Posts Tagged ‘BBC’

Gathered the below information for the excellent - and newly out of beta - helpmeinvestigate.com . Unfortunately, a gremlin in the system stopped this post appearing over there. So it’s here.

Right, here’s a round up of what’s out there through FOI so far - this is a frequently-FOI’d topic. Here’s what’re released - and what they’ve refused to release to previous requesters.

First up:

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/foi/classes/disclosure_logs/rfi20080397_percentage_of_london_households_without_tv_licence.pdf

In which we learn:

Nationally, 2% of households don’t own a TV and an estimated 5.1% dodge their licenses. Only 4.3% of english household evade, while 11.1% in Northern Ireland dodge - interesting quirk, no?

The beeb refuses to release more detailed regional breakdowns in case it affects compliance rates (they suggest high levels of evaders might persuade others to dodge).

HOWEVER - An Information Commision ruling from this year (March) ordered the BBC to release some regional data - number of households with TV license and number of prosecution notices issued in each region - to the requester within 72 days. Presumably they’ve done that, but they haven’t put it on the log. Worth asking their press office/FOI officer to send to us too?

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/foi/classes/disclosure_logs/rfi20080243_tv_licence_evasion_2007.pdf

Here we see how many evaders were caught in 2006 - 413,000 or so - but no mention of fines, prosecutions or otherwise. This is refused under the extremely obstructive grounds of being already published (Section 21(1)). Under Section 16 - duty to assist - they should link to, or attach, that information, and haven’t. Bad form, BBC. Number of enforcement officers is refused on the grounds of prejudicing prosecution of crime (s31 I think).

This one is fairly helpful:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/foi/classes/disclosure_logs/rfi20080008_enforcement_and_collection_costs.pdf

This is the enforcement costs etc as a percentage of income over a period of years.

Some figures from a pressure group here: http://www.itsmummy.com/tv_scabs_1.htm

There is also a rather comprehensive set of 141 FOI requests (including requests for detection equipment etc) here: http://www.onebillionpageviews.org/foi.html

An ICO ruling on the detection equipment is here: http://www.onebillionpageviews.org/downloads/FS50154106.pdf

Hope all that is helpful. I am trying like the blazes to find this home office stuff on the number of successful prosecutions (I can find reposts, which is useful but unreliable, but not the originals.)

If the prosecution numbers were accessible, we could maybe couple those with the numbers from the ICO appeal mentioned earlier, and try to infer whether areas have higher prosecutions due to higher delinquency or (over?) zealous enforcement in some regions.

Everyone’s trying to work out how journalism is going to work online - especially how the hell it’s going to be paid for. Making the news market work online (well, monetizing anything online) is tricky. But a decent question is whether journalism works as a market product now. Most publications are certainly trying to make money out of it, but is journalism governed by supply and demand? Not really.

Can I back that statement up? I can have a go. Take a look at the graph below, from google trends:

The top graph is number of UK searches in the last month on 4 more-or-less random current affairs stories. The bottom graph is (roughly) the number of stories written by professional news organisations in that time. There’s a reasonable correlation for the olympics, but you’ll note more’s written than read on the credit crunch, and vice versa (bigtime) on Shannon and Madeleine. Recession? Who cares?

If journalism’s a market, it’s not really working. I spotted another sign that the journalism market doesn’t behave over at Adrian Monck, who carried a quote from a blog post on the Berkman Conference (on “participatory media”, no less):
Serious journalism was described … repeatedly, as something akin to like broccoli, or medicine the citizenry needs to spoon down, no matter how unpalatable, if democracy is to survive. That’s despite the fact investigative, or civic, journalism is still seen inside the industry as being at the top, most vital top end of what we do. Yet I struggle to think of another industry that views its premium product as something akin to a nasty cough syrup - necessary, good for your health, but irredeemably foul-tasting.
(Apologies to Prof Monck, from whom I’ve lifted not only this snippet, but also post title. Tsk.)

Let’s accept for now that papers (and other outlets) don’t just offer what people want to read. There’s a lot that’s market-driven, of course, or papers would quickly go out of business. But at least some (to differing extents) of what gets published is not just there to satisfy demand.

This idea helps to explain why “old media” is starting to have a tough time of it. The obvious example here is gawker. Gawker’s bloggers are paid by the number of views each post gets. Don’t know about you, but that scares the bejeesus out of me, as a “content provider”. But I digress. Bloggers have very little incentive to produce worthy-but-dull content for gawker - feeding what the public wants is really the only way. Old media outlets, whose staff don’t face such direct incentives, are less likely to be so market-focussed, so may struggle. But should news outlets follow the market? There’s a decent argument against it - but be warned, economics is involved.

Warning: 3 paragraphs of economics follows. It’s worth it though, honest.

