In recent weeks it has been obvious that the "love affair" between politicians and BSkyB - at least in public - has started to thaw, even to the extent that David Cameron's Tories have not yet proffered an open allegiance to the Murdochs this time round with an election on the horizon.
This helps to underline the weakening effects that new media has had on the old guard, with Google and Microsoft, etc., now displacing much of the power that traditional newspapers once had in terms of both influence and financial clout, despite News Corp.'s (and others) last-ditch roll of the dice with the erection of paywalls for their online news services.
Of course it's perfectly possible that all of BSkyB's prior kicking and screaming was just for show, since it knew from the very beginning that a stake in ITV would be highly contentious from a competition viewpoint even if it hadn't technically broken the letter of the law in terms of media ownership quotas.
(Remember that the door had been previously left open for a BSkyB acquisition of Channel Five, and BSkyB's Picnic terrestrial service had been more or less canned on a technicality as opposed to any monopolistic objections.)
And BSkyB is no stranger whatsoever to making business decisions that surprise and shock its competitors for maximum psychological effect, since its dominance and power allows this sort of thing to go on relatively unchecked as long as it doesn't break any obvious rules. (Whilst perhaps bending a few minor points along the way.)
Even if it means losing a fair amount of money in the process; this doesn't matter to BSkyB if your competitor fails to gain assets and power as a consequence, since this form of strategy is much more important to BSkyB as part of its long-term game plan.
This also even went as far as an aborted attempt on the terrestrial pay-TV market with Picnic; exactly the sort of service which had been openly rejected by BSkyB on more than one previous occasion, and was a barely-disguised ploy to drive Setanta's UK pay-TV operation into the ground, which of course did happen with the help of a recession.
So what next for BSkyB and ITV plc? BSkyB's ITV stake may have been a NTL/Virgin Media-ITV takeover deterrent, but it wouldn't have stopped anyone else with deeper pockets having a go. But there wasn't anyone else who was rich/mad/incentivised enough to buy ITV shares at the time, and this was before the recession came along.
Of course ITV plc's share price has picked up from the low point that originally triggered the prospect of a hostile takeover, but the stalking horses that surrounded ITV at the time of BSkyB's original share purchase still in the main exist, apart from perhaps a less eager Virgin Media (plus there were NBC Universal share ownership changes last year).
At this point in time, ITV's greatest wishes relate to financial stability and its ability to make lots of money; it has already jettisoned a lot of its "historical baggage" including most of its former regional structure and is hoping to do the same with regional news as well shortly.
What happens to regional news in itself could affect ITV plc's share price, even though investing in regional news is a public asset in itself, hence the recent Channel 3 regional news proposals that may or may not come to fruition depending on how fast the Digital Economy Bill can be pushed though Parliament/who gets into power at the next election.
Whether someone or something will come along to make ITV plc's dreams come true is another matter, but the income offered by current reality TV formats and its tried and tested soap offerings cannot be guaranteed for eternity let alone the next five years, plus its share price could turn volatile again regardless of what happens later this year.
Sir John Dankworth has died aged 82. Johnny Dankworth, husband of jazz singer Cleo Lane, had a long career in jazz himself, but was best known by television enthusiasts for two startling pieces of music: Rediffusion London's daily opening tune "Widespread World of Rediffusion" (you can read Gavin Sutherland's fascinating article about the tune's construction here) and the theme tune to the Honor Blackman-era of ABC's The Avengers.
It's been many years since I personally lived in the North East so the story that demolition had begun on Tyne Tees's old City Road studios had passed me by.
The building, home to Supergran and The Tube, was custom built by Tyne Tees in the 1950s, however was finally emptied out as ITV reduced its regional presence and moved its news operation to Gateshead.
It has to be said that the general headline-grabbing tone of this Guardian article is edging dangerously close to the kind of tabloid generalisations that are the normal reserve of newspapers like the Daily Mail, even though there may be sensible if rather more mundane questions buried away in the small print of such revelations.
The most important fact of this report is perhaps contained in the last sentence of the third paragraph, to quote: "The total cost of the BBC's coverage of Euro 2008, to which it sent 142 staff, was £8.68m, 1% under budget" (my added emphasis), which leads into some important points in relation to the BBC, its funding and how contracts were set up.
Some of this relates to the previous disposal of BBC Resources, notably the "minimum amount of business clause" which "will incur a financial penalty if the minimum expenditure threshold across the BBC is not met" - make of that what you will, but it strongly suggests that the BBC has to spend a minimum budget on these events.
Plus as TV licence fee-payers, we expect the BBC to provide the best possible quality coverage of major sporting events, therefore if it is possible to improve the general quality of presentation without exceeding the total budget allocated for the event, shouldn't the BBC have the right to do this, regardless of other contractual obligations?
It's not as if that £250,000 was spent on champagne and canapes.
Disregard the fact that there was "no formal planning procedure"; that's just bureaucracy wanting a safety net just in case it went horribly wrong. But it didn't, and apart from past issues relating to the disposal of BBC assets this article is just attempting to make a mountain out of the proverbial molehill.
From the tone of Andy Duncan's Oxford Media Convention speech, you get the impression that he thinks that he's still living in the year 2007, because subsequent events have proven that the BBC cannot effectively give help to other public service broadcasters without sacrifices that would be regarded on both sides as unacceptable.
This has already been demonstrated in the often-fraught development of the new regional Channel 3 news franchises, with ITV plc still wanting full control of its news branding amongst other aspects, even though the news programming will/should be editorially outside of its control. Namely, broadcasters want to have their cake AND eat it.
