TALK OF THE TRADE : Risky business?
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The Royal Television Society holds regular dinners, usually convivial affairs. But last week's was not. It was used by Robert Philis, the normally avuncular deputy director-general of the BBC, to launch a blistering attack on the The Independent Television Commission for daring to question the BBC's commercial strategy, of which he is architect.
Underlying the tension is the scepticism with which commercial television views the BBC's attempts to convince the world it can separate its expansionary commercial activities (funnelled into Worldwide Television and Worldwide Publishing) from its publicly funded mainstream output.
This is partly because the BBC has never been open about how it set up and funded its satellite TV service, BBC World Service Television. The worry is that licence fee-funded services and assets will in effect subsidise supposedly commercial ventures.
What really grates is that the ITC suggested (in its submission to the Department of National Heritage in response to the BBC White Paper) two public policy options: that licence fee income or income from the sale of surplus BBC assets should not be put at risk in new business ventures, or used as equity (risk) capital, and that, most wounding, commercial exploitation of BBC assets should be carried out by arm's-length franchise holders, rather than the BBC itself.
The implication is that franchisees would do it more efficiently, and cut out the kind of dilemmas about where costs should be allocated.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments