Iconic Films

2 for 1 tickets to Singin' In The Rain, this coming Monday. Book now

Navigation - link to other main sections from here

From The Times

August 25, 2007

BBC’s licence fee could soon be indefensible, says Paxman

Dan Sabbagh, Media Editor

The licence fee will soon be indefensible if the BBC does not maintain quality by investing in its flagship programmes, Jeremy Paxman claimed yesterday.

The presenter of Newsnight gave warning that the BBC’s licence fee funding would become a thing of the past unless it was able to articulate “a clear sense of purpose and express it through much better protection of the defining brands”.

Speaking before an audience at the Edinburgh Television Festival, he predicted that there would probably be “one more licence fee settlement” but said that it would be “foolish to be too confident” that there would be a fourth or fifth to follow. He also high-lighted worries about a decline of standards in television, including the phone-in scandals on Blue Peter, Comic Relief and Children in Need.

Paxman said that working at the BBC “has always been a bit like working in Stalin’s Russia, with one five-year plan, one resoundingly empty slogan after another” with a belief that “the system will go on for ever”.

He said that the “idea of a tax on the ownership of a television belongs in the 1950s” and created a risk that BBC could follow the British Empire into obsolescence. “It is too easy to imagine a future in which our grand-children will talk of having had an ancestor who worked for the BBC in the same way as people nowadays mention having a great-grandparent who worked for the Sudanese Political Service,” he added.

In an unprecedented attack on his employers, Paxman criticised BBC executives for allowing themselves to be “comprehensively outmanoeuvred by the Treasury” during the latest licence fee negotiations. He said that Mark Thompson, the Director-General, had undermined the corporation’s ability to “produce worthwhile programmes” by agreeing to spend £1.5 billion on the switch to digital by 2012 and moving children’s and sports programming to Salford.

He said that if cost-cutting continued the corporation was in danger of forgetting its “sole purpose” – making worthwhile programmes. As an example, he said that Newsnight had been required to make budget cuts of 15 per cent in the past three years, and would have to make cuts of “at least a further 20 per cent over the next five years”, which would lead to an inevitable loss in quality.

Paxman also asked whether there was enough news to sustain the “portentous immediacy” that 24-hour news channels require. Complaining that all “news programmes need to make noise”, he gave an example of an interview with a woman during the Suffolk bird-flu crisis as the “nadir” of excitable journalism.

“The reporter knew what was wanted. ‘We have a dead chicken over there’, the woman wailed. ‘Whether that chicken was knocked down by a car we don’t know’. And that was it. There was a dead chicken in Suffolk.” Paxman said that he agreed with Tony Blair’s criticisms of the media for being dominated by a herd mentality.

At a question-and-answer session after the speech, Sir Michael Lyons, the BBC chairman, asked the presenter what he would actually change about the corporation. Paxman replied that channel controllers should give producers a better sense of what they want. Last night a spokesman for the BBC said: “We welcome Jeremy’s contribution to this important debate.”

Meanwhile it was announced that Mr Thompson, Michael Grade, the ITV chairman, and Andy Duncan, the boss of Channel 4, had agreed to hold a summit on raising standards.

Sack the DG, lock him in the stationery cupboard and give his executive armchair and chocolate biscuit allowance to Paxman.

Keith, Birmingham,

The BBC pours cash away, witness the politically correct move of the sports unit to Salford - Thompson used that as a defence against the charge that the BBC has no regional English voiced presenters and reporters - to conttrast with its 40% Scots accents.
And the endless bias. Mr P on Newsnight himself recently told Mark Francois, Tory shadow on the EU, about the new treaty: 'we all know its a quite different document' to the constitution - which most experts just deny.
Sell it of- if want Guardian news and comment, we can buy it every day

Ibn, Wycombe, UK

They say that paying a T.V. Licence allows the B.B.C. to make a good cross-section of all around Family Entertainment.

