[...] McIntosh: The BBC goes a’trampling - interesting resonses form the BBC and Jeff [...]

Neil, I think you are so right about the arguement for radical action against the BBC getting easier to make. It can be its own worst enemy. The £68 million for local video greatly concerns me. I really fear for many local newspapers, and the chances of any entrepreneur publishers developing a buiness in this sphere is next to zero.
At the moment the Uk still boasts a diverse and rich media landscape. I really can’t see that being the case in a decade’s time. The BBC really could have a near-monopoly on several important sections of the media.

Hi Neil.

I’m not sure that because a researcher on Panorama hasn’t credited the excellent work of Shiny above indicates much at all. (the local news ideas are exactly that… ideas and the trust can throw them out and BBC WW are just stating the obvious about ITV).

But also in the last 2 weeks The BBC also keeps saying things (and the BBC Trust) that makes it all too clear its aware of its position as a large media player. Roly Keating appropriating for the BBC; Tom Coates mantra of “‘make the whole web better’. The BBC’s submission to Ofcom’s PSB review, and Caroline Thompson’s precursor speech to that 2 weeks ago around partnerships and sharing technology and R&D. Similarly Tony Ageh’s and James Cridland’s pledges and
descriptions at the tech crunch debate last night. The tone around the BBC, despite your post, is probably more open to partnerships and sharing than it has been for decades. Surely light years away from Greg Dyke’s belief that the BBC wasn’t there to make a few tv producers millionaires.

The WOOC (effectively a 50% outsource), the 25% indie quota for New media, BBC Jam’s closure and so are hardly illustrations of a licence fee that doesn’t contribute to or be aware of the overall UK PLC or a corporation that isn’t aware of its role.

Obviously you could call all this “warm words” as Andy Duncan said in public this week but I think the BBC are very very aware of its position; a couple of years away from another review of the licence fee and potentially a change in govt.

Anyway the problem with this sort of argument is that the result is less investment overall in public service content, data or value in the UK (regardless of its producer or its funding model) and an ignorance of the real 1000lb gorilla “crowding out innovation” all over the shop. And they’re not from White City.

I know this is a simplistic and naive (read: American) view but I wonder what the BBC would look like if it were constituted as a platform.

iPlayer would play your video. BBC news video would be available to you to show and remix. BBC international might sell ads for other British media. The BBC would, indeed, send traffic to quality British media to support it. The BBC would share its technology as a platform: open-source and/or hosted.

Instead, my British friends look at the BBC as the competitor that feels no sting of competition itself. Well, that’s rather like Google, eh?

So I wonder how products, audiences, and businesses could be built atop a BBC platform.

Hi Neil

Just to update you. I got this from the Editor of Panorama, Sandy Smith

Hi, I’m the editor of Panorama. Looking back we should have given the girls an onscreen credit as well because their contribution was excellent. This was overlooked in the final stages of a long and complicated investigation. Panorama has a new multiplatform editor, a bigger and better website on the way precisely because we recognise the new talent and opportunities out there. Didn’t get it right this time, sorry to all at Shiny and Catwalk Queen.

Lots of interesting points, as always Neil. I am, of course, going to take issue with some of them

First of all, BBC Worldwide. Now I’m not going to defend Worldwide, as a remarkably high percentage of the pronouncements that come out of it are complete toss. They also, in my experience, make virtually everyone within the main BBC give off a small, weary groan as - once again - Worldwide’s remit (to make as much cash as possible) clashes with the BBCs (public service). I wish that Worldwide was either spun off completely or at least renamed.

Second, the Shiny thing. Well, the real headline for this is “researched forgets to credit someone” - and that’s not exactly an unknown thing is the world of television. In fact, in my experience, the BBC is better at this than most - the massive, ridiculously-detailed rights and clearance documents they have for TV tends to mean they don’t forget this kind of stuff. But either way, it’s hardly something you can make a “teh BBC is evul!” argument about, unless you’re a Digg reader.

Finally, the local newspapers. Another way of looking at this is that a set of established local monopolies are seeking to prevent someone competing with them - as you probably know, local news papers (and thus, local news sites) are almost all effectively monopolies. Of course they’re unhappy about their cosy monopolies being disrupted by competition - the thing that companies in that position will always fight to avoid.

But the key question you’re missing out on is this: is it in the interests of the consumer that there is effective competition in the local news web site market? Or is it beneficial that there are private-sector monopolies? I think there can only be one answer to that.

On a national scale, we have probably the best set of news sites in the world - all of which have to compete with the BBC, and do it very well. Of course, you and the Telegraph and the rest would get more traffic if there was no BBC news - but it’s the competitive pressure that the BBC provides has forced all UK news sites to up their game, and that can only be good for the public.

Finally, of course, the bit you missed out completely: the BBC’s plans for local news will have to pass the hideousness of the Market Impact Asessment, like all big BBC projects. If the impact will be to effectively close existing sites, it will not pass the MIA, and the project will not happen. Plus, of course, an MIA will likely take 2-3 years, so existing sites have time to up the ante and produce something that’s more compelling than the BBC plans.