More than self-absorption
It isn't only ±«Óătv self-absorption that has me and others buzzing about the news of Michael Grade's defection to ITV this morning - although I'm all too aware of the danger of that.
This is a story about the future of the country's largest public sector organisation after the NHS, whose budget is being fought over within Whitehall. It's a tale about who governs the nation's biggest broadcaster after the damage done to it by the Kelly/Hutton episode. And it's the media world's equivalent of football's "tapping up" row - think Ashley Cole being lured from Arsenal to Chelsea.
It's come at a sensitive time for my employers because ministers are still arguing about what level to set the licence fee at. The Beeb asked initially for a rise significantly above inflation. My information is that they'll be very very lucky to get inflation itself. Why? The licence fee feeds into the Retail Price Index at a time when inflation's rising. The Treasury are also desperate to set an example of discipline to the rest of the public sector.
And, finally but crucially, because the chancellor respects but does not love Auntie. Cynics will say that's because he's obsessed these days with keeping Murdoch and the Mail happy. Friends say he's simply suspicious of a large, London-based organisation with a tendency to keep asking for more.
I'm 
Comments
Must be a bit of deja vu for you Nick- if he follows you he will be bcak in a couple of years!!!!!
Interesting what you say about the liscence fee Nick!!
Sorry Nick, but there are at least five stories more important on today's news agenda than the fate of the boss of the ±«Óătv. This naval gazing does the image of the corporation's supposed neutrality no favours. Reading between the lines in your piece, I would guess you agree?
You reckon that the ±«Óătv being the second largest public sector organisation makes this a leigitimate lead news item?
The largest public sector organisation, the NHS, got a new chief executive in september and it barely registered on the ±«Óătv (certainly didnt make the news that night).
Surely this is a case of the media being obsessed with its own?
"A large, London-based organisation with a tendency to keep asking for more"? As a hard-pressed taxpayer this sounds like HM Treasury to me! You'd think he'd be keen on such things, not suspicious of them...! Unless you've been spun a line again, Nick?
Possibly not total self-absorption.....but Google News UK doesn't make it a very prominent story.
So, an overpaid media executive takes his snout out of the public trough and returns to the private sector for even more absurd amounts of money. Outside of the media industry who cares? I also find it very hard to believe the ±«Óătv is the second biggest public sector organisation. Does it employ more people than the ±«Óătv Office or DSS? Does it have a bigger budget than the Navy? What measure are you using?
Also, I find it amazing and bizarre (if true) that Brown, or any other Labour politician, would expend effort to keep the Mail happy. Surely even the most naive of New Labour's optimists must have realised by now that the Mail hates them and that'll never change.
Nick - It might sound a little less absorbed if you didn't write about it solely in terms of the ±«Óătv...
Surely the real story here is about the utter decline of ITV and whether it can ever recover.
"Cynics will say that's because he's obsessed these days with keeping Murdoch and the Mail happy. Friends say he's simply suspicious of a large, London-based organisation with a tendency to keep asking for more"
I will side with the cynics on this one.
Where new labour think this will get them is beyond me.For them to even think that the first opportunity Murdoch get`s he will not turn and try to destroy them goes beyond any logic.He only supported them last time because he knew they would get in and made deals to save himself.The first thing new labour should have done was to have broke up his empire.They will rue the day they dealt with Murdoch or should I say we the British public will.
That last line's the most important. Given office costs, housing costs, travel costs and so forth - why is anything at the Beeb other than regional news and a few Westminster correspondents based in London?
Scrap the plan to move a bit of the ±«Óătv to Manchester and instead ship the whole kit and caboodle - the licence fee will go a lot further in the North. So much so, the top brass could probably please Gordon Brown with a five-year freeze instead of an inflation-busting hike.
Nick,
Have to agree this isn't anywhere near the biggest political story at the moment. Perhaps the recent polls showing the rising popularity of the idea of breaking up the UK and some analysis into how politicians have been dealing with it might be a more worthy subject for discussion.
I frequently read your blog and usually find it most informative, but feel you don't discuss the the politcal debate surrounding Scottish (and English) independence often enough.
If the ±«Óătv scrapped its useless News24 station then there would be no need for an increase.
I am currently living in South Africa and have travelled to many other countries, people watch and respect ±«Óătv World or listen to the ±«Óătv World Service, NO-ONE watches News24!
