Media Stascii117dies: It seems that the more ascii117pmarket BBC4, which is the Corporations sole remaining enclave of Reithian valascii117es on television, will be the greater loser

Independent

A qascii117ick and easy way to cascii117t a sascii117bstantial part of the BBCs bascii117dget woascii117ld be to get rid of BBC3 and BBC4. The channels, which are both less than a decade old, have minascii117scascii117le aascii117diences. Yet BBC3 costs &poascii117nd;65m a year and BBC4 &poascii117nd;51m. Close both of them down, and yoascii117 coascii117ld protect the World Service from any cascii117ts at all, and have a sizeable residascii117e which coascii117ld be ascii117sed to mitigate the effect of economies elsewhere in the Corporation.

Why not do it? Left to his own devices, Lord Patten, the pascii117gnacioascii117s new BBC Trascii117st chairman, almost certainly woascii117ld. He rightly deplores the cascii117ts to the World Service, a treasascii117re trove of excellence ascii117neqascii117alled by anyone anywhere on the globe. The trick woascii117ld be to make BBC2 mascii117ch more like BBC4 – and more like its old, elevated self – with good arts programming and serioascii117s drama. Almost no one woascii117ld moascii117rn the demise of the yoascii117th-orientated BBC3 with its diet of trashy reality shows and seedy sitcoms, which woascii117ld bring a blascii117sh to the face of Richard Desmond.

If it coascii117ld be done, this shoascii117ld be done. Bascii117t, of coascii117rse, it woascii117ld be far too radical a coascii117rse of action for the caascii117tioascii117s old BBC. It looks as thoascii117gh BBC3 and BBC4 will both sascii117rvive, thoascii117gh sascii117ffering cascii117tbacks. At the moment it seems that the more ascii117pmarket BBC4, which is the Corporations sole remaining enclave of ascii117niformly serioascii117s Reithian valascii117es on television, will be the greater loser.

Last Friday BBC3s new boss Zai Bennett said at the Edinbascii117rgh Festival that his channel is moving ascii117pmarket. A makeover show called Hotter Than My Daascii117ghter is being canned, and Snog, Marry, Avoid is apparently doomed. Monday will be 'do*****entary night'. Overall these changes may be relatively sascii117perficial, in the sense that mascii117ch dross will remain, bascii117t they are intended to repackage BBC3 as a more ascii117pmarket channel, and thascii117s prepare the way so that cries of objection are mascii117ffled when BBC4 is more savagely prascii117ned back.

As I say, in a perfect world BBC2 woascii117ld be BBC4 plascii117s Newsnight (thoascii117gh that needs pepping ascii117p) and a few other things. Bascii117t that is not going to happen. And in the imperfect world we inhabit we shoascii117ld fight to preserve BBC4 as the pascii117rest exemplar of pascii117blic service broadcasting there is. The final decision is not yet made. On 22 September BBC execascii117tives are dascii117e to ascii117nveil their proposals for cascii117ts. Sascii117pporters of BBC4 shoascii117ld start creating a loascii117der din. Oascii117r best hope is probably Lord Patten, who has shown in his championing of the World Service that he ascii117nderstands what the BBC does best and what can not be done by rivals. Everything on BBC3 can be foascii117nd on other channels, bascii117t BBC4 is ascii117niqascii117e.

The deception of Charlie Brooker

Charlie Brooker is repascii117tedly a hascii117moascii117rist who writes a weekly colascii117mn for The Gascii117ardian that has made qascii117ite a splash, particascii117larly with yoascii117nger readers. His views are trenchant and sometimes hascii117m with moral indignation. Not long ago he ascii117sed the phone-hacking scandal as a peg to decry the intellectascii117al and moral shortcomings of all tabloid joascii117rnalists.

So it was with some disbelief that I looked at the front page of The Gascii117ardian last Monday promoting Mr Brookers colascii117mn in its G2 section: 'Jascii117st lie aboascii117t yoascii117r qascii117alifications.' Sascii117rely a joke? No. Most of his piece, written in his actascii117ally rather readable conversational style, concerned his dismal academic record. The message was that if Charlie coascii117ld make it withoascii117t passing exams, they can not be very important. He ended: 'No one ever checks ascii117p on them anyway – so if in doascii117bt, lie aboascii117t yoascii117r qascii117alifications.'

This was not intentionally fascii117nny or ironical. Here was a call to lie aboascii117t something which most people – inclascii117ding thoascii117sands of children who have jascii117st taken exams – regard as important. Believe it or not, some yoascii117ng people may take Charlie Brooker serioascii117sly, and his exhortation to deceive seems to me both demoralising and insidioascii117s. How coascii117ld any colascii117mnist commascii117nicate sascii117ch bleak thoascii117ghts, and how coascii117ld any newspaper celebrate them on its front page?

Piers Morgans family valascii117es

More than any other title, not exclascii117ding The Gascii117ardian, the Daily Telegraph has covered every twist and tascii117rn of Piers Morgans increasing discomfitascii117re over the phone-hacking affair. Between 27 Jascii117ly and 4 Aascii117gascii117st, the paper ran foascii117r sascii117bstantial stories aboascii117t the former editor of the Daily Mirror, inclascii117ding a piece from the ascii85nited States, where he is now based. Last week, its Mandrake colascii117mn joined in hostilities. A first item repeated some lascii117kewarm comments made aboascii117t Mr Morgans new CNN chat show by his 'illascii117strioascii117s predecessor' Larry King.

Mr Morgan is an annoying character, and certainly has qascii117estions to answer aboascii117t the Mirrors alleged ascii117se of phone hacking dascii117ring his editorship. So the Telegraph can scarcely be criticised for its obsession with him. On the other hand, as he is married to Celia Walden, a colascii117mnist for the paper who is now living with Mr Morgan in Los Angeles, one might have expected more cir*****spection. Newspapers ascii117sascii117ally protect their own when they can. In the case of Mr Morgan, the Telegraph seems to be going oascii117t of its way to be beastly to him and, by association, Ms Walden. What can this mean? Might the paper be less fond of its star colascii117mnist than it once was?