The problem with the "no commercial pressures" argument is that it makes it sound as if the pressure of the market is a completely artificial thing, that it's much better to be without. But in fact, of course, the pressure of the market is just one of the many ways to decide how to allocate limited resources (even extorting money from people can only raise so much, so there is a limit.) Once you've decided not to allocate according to the market, you need to have another basis on which to make the allocation. Since the reality of the BBC's basis (whatever the guy in charge feels like doing) is a bit embarrasing to admit, they have to dress it up with regard to things like "viewer support", which is, um, pretty much what the pressure of the market is all about. So, playing semantic games: since that's all the Left learned to do at University it's not surprising that's what they do when they are allegedly working.

I'm not sure I'd blame the Left for this one so much as unthinking bureaucracy. The BBC, surrounded by TV channels, tends to behave like a TV channel. And the bureaucracy's so huge that the people in charge of ideology forget to tell the people in charge of programming that they're not working for ITV.

It's like ratings battles. There is no rational reason for ITV and BBC1 ever to schedule similar programs aimed at similar audiences at the same time, yet they're always at it. It's not only irrational for the BBC; it's directly counter to their charter: surely "public service broadcasting" involves allowing the public to watch more of what they want, even if it's on the other channel, since viewers have to pay the BBC to watch ITV. But that doesn't get ITV off the hook, either. By clashing programs with the BBC, they lower their own audience share and hence lower their advertising revenue. That may be a sacrifice worth making when you're trying to drive a competitor out of the market, but it simply makes no sense when you're clashing with a tax-funded body that exists independently of its ratings.

I blame sheer force of habit. People behave like they're in a market even when they're not. But ITV are throwing away their own revenue on irrationality, while the BBC are throwing away our money.

And it's inexcusable that the Government never raise this come charter-renewal time. It's hardly surprising that the BBC forget if they're never reminded.

"The problem with the "no commercial pressures" argument is that it makes it sound as if the pressure of the market is a completely artificial thing"

The idea of a 'market' is an artificial construct, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. They may be funded differently, but BBC are still patently operating in a market.

"So, playing semantic games: since that's all the Left learned to do at University "

If you're going to disguise your right-wing sour grapes as criticism of the BBC, you should really be a bit more subtle.

Out of interest, how do either of you think the BBC should allocate its budget *under the current method of funding?* Should it, for example, devote airtime (or whole channels) to specific minority groups? Or refuse to make the types of programmes that ITV currently already makes? Or fund British film-making?

Have you considered that maybe they are just stupid?

The BBC are still dedicated to minority groups, only the other day I saw special news pages they put up for people who don't like the words "terrorist" or "dhimmi".

Now that's a even tinier minority, smaller than even those who can bear looking at Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen's smug git face for more than 30 mins.

> Out of interest, how do either of you think the BBC should allocate its budget *under the current method of funding?*

Fair question. Without going into the minutiae of their budgetary details, about which I have no clue, I think an overarching principle ought to be that they don't make stuff that commercial television is already making, and that they don't buy things from commercial stations or film companies, since to do so contradicts their very raison d'etre.

Why do they spend millions on the terrestrial rights to blockbuster movies? How many interesting special-interest documentaries could be made for that money?

Arguably, Changing Rooms was allowable -- while commercial TV certainly could have been making such shows, fact is that it wasn't. But it is now, so, once that DIY-show trend had been well & truly established, the BBC shouldn't have started making DIYSOS. Sound fair?

For the record, I like Lawrence Lleyellyn-Bowen.

Anyone know why the World Cup final was shown simultaneously on BBC and ITV?

IanLondon: The BBC are still dedicated to minority groups, only the other day I saw special news pages they put up for people who don't like the words "terrorist" or "dhimmi".

Blimey, Squander - for a liberal, you do seem to attract the racist Right to your blog.

Interestingly, the BBC is the only major Anglo-Saxon news organisation that doesn't comply fully with the standard journalistic asymmetries used when discussing Muslims and the Middle East.

Take the Israel/Palestine conflict as an example. The BBC, like all other Western media, uses exactly the same language as the (understandably partisan) Israeli media. This isn't always necessarily done for purely political reasons - there are often practical reasons for it (there's a good article about this here: http://www.medialens.org/alerts/..._by_israel.php) .

However, the Beeb differ in one tiny respect, in that they describe the likes of Hamas as "militants", rather than the more emotive "terrorists". Now, when you consider that this is the only deviation from a script hugely weighted in Israel's favour, you'd think people would have bigger things to worry about. But no, people like IanLondon fixate on this little anomaly, finding this single departure from the "the only good raghead is a dead raghead" consensus to be such a huge affront to their [D]ecency, that they crop up in the middle of a perfectly civilised discussion about public service broadcasting to spew out racist excrement about "dhimmis".

Whereabouts in London are you from Ian? Barking or Dagenham?

Blimey. For a liberal, I certainly do attract big fans of Jew-killers to my blog.

"Dhimmi" is a religious term, not a racial one.

Now, both of you, shut up about Islam and Israel. You're miles off topic. If I want an argument about either on here, I'll start one. When I've got the time to take part in it. Thanks.

[deleted by SQ2]

Oh, for fuck's sake. Take the hint. Oh, hang on: it wasn't a hint. The comments here are moderated quite loosely, but I'd've thought even the thickest mind could figure out that when the blog's owner tells you to stop commenting on a particular subject, that means stop.

Each of you, McDuibh & Ian, has made one fairly stupid comment, and I've let them both stand. How nice of me. I get all sorts of stupid comments on here, and don't always have the time to rebutt every single detail, and I don't appreciate being told that I "tacitly approve" of anything that appears in the comments that I don't actively argue against. Feel free to base your opinion of my opinion on what I write, but not on the comments of other people. As it happens, I have other things to do: when Ian made his rather silly and poorly worded comment, I was being best man at my best friend's wedding in another country. Why the hell would I be going through these comments?

For the record, for the slow of uptake, I wasn't calling you a big fan of Jew-killers so much as giving you an example of an accusation that made about as much sense as your throwing around the term "racist Right". It's a bit rich for the commenter who proves Godwin right to complain about unreasonable accusations.

And don't lecture me about religious bigotry when the largest Orange march of the year is about to go past my front door. I am not in the fucking mood.

Now, say something about the BBC's funding or TV scheduling or something or fuck off.

Each of you, McDuibh & Ian, has made one fairly stupid comment, and I've let them both stand.

That would be the comment about LLB ?