Get rid of this financial black hole now!!!
I look forward to the appointment of Richard Branson at the ±«Óătv.
Gary
Yes Nick i have noticed the difference in the ±«Óătv since the Kelly and Hutton inquiry and i'm very concerned that parliament thinks the ±«Óătv should be some kind of propaganda broadcasting tool and i'm even more concerned that many of todays politicians dance the tune to Murdoch's wealthy empire,if politicians want to increase the public vote at election, then they have got to put Murdoch in his place and let the ±«Óătv continue to be the free voice of the British people.Theres no way i will cast any vote that is beholding to Murdoch.
Scrap the licence fee!! It is a disgrace that we still have to pay a fee to watch T.V!
Let it join the real World and compete with the rest of the news organisations and the net because it will save the taxpayer huge amounts of money and get rid of it,s admitted left wing bias!!
I look forward to some comments on the party finances or anything else of actual import to today's political debate.
This ±«Óătv stuff is surely for the Business section?
I expect that most people outside of the media would consider this to be very much a non-story. For a start it doesn't directly concern them or anyone they actually care about, it is a change that will have no visible impact on their life and it isn't really very interesting or unusual as a story - cut down to it's bare bones, a man left one job and is due to start another.
However, because it involves the media then it suddenly becomes news.
The thing most interesting about this story in my eyes is hearing that the ±«Óătv is the second largest public sector organisation after the NHS - which just goes to show how bloated the ±«Óătv really is. Perhaps the ±«Óătv should consider the corporate equivalent of "Slim-Fast" rather then increasing the licence fee?
Maybe Tony Blair will be available to head up the ±«Óătv from next May!
"My information is that they'll be very very lucky [just?] to get inflation itself".
I'll be very very happy if the licence fee only goes up by the rate of inflation!
I remain doubtful that the ±«Óătv deserves a big rise in revenue. Some of the programming choices and budgets are questionable, which raises the value for money question. I think, the government is right to hold the ±«Óătv to account on this.
As the range and flexibility of delivery mechanisms change, I think, there’s some long-term scope for scrapping a ±«Óătv specific licence fee and aiming for a common pot shared by music, games, and video producers. The only issue is how to do it fairly.
While the media like to pride themselves on scrutiny, the overall look and feel has some room to mature. Scrutiny and pestering are not the same thing. Better law and enforcement of politics, media, and society would help create room for better focus.
Yet another nail in the coffin for an undemocratic, unaccountable organisation run by a bunch of yoghurt knitting left-wing southerners who wouldn't know what a days work was if it kicked them up the backside. The ±«Óătv poll tax should be scrapped forthwith and the corporation sold to the highest bidder without delay.
The ±«Óătv is swilling around with dosh. It just doesn't know how to spend it. The fee should be reduced, not raised. As for Michael Grade, here was a man of television. Just like David Attenborough, he needs to be in programme making, not stuck behind a desk
Frightening that some of these posters seem happy to see the back of the ±«Óătv licence fee. What do they want ?
Rupert Murdoch ruling the roost over our entire broadcast media in the way Silvio Berlusconi does in Italy ? Having 'Daily Mail' news values shoved down our throat ? Get real.
The ±«Óătv isn't perfect but it sure is better than the alternative. If ITV has its ideas bucked up by Grade then that may help salvage the concept of public service broadcasting, rather than the lowest common denominator approach.
It is terrifying that Brown & Blair are so scared of Murdoch that they are preparing to capitulate over the licence fee, and this one may be the last of its type. They need to tell him who is running this country.
Nick,
You over state the importance of the discussions presently on going. The government has already guaranteed that the ±«Óătv will continue to be funded through licence fees. If it does not get an increase in that fee over inflation, so what?
The ±«Óătv has not been setting an example, considering that it is financed through a compulsory tax.
The ±«Óătv might have to decide to allocate resources more effectively (e.g. how many political correspondents do you actually need?)
I'm just grateful that the ±«Óătv did not (were unable ?) to match Michael Grade's supposed ÂŁ10m salary deal over five years.
Perhaps the 'superstar' budget had already been spent on Jonathon Ross...
Scrap the dreadful ±«Óătv News 24 service someone suggested? They obviously haven´t watched Sky News lately. I would agree with moving the ±«Óătv out of London and shifting it further north. Newcastle might even be cheaper than Manchester and the beer is better, too!
Dennis [11] says "If the ±«Óătv scrapped its useless News24 station then there would be no need for an increase."
Off topic perhaps, but a useful debate.
I don't quite understand the remit.
As someone who has lived overseas I don't understand why ±«Óătv World (TV) isnt actually much much more like ±«Óătv News 24, ie. british news for british people abroad, just as Fox News is more US-centric. ±«Óătv World covers precious little British news. What is the point of ±«Óătv World? Why can't it carry a lot more ±«Óătv N24 content? Who is the bright spark that decides that british news is less relevant to britons living overseas (and english-speaking, commonwealth countries) then news about some obscure part of far eastern timbucktoo?
Equally, what is the point of ±«Óătv Prime? Can't there be some consolidation of ±«Óătv tv channels? I'm all for multi-channeling but there does seem to be double ups all over the place. Time for some consolidation methinks.
Sorry .. off topic (no mod, that doesnt mean you can NOT publish a my post again).
Let's not forget that license fee really means Television Tax.
The UK would not collapse in a heap if you were forced to go private. So you don't need to spider into every form of new media and keep expanding the number of channels.
20,000 people work for the ±«Óătv... doing what precisely? A state funded media outlet that employs twenty thousand is just bizarre.
Typical ±«Óătv arrogance to assume the ±«Óătv won't get what it wants for the licence fee because of its effect on inflation, or because Gordon Brown doesn't like it.
It could just be that people are getting fed up with the constant increases in fees without a corresponding increase in quality.
...and why don't ±«Óătv employees have to pay the TV Tax?
Let's hope Jonathan Woss is poached to ITV too. Another ÂŁ18 million of our taxed incomed that the ±«Óătv won't need to tax again. Get a busload of the multi-millionaire luvies to go over and the license tax should be falling!
"This is a story about the future of the country's largest public sector organisation after the NHS"
Robinson is entitled to his mis-guided opinions but he should get his facts right first.
By what criterion/a does he maintain the ±«Óătv is the second largest public sector organisation?
Budget? Any section of the armed forces beats the ±«Óătv.
Personnel? Royal Mail employs more people than,even, the armed forces. (Separate argument there)
Income? Well, the ±«Óătv doesn't really have an income does it? It doesn't sell its services.
People going to prison for not paying the tax for its services? Well, I reckon the ±«Óătv probably comes top of that one.
So I'm puzzled. Is the point of these blogs that the author clarifies his statements or is it just for numpties like me to think they influence what is written?
ian
If I go to see a film at the local theatre it costs me ÂŁ5 to ÂŁ6. If I go to the theatre or the opera it costs me ÂŁ30 to ÂŁ40. Double this to include my wife. Given that the atmosphere at some of these venues, particularly the live ones is worth something, the ±«Óătv's annual fee is in comparison extremely reasonable and I for one am happy to pay for it and any 'hike' proposed for the next few years. The website alone is worth it. This blog is (almost) worth it.
This could well be called the...
Tale of Murdoch and New Labour.
The Spider and the Fly
Mary Howitt
Will you walk into my parlour?" said the Spider to the Fly,
'Tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy;
The way into my parlour is up a winding stair,
And I've a many curious things to shew when you are there."
Oh no, no," said the little Fly, "to ask me is in vain,
For who goes up your winding stair can ne'er come down again."
"I'm sure you must be weary, dear, with soaring up so high;
Will you rest upon my little bed?" said the Spider to the Fly.
"There are pretty curtains drawn around; the sheets are fine and thin,
And if you like to rest awhile, I'll snugly tuck you in!"
Oh no, no," said the little Fly, "for I've often heard it said,
They never, never wake again, who sleep upon your bed!"
Said the cunning Spider to the Fly, " Dear friend what can I do,
To prove the warm affection I 've always felt for you?
I have within my pantry, good store of all that's nice;
I'm sure you're very welcome -- will you please to take a slice?"
"Oh no, no," said the little Fly, "kind Sir, that cannot be,
I've heard what's in your pantry, and I do not wish to see!"
"Sweet creature!" said the Spider, "you're witty and you're wise,
How handsome are your gauzy wings, how brilliant are your eyes!
I've a little looking-glass upon my parlour shelf,
If you'll step in one moment, dear, you shall behold yourself."
"I thank you, gentle sir," she said, "for what you're pleased to say,
And bidding you good morning now, I'll call another day."