But however, all we are getting for our money is Wall to Wall Soap's, and in any case more often that not the Adverts that are found on other T.V. Channels are more entertaining than the Programmes on the B.B.C.

It's about time the B.B.C. stopped making all these Social Work Television Programmes from their money from the T.V. Licence Payer's.

W.Featherstone., Dunoon. Argyll, Scotland

Few could have more staunchly defended the licence fee than I did during the BBC's glory days. I would do so again if we saw a return to quality production. But the BBC clearly no longer has any interest in producing anything other than soap, with just Dr Who and one costume drama a year for the sake of image maintenance.

It appears all BBC wants to do is chase ratings these days, and it chooses to do so by aping the commercial channels. Thus, the overwhelming majority of its output is soap, reality shows, game shows, and endless, endless sport.

But if all BBC wants to do is compete with ITV, why should it not be funded like ITV? Anything else is unfair to ITV. Not to mention the licence-fee payers.

Andrew Shakespeare, Cardiff, Wales

I don't view or listen to anything via the BBC yet I am taxed to fund it because I have a television.

There needs to be an emergency broadcast system which is funded by part of the regular taxes we all pay; however the licence fee as it currently stands is unfair, unjust, a burden, and should be ceased without delay.

Mike, Cardiff,

It wont matter soon .If Mr Salmond scraps it In Scotland ,They will be falling over each other in England to do the same .Well done Scotland.

D Paterson, Glasgow, Scotland

Indefensible is a very polite term. "Give us the money whether or not you watch us or we;ll put you in prison" isn't a licence it's a Protection Racket of which the mafia would be proud.

John Ledbury, Kings Lynn, England

I agree 100% with what was said. news programmes are now just a catalogue of misery from around the world, plus lots of scandal about very minor ?celebrities which no one is really interested in. We now have the added talents of composers who add noisy film type music to try to increase importance and add drama to usually dull pieces of news. Most of todays violent soceity can I think now be linked to the constant diet of horror and violence on TV. As for respecting other people, the example shown by satirical and comedy programmes make sure that nothing is sacred, decent, without and alternative agenda, and everything is there to be knocked down and nothing but rubbish put in it's place.

Alex Mc Dougall, York, Yorks

I agree with Mr. Paxman, either the BBC makes QUALITY programs that people want to watch and News fit to report, that is more than someone's press release, or get rid of the license fee!
Bravo, Mr. Paxman for stating what is obvious!

C. Klele, Newport, Isle of Wight, UK

Does nt the TV licence fee yield more than Â£ 3 billion every year to the government ( licence dodgers excluded ) ?
Does this not explain why the BBC is so biased towards their paymaster - the government ?
What we, as viewers, receive for our money is mainly politically correct bilge, carefully spun so as not to offend the paymaster.
Paxman should get an MBE for his candour.

Rick, London, England

The BBC is pooh-pooh, ga-ga. My 6 year girl says she finds it un-intellictually stimulating. How embarassing! - a 6 year old child finds it beneath her level of intelligence. Can you believe that? Mind you, it's not surprising; when I watch the BBC for more than 12 minutes I start to dribble on myself.

Johnny Smith, Godalming,

The Licence fee in the UK has always been indefensible, how on earth can any 'corporation' impose a tax ?? - absolutely crazy !! is there any other country in the world that taxes its subjects for watching TV ?? I don't think so.

dave, St Albans, UK

Should the headline or topic be about "is the licence fee defensible"? I would much rather see the debate "how to use the current fee in a manner which serves us the viewers in the best way possible".

And at the risk of really getting up the nose of some, I am happy to pay the fee!

Its so refreshing, under the current labour regime, to be taxed for something and then have it used exactly for the purpose I am being taxed. (Road tax, council tax etc, examples of misappropriation of tax..).

Now we must just ensure that the quality is there.

Tony, Woking, Surrey

The licence fee is already indefensible. I object to subsidising the marxist-liberal claptrap that comes from this organisation. The BBC should be privatised immediately.

