BBC Trust has given go-ahead to the launch of BBC.com, which means that international users of BBC website will see adverts on selected pages in the near future. The rationale behind this move is that adverts is the obvious way to ask international users, who don't pay license fee, to contribute to the cost of running the website.
Yeah, it could be unfair that international users enjoy BBC content without contrbuting one penny. But I think the rationale behind putting adverts on the BBC website is not really solid, and to some extent, could incur the issue of fair trading.
Basically, BBC is not a commercial organisation. Domestically, it "educates, entertains and informs" the British, but internationally, it promotes the values of UK around the world. One of its public service remits is to "bring the UK to the world". So the BBC international website is not just serving free lunch to international users. It is in the interest of UK, and therefore in the interest of the license fee payers at large. This is more important to those debates on whether it is fair for international users to access the BBC content without paying license fee.
On the other hand, putting adverts on the BBC website would damage the clean image of the BBC, which has been acclaimed as the flagship of public service broadcasting. When studying journalism at school, my British lecturer Morgan appeared very proud when talking about BBC, saying that it has no adverts at all, while expressing his contempt when talking about the comemrcial network CNN. Now, the adverts could increase the revenue for BBC, but the reputation has been hurt. Doing cost-benefit analysis, is BBC really money-wise?
My third point is that the adverts on BBC could lead to another issue: fair trading. Especiall in Europe, other commercial websites, also hungry for online advertisments, will complain that the BBC website will use public money to compete with them. This is in conflict with fair trading, a principle widely adopted in Europe. I remembered Royal Mail had been accused of recieved public funding to compete with other market players. This issue could be brought to the fore in the future.
Showing posts with label BBC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BBC. Show all posts
Friday, 19 October 2007
Tuesday, 11 September 2007
Olympic Logo, epileptic and doping
The BBC was in hot water again as the Coporation was yesterday censured for showing footage of the 2012 Olympic logo which could have triggered epileptic seizures.
While defending itself, BBC said that a major public body (hereof LOCOG) launching a promotion such as this to the public would already have taken steps to ensure compliance and that the graphics would have been tested for photosensitivity and be safe for it to broadcast. The BBC said it would not normally expect to test such images before broadcast."
But Ofcom ruled that "...it is the responsibility of the broadcaster to ensure that flashing images..... This responsibility is particularly important where there is the potential for harm to viewers. The broadcast of this material was therefore in breach of Rule 2.13."
The ruling of Ofcom reminds me of doping in sports. An athlete who failed doping test often claimed to be innocent, arguing that they did not take the forbidden substance intentionally, or somebody have spiked their food, and among others. But
whether intentional or innocent, the responsibility lies with the athletes themselves to ensure that no performance-enhancing drugs in their body.
The rules and regulations on doping serves as very good explanation of what is the responsibility. it is the same case on the issue of epileptic. BBC could shift the reponsibility to the Locog, which had the logo designed, but as a broadcaster, BBC has to ensure its content broadcast is free of those "banned substance" .
By the way, today's reading also led me to think of another question on the relationship between Ofcom and BBC. Recently BBC have been either fined or being censured by Ofcom, but BBC is actually a very special broadcaster as it has its own regulator in the form of BBC Trust. However, recent cases show that Ofcom has played a very active role in the regulation of BBC. I got full answers from the MOU between BBC Trust and Ofcom reached in March.
While defending itself, BBC said that a major public body (hereof LOCOG) launching a promotion such as this to the public would already have taken steps to ensure compliance and that the graphics would have been tested for photosensitivity and be safe for it to broadcast. The BBC said it would not normally expect to test such images before broadcast."
But Ofcom ruled that "...it is the responsibility of the broadcaster to ensure that flashing images..... This responsibility is particularly important where there is the potential for harm to viewers. The broadcast of this material was therefore in breach of Rule 2.13."
The ruling of Ofcom reminds me of doping in sports. An athlete who failed doping test often claimed to be innocent, arguing that they did not take the forbidden substance intentionally, or somebody have spiked their food, and among others. But
whether intentional or innocent, the responsibility lies with the athletes themselves to ensure that no performance-enhancing drugs in their body.
The rules and regulations on doping serves as very good explanation of what is the responsibility. it is the same case on the issue of epileptic. BBC could shift the reponsibility to the Locog, which had the logo designed, but as a broadcaster, BBC has to ensure its content broadcast is free of those "banned substance" .
By the way, today's reading also led me to think of another question on the relationship between Ofcom and BBC. Recently BBC have been either fined or being censured by Ofcom, but BBC is actually a very special broadcaster as it has its own regulator in the form of BBC Trust. However, recent cases show that Ofcom has played a very active role in the regulation of BBC. I got full answers from the MOU between BBC Trust and Ofcom reached in March.
