Warning - prolonged rant, Part I

Every month we pay our TV Licence by direct debit. As a fully paid up licence holder I am entitled to express my response to Micahel Lyons, Chairman of the BBC Trust, who makes the unqualified assumption he knows what I want. He says, and I quote,

"What [the public] want to hear...is every pound is being squeezed to get the maximum value. And the BBC is going to be more disctinctive in the future. The BBC needs to be more distinctive doing things that other people don't do, and also those things it does do, doing them in a distinctive way."

I am SO tired of the asumption that what I (a member of the public) want is value for money at all costs. And I am even MORE tired of the assumption that value is index linked to pounds sterling. I value the BBC for reasons that have nothing to do with money. In any case, value for money is such a subjective judgement. I happen to think that a couple of million spent producing quality drama is better value than half that amount spent on reality TV productions. Dr Who or X Factor, which is best value for money?

Simon Rattle conducting the Berlin Philarmonic or Spooks? Eastenders or Panorama, Casualty or Newsnight? Or again, take televised sport. The major sporting occasions are not value for money if it means the BBC has to outbid huge commerical interests to bring major events to terrestrial TV, and thus slash the budget for other forms of TV programme much more representative, educational, culturally significant - all of which are themselves fairly subjective judgements. And I am, unabashedly, fitba daft masel', like!

I'm not against reducing wasteful spending; or reviewing staff levels in relation to technological change; nor am I critical of any major public institution which must change in order to remain effective, adaptable and secure in its cultural and social role as an institution supported by and accountable to, the public. The BBC has an obligation to be financially prudent, but also a duty to preserve its fundamental values - which are not all financially calculable. Yes, include value for money in discussions about value; but also include values which are not indexed to finance, which indeed might cost significantly in order to preserve and promote precisely these values.

Like reporting on violence against Buddhist monks in Burma; or attempted genocide by stealth in Darfur; or the double standards of objecting to nuclear development in developing countries while new generations of nuclear weapons are commanding major budgets in the West. That kind of reporting will never be value for money - it's too important for that. So don't make value for money, filthy lucre, the benchmark value of any public I belong to.

Less factual, news based programmes is one of the key proposals, and where staff cuts will be deepest, according to the BBC's own News Programme. Now whatever else I expect, and value, from the BBC, naive as it may seem, I expect quality reporting which is politically independent, accurate and current, reflective of the realities in our world and informed about how they impinge upon our own cultural, social and political life. I expect the BBC to have some of the best correspondents, some of the most informed and reflective minds engaging with the events, people and circumstances that shape our history as today's news becomes yesterday. Good quality news coverage, factual documentaries whether political, current afairs, the arts, natural history or whatever, should not be reduced to release funds for more populist agendas. This is the hard dilemma of major educational and public institutions - do you give what is demanded, or seek to offer that which influences the culture out of which such demands come? Should the agenda be populist or elitist? Important questions - and not to be short-circuited by reducing everything to making sure every pound is squeezed to get value for money. There are other, more valuable values to be cherished.

I know, there is another side to all of this - but maybe Part II tomorrow.

Comments

[Margaret]

This deserves a wider audience. At the very least Micahel Lyons should read it!! Dr Who or X Factor? - have to be Dr Who however Dr Who or Strictly Come Dancing?........have to be Strictly I'm afraid!