Dave, Notts, UK

Go Paxman go Paxman .I think most people would rather have fewer programs and less trash.The potential death of Big Brother is the best thing I heard in years.It was always a disgusting idea voyeuristic and exploitative.Television is capable of good things that don't pollute and debase.Lets stick with the good stuff.Ooh perhaps if there was less TV we all would get get off the sofa,take exercise and interact with others.Wow!

Frances , Tunbridge Wells, UK

The bbc sucks. The Licence is a joke. You don't need a man holding out a flag to walk in front of your car as a warning to others road-users. Thus the Licence outdated.

The irony is, the bbc does have a commercial -tv- service on satelite and the advertising is so 'slick' it makes the u.k's other commercial broadcasters look 'rustic.'

As the licence fee goes up the quality goes down.

100 years ago before -tv- took off, ok some kind of fee for the then virtualy private service was fine.

But today, naa'..... its a bad joke. There are better t.v and radio sources.

Make the bbc fight it out on the commercial world and watch the quality go up.

Scrap the fee for Free.

mark, n.windsor., berks/bucks border

It is certainly worrying that programmes like Newsnight face having their budget cut but as much as 20 per cent. The BBC is more than just TV channels and the fact there are no ad breaks is not just a welcome addition, itâ€™s a positive symptom of the raison d'etre of the institution. The people of Britain pay for the BBC so not only are our programmes free from persistently interrupted by mindless adverts, but also, advertisers do not get in the way of dictating policy and programming as they do on other channels. No matter what people say, the BBC news is still the best about and something that should be encouraged, funded and protected. Just watch Fox News for a few hours or the increasingly dumbed-down Sky News and then compare.

Mark, New York,

A good way to save money would be stop these unnecessary outside news broadcast. Why do we need to see a reporter outside government building i.e. Parliament, Treasury, Foreign Office etc, at weekend or for late night news reports when clearly the buildings are empty. The reporter stands their for effect, with no chance of an interview, but maybe this would reduce the production crews overtime earning to much! Its only tax payers money anyway. Also way are politicians allowed to get away with rarely answering a question with a yes or no answer, its time we they were stopped being given air time just to spin their lies. The integrity of the BBC needs to be re-established quickly before it roles over and becomes another propaganda machine for the Labour party.

Michael Mallin, Sheffield,

bring back Greg Dyke I say!

Karl Smith, Newcastle,

Still, it could be worse. They could screen Big Brother. I do not understand why those of us who want to watch inteligent, well researched programs should be forced to sit up until almost midnight waiting for them to start. I forsee a day very soon when the BBC should become a subscription channel, akin to many of those found through cable/Sky. Why should I pay to maintain a company that I almost never watch?

Andrew Prytherch, Exmouth, Devon

A licence fee has been introduced to wage a public service. We cannot claim ignorance of the law to bail us out; therefore we need a public service to inform us. Well, the BBC is not it! No more reason for licence. Sorry, I disagree with those who want this or that entertainment programme: that's not public service. It's OK but not with public money. Public money should pay for useful things. Useful for our society, not just because we like them. Some people struggle to make ends meet. Entertainment TV, even a good one, is not a top priority. So, use private money for that! Let's spend that money to save people lives (NHS or whatever).

GiMS Pang, Hull, UK

Make it pay-per-view. The BBC claims the licence fee "is tremendous value for money" so obviously they would continue to prosper.

trawlnet, London,

Technology changes the rules of the game. When there were only three channels effectively unlimited money could be spent on a guaranteed audience of several million. With a hundred channels, and competition from the Internet, that's no longer true. You can no longer fly someone out to Brazil just to get a five minute clip of a famous footballer.
However the BBC is in an enviable position. It can distribute its content for free, taking full advantage of modern computers. And the licence fee represents a concentration of money with which to make good programs. The era of superstar Newsnight presenters might be drawing to a close, the era of free, high quality, accessible archives might be just beginning.

Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK

One major problem for the BBC is its entrenched culture of producing what already sells. Originality has taken a back seat, seen presumably not only as too high risk but somehow patronising to its audience: telling them what they want rather than vice versa. Sometimes people don't know what they might want to see until they've been shown a brilliant new idea.

Paxman is of course right to point out that the BBC has to earn its license fee. And that means ditching its slavishness to audience figures and management brand paranoia. It must not be afraid of 'patronising' its audience with new ideas. In any case the risk taking that the license uniquely affords will most likely pay audience figure dividends with a public apparently hungry for something new: The BBC has always shone its brightest when pursuing original ideas and fulfilling its public service of sidestepping the market.

BBC management should listen to and support its programme makers.

Dan Jones, Newcastle, United Kingdom

Paxman is right in many ways. There is only a finite resource of money and talent to make TV programmes - spread that ever thinner and the quality gets ever worse. To put it bluntly, we cannot produce enough programmes of quality to adequately fill the schedules of the five terrestrial channels... so why the rush to create more channels?

Yes, the BBC have used their extra channels well in that they are well focused and provide a breeding ground for new and innovative programming - and let's not forget BBC radio either. And the BBC website is second to none.

But... we need a management structure that is geared and focussed solely on delivering high quality content. This is clearly not happening. Aiding and abetting the analogue switch-off is a case in point and there are other examples.

At least the BBC haven't reached the absolute pit that the commercial channels find themselves in, but now is the time to wake up and take action before the inevitable slide is too late to stop.

Stuart Dollin, Halifax, West Yorkshire

The licence fee is indefensible anyway. Why should viewers of other channels be forced to subsidise this, one of the last of the nationalised industries, when the media are now a mature and diverse industry? Sell off the BBC, with its copyrights but with no licence fee and no funding from the taxpayer. Then it will sink or swim according to whether it gives people what they want, like the rest of us have to.

Richard, London,

Funny how Paxo thinks he doesn't know what's required by his seniors. I doubt that was the case not all that long ago when a certain A Campbell walked the tarmac of Downing Street. Under G Brown, confusion reigns. The BBC government approved narrative system is cracking.

Tapestry, LONDON,

He said that the BBC should cut tiers of management and find out what most people want.

Well obviously this is worrying, because they should know. Personally i would like to see some decent comedies, some that cater to the young like Little Britain and some that cater to the older generation who used to watch Only Fools and Horses. I went to see ART in the westend, and i have no idea why anybody can't write decent scripts like that. Instead we get two pints of lager and a packet of crisps.

I don't care who writes the scripts whether they are toffs, hoodies, asian etc just somebody with a decent sense of humour.

Mark, Newton-le-willows,

BBC cannot be improved - it must be removed.
Paxman must be appointed as the head of the "New Body".
BBC is not fit for the pupose

Dr Addy , Hempstead, Kent - England

The Government often confuses "value for money" slogans with meaning budget cuts with more volume and inevitable lower quality.

Adverts and commercial funding simply wouldn't fund in depth, intellectual programmes and the wide variety that the BBC has a world-wide reputation for.

Government is putting this British icon of the BBC under too much pressure to reduce quality via budget cuts and the current higher management, perhaps more concerned with their own ambitions, are consenting to this downward qualitative pressure, rather than justifying it's unique position and needs based upon quality and diversity first, full stop!

Otherwise dilution in quality will make the BBC look little different to channels constantly interupted with adverts and selling and popular mind-neutralising time-fillers.

Come on BBC, feel the quality and keep our world-wide reutation high - the UK needs something to feel proud of !

Sam Redman, London, UK

Listening to Paxman's speech, the BBC has actually long since abandoned technical standards. Today we have superior analogue tv and FM radio downgraded in quality to make Freeview and DAB look good so it looks good in 2012 on analogue switch-off. We have Freeview which is shockingly over-compressed picture and audio, we have an outdated DAB radio system that can in no way even sound better than the now degraded FM, and some FM stations have switched to mono to match the low sound quality of DAB.

