This is a particularly nerdy subject of mine - I feel that the licence fee and the concept of public service broadcasting is completely outdated - a lot of my opinions on the topic are covered within this excerpt from an essay I did many years ago [3 years ago]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The British Broadcasting Corporation [BBC] is perhaps the most eminent and famous national broadcaster in the world, and therefore the examination of it’s practice back in the 1980’s played a key role in accelerating the debate about establishing a free media market. The Peacock Commission on the Finance Of the BBC was established to examine the unpopularity of the licence fee and the possibility of the national institution introducing advertising as an alternative. In France, the state broadcasters were allowed use advertising from the start, similar in quantity to the commercial channels. When deprived of public funding, the French government looked to further advertising as a method of reducing the unpopular licence fee. However, the groundbreaking Peacock Commission instead made several alternative suggestions that form the basis of the pro-free media market argument today. The idea of examining the possibility of a subscription service on BBC as opposed to a licence fee was suggested, as was the abolishing of the legal obstacles to pay per view/pay per channel. Samuel Brittan, a member of the Committee and journalist with the Financial Times explained the thinking behind the subscription plan in an article on the recommendations and ramifications of the report. “The poor will not be worse off in any absolute sense, so long as they can still watch a range of programmes as wide as the present advertising financed ITV ones free, and the cost of buying BBC type programmes is no higher than what the licence fee would have been”. # This appears to be a vital component of the argument espoused by liberals today. With the subscription remaining similar pricewise to the licence fee, the onus would be on the BBC to finance and provide quality programming that would encourage people to subscribe to the channel. In a democratic society, it is argued, television holders should not be obligated to essentially fund a channel they do not watch. As Brittan explained at the time, “British broadcasting should move towards a sophisticated system based on consumer sovereignty. That is a system which recognises that viewers and listeners are the best ultimate judges of their own interest, which they can best satisfy if they have the option of purchasing the broadcasting services they require from as many alternative sources of supply as possible.” # Speaking in 1985, this was a unique and innovative suggestion from the Peacock Committee, but eighteen years on the structure of terrestrial television in Great Britain essentially remains the same.
The problem with state broadcasters and a regulated market, according to several sources, is the fact that the national stations are considered to be inefficient and heavily reliant on their government, as it decides the level of the licence fee. The BBC in the 1980’s, according to Brittan, was enjoying an unjustly elevated position, with a poor attitude to go with it. “Some BBC officials are so used to the idea of being financed by what is virtually a tax on the possession of a television set that they do not realise how privileged and unusual their position is.#” In Ireland, RTE has suffered severe financial losses over the years, and recently laid off a large percentage of their staff. Yet, in December 2002 they finally received their long term aim of a further licence fee increase to ease their growing problems. Critics looked upon this as a cynical exercise, with conflicting reports suggesting that the timing of the decision was structured around the release of the national budget, seeking lenient treatment on controversial issues from the primary source of news information and discussion on the island. Other countries look at the Irish system of dual funding, whereby RTE charges a licence fee and also uses advertising, a situation that seems unfair to commercial private rivals. As Horgan puts it, “Not only was the licence fee a subsidy to RTE’s non public service programming, the private stations argued, but they too were engaged in substantial public service broadcasting for which they received no subsidy”#. RTE is renowned for importing foreign programmes, with home produced programmes at a premium. Yet, the advantage of the licence fee, in addition to advertising revenue seems undemocratic and unfairly balanced against rival TV3, who also provide public service broadcasts on news and current affairs. RTE incompetence appears to have been overlooked.
The state influence on what is broadcast is also a thorny issue, with several instances over the years bringing people to question the moral ramifications of state involvement in the media. In a modern context, again citing the RTE example, some commentators were suggesting before the licence fee increase that RTE might drop Political Party Ard Fheis as they garner poor audiences in vital prime-time slots. Yet, such a move would displease those in government circles, particularly after they sanctioned the licence fee increase, and value the airtime offered to them by these party conferences. In Britain, the BBC has been involved in several disputes with the government, who felt that the BBC had an overly rebellious faction. During the Falkland and Gulf Wars the respective Conservative governments questioned the full commitment of the BBC behind their cause after several programmes questioning government decisions. One notable flashpoint was a planned Panorama documentary scheduled for just before the 1992 election, named “Sliding Into Slump” which severely questioned the economic state of Britain, citing previous governmental mistakes as a possible cause of future recession. Mindful of the damage it could do to their campaign the Conservative parties made their distaste known to BBC authorities, and eventually the programme was delayed. This is one of the principal problems of the state broadcaster holding such an influence, according to Barnett & Curry. The programme was “exactly the kind of democratic, journalistic function a public broadcaster should be performing for it’s licence payers at a moment of great political significance”#. Subsequently, Panorama investigations on corruption in Conservative Westminster were deferred as a direct result of excessive caution not to offend the government - the BBC were in financial trouble at a time of inflation, and needed a licence fee increase to ease their woes. Such examples of state influence prohibiting the viewer from information they are entitled to demonstrates a clearly undemocratic situation. In a free media market, the government could not impose such sanctions on a station providing the allegations complied with laws of libel, and were properly researched with a high standard of journalism in the production and presentation. As Sergeant explains, public interest defined by the state betrays democratic principles. “This kind of paternalistic approach to what is suitable for viewers implies a suspicion about the ability of individuals to make their own choices.#”
Middle aged in my book is 45 plus I am a long way off that . :angry: