Jul 25, 2015 4 min read

The Public Broadcasting Service has occasionally come under fire from conservatives in the United States, and, at first glance, their arguments have had some validity: Why should taxpayers help foot part of the bill for educational programming when there are a multiplicity of cable channels out there, and more being added every day? The world in which PBS operates has changed dramatically since it was created almost 50 years ago.

The last point is plainly true. But the case gets weaker when you realize that, no, not one commercial, profit-driven outlet has come close to matching what PBS does in terms of quality and value. The cable network Bravo was launched with the intention of programming highbrow fare, but it has sunk deep into the pit of “Real Housewives” reality rubbish. The Learning Channel once offered documentaries on home improvement, history and other topics, but now, under the TLC moniker, it’s all about mindless time-wasters like “19 Kids and Counting” and “Toddlers and Tiaras.”

There haven’t been many calls to undercut PBS lately, but a battle is brewing across the pond over the BBC, Britain’s (very) rough equivalent to PBS. It has also come under fire from British conservatives, who are calling for the sprawling system of radio and television outlets to be reformed. Some of their talking points echo those that have been made in the United States about PBS, and, setting aside the well-deserved esteem that the BBC has earned both in its home country and abroad, some of their arguments shouldn’t be dismissed.

The BBC plays a more central role in British life than PBS does in this country. Every household in Britain that has a television set pays an annual licensing fee of $227 to support the BBC, which has been around since the 1920s. But it also has a presence around the world. The BBC World Service is a top-notch provider of radio news, and is used by public radio stations in this region. Its 24-hour cable news channel, also available on cable systems and satellite providers in this area, sidesteps the partisanship you find on the Fox News Channel and MSNBC in this country, and reaches into corners of the world that American networks rarely enter. The BBC is prized by many in this country and in other parts of the world. One need not be an Anglophile or a denizen of England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland to appreciate the BBC.

Oh, and lest we forget, it is the network that blessed the world with “Doctor Who” and “Monty Python’s Flying Circus.”

No one within Britain’s Conservative government is suggesting that BBC be dismantled and sold for scrap, but they are asking what the BBC’s mission should be within the new media terrain, and how it should be supported when viewers and listeners are increasingly turning to mobile devices and tuning in when it is convenient for them.

Questions are also being asked whether the BBC should be dabbling in the wide variety of programming that it does, and that it should make better efforts to coordinate its news coverage. A story in The New York Times in 2011 noted how three different BBC correspondents were on hand to cover one routine event. It’s hard to imagine any news organization that doesn’t have the taxpayers to fall back on being able to afford similar largesse.

Media reports also indicate that the BBC’s bureaucracy and the salaries of some of its executives are going to be subject to review.

From our distant vantage point here in one of Britain’s former colonies, the rationale for scrutinizing the BBC’s mission appears to be sound.

Our hope, however, is it retains its tradition of excellence once the dust settles.

The world really doesn’t need “The Real Housewives of Lancashire.”