in emails flying back and forth this afternoon. I'd love to repeat what I said but, like you, think I'll keep schtumm for obvious reasons.

→ Posted by: Vaughan at August 26, 2003 5:28 PM

Surely the most obvious reason why the BBC should be providing news - on as many platforms as they possibly could - is because the vast majority of people think that it's a good thing to have one news provider who isn't beholden to any government or to commercial interests?! Surely you couldn't get more public service than to have a truly independent news provider across all media?

→ Posted by: C. Edward Thomas at August 26, 2003 5:31 PM

The British electorate would vote out a swath of Conservative MPs, including the party's culture spokesman, if they contested the next general election. The public was "not persuaded" of the case for a Conservative party and was "not convinced it needs to do all the things it is doing at the present", including providing "more and more attacks on the BBC". "We're not persuaded that anything the Tories say or do could not be provided elsewhere, [for instance] the newspapers are mostly providing pointless snipes at Auntie. Why does the taxpayer need to vote Tory when there are commercial organisations who are doing the same thing?"

→ Posted by: Rory at August 26, 2003 5:58 PM

The BBC has had a turbulent time with political parties in the UK since the time of Margaret Thatcher. The reason seems to be that in an age when commerical interests drive UK politics further towards the American model, the BBC remains an impartial, independent and highly effective organisation for undermining the spin and subtefuge upon which most Governments rely to remain in power.

The scenario which is currently playing out was brilliantly predicted and documented in a 1994 book called "Fuzzy Monsters: Fear and Loathing at the BBC"

Read it and weep!

→ Posted by: Peter at August 26, 2003 5:58 PM

I have the BBC News front page set as my homepage and I think that all Tories are scum. However, it does trouble me that the BBC website seems, as far as I can gather, to be provided out of the licence fee, which is regarded as a regressive tax (although jolly good VFM at £2 per week). I feel uncomfortable that the (often) rich webusers, including non-UK residents, are being subsidised by the (often) barely surviving general populace.

However, I do wonder, if the private sector could do it as well as the BBC, why they don't...!

→ Posted by: Gert at August 26, 2003 6:18 PM

In Parliamentary tradition, I hereby refer the honourable gentleman to the answer the free market gave some moments ago.
*gestures at the dot-com graveyard*
In other words: Let's see Whittingdale run a successful for-profit content or community site that covers the same ground as bbc.co.uk does and then we'll talk, okay?

→ Posted by: Yoz at August 26, 2003 7:09 PM

fyi, the funding of the bbc news website is split between license fee and by the foreign office. in fact, there are two bbc websites: a uk edition (used mainly by those in the uk) and an "international" edition (used by those outside the uk). so it's not too difficult to ensure that license fee payers are paying for the hosting and editorial for the uk edition only.

→ Posted by: djt at August 26, 2003 7:19 PM

The regressive nature of the licence fee was less of an issue when all that was required to access BBC services/products was a TV or a radio. Now you need a computer and cable as well, which not everyone has or wants - particularly in the lower income brackets. I think the Beeb should provide a website, just as it provides a World Service, but I do think that BBC1 and BBC2 have been devalued by the new channels.

→ Posted by: Mike Killingworth at August 26, 2003 7:53 PM

I suppose Mr Whittingdale might point to the US media for an example of free market media provision? The trouble is, the US market simply isn't free. Channels compete for viewers but, as in the UK, you have to go to the government for the right to broadcast in the first place. Consequently, the US media always has an eye on getting licenses renewed. This could be why they're so deferential ("Fair and Balanced") towards government. The internet is replacing TV/radio bulletins for many and there's no reason to restrict access to the same independent reporting.

And what competition there is between TV channels simply means that everything is pitched squarely at the mainstream. With the new channels, the Beeb has been able to experiment more and try a few new formats, showing once again the advantage of public broadcasting.

→ Posted by: Gareth at August 26, 2003 8:31 PM

I do have to wonder about how the Tories plan to set about winning the hearts and minds of "Middle-Englanders."

The BBC sites fall just behind Google, Yahoo and Microsoft in popularity, so it's safe to say that most UK internet users visit some part of the BBC's sites at some stage or another. Quite how shutting down this much used resource would be a good idea I'm a little unclear. To me it seems as big a vote winner as shutting down libraries. There's nothing to stop some kind of business setting up hiring books out for commercial gain - Blockbuster's built a pretty big business renting films and software. But why doesn't someone suggest it. Oh yes - because the borrowing and reading of books that is currently free would either require lots of ads (Harry Potter brought to you by Coca-Cola), or would cost money. The net result is that fewer people would use the resource, and again the poorer part of society would be the overall loser. Yes I know that net access is not available to all, particularly the poorer part of society, but there are ways and means through libraries (!) and community centres for all to access the net.

