Define 'Distinctive'

Last week the UK began it’s journey into a digital-only televisual age, as the analogue signal for BBC2 was turned off in Whitehaven.

In just four weeks time this small Cumbrian town (the ‘guinea pig’ for a nationwide transition to digital-only transmission) will be the first place in the UK receiving the full gamut of digital television channels in place of the five current analogue ones.

Great news you would think, but I have to hand it to one woman who was reported as saying:

“I’ve got thirteen new channels, and there’s still nothing on”

Given the current broadcasting landscape, it’s hard to disagree with her.

Just as well then, that this week also saw an announcement from the BBC about it’s restructuring plans, leading to “a smaller and more distinctive BBC” in six years time. I’m hopeful that will be the case, but given the corporation’s plans to achieve it, I have my doubts.

I’m a big supporter of the BBC, and have always been happy to pay the licence fee whenever I’ve needed to. After-all, the BBC is a great British institution, respected by those it serves and admired around the world.

As television gets ever more commercial and populist in its nature, the more valuable a public-service broadcaster is becoming. By its very definition, the BBC needs to provide a service to the public, a service that is diminishing elsewhere and in my opinion, this announcement seems to completely ignore that.

For those not familiar about the BBC’s plans, they involve spreading itself thinner across an increasing range of networks (television, radio and online) with a 10% reduction in programmes commissioned alongside job cuts, many centred around its news and factual divisions. Other plans include looking at selling TV Center, and allowing advertising on the BBC News website for those using it outside of the UK (which is an entire debate in itself).

Less is More

Now, I wholeheartedly agree that the BBC needs to become a smaller organisation with more distinctive content, but you have to ask how it can become more distinctive by having less original programming and yet more repeats. Furthermore, how can the leadership talk of smaller having launched seven new television channels and five new national radio stations in the past five years?

Whilst these were designed to drive digital take-up, surely it should have been the commercial sector providing incentives for the public to upgrade to newer technology. Perhaps if that was the case, we wouldn’t have had them churn out hundreds of channels full of repeats, cheap American imports, and countless reality shows.

However, the newer BBC networks wouldn’t be so bad if they weren’t so wasteful.

A quick challenge to anybody reading this in Britain: turn over to BBC Three now and tell me what programme is showing. I would bet a hefty amount your answer is ‘Two Pints of Larger and a Packet of Crisps’. If not that then ‘Little Britain’. Whatever is showing, I can guarantee you it’s a repeat.

Then there are the questions as to why the BBC broadcasts a channel for 6-12 year olds during the daytime, when one would hope children are at school, not in front of a television.

At the same time, one of the more worthy services, BBC Parliament, the true essence of public service broadcasting, seems to be constantly sidelined. If not running in quarter screen for half of it’s life on Freeview, it’s now having to make way for BBC HD if and when it comes to digital terrestrial.

Auntie Knows Best

Let’s talk about distinctive, because distinctive does not always mean better.

I would call PBS here in the US distinctive, but I’m not being kind when doing so. Whilst it contains programming that is not available elsewhere amongst the dross that is US television (something commercial television in the UK seems hell-bent on replicating), it does so in a way that doesn’t compete with other channels. Where the BBC exists ‘to inform, educate and inform’, PBS can barely afford to meet any of these criteria, and as such quality entertainment (that may attract people to the service) is non-existent.

We rely on the BBC more than we probably realise. It’s the last remaining obstacle to a capitalists wet dream; a television landscape covered in promotions for its products, and news bent to its advantage. We need a publicly owned BBC in order to maintain broadcasting that is of value to the public, not commercial interests.

As such the BBC should be defining the standards for which commercial broadcasters need to follow if they are to compete with it. You need only look at the current revelations in the media about trustworthiness and honesty from our broadcasters to see why.

Whilst all networks, public and private can plead guilty to falling foul to bad practices and deceiving the public recently, remember that it was commercial broadcasters found to be defrauding the public, taking hard-earned cash out of peoples hands in dodgy phone-in competitions, and cheap competition channels (seemingly designed to encourage gambling at the mere site of a scantly clad woman).

Not one single failure at the BBC resulted in people losing money, but the corporation got just as much, if not more stick from the media about its failures. This is entirely fair, as we expect it to meet the highest standards. After all we are the ones paying for it.

With this in mind, you have to ask how making cuts within the news division is not going to lead to more mistakes, with corners continually trying to be cut.


It seems very likely that for the BBC’s Royal Charter to be renewed in 2017, it will involve the abolition of the licence fee, but this would be something much harder for the government to achieve should the public believe they are getting value for money.

That’s why I agree that the BBC should be smaller and more distinctive, but I question the manner in which its management is trying to achieve this.

Surely continuing to support the broad range of services it has set up in recent years, yet spreading itself thinner across them with less original programming, does not constitute smaller and more distinctive. At least, not in a good way.


6 responses so far. Go on, add yours!

 Gravatar#1 On October 22, 2007 2:16 AM, Kris said...

I was thinking about this mate and I actually honestly cant remember the last time I sat down with the intention of watching any particular programme on TV.

The only time I vaguely watch it is at Sans when we might have it on in the background of a Saturday morning while making breakfast or something. I never thought that I would be able to say this but if the TV broke in the house it would probably be weeks before I even noticed (apart from wanting to watch DVD’s of course) and I’d certainly be in no particular rush to get it fixed!

 Gravatar#2 On October 22, 2007 2:20 AM, Jon Roobottom said...

We just don't have a TV license, or SKY, or anything…

Any TV we do want will soon be available online (if it isn't already)…

You can live without TV.

 Gravatar#3 On October 22, 2007 3:59 AM, Paul said...

Thanks for your comments guys - your responses match my (and perhaps many others) thoughts about TV these days - it's losing it's value.

Assuming you have actually read this whole post (I know it's long), I ask you then, what do you think the BBC should become over the next 6 years - how would you like to see the BBC restructured?

Do you agree with my view that additional services like BBC Three and CBBC Channel (and many other services) are wasteful? Do you agree that these proposals won't bring about a smaller and more distinctive corporation?

Would love your thoughts on this.

 Gravatar#4 On October 22, 2007 9:12 AM, Kris said...

To be honest mate I’m not sure that it would make any difference to me what the BBC did over the next 6 years. As I think that my general decline in TV watching hasn't so much been down to poor quality content (although I acknowledge that this is an issue) but more down too alternative means of entertainment that I personally find more enjoyable.

If there is anything that I ever really really want to see, then I’ll simply just watch it online at my own convenience.

Watching TV was one of those things I’d classically do for an hour or so after I’d been out for an evening but these days I’m more likely to either read a book, faff on my computer or play on my Xbox.

TV has just dropped right down the pecking order for ‘things to do while lazing at home' in my book mate. I do wonder how many others from our Generation feel the same…

 Gravatar#5 On October 22, 2007 2:44 PM, darthlawb said...

If you want to see it - download it. Ok, maybe that makes it sound such an easy chore, but the truth of the matter is (certainly for me) if its on the BBC or any TV station across the pond, it is easily downloaded to watch at your own leisure.

The BBC and other stations need to allow for this and the next generation, the choice of viewing when we want. Do not restrict people to the premier and repeat viewings. Make them available anytime anywhere, and let us not have to google for torrents that can be unreliable or bogus links.

Free the content!

 Gravatar#6 On November 25, 2007 11:10 AM, Emanuele Allenti said...

Very interesting… as always! Cheers from Switzerland.

Add Yours...

Your e-mail is required, but won't be published.
Show who you are with a Gravatar!

Contact Details




Please use Textile for any formatting as HTML is stripped out. A preview of your entry appears below.

Comment Preview

About the Author

HeadshotLloydyWeb is the home of Paul Robert Lloyd, a British graphic designer with a passion for web standards and attractive design.

Blogs that link here

Subscribe to this blog!

Contact Info

About this entry

This entry was written on 20 Oct 2007, 11:36 PM and is filled under , .

It has the following tags: