UK PM Boris Johnson takes aim at the BBC

[FreddyE1977]

Newly re-elected British PM Boris Johnson apparently feels that the BBC's coverage of he and his party in this election cycle was was biased.

And it appears he intends to respond.

He is proposing to decriminalize nonpayment of the BBC Annual License Fee (the Telly Tax).
Once it is not a criminal offense to ignore it, who in their right mind is ever going to pay it?
This will starve the Beeb of income in fairly rapid order.

And he has ordered members of his government to boycott Radio 4, refusing access or interviews,
claiming that it's election coverage was biased towards Labour.

https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2...-two-pronged-attack?__twitter_impression=true

Not jumping into the political debate over whether this is the correct course of action or not
(although those who live by the sword of government funding also die by it). In the bigger picture
its hard to see how the Telly Tax survives much longer anyway in a world of globally-available streaming.

 

[TheBigA]

For three years the WH has south to eliminate CPB funding. They lost. Even with a Republican majority.

 

[CTListener]

For three years the WH has south to eliminate CPB funding. They lost. Even with a Republican majority.

The difference is that the British are compelled to support their public broadcaster through the license fee on receiving equipment. Johnson's plan could very well kill off or severely cripple the BBC, which is a huge, expensive operation. It dwarfs CPB, PBS, NPR, the whole lot. The questions here are: Will Britons still pay the license fee if there's no penalty for not doing so? Would Britons voluntarily donate directly to the BBC if it were to institute pledge drives, in the style of PBS and NPR stations? And if so, would the amount raised be enough to keep the Beeb's various operations -- news gathering and reporting, primarily -- going at their current levels?

Maybe you read it differently, but I see the Johnson scheme as a far greater threat to the UK's public broadcaster than Donald Trump's dream of defunding CPB is to ours.

 

[TheBigA]

I see the Johnson scheme as a far greater threat to the UK's public broadcaster than Donald Trump's dream of defunding CPB is to ours.

Maybe. According to the BBC, decriminalization doesn't mean there wouldn't be any penalty:

"However a previous government review in 2015 looked into whether a fine for non-payment could be issued under civil law instead, similar to the fees for breaking parking, bus lane and congestion charge rules. The review also examined whether unpaid TV license fees should be considered a civil debt in the same way as unpaid utility bills or council tax."

So it's not as simple as it's portrayed in the OP.

 

[FreddyE1977]

The difference is that the British are compelled to support their public broadcaster through the license fee on receiving equipment. Johnson's plan could very well kill off or severely cripple the BBC, which is a huge, expensive operation. It dwarfs CPB, PBS, NPR, the whole lot. The questions here are: Will Britons still pay the license fee if there's no penalty for not doing so? Would Britons voluntarily donate directly to the BBC if it were to institute pledge drives, in the style of PBS and NPR stations? And if so, would the amount raised be enough to keep the Beeb's various operations -- news gathering and reporting, primarily -- going at their current levels?

Maybe you read it differently, but I see the Johnson scheme as a far greater threat to the UK's public broadcaster than Donald Trump's dream of defunding CPB is to ours.

I think you are right about that. I think the CPB would find some way to move forward being privately funded.

 

[FreddyE1977]

For three years the WH has south to eliminate CPB funding. They lost. Even with a Republican majority.

There is much more party discipline and cohesion in the UK Parliamentary system than we have here.
The Tories elected Johnson as their leader. They have pretty much pledged to support him in Parliament come what may,
with the alternatives being a vote of no confidence or being drummed out of the party.

Our Senate on the other hand is made up of 100 of this country's biggest egomaniacs.
They are essentially all marching to their own drummer.

 

[TheBigA]

I think the CPB would find some way to move forward being privately funded.

Although it would require a change in legislation. Not very likely in this environment.

What would suffer the most, in both countries, would be service to rural areas. Big cities have lots of funding.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

Newly re-elected British PM Boris Johnson apparently feels that the BBC's coverage of he and his party in this election cycle was was biased.

