By Will Sturgeon, 19 July 2004 16:25
NEWS silicon.com readers have taken sides and thrown their weight squarely behind the BBC as the government strives to crackdown on what it perceives as the anticompetitive practices of the corporation, which it says are threatening UK innovation online.
Last week silicon.com ran an article entitled 'The BBC: The monopoly it's OK to love' and for silicon.com readers at least that would certainly appear to be the case.
Now a poll has revealed that more than 70 per cent of silicon.com readers would back the BBC in everything it chooses to do rather than allow any government intervention.
When asked the question "Should the BBC websites be allowed to compete in non-core areas with commercial sites?" 70.3 per cent of respondents voted 'yes' compared to just 22.1 per cent who opted for 'no' while just 7.6 per cent remained sat on the fence debating an issue which stirred strong opinions.
But the level - or presence of any - anti-BBC sentiment out there may still surprise many. One reader, presumably squarely in the 'no' camp, wrote: "It infuriates me that a publicly funded organisation (which we're taxed to support) can dabble and compete wherever it wants in a totally irresponsible way. The BBC should only engage in online activity that supports its broadcast programming."
Another reader, Brian Chappell, wrote: "I've worked for the BBC, I am a licence payer, a Sky subscriber and a commercial website developer and from all these perspectives the BBC has overstepped its remit. I've seen comments stating that commercial organisations obviously can't compete because they aren't good enough. The BBC is offering these services for free, funded by the licence fee - money it is going to get regardless of whether you visit the site or not.
"Compare that to a normal commercial venture where attracting users is your life-blood. You could develop a site that's better than the BBC, but you would need the same kind of resources as the BBC. I'm willing to give it a go if someone is willing to stump up the £2bn to at least level the playing field."
But in the main, the majority message is strictly 'hands-off Auntie'.
Chris White wrote: "As a licence payer I fund this site, it is the best site I have ever used, and I'm the one who should say what is and is not acceptable, not commercial organisations."
Steve Chambers wrote: "The BBC has a responsibility to provide a public service to all. In order to support as wide an audience as possible its site must appeal to a vast range of tastes and interests. Hence the spectrum of information and activity from football to the arts.
"I consider the web service provided by the BBC to easily sit within the remit of its charter."
Comments
There are 13 comments. Join the discussion
1. Simon Burrows
The BBC is a public service broadcast organisation. I believe that they have a responsibility to broadcast in all available free-to-receive media on all subjects.
Nobody would complain about niche programmes on BBC2, or phone-in shows on Radio 4, so why complain about niche subjects on the BBC website.
It is my opinion that those who aren't interested in computer game reviews etc... on the website should not read them, in the same way that I don't watch Eastenders because it doesn't interest me.
The BBC website consumes a small proportion of the funds allocated to the BBC and parts of it are even self funding (I understand). I fully support the BBC in it's choice of content, even though it doesn't all interest me.
If the BBC went private tomorrow, I would be among the first to buy a subscription. I pay my TV licence with pride knowing that it funds the best and most independent broadcasting organisation in the world.
2. anonymous
I don't think people are aware of the extent of the BBC's websites and "other enterprises". They have certainly cornered the market in e-learning material for schools. I'm sure that a lot of what BBC does is top qulaity, but with the marketing muscle of TV behind you and the reputation fo the BBC, it makes it impossible for smal companies to gain a foothold. As a licence payer, I would prefer to see, the money put into raising the quality of programmes. One further point, how much does the BBC spend buying up the rights to sporting events which it doesnot broadcast ? I think people would be surprised by the size of the figure.
To conclude, I prefer the BBC to this government every time
3. anonymous
Yes, we all love a free lunch...
Of course £10/month for what we get from the BBC is tremendous value. But it's curious that some of your correspondents feel that restricting the BBC would be restricting competition. It's all-powerful monopolies that restrict competition, not constraints on a taxpayer-funded body with an explicit remit.
But as others of your commentators have said, with billions of pounds a year to play with, and no penalties for poor performance other than a gentle ticking-off, of course we could all do great things.
We could extrapolate this in the extreme. Encourage the BBC to use its might and move aggressively into all the areas where it currently tinkers: broadband, publishing, games, food, sports, hobbies, DIY... and ultimately our taxes will be used to look after all our waking needs. The private sector "competition" will give up totally, and the state will be running everything... Ahem, wasn't communism found to be lacking?
Oh, and to those who wonder whether those of us who are "anonymous" all work for Rupert Murdoch...far from it. But our businesses are very much at the mercy of the BBC and Mr Murdoch, so we daren't cross them publicly.
4. Paul MacKenzie Ross
I'm a commercial website designer/developer, a Sky subscriber and license payer and I think the Beeb is doing a fantastic job, its quality shines through. The Anti-Auntie fundamentalists are the kind of green-eyed, anti-social renegades who would rape any of our national treasures to make a bob or two. No sour grapes here ;) Keep it up, Auntie.
5. Arthur Riding
What an extrordinary title for your comment 'The People v The Government'! That is twisting everything around 180 degrees. The issue here is really the one of 'The People v The Media'. What we have in this country nowadays is a media corps that runs totally wild and treads completely roughshod over issues like truth and responsibility. We are subject to a daily barrage of lies and misinformation from the media, and the BBV is right there at the head of the charge. It is maybe not the worst offender but it is certainly up there near the top.