Monday, 16 July 2007
BBC:it never rains but pours
The last week was nothing but nightmare for BBC, whose credibility appeared to be put into question. first it was fined 50,000 pounds for faking a winner on Blue Peter Phone-in competition, then was hit by the Crowngate affair, before the Treasury complained about a BBC Newsnight program on new PM Gordon Brown.
It seems that it never rains but pours, and the public service broadcaste is facing its biggest crisis of confidence since a slip of the tongue by Andrew Gilligan on the Today programme led to a bitter battle with the government and brought down the BBC's director-general and chairman. But there is still difference between them. BBC won much sympathy and support from both media and society in general in the Gilligan affair, however, on this occassion, BBC could only have themselves to blame.
what is wrong with the editing control of the BBC? The two films on Gordon and Queen
respectively are commissioned to the indepedent producers, like RDF or an indepedent document-maker. They may not be the in-house staff, but for the outsiders, they all represent BBC. Of course, when commissioning the programs from the indepedent producers, BBC has editorial control, which is also stipulated in the Code of Practice of BBC Commissioning. However, the Code of Practice is full of the rules and regulations on programming rights and revenue participation, with only three or four lines devoted to the section of Editorial Control. It could show that what people mainly concern is not the editorial control but the way of dividing commercial benefits between them.
Besides, what I can'tunderstand or accept is the way they, whether BBC or indepedent producers, edit the programs. They could change the sequence of events for dramatic effects, to drive up the viewer ratings. Unfortuantely such kind of mediation is linked with BBC, which could undermine the reputation of the dedicated public service broadcaster. That would be the last thing on the mind of BBC management, since BBC has tried to distinguish itself from other commercial broadcasters or new media by describing it as a reliable and credible source of information in the digital age.
BBC could reduce the pressure by shifting blame to the indepedent producers, but it would be fragile excuse, since they are expected to have editorial control on it. In this case they should focus on themselves and doing some "serious" heartsearching. instead of finding scapegoats. Alastair Campbell's diary revealed that both Blair and him tended to use the term "not serious" to describe those who they disagree with or dislike. In this case, Campbell, who has had a checkered history with BBC, would say that BBC is "not serious" enough.
Damage have been done, although BBC could adopt some damaging-limiting measures. But the most important is to be serious enough, but not panicky, to find out the bottom cause. Does BBC have given too much attention to ratings and commercial rights, instead of editorial content? Does BBC have, inadvertently, been driven by the market and confuse them with other commercial broadcasters? Such questions are really serious questions BBC need to think seriously about.
It seems that it never rains but pours, and the public service broadcaste is facing its biggest crisis of confidence since a slip of the tongue by Andrew Gilligan on the Today programme led to a bitter battle with the government and brought down the BBC's director-general and chairman. But there is still difference between them. BBC won much sympathy and support from both media and society in general in the Gilligan affair, however, on this occassion, BBC could only have themselves to blame.
what is wrong with the editing control of the BBC? The two films on Gordon and Queen
respectively are commissioned to the indepedent producers, like RDF or an indepedent document-maker. They may not be the in-house staff, but for the outsiders, they all represent BBC. Of course, when commissioning the programs from the indepedent producers, BBC has editorial control, which is also stipulated in the Code of Practice of BBC Commissioning. However, the Code of Practice is full of the rules and regulations on programming rights and revenue participation, with only three or four lines devoted to the section of Editorial Control. It could show that what people mainly concern is not the editorial control but the way of dividing commercial benefits between them.
Besides, what I can'tunderstand or accept is the way they, whether BBC or indepedent producers, edit the programs. They could change the sequence of events for dramatic effects, to drive up the viewer ratings. Unfortuantely such kind of mediation is linked with BBC, which could undermine the reputation of the dedicated public service broadcaster. That would be the last thing on the mind of BBC management, since BBC has tried to distinguish itself from other commercial broadcasters or new media by describing it as a reliable and credible source of information in the digital age.
BBC could reduce the pressure by shifting blame to the indepedent producers, but it would be fragile excuse, since they are expected to have editorial control on it. In this case they should focus on themselves and doing some "serious" heartsearching. instead of finding scapegoats. Alastair Campbell's diary revealed that both Blair and him tended to use the term "not serious" to describe those who they disagree with or dislike. In this case, Campbell, who has had a checkered history with BBC, would say that BBC is "not serious" enough.
Damage have been done, although BBC could adopt some damaging-limiting measures. But the most important is to be serious enough, but not panicky, to find out the bottom cause. Does BBC have given too much attention to ratings and commercial rights, instead of editorial content? Does BBC have, inadvertently, been driven by the market and confuse them with other commercial broadcasters? Such questions are really serious questions BBC need to think seriously about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