We also have onscreen DOG's infecting all channels, squashed up and talked over end credits, and 'music' obscuring the talking of people.

The BBC tax has always been indefensible, more so considering how many adverts the BBC have on tv and radio, and the BBC tax subsidises a website that no commercial site can compete with with their limited budgets.

David.E, London, UK

Stop the the politically correct nonsense. Stop the left wing bias. Stop employing a preponderance of women. Stop the anti-Semitism. What this amounts to is to STOP employing muesli chomping Guardianistas and get some real people. There ....you have a start BBC. - Some chance,- you've been there too long

Victor M., Malaga, Spain

It's long past time we stopped funding the bbc through license fees when the service is supposedly neutral but is so obviously politically bias. Get rid of Auntie! we don't need her anymore, especially when the only thing that comes from the bbc is labour party propaganda. I find it disgusting I am forced by law to have to fund the left wing rubbish spouted by the bbc, but there is little chance the labour party will remove the license fees as they have to keep their publicly funded mouthpiece active.

Dez, Oxford, Oxfordshire

It's astonishing that it is COSTING the BBC Â£1.5 billion - or any money at all - on the switch to digital.

Once the switch has happened, the current BBC wavelengths can (and almost certainly will) will be rented out for obscene amounts of money - probably enough to entirely fund the BBC and more!

Bearing this in mind, is this not the ideal opportunity to scrap the fee, and use this windfall to replace it?

Mike Hart, London, UK

Have a look at SBS tv in Australia - I miss it so much! I am sorry to say this but there is an intellectual vacuum in the UK at present. Paxman is a great exception though!

NR, Bristol,

Once great, now a waste of money.

roger, bristol,

Wait, I thought there was a purpose, the goal of weakening any sense of english pride and history in order for the eventual "de-Englification" of the British Isles, in order to permit a peaceful handover of power to the colonies from their once colonial master.

NO?

Why stop now, when things seem to be going so well. Millions of non-Britons immigrating in, many thousands of native Britons packing their bags.... another 2 generations and the process should be just about done.

Marcella expat, Toronto, Canada

The next slogan for the BBC should be "Half the size and twice as good!"

Baxter Lindsay, Preverenges, Switzerland

Dr Who, Bleak House, Jane Eyre - that's the complete list of BBC productions over the past three years that have interested me.

The rest is a semolina pudding of food porn, chav TV and numbnut quizzes.

Sam Neill, Cardiff,

Or - how to take the BBC's top shilling and spit in its face. The Beeb could ease its funding problems at a stroke by halving its payments to top presenters.

Marni, Crouch End,

Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK

Thank God someone is talking common sense at last,
Perhaps they should take a look at the tiers of management, It is absolutely vital for the BBC to continue to justify a licence fee it needs to get back to what they were known for, Quality progamming that they have lost sight of.

Josephine Davidson, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear

How about the grossly overpaid presenterslike Jonathan Ross etc - we all know who they are - getting paid Â£2m per year to anchor a chat/news show. Not to mention the endless competitions fro best dancers/singers etc.

Ian Burgess, Bristol,

Well said Jeremy!
With a handful of exceptions BBC TV now broadcasts wall-to-wall rubbish.
BBC radio is irritating and boring with hundreds of reporters (sorry - journalists) all with the same politically correct brainwashing who can hardly make words into a coherent sentence and have even less ability to pronounce what they do say.
Hard to believe but the commercial alternatives are even worse.
Totally depressing.
Jeremy for CEO of the BBC asap.

Mike Beesley, Worthing , England

As an overseas viewer of the BBC world news I really think that the BBC needs a total change in management and format. If the news is an indication on the qualitiy of progams at the BBC then there has to be change. It seems to me that those who replaced the board of governors are no different. Be bold have sweeping changes at BBC.

