I was a little taken aback by Ofcom's recommendation that legacy news media organisations like the BBC should be more prominent online. This is so they can compete more easily with alternative, less storied media organisations like GB News.
The problem, according to Ofcom, the broadcast regulator, is that these respectable sources of news are haemorrhaging viewers and listeners to brash young challengers.The reason for my surprise is that the BBC is already subsidised to the tune of around £3.7billion a year by TV license payers. That is, everybody who owns a television set and receives live television signals on it, irrespective of whether they watch the BBC or not.
Okay, a percentage of that total cost goes to other broadcasters like ITV, but only a tiny fraction. The remainder goes to the Beeb.
But according to Ofcom, that isn't enough. No, if the BBC is to address the fact that its 24-hour television news service frequently gets fewer viewers than GB News, it needs even more taxpayers' money.
Ofcom trying to rig the game against rising star GB News for having ‘wrong’ opinions is absurd - Toby Young | Ofcom trying to rig the game against rising star GB News for having ‘wrong’ opinions is absurd - Toby YoungYou'd think someone at Ofcom would have a better grasp of basic economics. If an established company is losing market share to a new start-up, more government subsidies aren't the solution.
Rather, we should let the 'invisible hand' of the marketplace do its work. If the old company wants to survive, it needs to improve its product, not beg the government to rig the game. If it can manage to do that, it thrives, and the consumer benefits from a better product. If it can't, it should go to the wall.
This basic principle of free market economics is why the latest cars to roll off the production lines in Germany, Sweden, and Japan are better than the state-subsidised vehicles that were manufactured in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union or by our own subsidised automotive industry in the 1970s.
If Ofcom had its way, we'd still be driving Austin Metros instead of BMW-built Mini Coopers. If the BBC has become the British Leyland of broadcasters, we should let it go out of business.Another possible reason for Ofcom's hand-wringing might be the concern that alternative news broadcasters like GB News are responsible for people forming the 'wrong' opinions about issues like immigration, net zero and free speech.
If only they confined their viewing to 'reliable' broadcasters like the BBC, Sky and Channel 4, they'd form the 'right' opinions (and vote Labour, Lib Dem or Green).
The problem, you see, is that the alternative media is constantly pumping out 'mis-' and 'disinformation' -- which are euphemisms the metropolitan elite uses to describe any point of view they disagree with. Or an inconvenient fact they want to suppress, such as the fact that men of Pakistani heritage are over-represented in grooming gangs.
Ofcom's suggestion that the taxpayer should fork over even more money to failing news organisations is one of the more absurd policies to emerge from the lanyard class this year. Which is why I have no doubt it will be taken up immediately by Sir Keir Starmer's Government.