tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/bbc-licence-fee-9139/articlesBBC licence fee – The Conversation2023-04-21T12:02:47Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2042012023-04-21T12:02:47Z2023-04-21T12:02:47ZTwitter drops ‘government-funded’ label for media organisations – here’s what it should use instead<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/522152/original/file-20230420-18-jkcnd1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=134%2C42%2C4570%2C3080&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/professional-microphone-radio-station-studio-on-1932559997">Andrei_Diachenko/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>After objections from a number of major media organisations, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/technology/twitter-removes-state-affiliated-media-tags-some-accounts-2023-04-21/">Twitter appears to have dropped</a> its media account labels. The labels drove <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/canada-public-broadcaster-joins-npr-in-quitting-twitter-over-label-uproar-db812525">at least two</a> media organisations from the platform, and enraged followers <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2023/04/17/twitter-adds-more-government-funded-labels-to-global-news-outlets">of many others</a>. </p>
<p>The BBC <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-65226481">pushed back</a> against its initial designation of “government-funded media”. This was highly misleading given that the BBC is funded primarily through licence fees paid directly by the public.</p>
<p>“Our goal is simply to be as truthful and accurate as possible. We’re adjusting the label to be ‘publicly-funded’, which I think is perhaps not too objectionable,” Twitter CEO Elon Musk told the BBC <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlCKYTm4jGc">in an interview</a>.</p>
<p>US public radio station NPR was the first to stop tweeting after being labelled “government-funded”. More than 99% of its funds do not come from federal sources, and it retains editorial independence from the US government. Even this label was a step down by Twitter, which had first assigned it “state-affiliated”. Canada’s CBC followed a week later. </p>
<p>All of these designations risk muddling the already misunderstood world of media funding. But Twitter doesn’t need to concoct a new label. There is already a term that exists to describe these organisations: public service media.</p>
<p>Twitter’s use of designations fundamentally misunderstands how public service media is funded and operates. And, as global association the Public Service Media Alliance has <a href="https://www.publicmediaalliance.org/pma-calls-for-nprs-state-affiliated-designation-to-be-revoked">pointed out</a>, at a time of heightened disinformation it risks turning people away from accurate, reliable and trustworthy sources of information.</p>
<p>Public service media has its origins in the UK in the 1920s. Recognising the power in the ability to communicate simultaneously with millions of people across large geographic areas, the BBC was established as a public service broadcaster to ensure that no single government had the ability to wield that power. </p>
<p>Funding was essential to this model. The licence fee introduced in the 1920s was designed to limit the government’s ability to control the BBC by interfering with its funding. It also instilled the ethos of the BBC as an organisation funded and owned by the people of the UK, not the state. </p>
<p>Crucially, with public funding also comes regulation. Remits and laws set out the responsibilities of public service media organisations and hold them accountable to independent regulatory bodies (Ofcom in the UK). Although funding public service media directly from taxation can open the doors to government interference, independence can be secured through robust legislation and a <a href="https://www.publicmediaalliance.org/resources/psm-funding-models">strong, independent regulator</a>.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1646138100035272704"}"></div></p>
<h2>The danger of mislabelling</h2>
<p>The danger of Twitter’s mislabelling of public service media as government-funded or state-affiliated is that it blurs the boundaries between media services that are owned and run by the state, and those that are independent from state control. </p>
<p>This is already a misunderstood subject. In my team at the University of Huddersfield’s <a href="https://research.hud.ac.uk/institutes-centres/cpc/ourprojects/routes/#:%7E:text=Routes%20to%20Content%20addresses%20the,connected%20and%20on%2Ddemand%20viewing.">research with UK audiences</a>, we found significant variety in people’s understanding of public service media. Some believed that the BBC was funded by government, others that the UK didn’t have a public service media system at all. Public service media organisations that are state-funded are likely to be <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333247527_Public_Service_Media_in_Europe_Exploring_the_Relationship_between_Funding_and_Audience_Performance">less trusted and seen as less independent</a>.</p>
<p>It also leaves the door open for confusion between state-funded public service media – legislated to be independent from government – and state-run media. These organisations, such as the China Media Group and Russia Today, act as mouthpieces for the government itself. Labelling independent public service media organisations as government-funded could confirm misguided assumptions that government funding = government control.</p>
<p>Partly because of the remit for independent and accurate news, strong public service media leads to <a href="https://www.ebu.ch/publications/research/login_only/infographic/the-value-of-psm">stronger democracies</a>. Research <a href="https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/research/files/Analysis%2520of%2520the%2520Relation%2520Between%2520and%2520Impact%2520of%2520Public%2520Service%2520Media%2520and%2520Private%2520Media.pdf">indicates</a> that public service media have a net positive impact on levels of political knowledge and may increase political participation.</p>
<h2>Public service, government influence?</h2>
<p>In reality, however, the role of public service media is becoming murkier in the UK. While legislation instils the importance of the BBC’s independence, in effect this is undermined by the fact that the government appoints the BBC’s chair, makes appointments to its board, and determines the level and nature of its funding.</p>
<p>The current chairman, Richard Sharp, is <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/d2ee7d01-0fe4-48f9-b134-993395a1c5d2">under investigation</a> for failing to divulge his role in facilitating a loan for the former prime minister, Boris Johnson. </p>
<p>The UK government can also exert control over the BBC because it sets the terms and amount of the licence fee. There have been <a href="https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/medialse/2022/02/11/time-for-fresh-and-radical-thinking-on-the-licence-fee/#:%7E:text=The%20government's%20announcement%20for%20BBC,2024%20to%2031%20March%202028">significant cuts</a> over the past decade, and more recently, rumours about <a href="https://inews.co.uk/news/media/bbc-licence-fee-will-be-axed-and-replaced-by-government-grant-and-subscription-john-whittingdale-predicts-1371762">removing the licence fee</a> and replacing it with a subscription model. This would fundamentally undermine that key tenet of public service media being owned by and serving the whole nation. </p>
<p>In this regard, Elon Musk is right. It does matter how the media is funded, and government influence over media funding (whether state controlled or public service) can undermine independence and trust. </p>
<p>Mislabelling public service media organisations will not help this situation. Greater independence from government control over funding for public service media would. A good start in the UK would be to follow the <a href="https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/medialse/2015/07/15/lessons-from-germany-for-the-bbc/">German model</a> where an independent body is responsible for setting the terms of funding, much as already exists in the UK in relation to MPs’ pay. </p>
<p>This debacle also raises uncomfortable questions about the significant power Musk is able to wield through his ownership of Twitter. Whether that is in reportedly being able to control how visible and prominent <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/14/23600358/elon-musk-tweets-algorithm-changes-twitter">his own tweets are</a>, to setting the terms by which media organisations are understood by the public.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/204201/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Catherine Johnson receives funding from UKRI and the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. She is a member of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's (DCMS) College of Experts. </span></em></p>Calling media organisations ‘government-funded’ risks turning people away from reliable sources of information.Catherine Johnson, Professor in Media and Communication, University of HuddersfieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1930382022-10-26T13:44:12Z2022-10-26T13:44:12ZBBC at 100: scrapping the licence fee would disrupt the whole broadcasting market<p>The BBC has been celebrating its 100th birthday this year, proudly looking back on a century of striving to <a href="https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/mission">inform, educate and entertain</a>. The next few years could be tricky though – as questions over its funding threaten to crash the party. </p>
<p>The media landscape has changed dramatically since 1922, and the UK needs to decide whether it still wants or needs a broadcaster funded through public means and answerable to the public – or whether it should be paid for by individual consumers and answerable to the market. </p>
<p>This is not a rhetorical or obscure philosophical question. It affects everyone who pays the <a href="https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/bbc-centenary-a-history-of-the-tv-licence-fee-42074416.html">BBC licence fee</a>, which currently costs £159 a year. </p>
<p>That fee was originally based on the concept that those with the technology to access BBC programmes (originally a radio, then a TV set) should pay for its content. The licence and the governance of the BBC were both deliberately designed to reduce the influence of government, consumers and businesses. </p>
<p>Today, in a world where TV screens are filled with content created by the likes of Netflix and Amazon, some believe the licence fee needs to change. Some would like to see it abolished altogether. </p>
<p>There are those, for example, who would like the licence fee to <a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/new-household-tax-could-replace-22592503">become a tax</a>, connected to the taxes paid on homes (similar to council tax) or incomes. But this would give the government greater influence over the BBC’s funding in the same way that it controls other social services. </p>
<p>Some would like the BBC to rely more on <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/b113f782-4756-11e5-af2f-4d6e0e5eda22">funding from advertising</a>. But the UK TV advertising market is worth around <a href="https://www.statista.com/topics/3155/television-industry-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/#dossierKeyfigures">£4 billion a year</a>, while the BBC licence fee <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/284705/the-bbc-s-licence-fee-income-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/">generates £3.8 billion</a>. If the BBC started relying on money from advertising, commercial broadcasters would take a significant hit, and the BBC would have to function with a much reduced income. </p>
<p>Others argue that the BBC should become a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/18/bbc-centenary-fewer-big-salaries-richer-rivals?amp;amp;amp">voluntary subscription service</a>, falling into line with Disney+, Netflix, or Apple TV. None of those, of course, provide the range of content of the BBC and are commercial services focused on providing content which brings optimal revenue. </p>
<p>Yet a recent <a href="https://committees.parliament.uk/work/6513/bbc-future-funding/news/172140/communications-and-digital-committee-publishes-its-report-on-bbc-future-funding/">official inquiry</a> into BBC funding concluded that a change was necessary to ensure its sustainability, arguing that at least a partial subscription for some public broadcasting services should be considered.</p>
<p>The government’s own submission to that inquiry argued that the licence fee “is a regressive tax” because it demands the same payment regardless of wealth or income. </p>
<p>A similar argument has been put forward by those who contend that taxation, subscriptions and advertising should be considered instead. Some of those would also be regressive of course, unless they were specifically means-tested – something that could also be applied to the existing licence fee.</p>
<p>Other <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Power-Without-Responsibility-Press-Broadcasting-and-the-Internet-in-Britain/Curran-Seaton/p/book/9780415710428">specialists</a> have focused on the benefits of the BBC to the UK and its citizens and the need to ensure it is universally available. A <a href="https://www.publicmediaalliance.org/future-public-service-television-uk-report-published/">2016 inquiry</a> on the future of public service broadcasting concluded that the licence fee provided the best protection of the independence of public service broadcasters. </p>
<h2>What’s on next?</h2>
<p>My <a href="https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2017-06/What%20if%20there%20were%20no%20BBC%20TV_0.pdf">own studies</a> make it clear that the current television funding models (licence fee for the BBC, advertising and/or subscription for commercial networks) co-exist well, and that efforts to merge them would damage all three. <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0267323120903688">Subsequent research</a> reveals that BBC funding does not undermine commercial broadcasters, which remain highly successful and competitive. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JZxMFc1WylE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>How the government deals with the BBC’s funding will therefore have a significant impact on the UK – economically, culturally and politically. And ultimately these choices are not just about the BBC, but about the entire UK broadcasting market. </p>
<p>If subscription or advertising are favoured as future funding models for the BBC, significant resources will be taken away from the commercial sector, affecting the financial performance of broadcasting and streaming firms, as well as independent production companies in the UK. The total amount of money available to all UK TV companies will decline and their contributions to regional and national economy and employment will diminish. </p>
<p>If taxes are selected as a funding mechanism, new tax collection and management departments will need to be created and staffed, driving up public expenditure.</p>
<p>These are not simple choices that should be hastily made based on debatable political ideology. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/bbc-at-100-the-future-for-global-news-and-challenges-facing-the-world-service-192296">BBC at 100: the future for global news and challenges facing the World Service</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The BBC has long been the envy of television viewers worldwide, especially those in countries where broadcasting is either state run or else overwhelmed by a steady diet of commercially driven programming of questionable quality. Representation of regional populations, children, the elderly and minorities are usually ignored. Educational materials and programmes about nature or culture are often missing. </p>
<p>The funding changes under consideration will determine whether or not the BBC continues to serve broader social interests, provide multiple services, and maintain its desirable reputation. They will also decide whether viewers should have access to broadcasting content that remains free of government and market control.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/193038/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Picard does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>How long does the licence fee have left?Robert Picard, Senior Research Fellow, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism and Research Fellow, Green Templeton College, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1751282022-01-18T16:51:52Z2022-01-18T16:51:52ZBBC funding: licence fee debate risks overlooking value of UK’s public broadcasters<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441339/original/file-20220118-21-pupmgr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=17%2C0%2C5723%2C3821&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Value for money? The BBC's funding model is under review.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Willy Barton</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The proposed <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/tv-licence-fee-frozen-for-two-years">two-year freeze in the TV licence fee</a> has prompted a lively debate about BBC funding. The move puts huge pressure on the Corporation’s finances, which have taken an <a href="https://www.vlv.org.uk/news/vlv-research-shows-a-30-decline-in-bbc-public-funding-since-2010/">estimated 30% real-term cut</a> since 2010. The National Audit Office suggested in its December 2021 report that further budget reductions may lead to <a href="https://www.nao.org.uk/report/bbc-savings-and-reform/">more repeats and fewer original high-end programmes</a>.</p>
<p>Conflicting claims about the “<a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10408173/Nadine-Dorries-signals-BBC-licence-fee-SCRAPPED-2027.html">end of the licence fee</a>” have also focused concerns on the future viability of the BBC. Many praise its range of services currently provided for what amounts to 43p a day. But others dispute the need for public funding, given the abundance and popularity of commercial streaming services and online media.</p>
<p>Added to this is the issue of the licence fee model itself. The debate, announced by the UK culture secretary, Nadine Dorries, in parliament this week, <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nadine-dorries-backtracks-from-threat-to-ditch-bbc-licence-fee-7zhv2jx9b">now centres</a> on whether this is an <a href="https://theconversation.com/bbc-the-licence-fee-is-a-small-price-to-pay-for-a-service-that-unites-the-uk-132114">essential tool</a> for funding a universal public good or a <a href="https://pressgazette.co.uk/former-bbc-lobby-correspondent-why-corporation-should-ditch-the-licence-fee/">regressive and anachronistic tax</a>.</p>
<p>These discussions highlight the significance of the BBC in the UK’s unique model of public service broadcasting, which includes Channel 4, ITV, Channel 5 and the Welsh language broadcaster S4C. This is <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/192100/psb-five-year-review.pdf">defined by Ofcom</a> as catering to “people’s needs as citizens and their interests as individuals”. </p>
<p>Yet in a modern media landscape experiencing a <a href="https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2019-09/The_audience_of_public_service_news_FINAL.pdf">widening generation gap</a> in news audiences, a <a href="https://www.ebiquity.com/news-insights/blog/is-tv-approaching-a-tipping-point-for-reach/">declining TV advertising market</a>, <a href="https://inews.co.uk/news/bbc-facing-super-inflation-threat-from-netflix-drama-spending-934512">rising production costs</a> and rampant global competition from Netflix and Amazon, deeper questions are emerging about the purpose and value of public service broadcasting. </p>
<p>Are the traditional ideals of public service broadcasting still relevant in the “multi-screen” era? How should its value be assessed to ensure maximum possible benefit to the public?</p>
<h2>Recognising public good</h2>
<p>This is central to <a href="https://www.pec.ac.uk/discussion-papers/what-is-the-public-value-of-public-service-broadcasting">our recently published research</a> by Cardiff University and the AHRC-funded <a href="https://www.pec.ac.uk/">Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre</a>. Through analysing regulatory documents and related industry studies from the last two decades, we have developed a typology of six different types of value: social, cultural, economic, industrial, representational and civic. They reflect the various principles and obligations of public service broadcasting, as well as emerging risks and opportunities, that shape the UK’s current model.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441318/original/file-20220118-13-xg1s6u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Graphic showing the six different values of public broadcasting" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441318/original/file-20220118-13-xg1s6u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441318/original/file-20220118-13-xg1s6u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=355&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441318/original/file-20220118-13-xg1s6u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=355&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441318/original/file-20220118-13-xg1s6u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=355&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441318/original/file-20220118-13-xg1s6u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=446&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441318/original/file-20220118-13-xg1s6u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=446&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441318/original/file-20220118-13-xg1s6u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=446&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The six core values of public service
broadcasting.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Cardiff University and the Policy and Evidence Centre</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The social value of public service broadcasting stems from free-to-air broadcasters providing equitable access to universal content that helps build a shared national conversation. But the rapid growth of audience choice challenges the relevance of public service broadcasters offering “something for everyone”. And regulations designed for a handful of fixed-schedule TV channels need updating to ensure public service broadcasting content is still widely accessible <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations-and-statements/category-1/epg-code-prominence-regime">across new platforms and devices</a>.</p>
<p>The cultural value of high-quality, original UK content in news, arts and music, education, religious and children’s programming – featuring <a href="https://www.endersanalysis.com/reports/outsourcing-culture-when-british-shows-arent-british">the lives and experiences</a> of British audiences – distinguishes these public service broadcasters from the wider marketplace.</p>
<p>In 2020 they produced <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0023/222890/media-nations-report-2021.pdf">29,800 hours of “UK-originated” content</a>, compared to just 571 hours on streaming on-demand services such as Netflix. Arts, education and children’s programming provided by the broadcasters <a href="https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5801/cmselect/cmcumeds/156/15605.htm#_idTextAnchor016">throughout the pandemic</a> further highlights the cultural value of investment in genres not usually provided by the market. Further funding cuts will jeopardise this and make it increasingly difficult to provide high-quality specialist programming.</p>
<h2>Value for money</h2>
<p>As the response to the latest licence fee announcement has demonstrated, discussions on the economic value of public service broadcasting typically focus on consumer “value for money”. Recent <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/topics/media/trackers/is-the-bbc-licence-fee-good-value-for-money">YouGov polling</a> suggests increasing ambivalence about continuing to support public investment in broadcasting.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/sBGxkgDJXgQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The UK culture secretary, Nadine Dorries, announces plans to freeze the BBC licence fee.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Yet in recent years public service broadcasters have increasingly sought to emphasise the positive economic value created by employment and investment in the creative industries. <a href="http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/reports/reports/kpmg-economic-impact.pdf">A KPMG study for the BBC</a>, for example, estimates that every £1 of BBC spending generated a further £1.63 of economic activity.</p>
<p>There is also considerable “industrial value” generated by public service broadcasters through investment in infrastructure, skills and technological innovation that help to grow the media sector. Commissioning quotas and favourable “terms of trade” for independent production companies have been a big part of the <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/218042/Pact-SSBD.pdf">global success</a> of the UK’s media sector, while public service broadcasting’s regional activities have helped establish <a href="https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/sites/public-purpose/files/final-bbc-report-6_jan.pdf">new regional centres of investment</a> in the creative industries around the UK.</p>
<p>The representational value of public service broadcasting comes from ensuring that all voices, identities and lifestyles that make up life in modern Britain are reflected in the national conversation. This is epitomised in Channel 4’s mission to reflect “the tastes and interests of a culturally diverse society” – similar to services such as S4C, BBC’s Asian Network and ITV’s regional news networks. </p>
<p>But <a href="https://www.smallscreenbigdebate.co.uk/what-is-ssbd/ssbd-five-year-review">only half of UK audiences</a> feel that public service broadcasters accurately portray their own nation or region. And, despite important new initiatives in recent years, the broadcasters have yet to tackle <a href="https://www.pec.ac.uk/assets/publications/PEC-Screened-Out-Report.pdf">long-standing inequalities</a> across ethnicity, gender, class and sexual orientation in the screen industries.</p>
<p>Finally, public service broadcasting creates civic value by empowering audiences to actively participate as citizens in the wider democratic process. Research from <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0025/199105/psb-omnibus-survey-findings.pdf">Ofcom</a> and the <a href="https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2020-06/DNR_2020_FINAL.pdf">Reuters Institute</a> confirms the status of free-to-air public service broadcasters as the most used and most trusted sources of news for audiences. Still, chronic issues of mistrust, perceptions of bias and younger audiences’ shifting media habits raise systemic challenges for the future support and loyalty for public service broadcasting news outlets.</p>
<p>Taken together, these six values recognise the public’s distinct interests and needs as viewers and listeners, citizens, “investors” and consumers. In taking a wider perspective on crucial policy issues such as the BBC licence fee, Channel 4’s potential privatisation and future regulation of streaming platforms, we invite policymakers, industry stakeholders, audience groups and others to test the usefulness of <a href="https://www.pec.ac.uk/discussion-papers/what-is-the-public-value-of-public-service-broadcasting">our typology</a> for examining the future of public service broadcasting.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article is based on research published by the Creative Industries Policy & Evidence Centre and carried out by Cardiff University. The research is entitled ‘<a href="https://www.pec.ac.uk/discussion-papers/what-is-the-public-value-of-public-service-broadcasting">What is the Public Value of Public Service Broadcasting?</a>’.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/175128/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tom Chivers does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stuart Allan receives funding from the AHRC to support this research. </span></em></p>New research identifies the many ways public service broadcasting benefits people.Tom Chivers, Research Associate, School of Journalism, Media and Culture, Cardiff UniversityStuart Allan, Professor of Journalism and Communication, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1597172021-04-26T19:59:31Z2021-04-26T19:59:31ZPublic broadcasting: does the UK’s regulator have the public interest at heart?<p>The government is <a href="https://publicappointments.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/appointment/chair-ofcom/">finalising its choice</a> for the vacant position of chair of the UK’s broadcasting and telecoms regulator, Ofcom. It’s potentially a contentious issue as, according to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/31/johnson-poised-to-appoint-paul-dacre-chair-of-ofcom">well-informed government leaks</a>, former Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre is in pole position for the job which – while notionally subject to an “independent” appointments process – is effectively <a href="https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news/westminster-news/paul-dacre-ofcom-chair-daily-mail-7297164">in the prime minister’s “gift”</a>.</p>
<p>There are many reasons why Dacre is arguably <a href="https://bylinetimes.com/2021/02/04/10-reasons-why-paul-dacre-is-unfit-to-be-the-new-ofcom-chair/">unsuitable</a> for the job. Not least of those is his much-vaunted visceral <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/27/charles-moore-paul-dacre-on-the-bbc-in-their-own-words">hatred of the BBC</a> (which Ofcom now regulates) and his lack of any relevant technical knowledge in the telecoms sector (he famously <a href="https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/why-the-daily-mail-hates-britain">does not use a computer</a>). But regardless of who becomes the next Ofcom chair, there is a broader issue which needs addressing: whether the regulator is still genuinely committed to promoting the interests of citizens.</p>
<p>Ofcom’s <a href="https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/ofcom/#:%7E:text=Ofcom%20was%20established%20by%20the,Radio%20Authority%2C%20and%20the%20Radiocommunications">birth in 2003</a> was preceded by a major parliamentary battle to ensure that citizens were at the heart of its regulatory obligations. In the teeth of furious opposition by Tony Blair’s Labour government, the House of Lords – led by Labour peer David Puttnam – forced through an <a href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/2003/jun/23/communications-bill">amendment</a> that secured Ofcom’s duty “to further the interests of citizens” as well as consumers. For the past 18 years, that duty has been fundamental to Ofcom’s central role in promoting the democratic and cultural benefits of broadcasting.</p>
<h2>Who does Ofcom represent?</h2>
<p>Is Ofcom still committed to supporting the broader public interest? Recent evidence – especially since taking <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/media-releases/2017/ofcom-becomes-the-first-independent,-external-regulator-of-the-bbc-today">full regulatory powers</a> over the BBC in 2017 – is not encouraging. First, there was the long delay in allowing the BBC more flexibility in its iPlayer, to enable it to compete with increasing audience demand for box sets and longer viewing windows. Ofcom’s insistence that the BBC should conduct a <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/124392/bbc-iplayer-materiality-assessment.pdf">public interest test</a> was not the approach of a regulator prioritising the interests of citizens who are collectively paying for a universal public service trying to compete with American streaming services. </p>
<p>Nor was it helpful that the process, from Ofcom’s intervention in November 2018 until its <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0029/159725/statement-bbc-iplayer-final-determination.pdf">final determination</a> in August 2019, took nine months in a world of rapidly changing audience consumption habits. In the words of then BBC chairman, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/speeches/2019/clementi-omc">Sir David Clementi</a>, it was an approach that ran the risk of “tying ourselves up in red tape and regulation at a time when media organisations need to be fast and agile”. </p>
<p>Then there was the strange case of how Ofcom chose to report viewer responses to its questions on impartiality. A two-page section in its most recent <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/207228/third-bbc-annual-report.pdf">annual report</a> on the BBC was headed: “Audiences continue to rate the BBC lower on impartiality.” This conclusion predictably featured prominently in negative coverage by a highly partisan anti-BBC press.</p>
<p>But the figures on which Ofcom based this high-profile conclusion were highly dubious. They were taken from Ofcom’s 2020 <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/201316/news-consumption-2020-report.pdf">News Consumption report</a> which looked at how audiences rated seven TV providers on nine separate news attributes, including impartiality. Ofcom calculated these figures only on the basis of “regular users” of each service, which effectively distorted the data.</p>
<p>On every single attribute, CNN (222 regular viewers in the Ofcom sample) emerged as top. Meanwhile, on impartiality, al-Jazeera (153 regular viewers) was second only to CNN, with 69%. The equivalent BBC figure was 58% – but on a sample size of 2,754 because BBC news is the default choice for most TV viewers and commands huge audiences. At the very least, such figures have to be treated with caution. We can be pretty sure that even regular viewers of, say, Fox News would rate it very highly for impartiality.</p>
<p>Ofcom did not acknowledge the vast differences in base sizes for their data, nor did it make any mention of either CNN or al-Jazeera as the highest rated channels for impartiality. A rather more nuanced – and citizen-based – approach might have reported on a 2020 <a href="https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2020-05/trust-accuracy-impartiality-2020.pdf">Ipsos-Mori survey</a> which was carried out at almost exactly the same time. When a representative sample of all adults was asked, “Which ONE source are you most likely to turn to if you want impartial news coverage?”, 51% responded BBC. The next highest, with just 7%, was Sky News. </p>
<h2>Shifting priorities</h2>
<p>Finally, Ofcom’s <a href="https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2020-05/trust-accuracy-impartiality-2020.pdf">consultation</a> on the future of public service broadcasting proposes shifting to the concept of <a href="https://www.publicmediaalliance.org/about-us/what-is-psm/">public service media</a> (PSM) to reflect <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-55230161">the internet age</a> and the emergence of a plethora of new platforms and subscription services. While the sector needs to embrace new technologies, Ofcom’s approach raises awkward questions about whether it still believes in public service broadcasting institutions. </p>
<p>A focus on content inevitably leads to debates about subsidising less popular programming such as arts, documentaries and minority sports rather than focusing on the values that institutions like the BBC, Channel 4 and even ITV and Channel Five bring to original UK content across the board. </p>
<p>Ofcom’s consultation document refers variously to “how PSM is made” and “PSM content”, both of which are rooted in consumerist arguments about filling in “market gaps” that the private sector cannot fulfil. Public service broadcasting is founded on <a href="https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/policies/pdf/bpv.pdf">citizen-based values</a> of range, quality, universality, impartiality, innovation and wide geographic appeal, that are rooted in institutions not content. It is not at all clear that Ofcom understands or accepts that distinction. </p>
<p>Since its inauguration in 2003, Ofcom has played a central role in promoting the UK’s democratic and cultural welfare. But this appears to be changing. These are disturbing signs that its decision-making and internal culture are becoming increasingly dominated by an economics-driven and consumerist philosophy at odds with its duty to citizens. This is why the choice of a new chair is vitally important.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/159717/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>This is an edited version of a chapter in the book What is the point of Ofcom? edited by John Mair and published on April 20, 2021 by Bite-Sized Public Affairs Books.</span></em></p>Ofcom’s duty is to regulate broadcasting on behalf of UK citizens. That appears to be under threat, both from internal forces and potentially from its next chair.Steven Barnett, Professor of Communications, University of WestminsterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1403912020-06-10T10:48:55Z2020-06-10T10:48:55Z#DefundtheBBC: the anatomy of a social media campaign<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/340838/original/file-20200610-34692-ynwz7h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5459%2C3603&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The main threat to the BBC's funding is the plan to decriminalise non-payment of the TV licence fee.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Willy Barton via Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>As <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-england-london-36752461/black-lives-matter-protest-marches-through-london">Black Lives Matter protests</a> swept through parts of Britain after the killing of George Floyd in the US, a self-described Conservative student, <a href="https://twitter.com/jameslyucel?lang=en">James Yucel</a>, became so disillusioned with what he interpreted as left-wing bias at the BBC that he established a campaign that he christened “Defund the BBC”. The Twitter handle, @DefundBBC, was presumably in ironic homage to the BLM campaign to #DefundThePolice. </p>
<p>As just a “student in his room”, on the evening of Sunday June 7, he <a href="https://twitter.com/JamesLYucel/status/1269742991515758593?s=20">invited</a> fellow anti-BBC sympathisers to “share the hashtag … because, let’s be honest, they can’t ignore us forever”.</p>
<p>With Dominic Cummings, the prime minister’s chief adviser – known to be a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/21/dominic-cummings-thinktank-called-for-end-of-bbc-in-current-form">longstanding BBC critic</a> – and the government having quickly launched <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-decriminalising-tv-licence-evasion/consultation-on-decriminalising-tv-licence-evasion">a consultation</a> on decriminalising non-payment of the licence fee, both the BBC itself and its funding model were already under attack. A campaign that urges viewers to (legally) cancel their licence payments might therefore expect to find sympathy in Downing Street. </p>
<p>Yucel’s call to arms – supposedly a spontaneous grassroots expression of anger directed towards “anti-government” coverage of the London protests – is an object lesson in how activists both create and inflate a campaign in which “ordinary people” appear to share their own political agenda. A Twitter analysis of what happened next – and how the flames were fanned by mainstream media with their own anti-BBC agenda – is very instructive.</p>
<p>Late on that Sunday evening a deluge of tweets began to appear using the hashtag. One of the first was from <a href="https://twitter.com/WillowWyse/status/1269752735462719488">@willowwyse</a> – apparently an anti-vaccination activist – who, like many of the tweets that followed, tagged high-profile Brexit supporters and anti-BBC campaigners. As most of the country slept, the campaign quietly amassed followers: by around 8am on Monday morning more than 20,000 accounts were following @DefundBBC and its hashtag was trending. </p>
<p>Almost all of these early followers appeared to be very small accounts – more than two-thirds of them had fewer than 50 followers, a metric used to assess the likelihood of an account <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-30/farming-for-likes-fake-social-media-engagement/10944078">being a bot or part of a click farm</a>. The early hours of a Monday morning are, to put it mildly, a strange time for an enraged nation to be mobilised into action.</p>
<h2>Movers and shakers</h2>
<p>So who were the prime movers in this allegedly grassroots campaign? The first diagram below – which shows by volume who included @defundBBC or retweeted @defundBBC in their posts – reveals that by far the biggest fan was an anonymous account by the name of @PollyIce2 who tagged the campaign nearly 150 times. </p>
<p>Among the retweets from this account are also several in support of former EDF leader Tommy Robinson and <a href="https://twitter.com/Abracad91853682/status/1269769827381583872?s=20">one picturing</a> Enoch Powell under the title: “Enoch Powell was right!” Another retweet contained a silhouette of a retreating Churchill with the words “without Churchill … Hitler would have won! BAME people would have been next for the shower!” The retweeted account had <a href="https://twitter.com/Mexico1978R/status/1269704003228762113?s=20">written</a> above the picture: “Why did we bother”.</p>
<p>Another account, <a href="https://twitter.com/UnionJa18432081">@UnionJa18432081</a>, featuring the British flag but apparently keener on tweeting support for Donald Trump, was also heavily engaged in the early hours. This account had just eight followers and appears to have been set up in May 2020. Another, under the name of @jamie_sense, who retweeted the hashtag more than 60 times, included on his timeline a retweet of someone stating that: “African gangs of violent young men are terrorising our communities with impunity.”</p>
<p>These small accounts also appeared coordinated in their approach. While strong ties to the DefundBBC account would be expected, they also systematically tagged the Twitter accounts of the official Leave campaign (<a href="https://twitter.com/leaveeuofficial?lang=en">@LeaveEUOfficial</a>) and the former Labour MP and arch-Brexiteer Kate Hoey (<a href="https://twitter.com/CatharineHoey">@CatherineHoey</a>) in order to draw these high-profile accounts into retweeting their support.</p>
<h2>Connections</h2>
<p>The second diagram shows how accounts supportive of #DefundtheBBC are related to each other. On average each account only “knows” (follows or is followed by) 1.6 other accounts within the network. Around 80 small clusters of accounts were detected, but most accounts “know” one of three main high-profile accounts. Apart from the @DefundBBC account itself, these were the actor Laurence Fox, who has become a standard bearer for the right – and whose <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/jan/18/question-time-clash-lecturer-tells-of-hate-mail">controversial remarks on television</a> helped him to gain 187,000 followers on Twitter. Another was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/06/working-class-refugee-conservative-iranian">Mahyar Tousi</a> (39,000 followers), who has stood in local elections as a Conservative candidate and who describes himself as a “classical liberal conservative YouTuber”, “Free Trade Brexiteer” and “Free Market Fundamentalist”. </p>
<p>The vast majority of campaign followers, judging by their Twitter history, were committed Brexiteers and followers of the Leave campaign, which itself has a long history of hostility towards the BBC.</p>
<p>No anti-BBC campaign would be complete without certain national newspapers – with a commercial self-interest in trying to undermine a freely available and trustworthy news source – piling in to celebrate a “grassroots uprising”. The Daily Express was first into the fray with a <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1292846/bbc-news-defund-the-bbc-campaign-group-black-lives-matter">typically overblown headline</a>: “BBC crisis: 30,000 sign up to Twitter campaign to ‘DEFUND THE BBC’ - ‘It’s time!’”</p>
<p>Rupert Murdoch’s Sun immediately joined the kicking party – executive editor Dan Wootton was quick to <a href="https://twitter.com/danwootton/status/1269988179400175617?s=20">express his amazement</a> at the “huge momentum” gained by the campaign, and to give Yucel time on his drivetime show on TalkRadio (also owned by Murdoch) to <a href="https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/1270056489361838080?s=20%20%22%22">promote</a> his non-payment campaign. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1270030320407101440"}"></div></p>
<p>From the very beginning, the campaign wanted to look like a spontaneous eruption of popular anger. In practice, it looks like a suspiciously coordinated operation, linking together several pro-Brexit, free-market (and in a few cases far-right) social media accounts. </p>
<p>Any politician tempted to take this at face value should ask themselves, to what extent is this another confected campaign in a long-running culture war against the BBC? And does it really reflect the massive increase in <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2020/bbc-iplayer-lockdown-viewers">consumption of BBC programming</a> during the lockdown? </p>
<p>Much better to rely on representative surveys from reliable, impartial sources which <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/tv-radio-and-on-demand/news-media/coronavirus-news-consumption-attitudes-behaviour">continue to show</a> the BBC as one of the most trusted sources of information.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/140391/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>How did one student’s anti-BBC social media campaign take off so rapidly?Steven Barnett, Professor of Communications, University of WestminsterDoug Specht, Senior Lecturer in Media and Communications, University of WestminsterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1321142020-02-20T10:56:20Z2020-02-20T10:56:20ZBBC: the licence fee is a small price to pay for a service that unites the UK<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/316206/original/file-20200219-11044-908bsv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=5%2C10%2C3396%2C2472&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">mikecphoto via Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Anyone who owns a television set in the UK is obliged, by law, <a href="https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one">to pay a licence fee</a> which has always enabled the BBC to exist as an independent entity. But a recent <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-10-tells-bbc-licence-fee-will-be-scrapped-hzwb9bzsx">Sunday Times article (paywalled)</a> has announced the UK government’s intention to abolish the BBC licence fee. </p>
<p>It is, I believe, a move that will jeopardise the BBC and the services it provides. The Corporation should be defended as a national public utility that provides unique and irreplaceable programming for different audiences. The subscription model proposed, we’re told, by Dominic Cummings (apparently <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-at-odds-with-dominic-cummings-over-bbc-licence-fee-206nkjrqj?shareToken=612dd259460bf5b513fa94d61cdb893a&fbclid=IwAR2JHhpQcTCGFfbtDsJZboE14gEFQEOpsJRaHz8-O7F5KxzNDoCFzVhL26s">at odds</a> with the views of the prime minister, Boris Johnson) would simply not enable the full array of services that the BBC provides. Not only that but the recently reappointed culture secretary <a href="https://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/bbc/time-to-stand-up-for-the-bbc/5147290.article">John Whittingdale</a> has said a subscription model was “utterly impossible” at present.</p>
<p>As the New Statesman’s political editor Stephen Bush has <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/02/downing-street-preparing-all-out-war-bbc">argued</a>, this portends a long game of political interference in the run-up to the BBC’s Charter Renewal in 2027, with the aim to constrain and reduce the BBC’s remit.</p>
<p>Is the BBC actually worth defending? Well, it is an organisation that, in its DNA, cleaves to the consensual “centre ground” of the day – recently, it has mimicked the agenda of a printed press overwhelmingly aligned with the Conservative Party’s worldview, as a Loughborough University report <a href="https://www.lboro.ac.uk/media-centre/press-releases/2019/december/press-hostility-to-labour-reaches-new-levels/">has found</a>. But then plenty of influential people also <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/john-humphrys-radio-4-retires-bbc-bias-left-wing-liberal-today-programme-a9114711.html">accuse the BBC of left bias</a>.</p>
<p>Is it time to accept British society’s atomisation? In an article for this platform, academic Lyndsay Duthie <a href="https://theconversation.com/bbc-licence-fee-culture-minister-hints-at-a-future-in-competition-with-netflix-for-uk-public-broadcaster-125469">quotes The Sun’s report</a> that 3.5 million people have refused to pay the licence fee. Clearly, a growing, vocal minority may not use the BBC at all. Having said this, people’s attitudes often change when they are deprived of the BBC, as <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2015/life-without-the-bbc">this study suggests</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Thirty-three out of the 48 households who originally said they would prefer to not pay at all and not receive the BBC, or who wanted to pay a lower licence fee, changed their minds and said they were now willing to pay the full licence fee for the BBC.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>What of the government’s own reasoning for replacing the licence fee? As Goldsmiths professor of media Des Freedman <a href="https://www.mediareform.org.uk/blog/democratise-the-bbc">has argued</a>, it is “absurd” to claim the BBC is obsolete due to unstable, debt-ridden streaming services such as Netflix, Disney and Comcast. Netflix doesn’t have CBBC. Disney doesn’t broadcast British national events. Not yet, anyway.</p>
<p>Better, surely, to maintain the BBC as a universally accessible utility. As the Byline Times journalist James Melville <a href="https://bylinetimes.com/2020/02/18/like-the-nhs-the-bbc-is-a-national-treasure-we-lose-it-at-our-peril/">has asserted</a>, the BBC is an informational and cultural counterpart to the NHS – it possesses an astonishingly rich archive, which it should do more to put on offer to people. In its necessary desire to appeal to young people, the Corporation neglects its past. Dad’s Army repeats regularly gain over a million viewers – such shows are part of our cultural fabric and linger in our lexicon.</p>
<h2>Lasting achievements</h2>
<p>It would do well to repeat more of the series that I am studying for my PhD – the one-off dramas that made up <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/jan/20/enduring-legacy-of-bbcs-play-for-today">Play for Today</a>, which ran from 1970 to 1984. This was usually broadcast on BBC1 on Tuesdays after the Nine O’Clock News. Many episodes dramatised contentious or topical issues and it nurtured idiosyncratic voices from different nations, regions and classes in the UK, the likes of Alan Bennett, Dennis Potter, Peter McDougall, Mike Leigh, Rachel Billington and Colin Welland.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LedLYkDLYuc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Most people are aware of Jeremy Sandford and Ken Loach’s Cathy Come Home (1966), which contributed to a change in public consciousness that led to the creation of the <a href="https://england.shelter.org.uk/what_we_do/history">homelessness charity Shelter</a>. We should also remember the likes of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/jan/20/enduring-legacy-of-bbcs-play-for-today">Peter Ransley</a>’s Minor Complications (1980) which dramatised medical negligence in the NHS and <a href="https://www.avma.org.uk/news/enduring-legacy-of-bbcs-play-for-today-led-to-formation-of-avma/">led to the creation</a> of Action against Medical Accidents charity, which has had some impact in making the NHS more open.</p>
<p>The government claims the BBC has to “modernise”. Well, listen to Ian Wright’s recent <a href="https://talkingpicturestv.co.uk/">appearance</a> on that formerly fusty “crown jewel” Desert Island Discs and try to tell me it hasn’t renewed itself or that this alone is not worthy of your £3.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1228979843813052416"}"></div></p>
<p>Tory MPs on Twitter have defended the BBC against Cummings’s sword of Damocles – taking the view that by privatising the BBC the UK risks losing an institution of incalculable value to preserving social order. </p>
<h2>A national service</h2>
<p>All of us – regardless of political hue – should recall the BBC’s role in defeating Nazi Germany in the second world war and its credible honest brokerage during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. As media academic Jean Seaton has <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/ourbeeb/pinkoes-and-traitors-deeper-debate/">detailed</a>, it was instrumental in laying the infrastructural groundwork for reconciliation – along with key actors across the sectarian divide and in the Major and Blair governments. </p>
<p>The last thing we need is further entrenchment of the same commercially driven values that have undermined the local British press for so long, as the journalist Matthew Engel <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2019/12/rise-and-fall-local-newspapers">has argued</a>. Turning the BBC into an elitist redoubt – leaving a gaping hole in the public sphere – ignores the testimony of a past chairman of governors Sir Michael Swann in the Annan Report (1977), resulting from a Royal Commission, which argued for pluralistic public service broadcasting and led to the creation of Channel Four. </p>
<p>Swann claims the BBC’s broadcasting works as “social cement” for UK society – and it’s vital to defend the current model whereby minority interests, including local radio stations, BBC Radio Cymru, BBC Asian Network, contemporary urban music on BBC 1Xtra or classical music on Radio 3, are all supported by the greater number of Radio 2 and 4 listeners. Paying £3 a week means that anyone in Britain can listen to these stations – not just the audiences they implicitly target. And more such listening would aid our understanding of other people’s ways of life on the British Isles. </p>
<p>To paraphrase what was once said in the BBC’s most famous telefantasy drama, Doctor Who: “A cosmos without the BBC scarcely bears thinking about.” Without the BBC and its unique potential to give voice to all of its constituent regions, nations and classes, the UK will struggle to continue as it is one of the few institutions capable of holding together a fractious nation state.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/132114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tom May does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The BBC is under threat as the government considers abolishing the licence fee. This would be a disaster.Tom May, Post-Graduate Researcher, Northumbria University, Northumbria University, NewcastleLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1286392019-12-11T09:28:31Z2019-12-11T09:28:31ZBBC caught in the crossfire: why the UK’s public broadcaster is becoming a big election story<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/306298/original/file-20191211-95173-1f9t93n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C950%2C495&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Screenshot from Evolve Politics website with the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg. Inset, her tweet reporting a story that turned out to be untrue. ITV's political editor posted a similar tweet.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Evolve Politics</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The final week of campaigning for the 2019 UK election began badly for the Conservative Party leader and incumbent prime minister, Boris Johnson. Confronted by an ITV reporter with a picture of four-year-old suspected pneumonia patient <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/election-2019-boris-johnson-refuses-to-look-at-photo-of-jack-williment-barr-on-hospital-floor-qk7h7nb28">Jack Williment-Barr</a> lying on the floor at Leeds General Infirmary, Johnson was so intent on ignoring the image that he took the reporter’s phone and put it in his pocket. The video of him doing so quickly went went viral. </p>
<p>Health Secretary Matt Hancock was sent to limit the damage, which was when the day began to deteriorate for some of the attending journalists. The BBC and ITV were among those <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/09/matt-hancock-aide-altercation-hospital-campaign-visit">reporting claims</a> by “senior Conservative sources” that one of Hancock’s aides had been punched by an activist outside the hospital but video of the encounter later revealed this to be untrue.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1204114015485661184"}"></div></p>
<p>BBC political correspondent Laura Kuenssberg subsequently apologised for erroneously tweeting news of the “assault” – as did her opposite number on ITV, Robert Peston:</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1204100056762265600"}"></div></p>
<p>Against this backdrop and the prime minister’s obvious discomfort that his bad news day was getting steadily worse, Johnson suggested that after the election he would <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/09/boris-johnson-looking-at-abolishing-tv-licence-fee-for-bbc">review the BBC’s funding model</a>, questioning whether such an approach “still makes sense” given the ways other media organisations are funded.</p>
<p>Subsequently, ITV’s Paul Brand tweeted anonymous No 10 sources proposing a move towards a US media system not requiring broadcasters to remain impartial:</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1204065908597104641"}"></div></p>
<p>The BBC licence fee is not immediately threatened – <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/09/boris-johnson-looking-at-abolishing-tv-licence-fee-for-bbc">it remains</a> in place until the Royal Charter expires in 2027. But removing it is not without precedent: Sweden, for example, changed how its public broadcaster is funded when it <a href="https://www.thelocal.se/20181115/sweden-scraps-tv-licence-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-tax">introduced a replacement tax</a> based on personal income, in January 2019.</p>
<h2>Alt-left emboldening PM?</h2>
<p>Traditionally, the <a href="https://inews.co.uk/culture/television/bbc-left-right-wing-bias-510938">BBC is regarded as</a> left wing by the right and right wing by the left and has perhaps taken comfort that this indicates balanced news coverage. But the Conservative Party has a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/feb/20/bbc-war-margaret-thatcher-life-on-earth-grange-hill-eastenders-falklands">traditionally feisty relationship</a> with the BBC dating back, famously, to Margaret Thatcher’s fury over its coverage of the Falklands conflict. More recently, David Cameron threatened to “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jun/21/nick-robinson-cameron-threatened-close-down-bbc-election-bus">close down</a>” the corporation during the 2015 election campaign.</p>
<p>But – more recently and less obviously outside the mainstream – relentless social media activity from a range of increasingly popular alt-left media websites has kept the BBC in the crosshairs throughout the campaign and might have provided the Conservatives with some cover. Given that the most recent <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0027/157914/uk-news-consumption-2019-report.pdf">Ofcom report notes</a> that ITV and SKY News are perceived as marginally more trustworthy than BBC, then alt-left criticism might simply be fanning the flames of anti-BBC sentiment already emanating from the opposite side of the political divide.</p>
<p>Indeed our Cardiff/Swansea research examining the Facebook activity of alt-left media sites supports the notion that their critiques might be strengthening the prime minister’s resolve. Their collective seething at what they see as right-wing bias might be reinterpreted by the BBC’s critics as the public broadcaster being no longer fit for purpose. </p>
<p>In effect, left-wing media may have legitimised right-wing plans to abolish the licence fee.</p>
<h2>Three big issues</h2>
<p>We examined the most-shared posts on the Facebook pages of Another Angry Voice, Swawkbox, The Canary, Evolve Politics and Novara Media between November 24 and December 1. We focused on “shares” rather than comments or other reactions, since we surmise that sharing posts more likely signifies some level of agreement or endorsement. </p>
<p>As expected, various issues are discussed and shared, but there seems a consensus about the three big issues drawing the <a href="https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2018/01/15/what-about-the-alt-left/">“alt-left”</a> campaign focus away from Brexit, which unlike the Conservatives, Labour are still apparently uncomfortable in confronting. Notions that the Conservatives are racist and/or elitist and that the NHS is not safe in their hands are prominent – but the most compelling theme is media bias and, in particular, the performance of the BBC. </p>
<p>Skwawkbox was especially successful in widely distributing such content, with four posts criticising the BBC appearing in its ten most shared. Its post blasting the way the broadcaster dealt with Boris Johnson’s will-he-won’t-he interview with Andrew Neil for example, was shared more than 1,200 times.</p>
<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FSKWAWKBOX%2Fposts%2F2276763939092272&width=500" width="100%" height="491" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allow="encrypted-media"></iframe>
<p>The Canary’s critique was even more popular. Its claim that the BBC was “treating the public with utter contempt” by editing out the audience laughing at Johnson on Question Time was, according to the linked article by James Wright, “a new level of sinister statecraft”.</p>
<p>Two days later, The Canary’s criticism intensified, as another of their <a href="https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2019/11/26/the-bbc-has-edited-out-yet-another-audience-reaction-to-boris-johnson/">most shared posts</a> alleged further editorial misdemeanours favouring the Conservatives.</p>
<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FTheCanaryUK%2Fposts%2F2746332505405525&width=500" width="100%" height="491" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allow="encrypted-media"></iframe>
<h2>Still a treasure?</h2>
<p>For the BBC, remaining neutral when non-broadcast media are increasingly and unashamedly partisan is challenging. After such a tough time throughout this election, it will surely want to consider how to do better. But the news is not all bad. </p>
<p>Recent research <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/information-for-industry/bbc-operating-framework/performance/review-bbc-news-current-affairs">carried out at Cardiff University</a> concludes that, among other things, the BBC generally provides more hard news and “more policy information and analysis” than its commercial competitors. This underlines that while often critical of the way it does business, many would undoubtedly prefer to keep the BBC than move to the wholly commercial alternative model hinted at by the prime minister and his anonymous sources. </p>
<p>But with criticism increasing from both sides, perhaps the question for future elections is not whether the BBC will be able to perform better, but whether it is around next time to perform at all.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300097/original/file-20191104-88382-xr3pj3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300097/original/file-20191104-88382-xr3pj3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300097/original/file-20191104-88382-xr3pj3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300097/original/file-20191104-88382-xr3pj3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300097/original/file-20191104-88382-xr3pj3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300097/original/file-20191104-88382-xr3pj3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300097/original/file-20191104-88382-xr3pj3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/newsletters/the-daily-newsletter-2?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKGE2019&utm_content=GEBannerC">Click here to subscribe to our newsletter if you believe this election should be all about the facts.</a></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/128639/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Thomas receives funding from the ESRC.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Declan McDowell-Naylor receives funding from the ESRC.</span></em></p>The BBC is looking exposed after a campaign in which it has taken fire from all sides.Richard Thomas, Senior Lecturer, Media and Communication, Swansea UniversityDeclan McDowell-Naylor, Research Associate, School of Journalism, Media and Culture, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1254692019-10-21T12:50:48Z2019-10-21T12:50:48ZBBC licence fee: culture minister hints at a future in competition with Netflix for UK public broadcaster<p>Nicky Morgan, the culture secretary, has announced to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee that she is open to replacing the BBC license fee with a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/oct/16/nicky-morgan-open-minded-about-bbc-licence-fee-future">Netflix-style subscription</a> charge. This is a significant change from previous ministers who have protected the license fee for many years and ruled out scrapping it. </p>