Just as Greg Dyke announces the BBC Creative Archive, and timed also around the start of Philip Graf's review of BBCi, the Tories pile in with this. Of course the timing of none of these announcements is accidental.

I can understand that sometimes the BBC seems to be a beast that no-one can give a run for its money. Why should I visit other football sites full of pop-ups, pop-unders, interstitials and DHTML ads when I can get content quickly and easily (and freely) from the Beeb? And some of the areas of the BBCi sites are pretty diverse on not necessarily related to any broadcast programmes, but the BBC rightly see the web as another broadcast medium. And for the most part this is content for which we the licence payer have already paid for, being made available on demand.

The news argument is very powerful with arguably the only independent freely accessible news archive in the UK (OK - there are the much more limited ITN sites too). Every newspaper has its own political axe to grind to some degree or another - so no independence there.

But to return to the idea that the average parent would want BBCi shut down when he or she currently sees a site like the Beeb's as being an island in a sea of largely paid-for or advertiser funded content - well that's mad isn't it?

→ Posted by: Adam Bowie at August 26, 2003 8:45 PM

Who cares what the Tories think about anything anymore?

→ Posted by: Seyed Razavi at August 26, 2003 9:48 PM

djt - fyi... foreign office money for news online is channelled through the world service, and provides funding for enhanced coverage of international news. When you are asked to state where you're looking at the site from (UK or elsewhere) you are not losing the ability to view any part of the site at all. I am, for the purposes of the website, "outside the UK" because I'm more interested in international news than domestic and thus have a different front page. I can access any other part of the BBC site as normal.

That's all the difference at the moment, but I understand there was talk of (gasp) putting adverts on the "international facing" site.

Currently, I understand, the amount of "licence fee" money available for BBC News Online is diminishing, with the burden increasingly on the FO-via-WS funds. There are others who would be better placed to comment on this but I'm sure for professional reasons they'll refrain from doing so.

My opinion? Close down the website - total and utter lunacy. Shut down a couple of channels... I'm totally opposed in principle of the government having that kind of leverage over the organisation. However I suspect a really good argument could be made for rationalising the (currently allegedly self-financing) World Service TV and the John Birt Vanity Project that is BBC News 24. If they shut the children's channels (CBeebies and CBBC) I would play the sounds of my children's screams through a loud hailer 24 hours a day outside the homes and offices of those responsible until the channels were reinstated.

→ Posted by: qB at August 26, 2003 10:28 PM

The BBC is the only truly global news organization in the world. Here in Pakistan, the BBC is the only news channel which people trust. Same with the website.
It's the poorer people who can't afford to pay subscriptions to access websites.Computer access is already cheap and widely available, even for those who can't afford a computer and is going to become more so in the future. You have poor farmers in India accessing the BBC radio over the internet for news, and in many places in Africa the BBC is the sole reliable news source. In Pakistan, it's cheaper to use a net cafe for 40 hours then it is to buy a book or a magazine. For people who can't afford to buy a book, the internet is a godsend.

In the future, the the poor are going to have access to a lot less information that the well off. As more websites move to subscription models it's going to happen.

Also, if a community/nation/whoever/rich eccentric has decided to subsidize a news organization for their benefit, does it matter if it puts some people out of business? And when you have organizations the size of AOL Time Warner, its hard to say the BBC should die as its unfair competition.

If the BBC packs up, or restricts itself to the UK its going to be a real loss for the whole world.
Maybe the UN should fund a news organization, or take over the BBC. [at least the news channels and websites]

→ Posted by: KO at August 26, 2003 10:36 PM

It seems strange that any government should have the power to just turn off the 26th most popular site in the world (according to alexa). I mean the BBC spends a tiny tiny fraction of the license fee on interactive services of all kinds - something like 3%. I'd rather they got rid of Eastenders!

→ Posted by: C. Edward Thomas at August 26, 2003 11:41 PM

I would switch off the Conservative Party, especially its youth channel (the young conservatives !). I'm certainly not persuaded of the case for a Conservative Party and I'm not convinced the Tory party needs to do all the things it is doing at the present...

strength to the Beeb ! All the criticism they are getting means they are doing something right ! The BBC's problem at the moment is they are too successful !

