I AGREE wholeheartedly with Doug Gillon ("An Open and shut case as an era of broadcasting at the BBC concludes" Agenda, October 7) that we should make our opinions clear to the BBC Charter Review Consultation. As licence fee payers we are entitled to speak out about the future of the BBC.
However I would suggest that we look at the BBC as a company and ourselves as shareholders. This will allow us to look at the BBC as a functioning business and examine whether it is in fact serving its customers properly. If you are an adherent of the personality cult or one who lives vicariously through reality shows then you are probably not too upset with the current output. However if you feel that public service broadcasting should serve more than a limited populist agenda then you would be voting against the current "board". If you hope to see sport then the constant reduction in sports coverage whether it is The Open or F1 or any of the other sports consigned to satellite TV must surely make you question if competent managers are in charge.
It would appear that there is a culture within the BBC which places production staff on a pedestal and ignores commercial reality. Any business which has its largest-earning product reliant on one individual would do their utmost to ensure the wellbeing of that individual. Yet when Jeremy Clarkson is going through a painful divorce, has just had a cancer scare and his mother had died the BBC's reaction is to put him under increased pressure then feign shock when he explodes. This is not an isolated incident as the very successful presenter Tim Wonnacott is suspended for being "difficult" with production staff. The BBC appears not to comprehend that the presenter of a successful programme is the most important cog in the machine.
A public service broadcaster has to be run successfully but it appears that there is a culture of resentment within the BBC and a small self-serving clique appear to be the tail wagging the dog.
Davd Stubley,
22 Templeton Crescent, Prestwick.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel