Eleanor Blatchley
: Human Rights, Hashtags and the UK's Policy Towards Central Asia
Natalie Bennett
: Media Reform: Time to Go Back to Leveson
James Snell
: PRISM: Who Cares?
Alex Ford
: Talking to the Taliban in Afghanistan Doesn't Betray the Dead - It Honours Them
Rob Hopkins
: Why Local Economies Hold the Key to Our Economic Future
In the past few weeks the BBC has produced some really high quality programming. It has produced some programming that falls very much within their remit of public service broadcasting.
Examples of this high quality broadcasting include the shamelessly high-brow 'Great Thinkers In Their Own Words', some tremendous documentaries about Italy, Scotland and Liverpool, first class programming about popular, roots and classical music, and some fascinating documentaries about sculpture and art. On top of this, they have reshown the seminal 'All Our Working Lives' - about unemployment in the North East.
All of these pieces of programmes are thoroughly within the public service ethos that should be running through the BBC's bloodstream. It is hard to imagine any other broadcaster making them. All of these programmes were shown on the excellent BBC4.
It comes as something of a shock, then, to discover that the BBC is, according to the Guardian, considering scaling back BBC4, as part of a cost cutting drive. This scaling back will, apparently involve the channel that is focused on high quality documentaries and innovative programming, becoming solely focused on "arts and repeats."
The report suggests that the BBC is keen to preserve BBC3 instead. BBC3 is home of such anti public service programmes as the repellent "Geordie Finishing School For Girls" , as well as "Fast Food Baby" and "Underage and Pregnant". It's hard to see how BBC3 fulfils the public service remit in a better way than BBC4.
Such a scaling back would surely be as mistaken as the BBC's attempt to axe Radio 6 (another excellent station that does things that could not be done in the commercial sector). BBC4 regularly represents public service broadcasting at its best. At times, it alone justifies the licence fee. The BBC should think twice before meddling with a winning formula.
Follow David Skelton on Twitter: www.twitter.com/djskelton
This sounds like a fantaatic idea - I definitely want to see BBC Four become a much stronger channel.
The notion that it has to be an "either Four or Three" position is totally illogical. They cater to totally different audiences, and Three fulfills it's remit very very well. It certainly won't be the sort of programming that the average BBC Four viewer watches, but to criticise it with "we should scrap that instead" just comes off as adolescent whining.
Nowhere does it say that a "wrecking ball" (The Telegraph's words) is to be taken to the channel. It will not have as much entertainment or drama on it, but those will most likely be moved to BBC Two which will be improved as a result.
It's a shame that people are getting so angry about this and attacking the BBC wholesale as a result. The BBC comes under fire from plenty of people hungry to see it lose the license fee - it really doesn't need the level of fevered criticism it's been getting from people who supposedly love something it does very well.
No Wallander, no 'The Killing' -- definitely not a smart idea.
BBC3 is absolutely awful - They have tried to make documentaries on there but they are absolutely rubbish. I only watched it when Torchwood was on.
BBC4 is an outpost of quality broadcasting, where one assumes the writers and directors expect a modicum of intellectual acuity behind the eyes of the viewers.
I support Sky Arts 1 and 2 for the same reason.
Dave Grout
Stourport on Severn
Worcs