Murdoch or Auntie ? Give me Auntie - morning, noon and night !!!!

→ Posted by: Dave at August 26, 2003 11:49 PM

Yet another item to add to my ever-lengthening list of Reasons Not To Vote Tory Ever Again.

/ex-Tory voter

I for one would be quite happy to see all the money currently wasted on News24, home of inane drivel, spent on the website, home of informative content.

→ Posted by: ionicus at August 26, 2003 11:50 PM

Free-market? That's why none of the radio stations rival Radio 4 for quality programming. That's why few news websites offer the same quality news reporting as the BBC. That's why every radio station in the country, apart from the BBC's, happens to be a Capital FM clone comprised of bad pop and worse conversation. That's why Sky is virtually unwatchable (I've boiled it down to about four programmes that I find truly useful or entertaining, which is fairly embarrasing considering that there are in excess of 150 - 200 channels).

The Beeb are writing and compiling this news already - for radio and television - it's hardly a stretch to put it online when it's already written.

The BBC isn't perfect. But compared to CNN/Fox News it's fantastic. And that's why it's the most widely trusted news broadcaster across the world. Even after the Dossier Charade, it still comes out relatively unscathed because of it's illustrious history of excellence.

→ Posted by: Tom Morris at August 27, 2003 12:03 AM

I don't think that it's as simple as whether the BBC website as a whole should be shut down - obviously that would be a rash and foolish move. But the BBC/BBCi do tread on toes and do take money away from other ventures. I run the free Welsh learners web site, http://www.clwbmalucachu.co.uk. I tried to get funding from ELWa, a government body set up to fund education and 'life-long learning' in Wales, to help support and expand my site. My site's been running a while and is very popular with visitors. It provides valuable information for learners, it's professionally designed, has high editorial standards and is entertaining. The only other site on which is of a similar standard is the BBC's Learn Welsh site. Now, wouldn't you have thought that an independent minority language site would deserve some sort of support? Particularly when you consider that Welsh is not in the healthiest of states and needs all the support it can get. I was told by an official at ELWa, though, that I wouldn't be even able to apply for funding, as all their money for the next three years would be going to the BBC to fund expansion of the Learn Welsh site. Now, you might think to yourself that this is just sour grapes from me, but I can’t believe that I’m the only person to have seen public money that should have been available for *any* venture to apply for disappear into the BBC’s coffers. The BBC is perfectly well funded by the licence fee and shouldn’t be drawing funding away from other ventures, or muscling in on markets where existing companies already provide a service. When they do, their actions should be curtailed. Who can compete with such a behemoth as the BBC? And how does it benefit the public for the BBC to be squeezing out smaller companies? The BBC should be doing what other people cannot do, such as fair and unbiased news reporting and making great TV. It should not be trying to create a web site which is all things to all men, nor should it be providing commercial services in markets which are already well served by other companies whom it undercuts. When the BBC exceeds its remit, when it over-reaches, and other companies or individuals suffer for it, it should be reprimanded. The BBC should not be hindering other people's work or other companies' business.

→ Posted by: suw at August 27, 2003 12:12 AM

An expat living in Chile I have realised what a great institution the BBC is, people respect it. If the BBC pushes forward into the internet as it is and will be then its a first and others will follow. As to the Torries saying what they said, they can go and bugger off.

→ Posted by: eanws at August 27, 2003 12:37 AM

I'm sure the announcement of this new policy has absolutely nothing to do with trying to please the Murdoch empire. That would just be too cynical...

→ Posted by: Steve at August 27, 2003 8:47 AM

The party launched the review, chaired by the outspoken former chief executive of Channel Five, David Elstein, earlier this year.

Channel 5? Enough said, I think. The fact that this is even being taken seriously, that the review is taking place under the chairmanship of a second rate television executive / hack boggles the mind.

→ Posted by: tomcosgrave at August 27, 2003 10:55 AM

As an outsider, I think there is definite room to trim back the BBC online operation. It seems to duplicate a lot of work that happens elsewhere across the BBC's newsgathering operation, rather than repurposing content in the most efficient way. I know there's been a lot of work to trim this back, but perhaps more is needed.