And it appears he intends to respond.

He is proposing to decriminalize nonpayment of the BBC Annual License Fee (the Telly Tax).
Once it is not a criminal offense to ignore it, who in their right mind is ever going to pay it?
This will starve the Beeb of income in fairly rapid order.

And he has ordered members of his government to boycott Radio 4, refusing access or interviews,
claiming that it's election coverage was biased towards Labour.

https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2...-two-pronged-attack?__twitter_impression=true

Not jumping into the political debate over whether this is the correct course of action or not
(although those who live by the sword of government funding also die by it). In the bigger picture
its hard to see how the Telly Tax survives much longer anyway in a world of globally-available streaming.

Even in the link you have the Labour criticising BBC over some stories

. No 10 pointed to Andrew Neil’s on-air monologue in which he lambasted Johnson for his refusal to be interviewed, and the BBC’s “extensive coverage” of a four-year-old boy with suspected pneumonia forced to sleep on a hospital floor – as supposed evidence of anti-Tory, pro-remain bias at the corporation.

Meanwhile, Labour backers have raised concerns about the BBC’s coverage, from the editing out of laughter aimed at Johnson in a news bulletin to leading reporters uncritically repeating Conservative sources, and the prime minister escaping scrutiny after dodging the one-on-one interview with Neil.

The questions will end up being how much of this funding threat to the BBC is just campaign rhetoric though and how much is real.
I

 

[FreddyE1977]

Although it would require a change in legislation. Not very likely in this environment.

What would suffer the most, in both countries, would be service to rural areas. Big cities have lots of funding.

Britain is about the size of Idaho. Much less of an issue there than it would be here.

 

[FreddyE1977]

The "Tele Tax" and the detector vans used to enforce it are notoriously unpopular with the British people.
PM Johnson likely sees this as a political winner.

 

[CTListener]

Britain is about the size of Idaho. Much less of an issue there than it would be here.

And the BBC has plenty of transmitters for its programming, not only the national radio services like Radio 4 but more than two dozen regional stations based in all the major cities that usually program a mix of AC music and local talk on weekdays and a smorgasbord of specialty shows on the weekends, along with regional sports -- although some of the regionals are now DAB only.

 

[TheBigA]

And the BBC has plenty of transmitters for its programming,

And those transmitters cost money for maintenance. If the BBC takes a financial hit, they'll have to cut back services. That is likely to be felt more in rural areas than in London.

 

[davideduardo]

Britain is about the size of Idaho. Much less of an issue there than it would be here.

In proportion to the population, this is just as important. The UK has lots of rural and sparsely populated areas. While population density is high, the geography is irregular, ranging from the Orkneys to the Isles of Scilly, from Northern Ireland to Dover.

We are dealing with about 20% of the population of the US, so proportionality is very much an issue.

 

[CTListener]

And those transmitters cost money for maintenance. If the BBC takes a financial hit, they'll have to cut back services. That is likely to be felt more in rural areas than in London.

I wonder if BBC Local Radio, as the regional services are called, will be protected. The talk shows they are are about as nonpolitical as you can get, and when there's a controversial topic to be discussed, the treatment is evenhanded, relying mainly on listeners who phone in with opinions. I was listening to Radio Leeds today and the midday topic was a school in London that has changed "the little Lord Jesus" to "the little boy Jesus" so children of all faiths can feel comfortable singing it. The phone calls went this way: Muslim caller -- for; Christian caller -- against; agnostic caller -- for; Jewish caller -- against; Christian caller -- for: with a couple of tunes from Bruno Mars and Adele to keep things moving. Not a word about Boris to be heard.

 

[TheBigA]

I wonder if BBC Local Radio, as the regional services are called, will be protected.

I wonder how BBC Scotland will be affected if Scotland leaves the UK. That's a more likely situation, given Brexit.

