Skip to main content

BBC too fragile to play political football with

http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/pictures/636xAny/7/0/6/1209706_Football-League-Show.jpg
The recently ditched popular BBC show 'The Football League Show' (Image: broadcastnow.co.uk)

Last Saturday I watched the pilot episode of The Football League Tonight show on Channel 5. It's a new flagship programme for the channel which caught the eye of many football fans who eagerly anticipated how it would pan out seeing that last weekend marked the start of the 2015/16 season. This show replaced The Football League Show, which graced our screens between 2009 and 2015 every Saturday night on BBC One. However, as ITN Productions had won the rights to film and produce 1,813 matches from the Championship, League One and League Two, the BBC consequently lost out on a programme that they managed to attract over one million viewers every week without failure between 12 midnight until 1am on a Saturday night.

I don't want to delve into so much the feedback the new Channel 5 show had, but in short, the more vocal critics voiced their concern on social media while requesting the show to return to BBC. Every week, we knew the structure, we were happily familiar with what to expect - Channel 5 was a big change in which after the first episode last weekend, I got the impression that football fans weren't embracing the more 'youthful' approach TV producers were hoping. Equally, it has become clear that football fans don't want adverts to interrupt the football highlights.

I can understand people's frustration on this occasion. However, when it comes to TV deals, unfortunately, football is always going to be subject to change. It's a sport that is partly known for its intense media negotiation and every year, football fans are unsure what channel to watch what anymore. Never have such supporters would watch Champions League football on BT Sport, but this year they're going to have to, as the competition has moved on from the previous ITV / Sky Sports deal.

It isn't just football but a lot of sports are moving channels. Much of the golf is now shown on Sky Sports, some of the bigger athletics championships such as the Olympics, are rumoured to be moving onto subscription television. More recently, organisers of the Six Nations rugby union annual tournament announced that from 2016, half their matches will be broadcasted live on ITV (the other half with BBC). These sports and competitions mentioned have all left the BBC in recent years.

Collectively, BBC and sport used to be a forced to be reckoned with. It still is big, however its influence as a major player in providing sporting coverage is deteriorating. There are many factors to support this statement - the cuts to the media industry has meant that profitable sports, that can attract millions and millions of pounds worth of revenue, is the easier option to get easy money. But more tragically, I'm getting an impression that viewers are losing faith with the network.

Every year, the general public have to pay £145.50 to fund the BBC. The charge spreads everywhere, from television programming, supporting their online networks which includes the iPlayer, its World News service, and the Trust, BBC's governing body. Whether this licence fee is worth it has been subject to some fierce debates. People are split about its future but those who want to scrap it are possibly the more vocal compared to those who want to keep it. With BBC losing key programming and increased competition with the free channels that financially rely on advertising like ITV and Channels 4 and 5, some argue that there's no point in paying for the controversial fee. BBC, of course, doesn't showcase external advertising and changing that would mean the current programming would undergo a massive overhaul. For example, shows like Call the Midwife and Great British Bake Off would be 40 minutes long rather than 60, similar to that of Downton Abbey on ITV. Their uniqueness would then vanish.

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/C3F0/production/_84306105_ac02b45e-72a7-4136-aea1-b6c7ebb5bc72.jpg
John Whittingdale MP (Image: BBC)
The call to scrap the licence fee has turned political, especially when current Culture & Media Secretary John Whittingdale declared that BBC needs to change, which includes even deeper cuts and a complete management structure change. The wage bill has gone through the roof, presenters of popular shows such as Graham Norton and Jeremy Clarkson (before he was fired from Top Gear) have been reported to earn(ed) £5million or more a year. Bonuses for the top bosses have also reached the seven figure mark - the BBC are losing a media battle that should be so easy for them to emerge victorious.

The recent discovery of sex abuse culture that took place in the 1970s and 80s in the Corporation certainly hasn't helped their reputation. Since Jimmy Savile was exposed of being a serial sex offender shortly after his death, popular BBC presenters at that time have had their reputations tarnished under Operation Yewtree. Some have proved their innocence like Jim Davidson but to recover from being falsely accused to being back to the public eye is difficult to do. Davidson was okay because fresh from such accusations, he went to Celebrity Big Brother and won the whole thing. But the thought of popular and previously trusted public figures abusing young people in unimaginable and gruesome ways has really bruised the network who many believe should have known and done something about the abuse. How could they not realise this was going on, and if they did, why wasn't anyone being reported at that time? Trust in the media is low as it is, these recent revelations haven't helped their cause.

