Having spent some time reflecting on the stirke at the BBC, I find myself in the unenviable position of being able to see both sides, to see that, yes, the BBC does need to live within its means, but also to see that there are other possibilities, which do not seem to have been explored or even thought of.
The BBC provides 8 domestic TV channels, 10 domestic radio channels, over 40 local radio services, and is a partner in many other commercial services both here in the UK and internationally. It provides all this for just 33p a day. £121 a year from the licence fee. Compare this to Sky Digital's basic package, which is £13.50 a month, or £162 a year, subscribes you to a mere 7 TV channels. It just goes to show what good value the BBC is to the consumer. But the exact hows and wherefores of how the money is spent is just as important.
What needs to be done is to distinguish between spending on something because it is an absolute essential for the programme or the service, and spending on something that is just a nice little extra. For instance, does the news really need to be presented from the current set. It looks very expensive. In the 1960s, the BBC presented the news in a single camera studio in front of basically a blank set piece. There is no reason to believe that the news is any better done in a virtual set than in front of a blank set piece.
Also, why are there employees, such as Terry Wogan and the like, who have hugely expensive contracts? Is there any real reason to believe that they are significantly better at their job than some of the people that work for BBC Local Radio or any of the local commercial stations, who are on much smaller wages? In the case of Terry Wogan, well, maybe, but many others, probably not. There is probably a lot of room for re-negotiating some contracts.
Whilst I would anticipate some jobs being lost, I do believe there is room for other measures to be taken, even alongside new ventures like providing a local radio station for Dorset, which is much needed. This is why we need to make sure that the £2.7 billion is spent in the right places, not on un-necessary extras.