The agenda has already (and thankfully) moved on from the ultra-simplistic notion that any money/help from the BBC represents a panacea to "public service broadcasters" (whatever that happens to mean at the time), because it has openly been demonstrated that such help would either be too little or alternatively subject to too much compromise.
BBC management may be guilty of not properly defending the BBC against Duncan and others queuing up for a slice of the licence fee - and the probability of the new local Channel 3 news proposals being doomed are high - but that doesn't imply that anything that the BBC already has should be automatically handed to others on their say-so.
Andy Duncan's speech unfortunately gives a superficial impression of himself - and perhaps Channel 4's management in general - behaving like a badly-spoilt child. Channel 4 may produce some worthy programming but there's nothing that can be considered to be automatically much more 'worthy' than anything that the BBC already produces.
A key part of their argument is that people are misinterpreting the user figures for online video services like BBC iPlayer, 4od and YouTube, and that the methodologies used online are not directly comparable to TV audience figures.
This is undoubtedly true and happens for every platform. Even the figures for radio and TV are difficult to compare because of the different methodologies used to collect them - a diary based system for radio based on time periods, and a little box and a remote from for TV which allows measuring of programmes.
Radio naturally also provides our useful comparison point. It was said that television would kill radio. It did not and radio remains a major media industry across the world to this day. The introduction of television changed radio consumption - this cannot be denied. However it has yet to replace its older cousin.
It's likely that video on demand services will end up doing something similar. Mass take up of online video is already changing behaviour of the population. Some traditional TV channels may close, or become on demand only propositions. However it seems unlikely that it will replace the scheduled linear broadcast completely - merely that the linear schedule will fight for its survival and will change and adapt.
And if you doubt that, ask yourself a question... does anyone really want to watch Strictly Come Dancing or The X-Factor on Sunday morning or Wednesday afternoon, if they can watch them on a Saturday night? Like Deloitte, I'm not writing off linear television just yet.
Some people appear to be rather puzzled as to why the Conservatives in particular seem ambivalent towards Ofcom's move to lower wholesale pay-TV sports pricing, and it's not because Ofcom is likely to become toast after the next election either. (Even if the Tories don't get a landslide majority.)
Firstly, News Corporation (and the Murdochs) may still be influential but they aren't the only large corporate media player in the marketplace; BT and Richard Branson's Virgin Media (BSkyB's main potential competitors) are but two of them, and News Corp's position is even less dominant in the area of newspaper publishing.
On top of this - as News Corporation is suddenly finding out the hard way - the media landscape in general is shifting to such an extent that political opinions contained within newspapers may no longer make or break elections, plus new media giants like Google have sprung out of nowhere since the Conservatives were last in power.
(The very forces that News Corp seem hell-bent on attempting to control with their planned online content charging scheme.)
If the Conservatives do turn a blind eye to any enforced pay-TV cost lowering, it would fit in well with the mantra for increased competition/consumer 'choice' leading to lower prices for sports fans and would be very popular with the electorate in general, even if David Cameron no longer appears on James Murdoch's Christmas card list as a consequence.
It has to be said that although BSkyB has pumped a lot of money into football in particular over the years, this hasn't stopped a whole litany of financial problems recently affecting even top clubs such as Liverpool and Manchester United, even if those problems have ultimately been the result of other factors.
And some sports and teams have seen great dividends at the expense of others, with a large disparity between rich and poor clubs. There's no point boasting about "grass roots" sports training and investment when opportunities for sport beyond a hobby remain limited, because very few players will ever be good enough for top flight competition.
Perhaps the only move left for the Murdochs would be some form of attempted political destablisation in order to force a political right-wing shift, but total deregulation is currently off the menu after the mess that was made of the world economy as a consequence of the banks doing what they wanted with nobody to stop them.
Therefore having both the Conservatives and Labour united against the Murdochs could ultimately leave Rupert and James shouting at a brick wall for all the good that it will do them if they have nobody to turn to for favours.
On the surface this just appears to be yet another complaint from the commercial media sector (this time, the RadioCentre) along the lines of "How dare the BBC devote time, publicity and resources to a significant musical event", and soon to be followed no doubt by more complaints about the current promotion of Chris Evans' Radio 2 breakfast show.
(Radio presenter and station owner Steve Penk has already complained about this, therefore expect more of the same imminently.)
Granted that a decision to directly equate the BBC with the group in question - namely, using the slogan "U2=BBC" - may have been a trifle too enthusiastic all things considered, although presumably this marketing ploy was aimed at the section of the UK population for whom this would have a moderately significant meaning.
There are two things that are causes for concern in relation to the BBC's handling of the U2 album launch and associated concert, and they reflect both sides of the argument as to whether or not the event(s) were given undue prominence in relation to their actual worth.
Firstly there's the whole (and rather controversial) issue of BBC management strategy in relation to the creation and promotion of major 'events' as a means of creating publicity for broadcasts (hence supposedly justifying the licence fee); saturation coverage can be most offputting for anyone who is ambivalent about the event in question.
(Another example of a recent "major event" was the Christmas and New Year Doctor Who specials, which had David Tennant also appearing in everything from QI to Never Mind the Buzzcocks and most things inbetween as well as all of the idents.)
These hyped events can turn out to be anticlimatic if expectations are too great, and such high concept promotions can end up having an opposite effect if pushed to near-saturation level; attempting to shout the loudest can annoy both viewers and commercial competitors (whether actually justified or otherwise).
And annoying the commercial competition (along with a reasonable proportion of BBC viewers and listeners) is the very last strategy that the BBC needs to adopt at this point in time.
The second point relates to whether or not the BBC should enthusiastically get behind a specific event with a commercial subtext such as a U2 album launch, but it has to be said that the BBC already broadcasts sporting events (darts, Formula 1) together with other programmes that contain obvious references to commercial entities (eg. The X Factor).
So, apart from obvious differences such as the nature of the entertainment in question, just how different is U2 from a commercial sporting event such as Formula 1? Both stand to make significant amounts of money from the prominence of their product(s) and both manage to entertain a fair number of people.
Perhaps it's about time for the BBC to further enforce prominence rules that already apply to commercial sporting events across the rest of its output, which would in turn cut down on the free plugs given to programmes broadcast on commercial channels.
The commercial media sector would undoubtedly be very upset as a consequence, but they wouldn't be in a position to complain about such a strategy if they insist on complaining each time the BBC heavily promotes a specific event, whether it be cars going round a circuit or an album launch and associated outdoor concert.
It was blatantly obvious that something like this was going to happen, especially following the perhaps over-the-top clampdown that engulfed the BBC following the Sachsgate incident, and very probable that there was political and moral pressure at least within the BBC to let Jonathan Ross go as soon as was practically possible.
It's the end of an era in relation to the BBC paying big money in order to retain 'top' talent and subsequently deploying them in all manner of roles within television and radio in order to somehow justify that expense to licence fee-payers; a strategy which attracted the ire of both tabloid newspapers and commercial broadcasters alike.
Such big money signings turned into an unwelcome stick for the commercial sector and the Daily Mail (for one) to beat the BBC with, ignoring the fact that commercial broadcasters were well prepared to get involved in bidding wars for top talent before the recession came along. (Not to mention Simon Cowell's salary either.)
The BBC still needs to be able to retain at least a few popular presenters along with the inevitable requirements of a reasonably high salary and accompanying benefits package that someone who is watched and heard by millions of viewers would probably be worth.
(Of course certain tabloid newspapers won't be happy until everyone at the BBC is paid the same as staff in local Job Centres.)
Jonathan Ross's headline 'salary' also included the fees paid to his production company, which was a consideration that was frequently overlooked by tabloid newspapers in their rounds of Ross (and BBC) bashing, but the whole issue of presenter salaries brought the whole subject of "value for money" into very sharp focus.
Perhaps certain BBC executives had also previously misjudged the effects of so-called "multichannel viewing", figuring that stars such as Ross wouldn't be as 'overexposed' to the viewing population at large if their attentions were divided between numerous channels and viewing figures for individual programmes had been significantly reduced.
Plus of course there will be criticism directed towards the BBC for being cowardly not only for letting Ross go but also in terms of the heavy-handed compliance crackdown that followed 'Sachsgate' (which was caused by the breakdown of a normally effective compliance system), that led to Ross's Radio 2 show being pre-recorded.
Any list such as this leaked internal document from BBC Knowledge should be treated with great caution simply because it doesn't contain facts and figures that are possible to at least partly verify by other means, as was the case with such things as previously-leaked presenter salaries and expense claims (valid or otherwise).
(Incidentally since the leaked list originates from the Sunday Times, I'm not linking directly to that site because of their current plans to charge for most if not all of that paper's website content in the near future.)
Whilst on the subject of the Sunday Times, also bear in mind that it's a News Corporation-owned newspaper, which implies the potential for an anti-BBC agenda given the current hostility towards anyone "distorting the(ir) market" - the BBC is very unlikely to charge for online news, potentially wrecking any online content charging plans.
We should also be wary of placing too much importance in both the existence of such a list (not surprising) and any implied "pecking order". Plus the list as reproduced here is incomplete; for one thing, James May is apparently also included in the "Top tier" category along with his Top Gear colleagues (it would be frankly amazing if he wasn't).
One problem with such a hypothetical list is that a particular presenter can frequently be only as good/popular as any current show that they have been given; a bad show or a format mismatch can quickly ruin the reputation of a presenter and in turn can potentially reduce their popularity dependent on various factors.
This situation has often been highlighted as the BBC struggled to find suitable formats for 'popular' presenters such as Graham Norton, of whom the BBC had invested considerable money in retaining prior to the recession; an era when broadcasters were merrily outbidding each other in order to hang on to so-called key presenters.
Unfortunately this previous overenthusiasm for retaining "top-tier" presenters has led to repeated accusations of the BBC wasting money from newspapers such as the Daily Mail (cf. Jonathan Ross's so-called 'salary' which also included his production budget), regardless of the resultant value for money provided in the longer term.
(Never mind the rates also being charged by the commercial sector at the time of the contract signing, or the relative importance of the BBC retaining at least a small number of popular presenters.)
These oft-repeated criticisms are often moot because once the ink on the presenter's contract has dried, that's basically it until the contract comes up for renewal again, so you have to judge a decision based on circumstances at the time of the contract signing as opposed to months or years after the event given hindsight, valid or otherwise.
Bear all of this in mind when anyone attempts to connect such presenter salary issues with any implied "order of merit" such as this one, especially when the judging criterion employed on this occasion may be arbitrary and/or based on factors which journalists currently don't have any access to, whether they are aware of them or not.
So the big question just has to be: does Alan Yentob deserve a place at the top of the list? Perhaps in terms of a rare combination of being a long-serving BBC executive - crucially pre-dating Mark Thompson - and an occasional presenter, the answer is possibly a qualified "Yes".
So what on earth is BBC Worldwide doing in a document with unlikely bedfellows such as the Dartford Crossing, the Met Office, Ordnance Survey, and the Royal Mint, even if it occupies a lonely appendix all of its own at the back of the document?