The Spider turned him round about, and went into his den,
For well he knew the silly Fly would soon come back again:
So he wove a subtle web, in a little corner sly,
And set his table ready, to dine upon the Fly.
Then he came out to his door again, and merrily did sing,
"Come hither, hither, pretty Fly, with the pearl and silver wing;
Your robes are green and purple -- there's a crest upon your head;
Your eyes are like the diamond bright, but mine are dull as lead!"
Alas, alas! how very soon this silly little Fly,
Hearing his wily, flattering words, came slowly flitting by;
With buzzing wings she hung aloft, then near and nearer drew,
Thinking only of her brilliant eyes, and green and purple hue --
Thinking only of her crested head -- poor foolish thing! At last,
Up jumped the cunning Spider, and fiercely held her fast.
He dragged her up his winding stair, into his dismal den,
Within his little parlour -- but she ne'er came out again!
And now dear little children, who may this story read,
To idle, silly flattering words, I pray you ne'er give heed:
Unto an evil counsellor, close heart and ear and eye,
And take a lesson from this tale, of the Spider and the Fly.
The Spider and the Fly
Mary Howitt
I think it was a fair one to report upon but it was a no win situation... I think your opening paragraph summed it all up.
There are some big issues floating about just now, not least the goings on in NATO. The Grade issue just failed to inspire people.
I suppose running a newslog is a bit like goalkeeping ; some shots squeak through but some you succeed in getting a hand to... Next!
Ben (comment no 7) is right; the real story here is how Grade has his work cut out trying to revive ITV. They did well with their reprises earlier this autumn of Cracker and Prime Suspect, but these are one-offs. One of the difficulties is that ITV's market for too long has been, not to put too fine a point on it, the lowest common denominator: shrieking game shows, identikit tec drama, and so many soaps the suds are coming out of your ears. No comedy. No documentaries (Tonight with Trevor McDonald? Don't make me laugh!). This market has been fragmented by multi-channel TV in a way the ±«Óătv's market hasn't.
The other problem is that ITV's primary master is not the viewer but the advertiser. If shows don't get high enough ratings, they're cancelled sometimes after one episode. How does that build viewer loyalty? At Christmas ITV basically gives up, because it knows there's no point in getting big audiences in when the advertisers can't sell stuff to them because the shops are closed.
Sorry, Nick, although I normally find what you write to be very sensible and well thought-out, I really can't agree with you here. This is purely media self-absorption, and it strikes me that the title of your blog is aimed as much to try to convince yourself as to convince anyone else. Do you really have any evidence whatsoever that one person chaning jobs is going to have the far-reaching consequences you claim, such as affecting the RPI? I find that very hard to believe.
I fully support the ±«Óătv in its quest for an increase in its licence fee. This country needs a strong indepedent, impartial news organisation.
My regret is that it has to go to the government cap in hand. Surely we should find an alternative way to fund this organisation.
However in spite of the fact that government that has now been so exposed for its part in the Dr Kelly scandal, it was the ±«Óătv that suffered as a direct result & not the devious, underhand politicans who should have resigned.
Good luck to the ±«Óătv
A lot of people's comments seem to be on the lines of "the licence fee should be scrapped/reduced because I don't like all the programmes". Guys, that's the point. The licence fee enables the Beeb to make programmes that some people won't like. Without it, it might be reduced to churning out desperate attempts to please the masses, in competition with Mr Grade. I hope he's looking forward to the challenge.
When the ±«Óătv has finished picking its fluff out of its navel it might address itself to what is the question of the moment.
The integrity of the Union is in doubt and the well laid plans of the Labour party to rule both Scotland by the Scots and England with the help of the Scots is in tatters.
Other commentators think this is news, can't the ±«Óătv afford the money to split into the EBC and the SBC, not to mention the WBS(they already have an embryo of that) and the NIBC. Why are they pretending that this deosnt exist?
Interesting times Nick
The ±«Óătv provides great opportunity for the Government as a source of legitimate information, when other channels it uses are subject to censorship by the civil service machine.
Indeed the ±«Óătv might be one of the biggest media operations out here which has more opportunity to provide information and knowledge about what is really going on in the UK and abroad.
If the only reason for not allowing the ±«Óătv to continue in its present form, is some notion that it is biased one way or another, that is easy to remedy. As an institution the ±«Óătv has gravitas and usefulness beyond mere politics and either a revenue generator or cost centre.
