Entertainment For Lively Minds
That old canard : "Sell Radio One"
Every so often an MP will proclaim from a public platform that BBC Radio One should be sold off. Of course, he will say,it the exactly the same as commercial radio. Indeed it is unfair competition to it. With scarce BBC resources the money could be better spent. He might not actually listen to it, but its brand of ghastliness would surely flourish in the private sector.
Now, while Word mag is clearly a broad church, surely one article of faith is that R1, for all its faults (hello Mr. Moyles) is a completely different animal from tinpot local radio. Playing new music for a start : outside the capital try finding something you don't know on your local station. Or selected by a sentient being rather than a computer. And R1 does avoid those Stepford DJs created in some lab for the private sector, compared to whom the likes of Edith Bowman are as John Arlott.
But no. Paul Du Noyer, writing from The Spare Room (or is it The Dog House) is happy to see R1 sold off. Are we joining the fogeys ?
- More from Doods.
- Login or register to post comments
-
There's still good broadcasters on Radio 1
You lot ran a piece proclaiming the arrival of Dubstep. Well, who had been playing it months and months ahead of you? Mary Anne Hobbs. And where did she do it? Radio 1.
In my opinion, the argument that Radio 1 simply puts out exactly the same as commercial stations, ends there.
The arguments for and against privatising Radio One...
...have to do with something more than whether or not somebody heard something they liked on a late night radio programme. And I don't think the argument is that they do put out exactly what the commercial stations do. The argument is that by virtue of a massive tax they make it near-impossible for any independent competition to flourish without resorting to lowest common denominator programming.
I'm not convinced about privatisation one way or another but the more they insist that they must pay their stars high rates to stop them going to the commercial sector and the more they indulge in ill-advised massive promotions like the recent one involving U2 the more they must expect to be called on it. Radio One's strategy has been the same for twenty years. Go for the biggest numbers you can, use the biggest stick you can get hold of and then, once criticised, pretend that you're some kind of under-funded charity run by boy scouts.
Oh come on
£139.50 a year is hardly a massive tax compared to, say, a Sky or Virgin subscription. And how much of that goes on Radio 1? It's up to the competitors to decide whether they go for quality programming or the lowest common denominator. The Word doesn't go for the LCD to compete against Mojo, Q or the Radio Times and presumably can convince its advertisers that the demographic it reaches makes it a worthwhile vehicle for them. I see no reason why a commercial radio station couldn't do the same.
Privatising Radio 1 would create a massive national commercial station likely to suck advertising away from local stations so I'm not sure they'd welcome it.
People who propose privatisation of parts or the whole of the BBC tend to come from two camps: ideologues who hate to see anything in public ownership and those who own competing organisations such as News International and Associated Newspapers.
I don't have a Sky or a Virgin subscription
And one of the reasons is I don't have to. I don't think that applies to the £139.50 a year.
In the current climate media organisations of all kinds are reporting dramatic declines in advertising and laying off people in large numbers. There is only one media organisation in the UK that knows how much revenue it is going to have next year and the year after that. That's the one that's financed by the licence fee.
I think your last paragraph is an attempt to tar everyone with the same brush. It's like me saying that the only people who believe that Radio One should remain within the BBC are those who work for it. There are many people who think that Radio One should be privatised who don't believe the same thing should apply to Radio Four or Three. Similarly, there are many people who hold the view that the BBC should put some limit on its internet activities. All these are entirely legitimate points of view - as is the opposing one.
I believe that the BBC is hugely important within out culture. That doesn't mean that it should carry on expanding its activities in whatever way it feels like. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't take note of the changing background against which it operates. Blind loyalty is as corrosive as blind prejudice.
I agree to a point
Although I think Mr Murdoch has a very good idea how much money his organisation will have next year. Subscription rates are apparently rising as, I'm told, they generally do in a recession.
I was not trying to tar everyone with the same brush but it cannot be denied that the BBC's biggest critics tend to be other media organisations. And it's probably true that the people proposing privatisation of Radio 1 wouldn't favour the privatisation of Radios 3 and 4. I wonder which networks they listen to and don't want sullied by adverts? In fact, doesn't Radio 3 cost far more per listener than most of the other networks put together? Why not shut it down and leave the market to Classic FM? And the answer is, of course, that while they both specialise in classical music, they are as different from each other as Radio 1 is from most local commercial stations.
But I agree that there is an argument to be made that the BBC shouldn't just expand as it wants to. The backing down over the plans for localised news on their website shows that sometimes pressure pays off. But Radio 1 is hardly an expansion is it? Not that I listen to it anyway.
"Andrew Harrison likes this"
Little green thumbs up.
I'm going to disagree with Dave, which could mean handbags
in the office.
Does anyone honestly think that local commercial radio would move off its lowest common denominator setting if Radio One (or Radio Two, which is the real behemoth) were to lose its licence fee funding? Radio is the lowest-engagement medium - certain speech radio stations excepted, you turn it on and you barely pay attention. Going for the lowest common denominator isn't the consequence of the big bad BBC's advantage. It's what commercial radio does: build the biggest audience by whatever means and then sell it to an advertiser.
"Privatise Radio One" is just special pleading from the radio corporations dressed up as public good. They're not interested in diversity or variety, or the desires of listeners. They just want the biggest player off the board. It's also the thin end of the wedge for a body of vested interests which wants the licence fee abolished and the BBC dismantled. For that reason alone I say keep Radio One public.
Heavens above!
I find myself in agreement with Andrew Harrison.
Not commercially viable
Radio 1 costs almost £1,000 an hour to run, according to the BBC's own figures. How it spends that much is not particularly obvious.
Chris Moyles's salary...
...is £630,000 a year according to the BBC website. That's a start.
Be honest, when was the last time
any of us here actually listened to Radio 1?
I can't think I've tuned in since Moyles took over the breakfast show, so I wouldn't have a clue how it spends its money.
Last night
I listened the really rather good Colin Murray while tidying the kitchen last night. Rock'n'roll!
BBC 1 and Radio 1
Surely the argument being made for privatising Radio 1 could just as easily apply to Radio 2 or BBC1? Then once the BBC lose the high ratings part of it's output people will say 'why should I pay for it since it's for minority interests only and I never listen or watch?'
What has commercial radio ever done for us ?
DH may complain that commercial radio does not have the resources, but I would have more sympathy for that view if it has ever delivered anything remotely valuable, ever. With a few exceptions they have no Unique Selling Point, and are not interested in one, beyond Play Something Old after the phone-in, followed by ads. Is it a lack of resources or a failure of imagination that has them play Never Gonna Give You Up or Sisters Doing It For Themselves every single day in life (or is that just when I switch over to it) ?
Having lived in different parts of the country over many years I have lost track of the number of minority programmes, set up on commercial radio in the first flush of enthusiasm being pushed out by yet another "dance-based" show (their italics). The exceptions are...BBC local radio, which still manages to have real shows. Meanwhile I have awaited a half-decent private sector offering with some impatience. XFM has had its moments for sure, but on the whole it hasn't happened, certainly not nationally. Correct me if I am wrong but the Murdoch family , for all their resources and railing against the BBC and the licence fee, have not even tried.
Is the money R1 thinks it needs to pay Moyles and previous breakfast show presenters absurd ? Definitely, but that is a wider BBC argument rather than just Radio One , surely, as per Jonathan Ross and the rest. Was the U2-suck-up revolting ? God, yes. But that is a long way from being even the whole of Radio 1 and a long way from wanting to dispense with it.
Miles Copeland used to say that the greatest asset to new music in the UK was the dole, because it gave musicians time to work at their stuff. Perhaps Radio 1 is the broadcasting equivalent, without which we might have less landfill indie but a lot more bands doing covers in hotel bars ? So yes, the question is do we want to pay for that ? Until commercial radio steps up then I still say yes.