Wossy can't save the BBC from being a turn-off

13 April 2012

He may be paid £6 million a year but I can't bring myself to join the chorus of complaint about Jonathan Ross: he strikes me as a natural broadcaster. On the other hand, the spiteful face of Graham Norton (£5 million) reminds me of the type of boy who egged on bullies at school. He is the best reason I know for reaching for the remote.

You might disagree. You may admire Norton and abhor Ross. But at present, it doesn't seem to matter what you, I or anyone else thinks of the BBC's talent and whether they're talented. The BBC takes money from a state-enforced tax on every household but is beyond public accountability. Like the Catholic Church before the Reformation, it squats on Britain, delivering its sermons and dividing its spoils, and is indifferent to the grumbles of those who must pay its tithes.

Look more closely at the Vatican in White City, however, and its position is nowhere near as strong as it appears.

It pays vast salaries to Ross, Norton, Paxman and the rest, not because it wants to, but because it knows they can find work elsewhere.

In the 20th century, the BBC could keep wages down and justify the licence fee because there were only a handful of channels for stars to work for and viewers to watch. Bar a few hermits, everyone spent time in the BBC's company.

In a multi-channel age, its privileges make no sense. Already regulators are talking about giving funds from the licence fee to rival broadcasters who produce public-service programmes.

If that were the BBC's only difficulty its situation would be bad enough, but beyond the dozens of stations on Freeview lies the net.

A few years ago, the BBC invited media-savvy students to a conference in Smithfield. As they described their viewing habits, the executives' faces turned pale. The students spent their free time online. When they wanted quality drama they didn't turn on British television but downloaded the best US shows.

The hip students represented a future in which ever-greater numbers could live their lives without contact with the BBC. To persuade Parliament that it was still legitimate-to tax them, the BBC ran after the fleeing viewers and on to the net. But the expansion is infuriating the press, which says the BBC is using tax revenue to drive newspaper websites out of business, costing a fortune and running way over budget.

To pay for its imperial ambitions, the BBC must either push the licence fee to politically unacceptable levels or allow its core business of producing programmes to rot and fall further behind the Americans.

Neither option is sustainable. The talent should enjoy their lavish subsidies while they can. The bank that enriches them will one day crash.

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in