The inclusion of BBC Worldwide in this 'asset portfolio' document is almost as if it's an afterthought, being included as "Annex C" right at the end after a list of other existing Operational Efficiency Programme assets (Annex B); it certainly occupies a category of its own courtesy of the fact that the BBC isn't actually a government department.
We can perhaps conclude therefore that the BBC Worldwide inclusion is a not-too-subtle attempt to directly appease the commercial media sector, even if the suggestion is partly open-ended, namely: "The Government now expects the BBC to look more widely at the options for greater financial and operational separation, including a sale or partial sale".
The BBC's response to all of this ought to be: "We're looking at all of the available options and we will choose the one that represents the best value to TV licence fee-payers as well as providing the best return on investment for the widest range of BBC productions".
Because given its current structure and remit, the BBC now needs to exert its independence from government influence more than ever before; the basic principle of which is something that even the Tories seem to at least partly comprehend.
But the war won't finish unless the BBC learns to stop fighting - that seems to be the ongoing message from recent events as well as the rapidly disintegrating aims in the recent Digital Britain report.
Of course several of the BBC's commercial competitors - most notably BSkyB and much of the newspaper industry - would love the BBC to roll over and die at this point, given their particular axes to grind (of which few have actually any practical consequences, based on the US market where the decline of traditional media is far more advanced).
But arguably of more pressing concern is the relationship between the BBC and government ministers, since the latter are the ones that wield real power; Rupert and James Murdoch may be somewhat influential but they weren't the ones actually writing the statute books. (At least not yet anyway.)
So in the two-year breathing space that the BBC now has before the next administration - and that's a long time in both politics and the media industry given the relatively rapid pace of change - the BBC has to sort out both its internal and external public relations so that they are singing from the same unified hymn sheet.
And the hymn they are singing better not be off-key or be subject to wildly fluctuating tempo changes, as was painfully evident during a succession of recent mishaps, of which some ended up being far worse than they evidently had the right to be due to badly mishandled PR that extended right to the top.
Certain pressing issues, in particular a bloated management structure that's paid too much (whether true or not) were also dealt with much later than they should have done; BBC management headcount should have been trimmed first BEFORE applying the same rationale to everyone else in order to deflect criticism and to set a fair example.
A good working relationship between the BBC and government is essential in the medium term if the BBC is to withstand the sort of external pressures from the commercial sector that will be an ongoing concern, especially with a rapidly changing media landscape.
It's true that the BBC still has to exert its independence under an exceptionally tricky situation, but it needs to work alongside bedfellows that may be uncomfortable at times. And that demands a long-term working relationship that extends beyond passing mere pleasantries, namely holding ministers to proper account if they change their mind.
The very fact that the TV licence fee still has majority support from viewers - albeit begrudgingly in some cases - is the one major asset that the BBC still has and the one thing that will prevent an immediate dismantlement of the corporation by a Conservative administration if one was to gain power at the next election.
Therefore the BBC ought to do much more to exploit this key asset, and by definition to shift the media debate towards the inadequacies of the commercial sector that extend well beyond the changes in the media landscape that are currently taking place. You only have to look to America to see this happening.
Much has been talked about Project Canvas but until now there wasn't much to actually see of what it consisted of. Still incomplete and awaiting approval, Project Canvas promises a great deal for broadcasters and viewers in terms of convenience and features, but Canvas has predictably stirred up controversy despite its open approach.
BSkyB's public stance relating to Project Canvas is distinctly (and predictably) negative; indeed it desperately tried to draw as many similarities as possible between it and Project Kangaroo (as previously canned by the Competition Commission), hoping that by doing so Canvas will meet an equivalent fate.
However it has been said that BSkyB is privately interested in Project Canvas and the potential it may have in the video-on-demand marketplace; it's not hard to imagine Sky quietly thinking that it may ultimately be better to back a broadcaster-agnostic, UK-oriented solution as opposed to making a pact with the devil (something like Google).
Rupert Murdoch may be on record as hating both the BBC and Google, but at least the BBC has a non-commercial role to play in Project Canvas (and the Murdochs can always lean hard on politicians if they suspect any 'foul play' from their perspective), as opposed to the likes of Google (a free agent that's nearly impossible to control or dictate to).
As ultimately - like it or not - Sky's traditional strengths relate to working in concert with other broadcasters to provide variety on a satellite-based viewing platform as opposed to a more restricted choice found elsewhere (even if it does feature a proprietary encryption method and EPG).
Therefore the overall message here seems to be "Get on board or miss out", leading to the conclusion that if Project Canvas is given the go-ahead then BSkyB would be much better off participating with it as opposed to gnashing its teeth from the sidelines, particularly as Sky still has premium sports and movies to sell. (For the time being.)
This mantra is particularly true when there are a growing number of video-on-demand solutions out there, such as YouTube/Google now offering full-length programmes (and perhaps wrongly endorsed by Channel 4), Bing/Microsoft, Hulu, Boxee, See Saw/Arquiva, etc., along with the BBC's iPlayer and other existing, broadcaster-specific platforms.
Indeed the strong USP for Canvas is that it unites UK broadcasters under one convenient open platform interface, but it's this fact alone that could threaten the very existence of Canvas based on what controversially happened to Project Kangaroo, especially given the extreme negative response that the Competition Commission gave to Kangaroo.
This alone has made many people within the media industry feel that Project Canvas is ultimately doomed regardless of any differences between it and Kangaroo, especially as the Commission even went as far as preventing anything like Project Kangaroo from being resurrected within five years.
A decision that was very surprising when you consider how Sky dominates satellite television and Virgin Media does likewise for cable, combined with a negligible likelihood of an independent competitive UK-centric video-on-demand solution being developed considering the fact that most broadcasters hold many of the rights to their content.