I see no need to interfere is most of what is broadcast as entertainment, other than general guidelines, but the journalism/reporting side must be subject to rigerous and constant overview in order to destroy this culture of deliberate lying from BBC journalists. I agree the Government is not the best people to do that monitoring and it needs to be done by an independent body. But it must, must, be done or the BBC will continue in its efforts to destroy all truth and integrity in our culture and country.
6. Josephine Bacon
"We are subject to a daily barrage of lies and misinformation from the media, and the BBC is right there at the head of the charge. It is maybe not the worst offender but it is certainly up there near the top."
Right on count one, wrong on count two, the BBC is the worst purveyor of mis-information, especially the World Service and wrong that it is not the worst offender. It is the worst offender because it is the one that has the widest reach.
Despite its hysterical propaganda against the Iraq War, it is amazing that only 56% of the population are against it (the War). Not much of a success, in spite of their crowing over it in the news today. Anything below 60%, with the barrage of propaganda by the traitors and supporters of dictators, led by MP for Baghdad Central George Galloway, should be considered to be abject failure.
7. Brian Catt
Its not really about People versus government. The mass of people want unchallenging dross on the box. Not your readers, as they can write sentences, the other 80% of the population who vote for Big Brother, watch East Enders and generally have no interest in informing themselves or leaving the intellectual environments they understand. The politicians are quite different, they don't want an independent thinking TV channel which challenges what they do, a commercial remit automatically reduces them to mindless "entertainment for the lowest common denomoinator".
MPs sponsoring a more commercial BBC who are not directly in the public eye are likely are be looking to the jobs they will take on media company boards after politics.
It s about avoiding criticism and the usual nicely concealed moral corruption in politics.
There has to be a service which is not dependent on commercial interests which means everything targeted to people who only exist to consume and die. We will get endless reality TV programmes about such ordinary pointless people plus celebrity chefs, gardeners and house make overs, their possible consumer aspirations. Totally marginal unchallenging wallpaper TV for the masses.
That may be OK for commercial firms wanting a mass market to advertise to. The job of the BBC is also to inform and educate as well as entertain. Real entertainment is not about ignorant people embarrassing themselves and air head yoof presenters getting excited about nothing of any real importance. There can be some element of challenge in following a plot.
Sure if you allow thought, reason and the arts we then suffer equally pointless arty farty people like Tom Paulin et al droning on about things that are also totally immaterial to life on this planet in prime time, so far up themselves no one knows or cares what they are on about, but that's the price you pay for a David Attenborough, have I Got News for You West Wing or Dalziel and Pascoe, etc.? etc, HIGNFY of course came from the cerebral quiz show nursery of Radio 4.... try "I'm sorry I haven't a clue" for some real entertainment.
If you want non-stop moron reality TV, cheap poorly acted US and Aussie soaps about the hard of reasoning and endless Living TV/channel poof surface rubbish, kill off the BBC, along with the country.
We need a BBC as part of our democracy. It should not be funded from a licence, but from general taxation. By all means go in and Cull the totally up 'emselves BBC Oxbridge intellerctuools from time to time and get rid of the clearly flawed extremes by reasoned discussion, but leave the principles ALONE.
Brian
PS This doesn't mention Panorama, Horizon, etc, which have regressed to docudramas for the challenged, continually asking blindingly bleeding obvious questions before a gap for an Advert in the US version - but actually only covering about three facts in an hour. Don't want to be too challenging. These programs could be presented in a Power Point in 5 minutes. They have become Docuthrillers with an unchallenging plot for the hard of thinking. RIP the real documentary.
8. Phil Critchley
Saying that BBC online shouldn't compete in areas already catered for by commercial websites is rather like saying BBC TV shouldn't show football or Buffy the Vampire Slayer because Sky TV already does it...
9. PER
Silicon.com are certainly promoting the anti-BBC line. They have plenty to gain from it! Shame that your readers don't agree and want an independant publicly funded body to challenge the real multi-national media monopolies which are only interested in making money and influencing opinion in favour of their owners. Despite its faults the BBC is run for us all and should be paid for by us all. Silicon and the other big business interests should not be allowed to get their greedy hands on it!
10. Anonymous
The BBC is a commercial enterprise backed by the tax payer. The extent of backscratching is incredible. If you are in there, and grease the right palms or get the right favours, you can make personal fortunes (with the taxpayer backing you all the way). Either it should be a public service broadcaster, or it should have no licence fee. I know certain practices within the beeb that would make even the socialists and communists scream. There are so many special interest groups that you just have to be paranoid about the true intentions.
11. Hugh C Grant
To Mr Riding's comment : so the Gov. didnt lie then ? There really are WMD's in Iraq ? Methought it was the Beeb who cast doubt on the idea that they existed .. and then got sloshed by HMG !
12. anonymous
How can we be sure that with the recent changes in the BBC management the government are not already exerting more than a healthy influence over their reporting. Certainly we are not seeing the balanced reporting with the different points of view.
13. anonymous
The BBC has around 510 000 web pages listed in Google, and at £126 the licence fee makes a good dent in my pocket. I'd rather they spent far less on their internet operations and let me keep my money. I want choice.
Although there's some good BBC programming, a lot of it sucks and I want to spend my cash on decent entertainment and information services, which I choose. The BBC should stick to what the essentials: news, education, politics. Because there's no guarantee that commercial stations will provide that. But they should leave the entertainment websites to others who have no choice but to do it well or fail trying.