Do you ever get the feeling that when it is placed under the wider scrutiny of its peers and industry regulators such as Ofcom, that BSkyB (forever to be shorted to good old “Sky”), just stamps its feet like a spoiled child worrying about a bigger boy coming to nick its sweets?
The broadcaster’s recent submission as part of Ofcom’s current review of public service broadcasting (reported by The Guardian) is somewhat teary, particularly in relation to the BBC’s (and a lesser extent Channel 4) activity in purchasing shows from overseas.
“The BBC should step back entirely from other areas. In particular, there is no justification for the BBC using public money to outbid commercial broadcasters for Hollywood films and US series”
This does seem to be a harshly territorial stance from Sky, which clearly has a vested interest in being able to cherry pick the best shows from across the pond. Having first run rights to shows like Lost, Battlestar Galactica and The Simpsons is a hugely important element of Sky’s broadcasting model, one that has served the broadcaster well over the years. But to suggest the BBC should be barred from this market is churlish at best.
It seems that Sky is of the opinion that the BBC’s function as the country’s premier public service broadcaster is to shore up ailing parts of the television industry that the commercial sector can’t be bothered to deal with as there’s no profit to be made. Now I don’t blame them for that, it’s in the nature of Sky (and ITV’s) sector of the market to follow the money. However, I’ve argued for a long time that the BBC must be all things to all people - an informer, educator and entertainer, the very foundation of Lord Reith’s public service values. Under that pretext, why should Auntie be prevented from bringing its audience the best of international television?
One could argue that the BBC should relate its activities solely to making homegrown programming - there’s certainly a strong case for that viewpoint. But equally the case to bring an acclaimed and popular show such as Heroes to the wide audience that the BBC has access to is also there. I’m not advocating that Auntie should be wading in with the chequebook for disposable tat like the new Knight Rider (we’ve got ITV2 for that!). But if it’s the choice between having a top quality US drama like Damages or a new series of The Invisibles, I’d take Glenn Close any day!
There should be caveats and limits on what the BBC are allowed to do in this respect, of course, in the interests of diversity across the broadcasting sphere. Certainly I wouldn’t want to see an import propping up prime time BBC1, and I wouldn’t want to see more than one import of the stature of Heroes in the mix. There, wasn’t that easy?
Sky wasn’t too worried back in the day when it had a virtual monopoly on US imports propping up its schedules. Now we have channels like ITV2 with a certain amount of buying power, it’s harder for Sky to get its hands on everything it wants. So when a show like Heroes comes along, that fits the Sky demographic so perfectly, it must be galling to lose out on it.
“Is it right that a public service broadcaster like the BBC buys Heroes for the money it did?”
It hurts doesn’t it, when you’re the one receiving the bloody nose for a change? I wonder how Channel 4 felt after it built up a credible audience for equally high-profile US import Lost, only for Sky to swoop in and nick from under them?
I sympathise with Sky’s position, I really do; especially now the broadcaster is investing more in homegrown drama. It gives the company a more credible voice in the market place. However, to suggest the BBC can’t bring the occasional high quality drama from the international market to the schedules would place an unfair and unworkable limit on the corporation.
Leave a comment