I personally believe that the BBC Trust will decide to support the continued development of Project Canvas, albeit with some preconditions designed to ensure transparancy and fairness (the sort of thing which would inevitably be in place anyway), but again it's the Competition Commission that poses the greatest potential threat to Canvas as it stands.
Therefore it's not surprising to learn that the Commission now has a wide range of critics ranging from a House of Lords communications committee to (unsurprisingly) the broadcasters themselves; immense pressure is now being exerted onto Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw to force the Commission into giving Canvas the green light.
There are certainly strong commercial arguments for Project Canvas, but whether all of the protesting will be enough to give this much-heralded project the final go-ahead of course remains to be seen; it's not hard to recall all the very optimistic noises being made about Project Kangaroo during its early days.
And look what happened to that.
Given the fact that the UK media industry desperately needs an open and competitive video-on-demand solution in order to ensure a greater degree of future success, Project Canvas or something like it is certainly required if the UK media industry is to really thrive in the longer term.
And - like it or not - the established broadcasters will always have the upper hand, despite independent producers' dreams of truly independent programme distribution; a desire that has sometimes been cited as a reason against allowing a 'cartel' of established broadcasters controlling a distribution channel.
Or not, as is theoretically the case with the Project Canvas guarantee of independence, although there is still very much a requirement for "safety in numbers" when it comes to promoting and distributing popular content.
The alternative is a market full of confusing proprietary solutions that threaten to stagnate the consumer video-on-demand market for years to come; with dozens of potential 'Betamaxes' to avoid it's not hard to see the average viewer just relying on iPlayer and its equivalents until a foreign competitor dominates the scene.
All this market fragmentation will work in favour of Project Canvas for the time being if it is given the go-ahead, but any failure to approve any such 'universal' solution in the first place will definitely result in a major setback for the UK media industry.
It seemed rather strange that the BBC of all broadcasters should suddenly propose something that could restrict an individual's right to record and keep a television programme, especially considering all the effort that the BBC has made in the past to distribute content free to licence fee-payers.
Indeed it's commercially-funded broadcasters like ITV and Channel 4 that theoretically have more to lose from the copying of any programme-related content, because they inherently rely on the revenue obtained from commercials and sponsorship. (And pirated programming usually has this sort of content cut out of them.)
Several facts need to be borne in mind at this point, most notably that other countries have already adopted terrestrial HD broadcasting (Australia and France being two of them), with free-to-air broadcasts that don't impose any additional restrictions on the copying of content.
Also the very notion of high definition broadcasting being "very valuable" isn't going to stay that way for long; some US broadcasters now insist on HD for all of their programming, and virtually all new BBC commissions are now being made in HD along with established favourites including Doctor Who and the next series of Top Gear.
Indeed within five years it's likely that standard definition broadcasting will be predominantly associated with channels showing repeats (such as Dave) together with small specialist channels who can't afford the bandwidth; this will be especially true on cable and satellite platforms where bandwidth is less of a premium.
Plus the idea of "premium content" is not new by any means; it dates back at least to the 1960s and the birth of cable television, when specific programming like boxing matches was offered optionally for a fixed fee, and Sky has been offering a subscription TV service in the UK for the last 20 years.
All this comes at a time when the BBC is now actively being discouraged to avoid being involved in bidding wars for such things as sporting events and US imports, and not just to allegedly avoid putting up the price for commercial competitors (cost doesn't seem to be too much of an issue for BSkyB...) either.
We can only conclude that someone within the BBC's commercial division had effectively placed pressure on the corporation, perhaps with a (likely to be unjustified) fear of losing out on imports/sporting rights to satellite and cable channels which are encrypted therefore are able to offer so-called 'additional' security for rights holders.
But any lack of copy protection (or encryption) in the past hasn't stopped the BBC gaining the rights to key US imports such as Heroes or sporting events such as Formula 1, and there's no obvious reason why this state of affairs is going to change any time soon, as long as free-to-air broadcasters hold their nerve and don't bow to external pressures.
So all things considered there strictly speaking isn't any need for "a degree of content management" as envisaged by the BBC's proposal, especially when such a relatively weak protection method isn't going to stop copying for determined pirates. (It only takes one person to somehow make a file available for others to copy.)
Therefore such a method of so-called content management will only serve to make life difficult for the manufacturers of receiving equipment as well as for licence fee-payers who want to lawfully record and copy programme material for their own personal use as opposed to being dictated to by the programme makers.
Thankfully it's now very likely that the BBC will have to quickly back down over this proposal if pressured into doing so, because Freeview HD broadcasts are due to commence from Winter Hill next month (spreading elsewhere from 2010 onwards), therefore the Freeview HD specification will need to be finalised by the end of this year.
As the controversy surrounding BNP leader Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time rumbles on, it's still hard to properly determine the long term impact that this has had. However it seems very evident that Griffin has done himself few favours amongst those who are undecided on who to vote for regardless of their policy.
Based on pure logic and freedom of speech principles alone, the BBC felt obliged to feature someone from the BNP in some form of politics-based programming, especially as the BNP is a legal political party that had won seats in the European Parliament.
It's very difficult to argue against that rationale from a public service broadcasting perspective, no matter how hard you try. And there is the argument that if you ignore fringe parties altogether, there's a good chance that they will gain underground credibility amongst voters as a consequence.
This has also occurred at a time when the BBC is trying to exert its independence during an era when it is being squeezed by politicians (using "commercial considerations" as an excuse to put pressure on the corporation), therefore it cannot be actively seen to shy away from any debate that's awkward but necessary in a truly democratic society.
