IT IS a measure of the remarkable nature of the BBC that its director-general, George Entwistle, was finally driven from the job he had only recently acquired by one of the corporation’s interviewers. He had just about survived revelations that a celebrated, recently deceased, presenter had been using his position to abuse children, and that “Newsnight”, a current-affairs programme, had shelved an investigation into the scandal; he might have held on in the wake of the broadcast of an item wrongly accusing a former senior Conservative politician of child abuse (without even a cursory check of the evidence). But the loss of confidence in him following a devastating interrogation by John Humphrys on the “Today” morning radio programme on November 10th did for him.

Mr Entwistle’s departure, however, should not obscure the real issue lying behind the BBC’s difficulties. In his fumbling radio performance, he put his finger on the problem. “The organisation is too big,” he admitted. Britain needs to reform the way it runs public-sector broadcasting, and that insight should inform the process.

The BBC has long dominated Britain’s media, but in recent years it has got even bigger, both absolutely and relatively. Many serious broadsheet and local newspapers are dying. Tabloid newspapers have been shamed by a phone-hacking scandal, and are likely to endure stricter oversight in future (see Bagehot). The corporation gets £3.6 billion ($5.7 billion) a year from a licence fee levied on every household that watches television, and is therefore invulnerable to the vagaries of the media market, while the technological change that has caused other media outlets to shrivel has given the BBC new scope for expansion. It has a huge online presence and a proliferation of digital television channels and radio stations. With a staff of around 23,000, it is the largest broadcaster in the world.

The BBC makes good use of some of this money. Its documentaries, serious radio output (such as “Today”) and website are excellent. Although polls show trust in it is declining, the reputations of other great British institutions, such as Parliament and the City, have fallen further still. The BBC remains respected around the world and is a handy tool for projecting British interests—cheaper and cleaner than bombs.

Yet Britons’ attention has drifted to other entertainments. The BBC’s share of British viewing time has dropped from over a half three decades ago to under a third today as pay-television and free multichannel services have grown. Britons have noticed. According to a YouGov survey in 2010, 60% regard the licence fee as poor value for money. And the decline of private-sector media outlets raises questions about the impact of the BBC’s public subsidy. The Guardian, for instance, might make a go of being a British-based global online, leftish news provider, were it not for the state-funded competition.

Forget the fripperies

The BBC’s size, as Mr Entwistle pointed out, is a problem not just for the competition but for the organisation itself. Its bloated management means that those at the top do not know what’s going on at the bottom, and stunts creativity (see article). Few of its dramas or comedies are world-beaters (“Downton Abbey”, a current hit, is made by an American-owned independent studio and broadcast on ITV). Even in news, recent big stories, such as phone-hacking and MPs’ expenses, have been broken by impoverished newspapers, not the sluggish state-backed monolith. Editors should edit—and be responsible for it—not report to compliance officers.

The radical solution would be to get rid of a lot of the BBC. Public broadcasting should focus on areas where the market does not provide—expensive things such as investigative journalism and foreign reporting, serious radio, some areas of arts and science broadcasting—and forget about the prime-time entertainment shows and sports where the BBC spends taxpayers’ money bidding up stars’ wages. A smaller, more focused organisation would find it easier to take risks and innovate.

The BBC’s defenders say that, without popular fodder like “Strictly Come Dancing”, audiences would shrink, and the licence fee become impossible to defend. It probably would; and a good thing too, since it is a regressive tax. Public-service broadcasting should be paid for by the Treasury, through a long-term grant made by a self-perpetuating independent body that kept it at arm’s length from politicians.

A better objection to a complete overhaul now is that politicians have no appetite for such a radical solution, and the BBC needs a set of fixes quickly. One useful change would be to split the job of director-general into those of chief executive and editor-in-chief. The first would be a manager, charged with making the monolith more efficient; the second would be a journalist, charged with producing accurate, hard-hitting stories—and refocusing the output on quality.

Britons are naturally resistant to radical ideas. As the 20th century showed, that is, by and large, a good thing. The danger, though, is that unreformed organisations wither and die, or implode. The media business is one of Britain’s strengths. If it is to stay that way, the BBC needs to change.