But for providing niche services, I think it does a great job. That shouldn't be underestimated. Challenging commercial output, as it seems to be attempting with the pretty dire output on BBC3, is not what the Beeb does best; Radio 4's position as one of the nation's biggest stations is a prime example.

And even as somebody who is sympathetic to the BBC, I am also concerned about the more blatent politicisation of the BBC's online news. It seems a lot looser with its language than any of the broadcast channels, and is something which I think detracts from the often high level of quality in basic news reporting.

The trouble is, we are in a tough situation with the BBC. In many ways, BBCi, Freeview and the digital channels have helped to drive online and digital TV uptake; yet I think there is a definite case against the licence fee funding those services as long as there are people without the technological capability to use them. Perhaps, until such technology becomes ubiquitious, the solution is a multi-tiered licence fee, incorporating extra charges for households with computers and/or dTV?

I understand that the BBC is extremely important for those using the service abroad, but I do think the situation over funding (splitting between the licence fee and the Foreign & Commonwealth Office) is confusing and needs addressing.

What we need to do is make sure that people continue to get a top-rate service without impinging on worthy commercial enterprises or endangering the corporation as a whole. That's the balancing act, and if it's not looked at now, it will only get harder in the long term.

→ Posted by: bobbie at August 27, 2003 12:30 PM

I think it's just scaremongering. I mean, it would be like getting rid of Nelson's Column wouldn't it. It's very brave of them to say it anyway - a new tack indeed. Usually political parties talk about cutting back *after* they're safely in power - concentrating on what they're going to build on/introduce prior to that.

→ Posted by: tamsin at August 27, 2003 12:45 PM

My thoughts on this (admittedly fairly similar to ones already expressed) are here: http://www.seldo.com/weblog/blogmonths/b200308.php#blog2826

→ Posted by: Seldo at August 27, 2003 2:23 PM

Just a couple of things - firstly, I'd like to direct people's attention to the high-quality metafilter thread on this subject, and also to say that if anyone's interested in giving their opinions directly to the government about the BBC's online review (whatever your feelings) the e-mail address is bbconlinereview@culture.gsi.gov.uk

→ Posted by: Tom Coates at August 27, 2003 2:41 PM

Mind you I think some of the people who run the 'less weighty' sites (entertainment/leisure type, message boards, etc.) abuse their position quite often - block posts without just cause, don't respond to queries, for example. It obviously doesn't bother them that we're paying a licence fee for their er... shall we say, unique style of service. Voicing my opinion will at least give me my 'Right of Reply'. I guess what goes round *does* come round after all.

→ Posted by: tamsin at August 27, 2003 4:10 PM

...by that I mean it might be an opportunity to get rid of some of the dead wood.

→ Posted by: tamsin at August 27, 2003 4:15 PM

Former Channel Five boss David Elstein may well be a "second rate television executive/hack", but let's not forget that BBC director general Greg Dyke was a former head honcho at TVam and LWT - and was the man who brought us Roland Rat...

→ Posted by: bobbie at August 27, 2003 5:14 PM

The honourable gentleman, as a free-market Conservative is talking a big pile of bollocks to keep his chum Mr Murdoch happy.

Ten quid a month gets you BBC1, BBC2, BBC3, BBC4, News24, two kids' channels, Five national analogue radio stations, digital stations, local radio, the world's best website. You also get the world's most listened to international broadcaster paid for out of your taxes, so you'd hardly notice, and the Tories and NewsCorp still think the BBC is bad value for money.

Did I say bad value for money? I meant "an untouchable competitor they'd be happy to see disposed of".

Sod it, I'm copying and pasting this for my own blog. I'm on a roll here, Tom.

→ Posted by: Scaryduck at August 27, 2003 5:22 PM

I feel that the BBC websites have made the license fee worthwile. I used to loathe paying it for two measly channels (albeit with the best comedy in the world!) - but the quality and diversity of the websites make it.

I don't think this argument needs to get political (I am not scum because I vote Tory) its a case of whether you feel you are getting value for money... I AM but perhaps others never use the web and don't watch television enough to appreciate the deal.

→ Posted by: Daniel Fascia at August 27, 2003 8:35 PM

I'm possibly an extreme example but I haven't paid my TV license in over five years because I don't have a TV. However, I only ever listen to BBC radio (1-4) and have used the BBC news site on many occasions. Obviously, I'm happy with this situation but it does puzzle me somewhat as to why it's allowed to continue.

→ Posted by: Pete Ashton at August 31, 2003 4:22 PM