It seemed reasonably clear from the outset that this edition of Question Time wasn't going to be ordinary by any stretch of the imagination, and given the politically charged issues at stake there was also a very high probability of any attempted debate quickly degenerating into a shouting match.
Especially when you realise that the mainstream political parties are defending their own 'standard' immigration policies combined with the general assumption that extreme forms of immigration control (of the sort that are likely to be advocated by the BNP) are abhorrent to the vast majority of British people, regardless of political and religious beliefs.
Combine all of this with an extremist party leader who isn't exactly the greatest orator, and you end up with a combination that's very difficult to 'balance' even if ultimately representative of the composition of British politics. (Organisations like the BNP are still definitely in the minority, regardless of what some might like to think.)
Perhaps David Dimbleby could have controlled the 'debate' even tighter in order to attempt an extraction of a meaningful policy response from Nick Griffin, but when you have a basic disagreement over someone's interpretation of historical events (and by definition the ground rules for debate), then this becomes even more tricky to achieve.
There's the dilemma of giving Griffin too much time to speak unchallenged, when doing so could cause the BBC to breach rules (and commonsense) relating to the incitement of race hatred - even when Jack Straw is there and part of the debate - and anyone who is interested in BNP policy can always research the facts online for themselves.
Throw in time constraints both for the programme's length and its recording, the end result was perhaps inevitable, although it's still arguable that despite the "Jerry Springer" nature of some of its content, a valuable function was performed in terms of exposing some of the inadequacies of Griffin as a party leader (and by definition BNP policy).
There was always the possibility that any media exposure could increase the popularity of the BNP, and I suspect that the editing process was rather more fraught that it ordinarily is given its high profile and risky nature (remembering Crowngate, Sachsgate...); not to mention the dangers of getting this badly wrong both for the BBC and democracy in general.
Especially when a fair number of voters may agree with the basic anti-immigration stance that the BNP has as a main thrust of its policy and could use a BNP vote as a protest against the established parties, even if most of these voters would baulk at the more extreme actions that the BNP would use if they ever were to gain power.
And there were always going to be accusations of any debate being one-sided in one direction or the other, plus the topic of conversation would never stray far away from immigration whilst Griffin was around, given the highly controversial nature of BNP policy.
Then there's the choice of programme format for someone like Griffin to be featured in. Some have complained that an open format like Question Time was inadequate for the task at hand and a grilling by someone like Jeremy Paxman would have been more appropriate, but this ignores the fact that Paxman had already interviewed Griffin in the past.
And getting someone to interview Griffin would still attract partiality claims regardless of how careful the interviewer was and the presentation style employed. In short, virtually anything of a political nature would have its detractors regardless of format style, and a studio discussion does tend to suggest an 'open' public debate even if recorded and edited.
One perhaps unintended consequence of all of this relates to the future of the Question Time format itself, given the unusual popularity and nature of this particular edition; it may inevitably be difficult to proceed from here without careful consideration even as a long-running format (though tired, according to some critics) and is still reasonably popular.
So was the Question Time debate ultimately worthwhile? For one thing it has provided a public document of Nick Griffin as a somewhat inadequate leader - as superficially appearing to the politically-literate majority - even if any practical and lengthy debate in relation to immigration and its social impact was next to impossible under those circumstances.
Because the alternative, namely not even attempting to mention the extremist views of a tiny minority, risks the repetition of past events that would be judged by the majority to be most unwelcome in an open and generally tolerant society, even if the BNP stand no chance whatsoever of gaining any significant influence in British politics.
It's hard to feel much sympathy for Nick Griffin, the leader of the right-wing British National Party, whose controversial appearance on Question Time last night provoked a sizeable demonstration outside Television Centre and led to scuffles and arrests. His performance on air did nothing to dispel the suspicion that he still sets too much store by the politics of race for most people's comfort.
Goaded by the other panellists - Jack Straw, the justice minister and former Trotskyist; Baroness Warsi, appointed shadow minister for community cohesion to the consternation of the gay rights lobby Stonewall, Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat's home affairs spokesman and unsuccessful challenger for the party's leadership, and Bonnie Greer, a playwright and critic - Mr Griffin squirmed as he fended off constant criticism about his past involvement with the National Front and members of the Ku Klux Klan, and public pronouncements he has made about the holocaust and Islam.
Given the controversy surrounding Mr Griffin's participation, it was perhaps inevitable that many of the questions would concern the BNP. Why was the party trying to appropriate the symbols and imagery of the 1939-45 war? Would Winston Churchill, Britain's legendary wartime leader, really have found more of a home in the BNP than in David Cameron's Conservatives? How much of a problem is immigration really? To where would he repatriate non-Britons?
It was immigration where Mr Griffin was on firmest ground. Perhaps, outside of the international, multicultural audience to be expected in west London, his concerns about immigration might have garnered some sympathy. Even so, Mr Straw looked decidedly uncomfortable as Labour's record on immigration was challenged, giving shifty and evasive answers to questions.
The audience was almost uniformly hostile to Mr Griffin. Normally, the Question Time audience spans a wide age range, from teenagers to old-age pensioners. Not this time: it was much younger than usual, with people older than forty not much in evidence. In that sense, it was far from a representative cross-section of west London, never mind the United Kingdom.
The one question ostensibly about something other than the BNP itself was well chosen. Jan Moir has written for a number of newspapers, including the Guardian and Daily Telegraph, and now writes a column for the Daily Mail. Commenting on the death of Stephen Gately, a pop singer, she asked why he would go alone to bed while his partner, a business man called Andrew Cowles, had sex with a young Bulgarian guy in their apartment. Mr Gately's death, she added for good measure, had "struck another blow" to the "happy-ever-after myth" of civil partnerships.