<p>Back in 2009 an <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1411467/TV-licence-should-be-scrapped-says-poll.html">opinion poll</a> in the Daily Telegraph reported that 58% of respondents said the licence fee should be scrapped. Even then it was becoming clear that, in a multi-channel world, demand for the pubic broadcaster was on the decline. Today, streaming has changed the landscape even further. </p>
<p>In an age of time-shifting and box set binge watching, does the BBC license fee still have a place in how we consume television today? Gordon Brown, as chancellor of the exchequer, introduced and funded free licence fees for the over-75s in 1999, but in 2015, the Cameron government <a href="https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/15/why-the-bbc-is-not-to-blame-for-the-tv-licence-fee-cuts-9956545/">reversed this decision</a> – making the BBC responsible for funding licence fees for 1.7m elderly people. In June 2019, the BBC announced it could <a href="https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/10/free-tv-licences-scrapped-3-7-million-pensioners-9896286/">no longer fund this</a>, saying government funding cuts meant it would otherwise have to close down channels, such as BBC Four or BBC Radio 5 Live.</p>
<p>The licence fee currently <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/160714/media-nations-2019-uk-report.pdf">generates £3.83 billion</a> for the BBC – about 75% of its total revenue. To move to a subscription model service would require mass engagement and fast. Netflix has just <a href="https://www.moneywise.co.uk/news/2019-02-04%E2%80%8C%E2%80%8C/tv-licence-fee-set-rise-number-viewers-cancelling-increases-over-860000">just under 10m subscribers in the UK.</a> paying £72 per annum – so a back-of-the-envelope calculation would estimate its UK revenue at about £700m, which gives you an indication of quite how big a task this could be.</p>
<p>And what does the BBC licence fee buy you these days? If you look at BBC’s daytime schedule for example, a mix of repeats and Bargain Hunter-style programming you have to ask whether this offering represents value for money? The number of peak-time repeats on BBC1 <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/14/number-peak-time-repeats-bbcs-flagship-channel-has-risen-65/">rose by 65% in 2018</a> according to Ofcom, despite a pledge from the then chairman Michael Grade prime-time that viewing hours on BBC One and BBC Two could be “<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4695229.stm">repeat-free zones</a>” within ten years. </p>
<p>Next to the sheer volume of blue-chip documentaries and dramas on offer from Netflix, is the BBC value for money these days?</p>
<h2>‘Treasure’ being buried</h2>
<p>The BBC has long been heralded as a “national treasure” and a bastion of excellence in the highest standards and programme making. But its value has been <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jun/20/bbc-vows-to-increase-diversity-of-senior-management-by-2020">called into question over recent years</a> after regular reporting of a lack of staffing diversity on and off-screen, as well as substantial gender pay gaps and ratings slumps.</p>
<p>The corporation says that the licence fee allows it to run a wide range of popular public service broadcasting for everyone – free of adverts, shareholders and political interests. But it was reported by The Sun newspaper in 2017 that over a four-year period nearly 3.5m Britons had stopped paying the licence fee, as they consider the BBC to be “<a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5176188/bbc-tv-licence-stopped-brits-paying/">out of date</a>” in a world of Netflix and Amazon Prime.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9XFHyOZC5CY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>According to the BBC’s 2019 Annual Report, the biggest drop has come in audiences aged between 16-34 who watch BBC television TV weekly which has fallen from 60% to 56%. The same age group is also watching for a shorter period of time, down from an average of nearly three hours a week to two hours and 32 minutes. Audiences aged 55 and over are BBC television’s most loyal consumers – with a staggering <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48840138">92% reach</a> in that age group.</p>
<p>The author of a report on the licence fee from the Institute of Economic Affairs, Philip Booth, believes that the BBC should <a href="https://iea.org.uk/media/replace-bbc-licence-fee-with-opt-in-subscriptions/">adopt an opt-in system</a>: “The BBC funding model needs to be pulled into the 21st century,” he wrote. “The UK has a long history of successful mutuals and co-operatives that are popular with their members.”</p>
<p>But adopting a subscription model like that used by Netflix would mean people having to opt in to watch programmes on BBC channels and listen to its radio stations. It’s debatable how the BBC’s ageing audience will react to this sort of model.</p>
<h2>Last year’s model</h2>
<p>The licence fee model was introduced in 1946 when the world of television was completely different and the BBC had little competition for people’s attention. Now it needs to compete and a remodelled BBC could perhaps better leverage its brand internationally for better commercial success – its back catalogue, for example, must be the envy of many of its competitors. It has been a <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48840138">bumper year for iPlayer</a> with 3.6 billion programme requests, the most popular being Bodyguard. Killing Eve’s first series had 42.5m overall requests.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1185499584555970560"}"></div></p>
<p>But is the streaming model under pressure? Netflix an early mover in the high-quality streaming industry, with a formidable business worth in the region of US$125 billion, will <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50077673">soon be competing</a> with Disney+, HBO Max and Apple+ for domination of the television streaming market. <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50077154">Netflix recently wrote to investors</a> to tell them that competition would be a good thing as the bigger the market the more it would be likely to tempt people away from “linear TV”, as Netflix’s describes it.</p>
<p>So the BBC has some big decisions to make. Can it continue to justify the license fee? If it moves to another business model – streaming being most likely in my opinion – the question will be whether it attract enough subscribers quickly enough to compete with the big players. These debates have long raged, but now that the culture minister has signalled that she is open to a change in the public broadcaster’s model, the landscape of British broadcasting may be about to change dramatically.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/125469/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lyndsay Duthie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Nicky Morgan recently hinted at changes to the BBC’s funding model. But can the UK’s public broadcaster compete with the likes of Netflix?Lyndsay Duthie, Professor & Head of School for Film, Media & Performing Arts, University for the Creative ArtsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1191162019-06-20T14:39:01Z2019-06-20T14:39:01ZWho should pay for TV licences for the over 75s?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/280475/original/file-20190620-149851-q25fda.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">in 2016, George Osborne told the BBC it would have to cover the cost of free licences for over 75s introduced by Gordon Brown in 2001.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/old-couple-watching-television-on-couch-263011691?studio=1">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Nobody wants to appear hard on pensioners, least of all politicians. And certainly not Conservative ones.</p>
<p>So it’s not surprising that several of those vying to become the next prime minister have <a href="https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/lifestyle/tv/1772138/the-over-75s-tv-licence-fee-debate-so-far/">happily denounced</a> the BBC’s decision to restrict free television licences only to over 75s receiving <a href="https://www.ageuk.org.uk/information-advice/money-legal/benefits-entitlements/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7L-trbX14gIVDJ3tCh2f7QoWEAAYAiAAEgIqNvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds">pension credit</a>, a benefit available to retired people with limited resources.</p>
<p>In 2018 the BBC picked up almost <a href="https://www.barb.co.uk/viewing-report/updated-insight/">a third of all television viewing in the UK</a> and with the other terrestrial broadcasters – ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 – <a href="https://www.barb.co.uk/download/?file=/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Barb-Viewing-Report-2019_32pp_FINAL-1.pdf/">over two thirds of viewers</a>. The two publicly owned services – Channel 4 and the BBC – managed 41% between them. But they all struggle on the resource front.</p>
<p>This is particularly the case with the BBC since the Conservative-led government elected in 2010 significantly <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bbc-licence-fee-over-75s-tory-party-pensions-credit-manifesto-pledge-a8953306.html">eroded the licence fee</a>. George Osborne, then chancellor, required the corporation to pay the full cost of <a href="http://www.s4c.cymru/en/about-us/">S4C</a>, the Welsh-language channel – until then funded mostly by the government and in the form of programming from the BBC. It also had to start funding the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-radio-and-tv-12759931">World Service</a> (previously paid for by the Foreign Office) and to take responsibility for some other costs.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xRe3xIrrz0w?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Playing politics with the Beeb</h2>
<p>What is astonishing is the utterly spineless way in which the BBC’s senior management and trustees <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/240a1ab8-db4c-11df-ae99-00144feabdc0">accepted these changes without a fight</a>. When Osborne told the BBC of his proposals, the trust could have demanded that the matter be taken to the House of Commons, since the changes were being made in the middle of a period for which the scope of the licence fee had already been agreed. If this was refused, the trust could have resigned collectively, making the question of how the BBC should be financed an extremely difficult issue for the government.</p>
<p>But that did not happen and the government concluded it was dealing with an organisation that was a pushover. So it was not surprising in 2016 when the chancellor told the BBC it would have to bear the cost of the free licences for over 75s, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/23/the-guardian-view-on-the-bbc-and-the-elderly-a-burden-too-far">introduced</a> by the Labour chancellor, Gordon Brown, in 2001, and financed directly by government. The corporation was handed a poisoned chalice in the power to abolish or limit the concession – the political calculation being that any resulting outrage would hit the BBC, not the government. Which is exactly <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7125753/Pensioners-risking-prison-sentence-refuse-pay-TV-licence.html">what has happened</a>.</p>
<p>When the BBC announced its decision at the beginning of May, a decision which will impact on programming, the prime minister’s official spokesperson was quoted as expressing “deep disappointment”, indicating that the government had expected that free licences for all households with someone over 75 <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/10/bbc-link-free-over-75s-tv-licences-pension-credit/">would continue</a>.</p>
<p>But it’s hard to see how the BBC could have done that without a huge cut – three quarters of a billion pounds – in its annual budget, weakening its programme-making ability at a time of intense competition from Sky and online services Netflix and Amazon, which are all investing huge amounts of money. If the government really means what it is saying, then clearly it wishes the UK’s major public service broadcaster to be diminished in power and influence.</p>
<h2>BBC problems</h2>
<p>But the corporation has done itself no favours in recent years by <a href="https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/itv-news-tom-bradby-hits-out-at-bbc-paying-andrew-marr-600k/">paying exorbitant salaries</a> to senior executives and performers (as, curiously, do other broadcasters, but without the same level of criticism). And when it argues that a relatively modest cap on these salaries would mean a saving of only <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48647548">£25m</a>, it is doing so to a public that is sick of the increasing wealth gap in the UK. </p>
<p>Charity AgeUK says that TV is the main source of company for more than a million elderly Brits. <a href="https://campaigns.ageuk.org.uk/page/34266/petition/1?ea.tracking.id=1unr39mb">A petition it is running</a> has attracted over half a million signatures protesting the move. The charity does argue that the government <a href="https://www.ageuk.org.uk/our-impact/campaigning/save-free-tv-for-older-people/">should</a> “take back responsibility for funding free TV licenses for everyone over 75”, showing sensitivity to the very difficult situation in which the BBC has been placed.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/280479/original/file-20190620-149806-14yjy09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/280479/original/file-20190620-149806-14yjy09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280479/original/file-20190620-149806-14yjy09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280479/original/file-20190620-149806-14yjy09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280479/original/file-20190620-149806-14yjy09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280479/original/file-20190620-149806-14yjy09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280479/original/file-20190620-149806-14yjy09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">AgeUK says that TV is the main source of company for more than a million elderly Brits.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/elderly-man-watching-tv-lunch-600277274?studio=1">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But perhaps there is an underlying public policy issue that needs to be addressed. Retirees have done not too badly in recent years as a consequence of the so-called <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/apr/27/pensions-triple-lock-questions-answered">triple lock</a> on the basic state pension, under which the benefit rises by the highest of 2.5%, average earnings growth or the rate of inflation. They also qualify for free bus travel, discounted cinema and theatre tickets plus other benefits. Should Brown ever have introduced free licences in the first place, other than perhaps for people in receipt of pension credit?</p>
<p>There is also a potential irony in this situation. If the BBC is compelled to stick with what it has proposed, an unintended consequence may well be that the large number of pensioners entitled to, but currently not claiming, pension credit, will now do so. A million UK households do not take up the benefit. If they did, the bill could hit <a href="https://www.pensionspolicyinstitute.org.uk/research/pension-facts/table-11/12">£3 billion annually</a> – rather more than the sum the treasury is saving by offloading the responsibility for over 75s’ licences on the BBC.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/119116/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Hutchison does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>When the government shunted its responsibility on to the BBC, it turned the national broadcaster into a welfare agency – now it can’t afford it.David Hutchison, Honorary Professor in Media Policy, Glasgow Caledonian UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/809102017-07-27T13:58:34Z2017-07-27T13:58:34ZDon’t be fooled by Fleet Street’s Blue Peter bashing – the press has an anti-BBC agenda<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180006/original/file-20170727-8525-1xslgbd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Daily Mail's social media assault on the BBC and Blue Peter.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">@mailonline via Twitter</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The world’s longest-running children’s TV show is in trouble – and, if you read newspapers, it’s all the BBC’s fault. The <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4665900/Blue-Peter-NO-viewers-episode-digital-TV.html">Daily Mail has reported</a> that an episode of the broadcaster’s flagship children’s programme <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/cbbc/shows/blue-peter">Blue Peter</a> had no viewers when it was aired on CBBC on June 13. According to the Daily Mail, zero children these days want to make something from “sticky-back plastic and a few toilet roll tubes”, compared to eight million in the programme’s “heyday”.</p>
<p>The BBC took to <a href="https://twitter.com/bbcpress">Twitter</a> to defend the programme. While the Blue Peter badge may no longer be the coolest accessory in the playground, more than 160,000 children between six and 15 still have one and while viewing figures have <a href="https://www.prolificnorth.co.uk/2017/07/bbc-fights-back-as-papers-attack-blue-peters-zero-viewers/?utm_source=Prolific+North&utm_campaign=93f19b0549-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_07_07&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_414d662abd-93f19b0549-147995753">gone down since the programme’s peak</a> in the 1970s, Blue Peter retains a considerable audience. </p>
<p>The episode the Daily Mail referenced was a repeat shown at 2.30pm (when Blue Peter’s target audience was largely in school). The episode was actually watched by 252,000 people across four separate airings.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"882605394195091456"}"></div></p>
<p>This isn’t the first time that the BBC has taken to social media to defend itself against newspaper attacks. A search through the BBC’s Twitter history finds a response to a <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4669728/BBC-admits-spends-139-000-year-buying-Guardian.html">Daily Mail article</a> suggesting that the BBC “has opened itself up to accusations of left-wing bias after it was revealed it gets more than 1,300 copies of The Guardian every week”. The BBC hit back by pointing out that the Corporation receives “more copies of the Times than The Guardian and 1,200 Daily Mails a week”. </p>
<p>It’s interesting to see the Daily Mail trying to portray the BBC as a left-wing fellow-traveller of The Guardian. The Guardian, like the Mail, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/jul/06/blue-peter-has-hit-the-rocks-its-time-for-the-bbc-to-sink-it">also criticised the BBC</a> for the declining viewing figures of Blue Peter, arguing that, “a flagship children’s show like Blue Peter deserves better than this”.</p>
<p>So why would two national newspapers with almost polar opposite political points of view, the left-leaning Guardian and the right-leaning Daily Mail, use a skewed reading of viewing figures to create a negative story about the BBC? The answer lies with the broadcaster’s unusual funding system. The BBC is funded by a compulsory annual licence fee of £147, paid by everyone who watches television or downloads BBC programmes in the UK, no matter how much money they earn or how much they watch. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178068/original/file-20170713-12477-1qnsxpv.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178068/original/file-20170713-12477-1qnsxpv.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=254&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178068/original/file-20170713-12477-1qnsxpv.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=254&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178068/original/file-20170713-12477-1qnsxpv.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=254&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178068/original/file-20170713-12477-1qnsxpv.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178068/original/file-20170713-12477-1qnsxpv.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178068/original/file-20170713-12477-1qnsxpv.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Guardian takes aim as well.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">The Guardian</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This means that the BBC is able to make programmes free from the influence of advertisers and in areas which the commercial media market wouldn’t necessarily serve because they don’t generate enough profit. This includes children’s programming. But, because everyone pays, the BBC also needs to make programmes which are popular, such as Strictly Come Dancing – or people would simply refuse to pay their licence fee. </p>
<p>While 97% of the UK population <a href="http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/reports/pdf/bbc_charter_review_dcmsreview_october2015.pdf">use BBC services every week</a>, the number of people who read newspapers in print has <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/77222/News-2015-report.pdf">declined heavily over the past 10 years</a> with newspaper reach among adults falling by more than a quarter since 2005. </p>
<p>Newspapers don’t receive a guaranteed income from the licence fee and therefore many senior figures within the newspaper industry – including the owner of The Sun and The Times, <a href="http://www.thetvfestival.com/website/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/GEITF_MacTaggart_1989_Rupert_Murdoch.pdf">Rupert Murdoch</a> and the editor-in-chief of the Daily Mail, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/apr/16/the-bbc-there-to-inform-educate-provoke-and-enrage">Paul Dacre</a> – have criticised the licence fee as giving the BBC an unfair advantage. Newspaper owners see the BBC as a rival and there is some evidence showing that the BBC is <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-murdoch-press-has-waged-a-relentless-campaign-against-the-bbc-and-why-its-worked-45523">criticised within particular newspapers</a> because of this.</p>
<h2>Playing the blame game</h2>
<p>As many BBC programmes are popular, it seems as though newspapers are usually careful not to obviously attack the BBC programmes themselves. Blue Peter, for example, is a programme many newspaper readers would have grown up watching and so suggesting the programme was at fault would not have gone down well. The newspapers, therefore, developed their story around the BBC failing to take proper care of a programme which the nation knows and loves. </p>
<p>The Daily Mail, for example, blamed the BBC for moving the programme around in scheduling and cutting the number of weekly episodes from three to one. The Mail also suggested this was the fault of the BBC, not the Conservative-led government, which <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/oct/19/bbc-licence-fee-frozen">froze the licence fee</a> for six years. This means that the BBC has had a real terms cut in funding.</p>
<p>The BBC isn’t perfect – and scandals such as the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20026910">Jimmy Savile</a> debacle mean it often deserves criticism. But it’s important to remember that the owners of the newspapers criticising the BBC have an agenda in wanting to see the BBC decline: they want to pick up its share of the media market. So criticism of the BBC may not always have the interests of those who use BBC services at heart.</p>
<p>The BBC’s <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/regulatory_framework/charter_agreement/">Royal Charter </a> – the document which sets out what the BBC should do – was recently renewed for 11 years. This was said to be kind to the Corporation because it allowed the licence fee to continue and increase in line with inflation until 2021-22. It also prompted critics to suggest that this was a <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3587999/Missed-chances-reform-BEEB-Licence-fee-not-shake-gone-say-critics.html">missed chance to reform the BBC</a>. </p>
<p>Most people still see the BBC as a national treasure. But that doesn’t necessarily include the UK’s newspapers, and recent coverage of Blue Peter shows Fleet Street’s knives are still out for Auntie.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80910/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Catrin Owen receives funding from a Future Academic Bursary at the University of Liverpool. She also works part time in the constituency office of a backbench Labour Party Member of Parliament alongside her PhD studies. </span></em></p>Everyone wants to get their hands on Auntie’s money.Catrin Owen, PhD student in Communication and Media, University of LiverpoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/690222016-11-24T11:03:58Z2016-11-24T11:03:58ZSpeaking in tongues: BBC World Service expansion aims to extend British soft power<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/147358/original/image-20161124-15365-dk94ku.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> </figcaption></figure><p>The BBC World Service has <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-37990220">outlined plans</a> to increase the number of languages in which it broadcasts from 29 to 40 – in a drive to reach half a billion people across the world by 2022. It is the biggest expansion of the broadcaster in more than 70 years, and a signal that Britain aims to exercise its soft power more vigorously. </p>
<p>The plans are unlikely to restore the BBC to its peak position of the World War II era when it was broadcasting in 45 languages, but they could help halt its humiliating decline and sharpen its competitive edge, if implemented wisely. Ironically, it was the same government that inflicted massive damage to the broadcaster that came up with this expansion initiative.</p>
<p>Five years ago, David Cameron’s government, against all advice, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/nov/29/bbc-world-service-budget-cuts">slashed the World Service’s finances</a> in October 2010 and radically altered its funding arrangement. Under the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/77800/Lyons_BBC.pdf">2010 Spending Review Settlement</a>, the government transferred the funding responsibility from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the BBC’s licence fee with effect from 2014. </p>
<p>The deal, endorsed by the then culture secretary Jeremy Hunt and the then BBC director-general Mark Thompson, was reached after what the former described as “the fastest negotiation” in the corporation’s history. The BBC was slammed with an unprecedented 16% funding cut over a period of four years. The cuts compelled the World Service to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12277413">close many language services</a>, reduce the English language radio offerings, sack hundreds of staff and restructure its offices and operations. All this was happening when rival broadcasters, such as China’s CCTV, Qatar’s Al-Jazeera and even Russia’s RT, were <a href="https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Expansion%20of%20International%20Broadcasting_0.pdf">expanding their services</a>.</p>
<p>Not long after the World Service squeeze, the so-called Islamic State made its presence known in a dramatic fashion, capturing territories in the Middle East and organising and inspiring anti-Western attacks across the world. By the time its agents staged <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/paris-attacks-2015-22621">massive attacks in Paris</a> on November 13 2015, killing 130 people, the West was almost in panic. Within ten days, David Cameron unveiled the UK government’s <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/555607/2015_Strategic_Defence_and_Security_Review.pdf">Strategic Defence and Security Review</a> and <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-security-strategy-and-strategic-defence-and-security-review-2015">National Security Strategy</a>. </p>
<p>Although Cameron’s announcement may not be a direct response to the Paris attacks, media reports <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/8f88ae8a-8eb6-11e5-a549-b89a1dfede9b">did link the two</a>. The document outlines the government’s strategies for deploying both hard and soft powers. Using language that took some phrases verbatim from the <a href="http://www.e-ir.info/2013/03/08/joseph-nye-on-soft-power/">soft power theorist Joseph Nye</a>, the government said it was determined “to attract and persuade other countries to work for the same outcomes” as it did. </p>
<p>It listed the BBC World Service among its soft power resources that would be deployed to attain the stated goals. The broadcaster was allocated £289m over four years to do the job. Director-general <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-34902244">Tony Hall said</a> the “funding is the single biggest increase in the World Service budget ever committed by any government”.</p>
<h2>Reaching out</h2>
<p>It was that funding that was transformed into the expansion announced by the broadcaster, targeting Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Russia. Eleven new language services – Afaan Oromo, Amharic, Tigrinya (Ethiopia and Eritrea), Gujarati, Punjabi, Marathi, Telugu (India), Igbo, Pidgin, Yoruba (Nigeria), and Korean – will be added to the existing 29 language services, some of which will also be expanded. This will surely extend the BBC’s reach and increase its audience figures. What is uncertain is the effectiveness of its public diplomacy function. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/147249/original/image-20161123-19712-5kvdhy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/147249/original/image-20161123-19712-5kvdhy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/147249/original/image-20161123-19712-5kvdhy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/147249/original/image-20161123-19712-5kvdhy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/147249/original/image-20161123-19712-5kvdhy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/147249/original/image-20161123-19712-5kvdhy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/147249/original/image-20161123-19712-5kvdhy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Jewel in the BBC’s crown.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">BBC</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Although both Tony Hall and the World Service director, Francesca Unsworth, are <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2014/francesca-unsworth-ws">quick to highlight</a> the primacy of providing “impartial journalism” in the expansion drive, the public diplomacy remit is the central motive of the government. And therein lies the broadcaster’s dilemma: how can it be an “impartial” news provider <em>and</em> promoter of British public diplomacy? As seen in <a href="http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/3793/">my previous research</a>, the potency of international broadcasting in public diplomacy is limited by using the broadcaster so brazenly for that purpose. Sticking to the impartiality remit brings greater gains than indulging in clever branding. </p>