 

[FreddyE1977]

I guess it all goes back to your basic philosophy over whether it's an appropriate role of government to be funding or operating a broadcast network. Personally I believe it is not, mainly because from a journalistic standpoint it becomes impossible for you to remain independent. You are always going to be biased towards the politicians or parties who are in favor of what you are doing and wish to increase your funding. Politicians and parties who want to make government smaller become the enemy. In this instance it appears they chose sides, took a shot at the king and missed. Now its payback time.

France has long had similar issues with its newspapers, all but one of which accept government subsidies.
Just how are you supposed to objectively cover the government when they are paying your bills?

 

[TheBigA]

I guess it all goes back to your basic philosophy over whether it's an appropriate role of government to be funding or operating a broadcast network. Personally I believe it is not, mainly because from a journalistic standpoint it becomes impossible for you to remain independent.

So you're saying commercial broadcasters and reporters are independent? Good to hear. That's not what the gov't says.

I think the point of the BBC is they ARE independent. They're NOT funded by the government, but rather a user tax on devices. The issue here is the government is decriminalizing the non-payment of that fee. Like saying you really don't have to pay your phone bill.

The reason for government funding isn't for journalism but rather to provide technical services in areas and for people where it's not commercially viable, such as rural areas. There are areas in the US (and I imagine it's true in UK) where the public station is the only outlet available. No internet yet either.

 

[kevtronics]

The BBC "telly tax" is officially a licensing fee, not a tax. If you don't own a TV, or any device capable of playing or recording BBC's video programming, you don't need to pay it. It also used to be free for people over age 75, but they're doing away with that exemption in 2020.

What puzzles me is that they still charge a separate, and higher, price for colo(u)r TVs versus black & white TVs. With so few B&W TVs in use anymore, why even bother? They should just exempt B&W sets entirely -- it's not like everyone is going to suddenly dump their big-screen 4K flat panel TV and rig up an old black & white TV just to avoid paying the telly tax.

 

[TheBigA]

What puzzles me is that they still charge a separate, and higher, price for colo(u)r TVs versus black & white TVs.

Didn't know that. Of course here we pay higher rates to providers for HDTV service. I imagine they do too.

 

[radiocph]

The difference is that the British are compelled to support their public broadcaster through the license fee on receiving equipment. Johnson's plan could very well kill off or severely cripple the BBC, which is a huge, expensive operation. It dwarfs CPB, PBS, NPR, the whole lot. The questions here are: Will Britons still pay the license fee if there's no penalty for not doing so? Would Britons voluntarily donate directly to the BBC if it were to institute pledge drives, in the style of PBS and NPR stations? And if so, would the amount raised be enough to keep the Beeb's various operations -- news gathering and reporting, primarily -- going at their current levels?

Maybe you read it differently, but I see the Johnson scheme as a far greater threat to the UK's public broadcaster than Donald Trump's dream of defunding CPB is to ours.

A quick look at the CBP's FY 2020 budget shows that it's main source of income is the Congressional appropriation of $445 Million. Throw in $4 Million of interest income (investments?) for a total of $449 Million. https://www.cpb.org/files/aboutcpb/financials/budget/FY2020-Operating-Budget.pdf

Most of these funds (less about 11% going to overhead) are doled out to public radio and TV stations. The stations also collect funds from listeners, corporate grants, and other sources. For example, KCRW in Los Angeles has a $22 Million budget -- $8 Million from "contributions and grants" https://www.kcrw.com/about/public-file-documents/kcrw-2016-annual-report.pdf/
(about a million of which come from the CPB, if I'm reading this correctly: https://www.kcrw.com/about/public-file-documents/afr-fy18-finalized.pdf)

On the other hand, the BBC's income is £4889 Million ($6395 M),--of which £3690 Million ($4827 M) comes from the license fees. That's 75% of the BBC's income! https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/reports/annualreport/2018-19.pdf (scroll to p. 95)