Perhaps because of the rather snide tone, perhaps because she was perceived to be speaking ill of the dead, people reacted badly. To say that there was a number of complaints is understating it somewhat; the Press Complaints Commission, ironically enough chaired by Paul Dacre, publisher of the Daily Mail, in which paper the offending article was published, was swamped by a record 22,000 complaints in a single weekend, according to Stephen Brook of the Guardian; more than it had received over the past five years.
Mr Griffin duly trotted out his homophobic side, saying that the sight of gay men kissing in public was "creepy". Perhaps some homosexuals think that the sight of heterosexuals kissing in public is nauseous. However, Baroness Warsi did not exactly acquit herself either - her statement that homosexuals have the right to conduct civil partnerships was not exactly a ringing endorsement of the concept.
The BBC itself was not holier-than-thou. Mr Griffin later complained that the programme had departed from its usual format to concentrate on tearing him apart. It certainly made for uncomfortable viewing at times, and was less a debate than a slanging match. As such, it fell well below the standards that one normally expects from Question Time. While not exactly car crash television, it was noisy and rancorous, and a betrayal of the courtesy, decency and tolerance on which the British people pride themselves. Mark Byford, the BBC's deputy director general, later said that if the questions were mainly about the BNP that's because the audience chose the questions, but that begs the question: who chose the audience?
That in itself is a good question. Ask around on the blogosphere and you'll find people who believe the BBC to have form for packing a hand-picked audience known to be politically "sound", the Question Time immediately after 11 September 2001 being a case in point. This edition was filmed in Television Centre - how many of the audience were BBC staffers? It was certainly uniformly hostile to Mr Griffin, and on the basis of the BNP's electoral support you would expect a portion of the audience large enough to be measured to be at least a little nuanced in its criticism.
Speaking on BBC One afterwards, Diane Abbot, a Labour politician, remarked that had the programme come from outside London, the audience might have been a little more grown up and less hysterical. As it was, this broadcast had a very low signal-to-noise ratio, and, with its boos and hisses, was an unexpected, and unwelcome, curtain-raiser to this year's pantomime season.
It's no surprise to learn that ITV bosses have decided to partly apportion the blame for relatively low ratings for the return of News At Ten on an old-fashioned a London-centric title sequence as opposed to ITV's continuing credibility problem with anything beyond simple paint-by-numbers investigative journalism into "consumer issues".
Indeed the refreshing aspect of the News At Ten title sequence was that it wore its London-centric badge with pride; there was no pretending that news was being served from an anonymous location that could have been anywhere from Bolton to Botswana.
Plus this was unimportant when ITV had a truly regional structure within England, since London is the administrative capital of the United Kingdom (and still is, despite regional assemblies in Scotland and Wales), hence if one location alone had to be picked for national news than London was naturally at the top of the list.
Of course ITV plc has spent the last few years downgrading everything that was in any sense regional, which in turn made any regional aspect of the News At Ten titles stand out even more in a sea of nonspecific locational blandness that now exists outside of the regional news bulletins.
(And perish the thought that the revamped News At Ten titles as introduced nearly two years ago could now be considered old-fashioned enough to put people off watching ITV's news altogether.)
ITV's studios are no longer allowed to even announce their regional location, therefore "From Norwich, it's the quiz of the week..." would now be strictly off limits, hence it's perfectly possible to see why certain ITV employees would belatedly turn their attention to removing any legacy regional references that now stand out even more.
Therefore by removing all last traces of locational referencing in the title sequence of ITV plc's programming, we're left with a schedule that ends up being about as distinctive and independent as different branches of the same chain store; notably somewhere you don't want to spend all of your time unless you actually work for the company concerned.
If ever anyone were still sanguine about the right of free speech in this country, the débâcle this week concerning Trafigura, Carter-Ruck, The Guardian and Twitter should cause deep concern.
On Monday 12 October, The Guardian carried an almost non-report which stated, simply, that it had been injuncted from reporting Parliament. As the paper's editor, Alan Rusbridger, notes in an op-ed piece for Liberty Central, a sub-section of the commentry board, Comment is Free, just before leaving the office he tweeted: "Now Guardian prevented from reporting parliament for unreportable reasons. Did John Wilkes live in vain?"
His claim to have lit the blue-touch paper, if a shade hyperbolic, is forgiveable in the circumstances. The short story here is that Trafigura, a trading company, was trying to suppress reports claiming that it had been responsible for the dumping of toxic waste in Côte d'Ivoire. To that end, its PR firm, the notorious Carter-Ruck, took out a so-called "super injunction" to try and suppress the story.
However, an MP, Paul Farrelly, tabled the following question in Parliament:
"To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura."
Carter-Ruck told the Guardian that to report on the existence of this question would place the paper in breach of the injunction, and, ergo, in contempt of court, apparently notwithstanding the open existence of this question on the Parliament web site. However, with the help of Twitter, the story became big news in the blogosphere and twittersphere and made a mockery of the injunction. Whether, as Carter-Ruck claims, it was never its intention to encroach on the long-established right of the press to report Parliament, or, as cynics believe, it belatedly realized that it had become instrumental in bringing on Trafigura the very publicity it was trying to avoid, may never be known.
A report by ITN on the story mentioned the Minton report by name, and said it was widely available on the internet, so I have no reservations about doing the same, here and now. So far as I am concerned, the more publicity the Minton report gets the better, and I make no apology for using a blog post here on EMC to do my bit to help. The existence of these super-injunctions, which essentially amount to "we can't well you, and we can't tell you we can't tell you," should be of concern to everyone who values a free press.