It's been a tough ride for the BBC and whether they've handled recent events well or not, that's still up for discussion. However, I can't help but think the licence fee is worth every penny.

The BBC have had its problems - it still does. It is important to recognise that change is needed. The government has given them very little assurance that they'll be protected. Like the NHS, its future is in the balance. Some ministers have argued that the broadcasters should get rid of 'light entertainment' shows like The Voice and Strictly Come Dancing that attracts 10-15 million every episode and replace them with BBC Radio 4-type shows that I find rather dry yet educational. I respect that view but the beauty of the BBC is its variety. It offers something for absolutely everyone and it's a global brand. If you're in the United States, you can watch Doctor Who and Sherlock. You can watch the news most countries in the world. You can watch the BBC in 50 different languages, and honestly, for you patriots out there, BBC is very fantastically British. For 90 years, it has reflected on our culture, our acceptance, our laid back nature, our curiosity to learn new things, our ability to appreciate everyone's interests.

I had just seen a fantastic documentary on BBC Three about Epilepsy. For those who don't know the illness, watching documentaries like this are a fantastic port of information that attracts multiple target audiences including those who avidly watch repeats of 'Don't Tell the Bride' which was on just before.

If we delve into the negatives of anything that's good for us, of course we're going to ignore the positives, and this is a trend we're heading towards. The restructuring of the BBC management and Trust will be sorted and I'm confident it will be too, but I urge the government to protect the BBC as we'll have more people who'll say 'I miss that programme, it's just not the same on the other side'. I hope those on top of the BBC tree will appreciate that too. I don't want the last 90 years to be a memory, they need to be learned from and then it'll allow us to embrace the fascinating next 90.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Splitting Britain to its eventual death

Londoner Mo Farah and Sheffield-born Jessica Ennis-Hill set to see their cities drift away from Westminster bubble (Image: Daily Mail) I don't know about you, but I'm loving this year's Olympics. The daunting talk about Brazil's corrupt politics, high levels of extreme poverty and the doping scandal are secondary topics for discussion while the spectacular sporting action and country's tourism boost are dominating headlines. But for me, I've been particularly impressed by UK's togetherness in pride for Team GB's overwhelming success so far. The country's dominance in rowing and cycling is something worth celebrating and hopefully they can provide a new wave of inspiration for many that London 2012 sadly couldn't. With Team GB continuing to shine in Rio de Janeiro, it's a big shame that back at home, political leaders are going out of their way in breaking up the country. In this rate, come Tokyo 2020 Olympics or whoever hosts the 2

Sepp Blatter mustn't resign, yet

Fifa President has to clean-up his mess before deciding to leave Living in Blatter-land World football governing body, Fifa's President Sepp Blatter has been under the spotlight for the second consecutive week and again for all the wrong reasons. Last week he banned British isle national sides from wearing a poppy branding the flower "political" but this time around, on countless interviews with major broadcasting companies yesterday, he controversially said that "there is no racism in football" and if racism occurred in a match, then players involved must handshake at the end of the game. This has sparked anger across the world of football including hierarchies of the English Professional Football Association (PFA), football players such as Manchester United's Rio Ferdinand and pundits alike. After hearing those comments by Blatter, people such as myself would bang our heads on brick walls. Today, the 75-year-old went to clarify his previous afterno

Settling the transgender debate like grown-ups

Flag that represents the trans community (Image: The Age) The 'transgender debate' has been hard to escape in recent years. It's impacting many areas of our lives, including in schools , work and sport . Sadly, the media narrative of these stories has made it impossible to rationally discuss how to best support people who have decided to make this life-changing decision, or how to assure their 'opponents' that they aren't being cast aside, or their rights have been taken from them. I'll try and analyse this as level-headed as possible and conclude what we (UK as a whole) should be doing, as a way of being a world leader on what is seen as a divisive matter, where it ought not to be. The current narrative is arguably led by two very different sides - one, the so-called 'pro-trans' groups, who combatively argue that people who want to transition should have easy access to basically everything; from legally changing their gender, to requiring advanced