<p>The government’s action (or inaction) is also a significant factor. My research, for instance, indicates that the British government’s involvement in the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq appears to have harmed the impact of the BBC’s public diplomacy role among many Muslims. As <a href="http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/sites/uscpublicdiplomacy.org/files/legacy/publications/perspectives/CPDPerspectivesLessons.pdf">Professor Nicholas Cull argues</a>, the “most potent voice for an international actor is not what it says but what it does”. The World Service is more likely to be a better soft power resource under a government that adopts non-aggressive and more inclusive foreign policy.</p>
<h2>Enduring power of radio</h2>
<p>There is also the issue of how the expansion plans are implemented. There should be clever allocation of resources in the new services. For instance, the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-38000387">Pidgin service</a>, targeting audiences in Nigeria and other countries in West Africa, needs to be primarily a radio service rather than an online offering, because Pidgin is essentially an oral language. Existing services, such as English language radio and online, which were harmed by earlier funding cuts, also require rehabilitation. </p>
<p>But, even more significantly, the reduction of the Hausa radio services needs an urgent reversal. The Hausa service – which serves listeners in Nigeria and other parts of Africa – was once the <a href="http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/ara2009_10/bbc_hausa.pdf">largest non-English language service of the BBC</a> in terms of audience figures. But it has had its radio output reduced at the weekends. Ironically, this was done despite evidence showing that the activities of Jihadi insurgents appear to be more intense at the weekends. It’s great that a Hausa TV service has been introduced and the online offerings are being strengthened. But they need work alongside an expanded radio service – not at its expense. </p>
<p>The resilience of radio as a mass medium should never be underestimated. This is more so for services targeting countries that are still contending with the deficits of electricity supply, internet connectivity and overall broadband services.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/69022/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Abdullahi Tasiu Abubakar has worked for the BBC World Service and is a contributor to its programmes.</span></em></p>The BBC will add 11 new languages in its biggest expansion in 70 years.Abdullahi Abubakar, Lecturer in Journalism, City, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/456682015-08-27T16:18:10Z2015-08-27T16:18:10ZThe future of traditional TV looks bleak, and it shouldn’t worry us<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/90758/original/image-20150804-11984-18dntxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Testing times for broadcasters in transition.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/zapthedingbat/3231146485/in/photolist-5Vwtha-6FPdw4-4R9qhh-dCjo16-aBPfS3-rszJ5-aBPfY1-91BKuo-wZYN2-4SDVJ9-8nkLwW-XTbU2-6p5UTM-wZYHR-2jLUeT-5AQPqt-5zKFdk-948duU-9jyFSC-34hBhF-5ALiQH-8RxTR9-9ugwLu-65pRH6-3atq8S-4v7fia-4DjfaG-4vaM6J-7jAwya-7CoggM-p2ixs-i1vGm-7jAcrc-bC1YJs-evx7nM-homUk-6j3fXc-9q66sG-9q675s-7kKJem-8FRFTQ-7kFRf6-2jRdF5-MyWxM-4TKyfM-4TKyng-homVy-gHgeF7-C23PV-4TKynZ">Sam Greenhalgh</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33496925">review of the BBC’s charter</a> overseen by culture secretary <a href="http://www.johnwhittingdale.org.uk/">John Whittingdale</a> doesn’t just have important implications for one of the UK’s most iconic institutions, it is also a symptom of a broader phenomenon: the disruption of television by on-demand content. The future for broadcasters might look bleak, but there are also some likely winners. Streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon Prime or Apple TV spring immediately to mind, but there is also room in the market for investigative news media such as The Guardian, The Times, or The Economist. </p>
<p>The big challenge for TV broadcasters is the fierce competition for people’s time from an ever-increasing group of content, media and entertainment providers. Competitive strategy scholars would describe the problem as follows: the level of competition in an industry is determined by the degree of substitution for a particular product of service. In other words, the more alternatives to fulfil a particular need, the more competitive the industry. </p>
<p>For <a href="http://www.claytonchristensen.com/biography/">Harvard’s Clayton Christensen</a> such substitution is particularly likely if a common technology platform emerges. In this case, the improvement in broadband coverage and the affordability of Smart TVs have made web content a serious rival for traditional television.</p>
<h2>Business model broken</h2>
<p>The value proposition of traditional television has been to cater for a very diverse audience, produce unique content and provide high-quality journalism. This has all been paid for by TV license fees or advertising revenues. However, this business model seems to be broken, for a number of reasons.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/90756/original/image-20150804-12028-m3lfn5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/90756/original/image-20150804-12028-m3lfn5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/90756/original/image-20150804-12028-m3lfn5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/90756/original/image-20150804-12028-m3lfn5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/90756/original/image-20150804-12028-m3lfn5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/90756/original/image-20150804-12028-m3lfn5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/90756/original/image-20150804-12028-m3lfn5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/90756/original/image-20150804-12028-m3lfn5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Dumped.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesgood/363013819/in/photolist-y5xmX-rxVPM2-5tFwKC-uWfa-egFvvr-juQrtn-81utrs-4z9Kkf-4z9Nv5-4z5BbR-4z5xYa-4z9NVY-4z5zKV-4z5AY2-7sAPrs-4z5xaM-ALM2g-4o5anB-GZUAa-4bbvPH-6J91i2-6MsK1J-7fq53G-9AsAm-fvrcuK-4z9NjU-4z9Q9d-4z9Qsd-4z9QQG-4z9LEf-4z9SCb-4z5ymX-4z5Bhr-4z5BRP-4z5uFp-8MmJkq-4z9LTQ-4z5wrn-4z5wF8-4z5Btv-4z9Kw7-A8zQK-4z5yTe-4z9Kzm-4z5B84-4z5wVp-4z5uUX-4z9KnW-4z5xmK-4z9NDQ">James Good</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>First, the underlying logic of service provision is still the “TV programme” with pre-defined broadcasting time slots, and now accompanied by restricted availability after broadcasting via platforms such as the BBC’s iPlayer or Channel 4’s All 4 streaming service. </p>
<p>Second, TV stations aim to be “everything for everybody”. While this has made sense in the past, it is questionable whether this still appeals to the media and technology savvy viewers of today. Finally, the legitimacy of the TV licence as a quasi–tax is increasingly open to challenge, while the advertising model looks fragile too as people are only prepared to pay for what they use.</p>
<h2>Who are the likely winners?</h2>
<p>It looks grim, but there is also a big chance in all of this. </p>
<p>The internet and online streaming as a common technology platform allows content providers to focus on what they are really good at, be it sports, drama, shows or news coverage. This is a clear opportunity for TV broadcasters. It reduces the pressure of that suffocating “everything for everybody” idea and opens the door for increased specialisation. Look at it this way, and the demise of traditional television starts to be a potential source of exciting and innovative programmes and formats. </p>
<p>Success is going to be a question of scale; the availability of up to date, high quality content on-demand. Much has been written about how streaming services like <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/netflix">Amazon Prime and Netflix</a> are likely winners in the battle for primacy in home entertainment. These companies are already fighting their own battles for dominance by expanding their libraries of on-demand films, documentaries and TV shows at a breathtaking speed. </p>
<p>The move by streaming services into original content also offers a direct challenge which bites into the core model for traditional broadcasters. One key example is <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1856010/">Netflix’s “House of Cards”</a>, an international hit. Amazon Prime also just announced that they are going to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33673600">add a music streaming service</a> as part of their already existing streaming service; another example for the importance of scale.</p>
<h2>Good news</h2>
<p>There is space for others, however. News media such as traditional broadsheet newspapers are in a strong position to benefit in future. <a href="http://newspaperdeathwatch.com/">Earmarked for a slow death</a> even before the big broadcasters, these stately institutions have endured their fair share of suffering due to shrinking circulations. But some of them, such as the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/video">British paper and website The Guardian</a> or <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/sptv/magazin/">German weekly Der Spiegel</a> have developed innovative web platforms which not only provide traditional news content but timely video content. Der Spiegel even has its own TV channel broadcast via the internet. </p>
<p>News was always one of the crucial propositions of the major broadcasters; yet, as we move deeper into an on-demand world, newspapers and news magazines are in a very strong position to be the news or documentary providers of choice. </p>
<p>Brand recognition is an asset of course, and their success will particularly depend on their ability to leverage the authenticity and subject expertise these organisations clearly have accumulated. Using business news as an example, both the Financial Times and The Economist appear well-positioned, and have already proven an ability to develop innovative content in a fast paced and highly competitive environment. These are important skills to have in order to thrive in a “post-television” industry whose shape is yet to be determined. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y7LKfLxVtzE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">A clip from The Economist’s YouTube channel.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As this evolution continues, traditional broadcasters need to engage in serious soul searching. In a world that is increasingly fractured and where TV programmes are substituted by content provided in YouTube channels, by pioneering newspapers or a growing band of <a href="http://www.iflscience.com/tags/video">specialist publishers</a>, they need to find an answer to the question: What is unique to what we have to offer? </p>
<p>One thing seems to be clear: this soul-searching will reveal some unloved truths, it will be painful and, ultimately, it will lead to significant changes to how TV broadcasters around the world operate. So, the pressure is on for John Whittingdale and his panel of experts. In their bid to set the foundations for the BBC to navigate a chaotic next ten years, there are plenty of dangers, but also a chance to create media history.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45668/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Martin Friesl does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A fractured broadcasting industry is destroying the business model for the giants. There are winners in the wings though, and the BBC could yet be one of them.Martin Friesl, Senior Lecturer in Strategic Management, Lancaster UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/446212015-07-14T14:54:35Z2015-07-14T14:54:35ZBad news week for BBC as Murdoch press sharpens claws<p>It’s to be yet another week of crisis, inspection and introspection for the forever under pressure BBC as the government is set to publish a green paper on Thursday, which will, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/12/bbc-charter-review-green-paper-licence-fee-chief-funding">the Guardian</a> says, signal the next stage in the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/14/battle-for-the-bbc">political battle</a> over the broadcaster’s future size and funding. </p>
<p>As part of the process for charter renewal (which expires at the end of 2016) the culture secretary, John Whittingdale, has recruited eight experts, among them former Channel 5 chair and chief executive Dawn Airey and Dame Colette Bowe, the former chairwoman of the regulator Ofcom, to oversee a “root-and-branch” review of the public broadcaster.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/88235/original/image-20150713-11821-xs8qwv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/88235/original/image-20150713-11821-xs8qwv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/88235/original/image-20150713-11821-xs8qwv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88235/original/image-20150713-11821-xs8qwv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88235/original/image-20150713-11821-xs8qwv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88235/original/image-20150713-11821-xs8qwv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=580&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88235/original/image-20150713-11821-xs8qwv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=580&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88235/original/image-20150713-11821-xs8qwv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=580&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Campaigning front page from Sunday Times.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>According to a front-page report in the <a href="http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1580368.ece%20">Sunday Times</a> headlined: “Tories give BBC reform ultimatum” the Green Paper will, among other things, urge the ditching of the BBC Trust (which is responsible for governance), question impartiality and discuss whether production facilities should be privatised.</p>
<p>Elsewhere in the Sunday Times, the front page of the News Review has an article discussing what the BBC might lose under the headline: “Taming the BBC beast” while on page two, the former Today programme editor, Rod Liddle, writes under the headline: “Oh dear. Auntie’s forgotten why she’s even here.” </p>
<p>This sort of thing will make familiar reading for anyone in Murdoch’s home market of Australia where the mogul’s flagship newspapers have kept up a <a href="https://theconversation.com/claims-of-abc-anti-coal-and-gas-bias-arent-backed-by-the-facts-30721">barrage of criticism against the ABC</a> – questioning its funding, its scope and, regularly, its bias. </p>
<p>Murdoch papers campaigned vociferously for the incumbent prime minister Tony Abbott, whose hostility towards the public broadcaster recently culminated in imposing a ban on his frontbench ministers appearing on its <a href="https://theconversation.com/qanda-controversy-plays-into-hands-of-abcs-government-critics-43713">flagship Q&A debate</a> show.</p>
<h2>Setting the agenda</h2>
<p>One thing you can be sure of, historically, is that when the BBC is the up for discussion, it’s The Times and Sunday Times which like to believe they are setting the agenda.</p>
<p>This is best illustrated by examining the relationship between the Thatcher government and the Murdoch-owned press in the 1980s. As <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fuzzy-Monsters-Fear-Loathing-BBC/dp/0749316624/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1436784454&sr=1-4%20%C2%A0">Horrie and Clarke</a> have pointed out:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Rupert Murdoch’s News International was a shining example of the new age of enterprise Mrs Thatcher had ushered in. It was union-free, dedicated to giving the punter what they wanted and hugely profitable. Murdoch’s papers had cheered on the prime minister all the way and savaged her critics, including the BBC.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The British press gave open and widespread support to a wide range of policies adopted by the Thatcher governments of the 1980s, but it was the Murdoch press which became her closest allies in attacking the BBC – since News International had a commercial interest in a change in the broadcasting system. Thatcher opposed the BBC ideologically, while Murdoch was interested in a solely commercially funded media. </p>