Some “serious” journalism has benefits to society. Let’s say I buy the Guardian because I enjoy reading it. As I’m browsing through, I read that all that stuff about MMR vaccines causing autism was, well, bollocks. As I result, I have my children immunised, and we don’t get measles outbreaks in our school. My personal decision to buy the paper had benefits to society at large. There’s also usually arguments about informed democracy, and keeping politicians honest, etc, in this reasoning. Goods with these funky benefits are called merit goods in economist lingo.

Merit goods sound great, but they’re actually a pain in the arse. To see why, it’s easiest to think about the opposite. When I buy a car, it causes problems for everyone else in society. It adds to traffic congestion, it’s noisy when I drive around outside your house, it means my neighbours have to battle with me for parking, it wears down roads, and of course it contributes to climate change. My car costs you, and the Government, time and money which I don’t notice. To force me to take these into account, I pay tax on my car and on fuel - I’m forced to take the social cost on board.

But in the opposite situation, it’s a bit trickier. There are benefits to society in me following the news - instead of wanting less people to use the good (as with cars), we would like more people to read papers (or news sites, or broadcasts). The “free market” fails for goods like these exactly as it fails for cards - the “right” amount isn’t provided (see the earlier “merit goods” link for a nice graph showing this). One way to fix this is to lower the cost - Government subsidies to News International anyone? No? TV networks are compelled to provide a certain amount of news each day - for “public service” reasons. Should we do the same for other potential news outlets?

Economics bit over. Thanks for your patience

Until now, we’ve never really needed to. There are many reasons for owning a newspaper, and profit is rarely chief among them (thankfully). Very few newspapers rake in the cash - nor many magazines. Papers are a path to influence public opinion, a show of status for the owner, an almost surefire route to a peerage, and more. Proprietors’ complex motives have actually led to partial fixing of the “merit goods” issue.

Newspapers bundle a load of content together - sports, arts, TV listings, film reviews, comment and news. People buy the Sun for its cracking sports section, and keep roughly abreast (pun unintended but left in place) of current affairs at the same time. You may buy the Indie for a particular columnist, and get the rest thrown in. A populist front page story about house prices may draw someone in to buy a paper containing “worthy” stuff within. It’s worked for decades.

And along comes the ‘net, and bundling has had it. There are compensations: it’s easier to get something big out there quick and well than it ever was. It’s also easier to communicate and interact with your core audience - and even “dull but worthy” has a decent population wanting to read it. The ‘net’s prevailing price point (free) makes it easier for, say, business consumers to tune in to the relevant RSS feeds of several news organisations at once. “Quality” journalism isn’t necessarily doomed. But mass-market news is in trouble.

There’s probably an opportunity there, too. Bundling’s probably a fairly lazy tactic, as they go. Trying to find ways to make complex stories accessible and interesting suddenly becomes high priority. Given the ability to tell the same stories in different ways online, it could be doable. Let’s not forget “old media” is doing pretty well at moving online. The biggest news sources online (in the UK, anyway) are the old media outlets - BBC and the Guardian up in front, with several other newspaper sites rapidly closing the gap. Guido and Iain Dale may claim traffic figures coming close (or maybe not), but if we keep using the web as we do now, then all of today’s “future of news” arguments will look pretty stupid in five years time. But my job prospects would be looking healthier, so I could bear the discomfort with fortitude.

And finally: Just out of interest: Is it too old left, or old media to suggest there are stories out there that have worth beyond their readability? If not, what ideas do people have to preserve that kind of journalism in the new media age? Ideas on a postcard to the usual address…

Peter Hain has finally, finally, gone - why he humiliated himself by delaying the inevitable so long is anyone’s guess. More interesting is James Purnell’s move to the DWP from Culture, Media and Sport. Purnell was loudly and publicly advocating “top-slicing” (giving the BBC’s rivals a share) the BBC’s license fee. Stephen Carter, Brown’s communications man (and ex Ofcom boss) is apparently an advocate of the idea too.

So Purnell’s departure from the DCMS hotseat might just buy the beeb some space to breath - depending, of course, who takes his place.

5pm update
It’s Andy Burnham, who was Chris Smith’s special adviser at the DCMS before he became an MP. Chris Smith, now Lord Smith, last year criticised the BBC’s license fee settlement as “too severe”, suggesting “programme quality will suffer”. Wonder if his views are shared by his former SpAd?

Burnham could also safely be described as a Brownite, co-authoring an article during Labour’s leadership race with the strap line: “Only Gordon Brown can rejuvenate our party. A leadership election would threaten Labour’s unity”

Naturally, about an hour before the assorted appointments talking heads were saying this gap gave an opportunity to bring back some recognisable “big beasts” who would face down resurgent Tories. All talk now, naturally, is of Brown taking the chance to promote “the young guns he’d like to have in place”.

On reflection, maybe yesterday’s post about the share drop on the FTSE was a touch unfair - that was the biggest one-day drop in several years, even if the graphs make it looks even worse than it is. And now there’s even MORE: Paxo gravely told us all about “dramatic falls” in the Dow Jones

The Dow Jones fell 128.11 points to 11971.19. That’s a DRAMATIC fall of…um…1.07 per cent, and the biggest fall in the Dow Jones since, err, last Thursday. Hey, on Monday 14th the Dow went UP 172 points. Was that a dramatic recovery? It’s like some great mad rollercoaster, innit?

It’s great this stock market stuff, it’s as if it moves every day! Yes, yes, there’s a lot of serious stuff going on (like that 0.75 drop in US interest rates - kerrr-azy) but get real, guys….

Now, anyone fancy buying a collateralised debt obligation off me? It’s beautifully diversified: there’s student loan debt, credit card debt and income streams from other loans. Three different *types* of debt - basically risk free. £30k to you…

No? Hey, it was worth a go.

And so naturally, I watched the BBC’s offering. Funny, but coincidentally they had two big set-piece stories the same day ITV relaunched. Lucky for them, right? John Simpson has spent a week reporting undercover in Zimbabwe (the beeb, of course, is banned from the country) and presented the first of his reports tonight.

Then - smell the populism, folks - they ran an exclusive interview with Robert Murat’s mother, under perhaps slightly tenuous justification: Murat had a hearing to see if he would remain a suspect in the case. He will remain a suspect, so essentially nothing changed in a very old story. But, in fairness, there’s STILL a heck of a lot of public interest in the story, and it’s their show. *cough* Spoiler tactics? *cough*

This does bode well though: BBC’s 10′o’clock output is good, but has coasted in the last year or two with (basically) no competition. TV’s tribalism could mean both camps go all-out to beat each other. Which for news addicts like me, will be great stuff. I look forward to it.

Now to watch ITV’s effort on the digibox - though Adrian Monck’s given his far more distinguished opinion here. Apparently it’s running commercial-free. Interesting.

Update: Charlie Beckett posts his thoughts on the relaunch here. He says:
“Now it is back in the comfy old armchair of a 10pm slot (except on Fridays and weekends) and it looks, well, comfy. There was one new media reference but no gimmicks and little graphics…but ultimately things will not stand still and in the long-term ITN’s future will be secured by its tradition of innovation not nostalgia.”

To a good extent I agree, and it’s made me think. Every UK household will be multi-channel in the next four years, as the digital switchover proper takes place. For ITV to place a “mainstream” news show smack in the middle of its evening schedule seems strange in this context - it seemed more likely that ITV would try to ditch some public service obligations as competition opens up. News is not usually a great ratings-grabber (though gets a nice advertising demographic, making the lack of break even more baffling). The move smacks of nostalgia.

Or, perhaps, it’s a public service token. Grade is lobbying for more freedom from Ofcom advertising restrictions to help improve ITV1’s ad revenues. Compromising here may help him achieve commercial goals elsewhere. If that goal is reached, and news at ten struggles to get a good share of ABC1 news viewers from the BBC, it’s not impossible News at ten could be shelved in 2 or 3 years time…

Cynical? Me?

Last update: In the ratings, the BBC beat the news News at Ten by 1m. In a week’s time, that would be no big deal - the BBC’s established in the slot, after all. But the launch night of a much-trailed programme really should pull in more than 1.4m more viewers than the 10:30pm slot’s average. This does not bode well. Though, in honesty, I skip the 10 and head straight for newsnight - I can get straight news coverage far more quickly online.

If there’s a decent chunk of news “consumers” like me, then the 10′o’clock broadcasts will skip some eager news consumers and so only hit a more casual audience - ironically the aim to be more populist might lose them viewers. Just a (rambling) thought…

Blogging is a good thing for student journalists to do, we’re told, even though few of us actually do it. Emily Bell, Director of Digital Content at the Guardian, said in a mediatalk podcast one of her first interview questions for prospective GU journalists is whether they blog. Roy Greenslade, professor of journalism at City, asked a roomfull of aspiring journos for a show of hands: how many blogged? Five hands slowly raised: Greenslade looked mildly stunned.

But there’s one time when it’s best to batten down the blogging hatches and keep schtum: during work experience. The potential for foot-in-mouth scenarios is just too great. Here’s the reasons:

Journalists know how to use google: the old trick of putting a google alert on your name, or your production’s name, is not restricted to students! Your editor may well read anything you write, which could make the remaining few days of your internship tricky. Daniel Pearl, deputy editor of Newsnight, writes:
Twice in the last 6 months I’ve come across blogs in which people trailing the programme have written things about the team. When I approached one of these people, her reponse was that the blog was supposed to be just for her and her friends!
It wasn’t the confidentiality issue that bugged me, but that anyone would think that we as programme makers don’t have as much right as everyone else to read what you’re all writing, especially if you are writing about us.