Chris, Victoria ,

BBC cannot be improved - it must be removed.
Paxman must be appointed as the head of the "New Body".
BBC is not fit for the pupose

Dr Addy , Hempstead, Kent - England

Why are we forced to pay this poll tax? My family doesnâ€™t watch the channel or its biased reporting or listen to its radio â€“ Why should I pay? The public should launch a national petition on this tax and and campaign to scrap it before European court of human rights does.

Layton Bevan, Neath, Wales,UK

I have no TV set. I have no TV licence. The only thing on BBC1 tomorrow that looks interesting would seem to be from 6.30pm to 8pm. BBC2 does offer Oscar Wylde at 9pm but it is a film and not produced by the BBC's own Actors. What a pity.

John Barnard, London, UK

I hope the trend for downmarket rubbish ends. But one thing for the BBC, at least television isn't constantly interrupted for four minutes or more with adverts.

Steve Jackson, Gloucester, Gloucestershire

I agree with Mr Paxman on everything he say's that the BBC is rubbish. We cancelled our television licence in August 2006 and 1 year on, its great, no more trash television programmes.
Why should we have to pay a fee to watch a television?
The licence fee/tax is outdated with 2007, get rid of it!

Dr Bishop, Nottingham, UK

Although not reported in this piece I also agree with Paxman's criticisms of the BBC's total obsession with inter-activity. When I go to the theatre I don't want to act in the play; I don't want to sing in the opera; I neither do I want text and email garbage being churned out when I want some decent news coverage. Radio 5live are by far the worst offenders.
Let's get back to being properly entertained and informed.

David Benwell, Plymouth, Britain

As we all know the BBC is out of control it has its own political left wing agenda is over funded and is well past its sell by date.

Paxman is about 30 years to late with his comments and has been part of the problem in the past with his anti Tory stance.

It should be a subscription service and you can decide if you want it or not.

Johnny Norfolk, Mileham Norfolk, GB

The BBC has to work out what the core businesses are - just as major global companies do. It can not have unlimited money to spend on whatever it wants to.

Just like global companies, it will have to repeatedly slash through the incomprehensible layers of management, decide on 'make v buy' of production, decide on brands to promote or close/sell-off and the service level.

Most importantly, the BBC must determine who the customers are (that is easy, it is mostly the people in the UK required by law to pay license fees) and how to meet their needs.

As most companies will tell the BBC, there is no right to ongoing existence and no right to unlimited benefits.

There are so many acceptable alternatives to the BBC these days as compared to the early days of the BBC.

I personally object to being compelled by law to pay the license fee - and then be treated in a supercilious patronising and condescending manner that appears to be the BBC standard

Wessex Man, Taunton,

Why should the public be forced to finance a TV station if they do not wish to watch it? Make the BBC go subscription only and watch it go bankrupt, that would be a just end for a corporation that is nothing more than a political propaganda unit.

ADScott, Bangkok, Thailand

If the BBC is judged to be a Gold Standard in the industry, it is for its news and journalism: Why then do they cut back on this yet waste money on the likes of Jonathan Ross?

Richard, Bexhill, UK

As a BBC presenter Jeremy Paxman has stated the obvious and it needed someone of his status to say it.
The declining standards of the BBC are particularly noticeable in so many programmes.Two examples
News 24 and the Weather.
Mainly female News readers and reporters who seem unable to speak and get the message across without waving their hands around.Maybe the should take lessons from John Simpson and Brian Hanrahan.
The weather male presenters who persistently say
"funny old day" or "funny wet old day" and "clumps of rain/snow".
As for the content of other programmes I will leave for
other contributors to comment.

Dennis Daly, London, England

Well said Jeremy Paxman for articulating what many of us have been thinking for quite some time.

Michael Cole, London, UK

As Paxman says, we need more and much better programmes - not more hot air from grossly overpaid executives.

Brian Charles Seals, Scarborough, Nth Yorks, UK