The value of the ±«Óătv as a National Asset might actually be worthy of consideration, and as the media industry is in such a fluid state, what is needed is someone with the “vision and strategy” to see beyond short term gains made by chopping and changing its tactics. Better to hold fast and make good on short term projects.
As to the fees for the ±«Óătv, its more than worth the inflationary rise to keep its market share and capacity to deliver to its public at home and global.
It would be folly indeed if the Chancellor used short term tactics to muffle the ±«Óătv, indeed it would prove foolhardy to start dismantling something as the rest of the industry is in free fall and unable to get its revenues from advertising.
Mr Grade may have felt the ITV opportunity too good to miss, with his golden hello, and maybe that’s what ITV wanted short term, someone to stop the take over bids. However Mr Grade has not thought through beyond the monetary elements of his package. Unless of course he is planning an early retirement. And feels his time is up whether at the ±«Óătv or ITV.
Grade going could be a strong indication that the government may do their worst. Which would be a disaster long term, letting the Murdoch’s of this world buy more, and exploit more, and control more, all on the back of huge debt which ultimately the consumer pays for through higher charges on pay per view.
Of course short term will influence the players these days, as they are all laden with their golden parachutes. And quite frankly as Mr Grade has shown they don’t really give a damn, do they? I think so…
Point 27 - Jez - of course ±«Óătv employees have to pay the licence fee.
It`s usually the case with people they never knew how important something was to them till they lose it.The ±«Óătv is VERY IMPORTANT not only here in the UK but also the only true source of news for millions of people all over the world.Just like new labour and the tories to try and weaken it just when we need it so badly.If the ±«Óătv goes under my TV will not be on very much I just don`t want to be brainwashed by Murdoch.
I think to prove a point, all ±«Óătv services should be taken off air for a month.
I would give it hours before people are screaming for it all back.
I hate the way that some of the people treat the ±«Óătv as simply a news organisation.
I remember the good old days Nick when the ±«Óătv were in no danger from government.I remember watch with mother and the The Woodentops, never thought I would see all this happen to the ±«Óătv there again I never thought The Woodentops would end up running the country.
2 points (if I may):
1) When I lived in Italy (before Berlusconi became PM, which raised its own serious issues), I used to think that the RAI news' obsession with the RAI was due to Italy's relatively fragile democracy.
The ±«Óătv's is shameful. The worst incident, though, was 2 weeks ago, when the top news item was a trailer for the Panorama program the following Tuesday. ±«Óătv: if we want advertising, we'll tune go elsewhere!
2) (Talking of fragile democracies) I hope Gordon is equally suspicious of political parties with a tendency to keep asking for more, and will take the lead in cutting their costs rather than asking for more public funding.
Nick, I would offer you as a brilliant candidate for Grade's job, but I think you do far too good a job than to be kicked upstairs. A lot of people would miss your erudite reporting. Three possible replacements to the lackluster Michael Grade spring to mind: 1) Ian Hislop 2) Stephen Fry and 3) Boris Johnson. Perhaps a triad of these brilliant yet very different minds would finally do away with programming which resembles, at best, the ghastly supplements issued by weekend broadsheets, namely Gardening, Fashion makeovers, Cookery, Property and worst of all, Let's Come Dancing!
To all the whiners about the ±«Óătv.
You really don't know how lucky you are. The licence fee is a small amount to pay and you actually get some reasonably impartial coverage. Anyone who has ever watched Fox News in the US will appreciate this. Anyone that thinks the ±«Óătv is a tool of the governemtnt really hasn't seen the rest of the world. Be thankful that the media isn't completely controlled by Murdoch and isn't a propaganda machine of the state like Russia's. If the licence fee was abolished you would have 5 channels like ITV with a couple of rubbish programmes squeezed in between 20 minute ad breaks. Its no surprise that viewing figures for ITV have gone down the toilet as there is absolutely nothing to watch. Without the license fee the ±«Óătv would disappear and TV would probably become unwatchable. If TV becomes unwatchable the advertisers will pull the plug and then the TV industry will go down the toilet or become a 24 hour advert platform. I have freeview and most of the extra channels are a waste of time.
Mr Fuzz, so Greg Dyke was not a victim of government control?dont preach about Russia and the likes,when this government told a lie to go to war.Fuzz open your narrow mind !!!!!