What if you ruin an exclusive? We’d all like to think we’re more sensible than this. The problem is, we’re probably not. As a workie, you have less feel of the newsroom, and potentially less sense of which stories are routine wire stories and which have been the result of hard work. Workies are often put on researching other writers’ stories. Blogging part of your day, an entertaining conversation or useful discovery could ruin someone else’s work. And consequently your career prospects with that organisation - and others, if word gets around.

Blogs aren’t as ephemeral as we sometimes hope. Insult someone online and it could well stick around, even if your blog doesn’t. Obviously as long as your blog remains, your post does. But even if you nix a post, fragments could remain on technorati, google cache, digg, and numerous other obscure online repositories. When you come to apply to a job in 6 months time, do you want your damning indictment of your editor’s idiocy to be read by a potential employer?

It’s a minefield, and one I prefer to steer around than plow through - yes, I’ve been on work experience the past month, and yes, that’s my excuse for the long radio silence. Discretion is the better part of valour, and all that.

A comment on Robert Peston’s blog accused him of breaking the Northern Rock story “via greased-up contacts rather than actual investigative journalism”. I’m not too sure there’s a difference, really….

There’s a facebook group calling for “biased” BBC political editor Nick Robinson to be kicked out, as he’s “nothing” compared to Andrew Marr (his predecessor), and “Thatcher in disguise”. I disagree - and I think the group’s members are on rather shaky ground.

Firstly, I actually think Nick’s fantastic at his job (okay, maybe I just like his blog. And glasses.). Despite having to act as political correspondent across dozens (worryingly, that’s literal) of broadcast outlets daily, he keeps up a regular blog of consistently high quality. Personally, I’m a fan of the relaxed tone - while it might undermine the “gravitas” of the reporter, it illuminates where stories come from, why they’re covered in certain ways, and often where the correspondent is coming from in relation to it. Nick has been known to justify the questions he asks on there - if that’s not accountability, what is?

Much of his coverage isn’t exceptionally highbrow. At the risk of being coarse: no shit sherlock. TV political coverage, on a “mass appeal” channel like the BBC has to aim to be lively and inclusive. Those of us who like more extensive coverage are not short of outlets on the Beeb: Today remains excellent, Newsnight has its merits, and BBC Parliament is always there for the ardent fans. The dreaded two-up interview works because it keeps people engaged. The issue might be “dumbing down”, but I don’t really think Nick R’s to blame.

Leaving his merits or otherwise aside, the real charge is one of “bias”, and good gosh are those accusers on shaky ground. The usual suspects (let’s start, with, oooh, Guido and his charming Andrew Marr cartoon?) are all too keen to accuse the BBC of left-wing bias - the Mail even uses facebook data to back this up. Eleven times more BBC facebookers give their political allegiance as “liberal” than do “conservative”. It could be that Nick Robinson stands out because his (slight) bias is in the opposite direction to the corporation’s usual.

I don’t think the BBC is biased, or at least not intentionally so. You have people who naturally have partisan beliefs working towards a brief to be “impartial”. I believe they make their best effort to do this, and are generally successful. The problem is that those of a right-wing disposition are less likely to *want* to join a state broadcaster in the first place, so the population of the organisation will always be skewed. If compensating for one’s own bias is going to be imperfect (and it is), then a skewed population may lead to some slight overall bias - though this can be minimised through effective safeguards and scrutiny.

If your solution to this dilemma is to exclude anyone who’s ever publicly declared a political allegiance from the corporation, so be it, but expect the quality of journalists at the corporation to fall sharply. As a large proportion of the facebook group are members of the Labour Party (or student labour groups), I would expect them to uphold that principle themselves, naturally.

Finally, it worries me how political student union representatives allow themselves to be. Martin McCluskey’s (Oxford University Student Union president) membership of the odd facebook group matters little - his labour club past is a matter of public note. But Gemma Tumelty’s decision to sign a Guardian letter calling for the UK to support the outcome of Venezuela’s referendum was frankly outrageous.

The NUS (and its local student union branches) has an important role representing students, but also providing welfare services. Unlike other unions, many students are “automatically” NUS members. This means they have a duty to represent all students, not just those who share their political views. Leaping into such partisan issues, with such little relevance to students, is not an appropriate part of that role.

Final, irrefutable proof of Conservative bias at the BBC was anonymously handed to TwentyNothing today. Have a look at the screenshot below:

(Click to enlarge)

It’s subtle, but you may notice extra prominence was given to David Cameron’s picture than Gordon Brown. Shocking, eh? Of course, they shrunk it straight back down once they realised I was on to them….