This right of the press to report Parliament goes right back to the days of John Wilkes, a thorn in the side of George III and the Earl of Bute. His rebellion helped ensure the outlawing of so-called general warrants, which could apply to persons not named therein, and the general reporting of Parliamentary debates. Thanks to parliamentary privilege, no MP may be found guilty of slander or defamation by reason of anything he says on the floor of the House of Commons, nor be arrested for any civil offence. And Lord Denning reaffirmed in the 1970s that no newspaper shall be guilty of contempt of court by reporting any comments made in Parliament, including those made under privilege.
This freedom that MPs have is immensely powerful, and Parliament is aware of the need to act responsibly as its own policeman. Stringent rules regulate MPs use of privilege and to attempt to prevent abuse of that freedom. Although the reputation of Parliament as an institution and MPs as individuals is not at present at an historic high, the rights that MPs enjoy in regulating their own affairs was hard fought for and granted only after a ferocious struggle. As the parliamentary expenses row continues to undermine personal reputations, we would do well to remind ourselves exactly why MPs, historically, have been given the privileges they have. That MPs have had almost incomparable freedom to regulate their own affairs may seem anachronistic at first blush, but it is essential, here as elsewhere, to view those freedoms through the prism of history and to appreciate that the freedoms Parliament has to regulate itself are worth conserving.
CiF, the Guardian's comment section, is a broad church, in the sense that its readership spans a broad range of the political spectrum, and to its credit it published articles from both the political left and right. It often irritates sections of its readership with one article or another, but it has a good reputation for coming up trumps when it really matters, such as with this episode and with the G20 policing fiasco. And the next time someone tries to tell a newspaper or news broadcaster it cannot exercise its long-established right to report freely, without exception, on proceedings in Parliament, the correct response is: Carter-Ruck off.
UPDATE
The Guardian now reports that Carter-Ruck has capitulated. It has ceased attempts to uphold the injunction, in a sense rendering the Wikileaks cloak-and-dagger manoeuvrings redundant.
It is, of course, entirely fanciful for any blog to pretend to have had any influence on developments. No blog, by itself - not even Guido Fawkes - has that degree of influence. However, the collective chorus of indignation and shrill howls of outrage that emanated from the blogosphere amounted to an irresistible pressure, and Carter-Ruck and Trafigura had no choice but to throw in the towel. Perhaps the fact that the Minton report (and wider events surrounding this tawdry affair) being common knowledge within the blogosphere was enough to release the long-established print media from reporting restrictions is a sign of the increasing maturity of new media as a counter-balance to the official news channels of the broadcast and print media.
How libel law develops in the years ahead, in response to the emergence of new media as a serious force in the dissemination of news and current affairs, will no doubt prove to be well worth following.
Perhaps the most bizarre yet of a series of incidents that have affected the BBC in some form over the last few years, it concerns the appointment of the ex-managing director of Tigress Productions as the head of the BBC's Natural History Unit and a certain Florence Jackson winning a Blue Peter competition to design a medal for the 2012 Olympics.
Problem is, competition winner Florence Jackson is the nine year-old daughter of Andrew Jackson, namely the very same Andrew Jackson who is currently on "gardening leave" prior to taking up his position at the BBC (the Natural History Unit, if you were still wondering).
So it seems that this particular Jackson family are extremely talented in more ways than one, even though the odds of Florence winning that competition independently of her father's BBC appointment probably exceed 1,000 to 1. (There may have been more than 17,000 entries but many of them were probably rubbish anyway.)
Given the undisputed fact that Florence entered the competition before her father was even considered for the BBC position, it's unlikely that any rule(s) have been broken unless there's an obscure clause relating to the potential disqualification of a winner at the time of the results announcement.
Anyway, surely the best solution is to just take another look at Florence's winning entry. If it looks to be a legitimate competition entry of a high standard, ie. doesn't look as if it was conceived by a two year-old or drawn by a professional adult graphic designer, then it deserved to win, pure and simple.
Though of course newspapers like the Daily Mail don't believe in coincidences when their BBC-bashing happens to sell newspapers to their daily faithful.
Conveniently forgetting about GMTV (in which ITV have, ahem, a majority shareholding), ITV plc is perhaps unsuccessfully trying to demand that any new regional news franchise operation - namely something that ITV wants but doesn't want to pay for - is devoid of all branding therefore doesn't somehow 'conflict' with the ITV brand.
In short, ITV wants all of the benefits of regional news under its 'own' brand without having to pay for it, which makes a great deal of sense given ITV plc's past record of jettisoning all of its regional brands (Anglia, Central, Yorkshire, etc., even Granada), which did take a lot of time and effort.
Of course the very presence of GMTV - GMTV being an entirely separate Channel 3 franchise, even if this isn't apparent to the huge majority of its viewers - makes ITV's branding case weaker, but that naturally doesn't prevent ITV plc from trying to demand its cake and eating it while it still can.
Although anyone from ITV plc that admits in a roundabout way that something as downmarket as GMTV fits in with their other content should at least be slightly embarrassed, to quote Michael Jermey: "Anything running on ITV1 needs to fit in with the look and feel of the channel, it can't feel like it comes from a completely different place".
(Memo to Michael Jermey - technically speaking, in this case it's not ITV1 but Channel 3, as your Channel TV, STV and UTV colleagues will undoubtedly remind you.)
Anyway, as a result of any branding changes that might take place - pending any future change(s) in political administration vetoing some or all of this - ITV might even have a "Damascus conversion" on the benefits of true regional branding as it desperately tries to shore up a TV schedule that is still struggling despite some recent successes.
There again, based on current circumstances it almost certainly won't.
