But what's it for anyway?
What is television for?
The recently departed ex-BBC One controller Peter Fincham asked various media industry peers to give their opinion on the worth of television, and the resultant answers give a widespread range of responses to this question that vary from the worthy (Jeremy Paxman) to the predictable, but all of them help to provide a snapshot of the current state of the industry from the top.
Armando Iannucci's comment about BBC Three and Four having the potential to be the "British HBO" is well worth noting, although these channels really need more funding if they are to reach their full potential. Unfortunately the BBC is currently not really in a position to exploit that potential which tends to assist the viewpoint that they should be axed.
Peter Bazalgette almost invalidates his comments by including a reference to "apron strings" (which is so 1980s) - never mind the issue of regulations saving ITV and others from their own stupidity - though he's right about telling BSkyB to concentrate on subscriptions as well as stating that smaller broadcasters must "find niches or perish".
Jane Tranter predictably says that the BBC still sets standards, and she's right, although it could do with setting some more whilst it can. Julian Bellamy inevitably talks about Channel 4's public service committment, although the channel needs to progress further towards delivering a greater diversity of content as a matter of urgency.
Whilst Dawn Airey, who's now MD of Global Content at ITV, says that television's "definitely not for faking". Glad to hear that, Dawn.
