The schedulers could not have arranged it better. Andy Burnham, the Culture Secretary, will stand up in Oxford in three weeks' time to make a crucial speech on the future of broadcasting, weighing up, perhaps, whether to give Channel 4 money by raiding the BBC coffers.

When he walks on stage, Celebrity Big Brother, restored to the screens after the Jade Goody-Shilpa Shetty race row, will be drawing to the end of its three-week run. Two days later, Jonathan Ross will return to Radio 2.

All Channel 4 has to do is to survive the three weeks without incident, which explains why the housemates, expected to include Ulrika Jonsson and Tommy Sheridan, the Scottish politician, have been briefed on the race row of two years ago.

Yet, for all that caution, Channel 4 itself seems to be willing to sail surprisingly close to the wind, employing the hardly uncontroversial Michael Barrymore as a roving presenter on the Big Brother's Little Brother show.

One hopes, for its sake, that Channel 4 has been more risk-averse otherwise, examining carefully whether any of the prospective housemates are closet racists. At least, Endemol, the producer - a company part-owned by Silvio Berlusconi - thankfully only got as far as sounding out the availability of David Irving, the Holocaust denier.

It all amounts to rather promising entertainment, but if the highlight turns out to be Mr Sheridan donning a catsuit to mild amusement in Glasgow, the attention of bored tabloid journalists will shift to Ross's Radio 2 return, raising the stakes for the BBC.

One consolation for the BBC is that Mr Burnham will have spoken before Ross returns on air. There are, of course, some cynics who have pondered whether the BBC quietly calculated when his ban would end with this in mind.

That said, a couple of ill-judged shafts of innuendo from the presenter a day or two later could leave the Culture Secretary somewhat exposed if he has decided to indicate that he intends to be generous to the BBC.

However, as much as we all enjoy the knockabout stuff, it does tend to distract from the important job of constructing proper long-term policy. Veterans of the Oxford convention of 2007 will recall that day saw Ed Richards, the Ofcom chief executive, being pursued by journalists because he refused to answer any questions about Celebrity Big Brother - while Andy Duncan, the Channel 4 boss, committed the biggest fashion faux pas since Peter Sissons's burgundy tie by wearing a casual T-shirt when his broadcaster was being accused of encouraging racism. It was, for neither, a reputation-enhancing moment.

The other problem is that the Channel 4-BBC tussle over cash and resources is not even the main issue, although, because it is easier to think about the future of institutions than genres of television, this is how the battle will be cast.

If there are problems with public service broadcasting, they really only extend to ITV regional news, which is disproportionately expensive to produce, and British children's telly on channels other than those owned by the BBC.

Mr Burnham appears to know this, to judge by a recent interview, but the question is whether he has sensible answers to those problems, while conjuring a plausible solution to Channel 4's finances without making a mess of the BBC.

His predicament is whether the credibility of the whole package hangs together: if Channel 4 is offered too much at a time when it is temporarily unpopular, it makes it all too easy for the Conservatives (speaking on the same day at 4.30pm) to launch a damaging counter-attack.

Against that backdrop, it would perhaps be diplomatic if the Culture Secretary did not turn up. But who on earth wants that? At least the prospect of making a critical speech amid over-excitement about standards on television means that more people will be paying attention. For once, there will be as much action off screen as on.

Music sales could be down 10 per cent this year, which is pretty dreadful at first sight. Interestingly, though, sales volumes are down only 2.2 per cent, which means that the real problem the business faces is not piracy, or even the economic downturn, but price deflation. That is down partly to the internet retailers, but really to the supermarkets, which seduce the innocent with £7 copies of new Take That albums.

Unsurprisingly, consumers vote with their purses, so Woolworths dies, Zavvi totters, and recordings pile up between the bread and potatoes. So when the music industry demands better copyright enforcement, it is worth asking how relevant that is.

And really, who cares if superstars (and record executives) have less money for minders and drugs, if music is cheaper to buy?

dan.sabbagh@thetimes.co.uk

Times Recommends

• Lies and cover-up at MG Rover exposed by report
• High oil prices push manufacturing costs up
• Primark founder steps down as chief executive