<p>Thus, in order to attain a major footing in British broadcasting, Murdoch needed to attempt to weaken public service broadcasting. Every opportunity to criticise the BBC was seized upon – with Murdoch using his substantial media concerns in this country to support the prime minister, while his companies received direct benefits as a consequence of policy decisions taken by her government. As <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Closedown-Government-Broadcasting-Policy-1979-92/dp/0745305717/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1436784583&sr=1-7&keywords=Tom+O%E2%80%99Malley%20">Tom O’Malley </a> states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Sunday Times and The Times promoted the liberalisation of broadcasting regulation in order to open up the UK market to greater commercial exploitation.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In order to achieve this “liberalisation of broadcasting”, various techniques were employed to undermine the BBC. The two newspapers commissioned and published opinion polls which suggested apparent dissatisfaction with the existing broadcasting landscape and support for the use of advertising to fund the BBC. </p>
<p>They also supported specific changes in broadcast regulation and the management of the BBC based on the proposals of Tory think tank groups such as the Adam Smith Institute and the Institute of Economic Affairs. They also gave a favourable reception to governmental criticism of the BBC on any level.</p>
<h2>High-level back scratching</h2>
<p>Rupert Murdoch’s closeness to the Thatcher government yielded mutual benefits. During the 1979 general election The Sun and the News of the World campaigned vigorously for the Tories. Two years later, when Murdoch wanted to buy The Times and the Sunday Times, he <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/28/how-margaret-thatcher-and-rupert-murdoch-made-secret-deal">received considerable political assistance</a> – as Harold Evans <a href="http://hackinginquiry.org/leveson-inquiry/sir-harold-evans-murdochs-takeover-of-times-seminal-event-in-press-and-politicians-collusion/">recounted to the Leveson Inquiry in 2012</a>, it was decided by John Biffen – then trade minister – that his takeover of the papers should not be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I was told by someone I knew that Mrs Thatcher had determined [the bid] must go to Mr Murdoch because she valued his support. In this belief I was supportive of Mr Hugh Stephenson at the Times, who had it from a friend in the Cabinet Office that Mrs Thatcher’s real debt of gratitude was the crucial factor in doing this.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Once Murdoch had established himself at the forefront of the British newspaper industry, he had greater opportunity to support the government – provided he got what he wanted. It so happened that he and Thatcher desired the same thing: the deregulation and commercialisation of British broadcasting.</p>
<p>The Times believed that it had a direct influence on broadcast policy, claiming that the proposals put forward in the newspaper in 1983 were present in the 1988 White Paper on broadcasting:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It is only five years since torrents of outraged abuse followed a call in these columns for an end to the duopoly of BBC and ITV, auctioning of franchises, the phasing out of the licence fee, an enquiry into alternative methods of financing and a tighter definition of public service broadcasting.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Hostility then and now</h2>
<p>At the BBC, press hostility was taken very seriously. <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/372/dp/0340427728/ref=pd_sim_14_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=0ED8CVB2A03R3FDHHV18">Alasdair Milne</a> the BBC director general from 1982 to 1987 wrote in his memoirs that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>January 1984 was the month the press decided to turn on us, in a campaign sustained for 18 months or more and I believe unprecedented in the history of the BBC.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>By January 1985: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We had taken a drubbing and some of the mud stuck. I must say I was … incensed by the behaviour of The Times.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Horrie and Clarke describe the feeling inside the BBC at the time:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Inside the BBC the campaign was having a catastrophic effect. Producers and executives felt they were living in a bunker having the stuffing knocked out of them. If the BBC’s management had defended itself, as Milne had done during the Falklands war, that would have been reported as evidence of a ‘New BBC row’ and thrown back in their faces. They just could not win.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Press coverage then as now was important – it increased the BBC’s sense of beleaguredness. In promoting the restructure of British broadcasting, the Murdoch press was in tandem with the government. The BBC faced a two-pronged attack, which, many employees believed, threatened its very existence.</p>
<p>So here we are in 2015 where <a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/thunderer/article4495778.ece%20">Stephen Pollard</a> wrote in the Times:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The BBC is a behemoth that needs to be cut down to a realistic and affordable size. It must then stop behaving like a competitor rather than complementary to other broadcasters and media outlets.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>These words mirror almost exactly the position of the Conservative government. And as James Cusick <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/osbornes-assault-on-the-bbc-is-doing-murdochs-dirty-work-10372838.html">wrote in the Independent</a>, when George Osborne <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/george-osborne-scores-victory-over-bbc-as-broadcaster-agrees-to-foot-650-million-bill-for-free-tv-licences-10369824.html">spoke last week</a> of the BBC’s “imperial ambitions”, he could have been channelling the spirit of James Murdoch in his 2009 Edinburgh Television address. Then <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/video/2009/aug/29/james-murdoch-edinburgh-festival-mactaggart">Murdoch spoke of</a> the “chilling ambition of the BBC” with its “land-grab” mentality.</p>
<p>In this sense it really does seem as if – with Leveson and the phone hacking scandals fading into history – that the cosy relationship between the Conservatives and the Murdoch press is gradually returning to normal.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44621/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
It’s to be yet another week of crisis, inspection and introspection for the forever under pressure BBC as the government is set to publish a green paper on Thursday, which will, the Guardian says, signal…John Jewell, Director of Undergraduate Studies, School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/416452015-05-12T05:18:54Z2015-05-12T05:18:54ZIs the BBC safe in the hands of Britain’s new culture secretary?<p>On the face of it, John Whittingdale’s appointment as secretary of state for culture is thoroughly bad news for the BBC and those who value its cultural, democratic and economic contribution to the UK. With the current <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2015/05/05/ge2015-why-the-bbcs-future-hangs-on-this-election/">ten-year charter due to expire next year</a> – at the same time as the freeze in the licence fee – Whittingdale will essentially determine on what basis and with what resources the BBC will continue from January 1 2017.</p>
<p>The Daily Telegraph’s chief political correspondent, Christopher Hope, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11596235/David-Cameron-reshuffles-government-live.html">described</a> his appointment as an “effective declaration of war” on the BBC while the Daily Mail’s political editor James Chapman tweeted that, while Cameron had apparently been angered by BBC election coverage: “I didn’t believe he was as cross as Whittingdale’s appointment suggests.” </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"597699171672596480"}"></div></p>
<p>If commentators from the right-wing press are agitated, the reaction from supportive civil society groups and academics borders on despair.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"597702680568532992"}"></div></p>
<p>It is not difficult to see why. Ideologically on the right of his party, Whittingdale <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/11192145/BBC-licence-fee-worse-than-poll-tax-says-John-Whittingdale.html">described</a> the licence fee last year as “worse than the poll tax” and unsustainable in the long term. The Culture, Media and Sport select committee, which he chaired, <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmcumeds/315/315.pdf">published</a> its <a href="https://theconversation.com/securing-the-bbcs-future-in-defence-of-the-universal-licence-fee-38331">report on the BBC</a> just three months ago, clearly imprinted with his personal vision for the future. Whittingdale wants a BBC which must “do less in some areas”, with a small proportion of revenue “made available for other public service content priorities” and with market impact tests to be triggered by any allegations of “crowding out” by commercial competitors. </p>
<p>Combined with replacement of the BBC Trust by a “Public Service Broadcasting Commission” with the power to redistribute revenue to other organisations, the report was a recipe for a BBC reduced to an impotent rump within ten years.</p>
<p>Moreover, Whittingdale is reported to have <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2015657/Phone-hacking-MP-grill-Murdochs-admits-News-Corp-links.html">historical links to Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation</a>, which has long targeted the BBC – just as it does the ABC in Australia and PBS in the US – as a public sector intervention which interferes with Murdoch’s own corporate ambitions. </p>
<p>As long ago as 1996, Whittingdale resigned as parliamentary private secretary to the Conservative minister Eric Forth, having voted against his own government’s broadcasting bill because it prevented any newspaper proprietor with more than 20% of national circulation from owning a terrestrial television licence. As everyone recognised at the time, there was only one proprietor in the frame. In the immediate aftermath of the phone-hacking scandal, he <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-senior-mps-secret-links-to-murdoch-2315111.html">was revealed</a> to have been a long-standing friend of Murdoch’s key senior executive Les Hinton.</p>
<p>Ostensibly, then, a perfect storm of an antagonistic minister, a charter renewal process that must be short and sharp, a Conservative government likely to be at its most energised and least vulnerable in the first 18 months – and a right wing baying for BBC blood.</p>
<h2>Making a case</h2>
<p>There are, however, a couple of straws in the wind. During his ten years running the media and culture committee, Whittingdale was widely regarded as a fair and effective chairman. He is very familiar with the issues and is not deaf to proper arguments. <a href="http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/culture-media-and-sport-committee/future-of-the-bbc/oral/8328.html">Having given oral evidence</a> to his committee on several occasions, I can testify that – unlike one or two of his former select committee colleagues – he listens. </p>
<p>Moreover, he was clear in his comments about the future of the licence fee that he was thinking beyond the next ten years – in other words, any move towards subscription or other funding solutions would have to wait until the 2026 Charter, by which time both technology and politics will have moved on.</p>
<p>In the short term, then, Whittingdale might be open to persuasion that the BBC is indeed a unique and valuable UK asset which should be protected from the ravages of deep and immediate cuts, let alone fundamental restructuring. It will, however, require not only the marshalling of incontrovertible facts, but a well-organised civil society campaign to demonstrate that the BBC remains a <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/opi/browse/BBC">much-loved and internationally admired institution</a>. </p>
<p>To reduce its funding or start redistributing the licence fee will inevitably result in services closed and quality compromised, with profound and irreparable damage to the BBC’s long-term future. Will Whittingdale want to preside over the wilful destruction of what remains for most people – if not his own right wing – a great British institution?</p>
<p>If all else fails, perhaps we can rely on the House of Lords. According to the <a href="http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/house-of-lords-guide-to-legislation-sailsbury-convention-pol">Salisbury convention</a>, the Lords will not oppose government legislation which arises out of election manifesto promises. But while the Conservative manifesto commits to continued use of licence-fee revenue for rural broadband roll-out, it says nothing about reducing the size of the BBC, changing its constitutional structure or introducing contestable funding. </p>
<p>If the new culture secretary is really intent on returning to his ideological roots and inflicting terminal damage on such a vital British institution, those of us who wish to resist such political savagery may have to start mobilising the upper house.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41645/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven Barnett does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>On the face of it, John Whittingdale’s appointment as media and culture secretary spells trouble for the BBC.Steven Barnett, Professor of Communications, University of WestminsterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/416282015-05-11T15:08:21Z2015-05-11T15:08:21ZWhat to expect from Tory cultural policy: where the axe will fall<p>John Whittingdale, the former chair of the Commons culture committee, has been made the new culture secretary, taking over from <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-banker-doing-as-the-new-minister-of-fun-25620">Sajid Javid</a>. He will be in charge of renegotiating the BBC’s charter, a process that will be vitally important for the cultural landscape of the UK. </p>
<p>As chair of the previous parliament’s culture, media and sport select committee he is distinguished as being a culture secretary who undoubtedly knows his brief. However, he faces a cultural sector fraught with uncertainty. </p>
<p>Whittingdale’s focus will probably be on English culture, as Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have different systems for cultural policy. It won’t surprise anyone to learn that we’re facing further cuts over the next five years, so the most realistic question to begin with is to ask where the axe will fall.</p>
<p>The reshaping of Whitehall will see reductions in spending on areas that are not ring-fenced. It’s clear that culture is vulnerable. It’s not unreasonable to say that we may even see the abolition of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Cutting the size and cost of central government is a clear part of a Conservative agenda, and so even if it’s not abolished, we will likely see major changes to it. </p>
<p>Arts Council England’s funds will also be reduced further. However, abolition of the Arts Council would be symbolically difficult and would undermine the capacity of government to shape and deliver cultural agendas. So an (even further) reduced Arts Council is on the cards. This means that arts organisations will all have to expect funding cuts. Where these funding cuts happen will be a major question, as Arts Council England seek to balance accusations of London bias with the sustainability of smaller regional organisations. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81217/original/image-20150511-10239-m76dg2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81217/original/image-20150511-10239-m76dg2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81217/original/image-20150511-10239-m76dg2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81217/original/image-20150511-10239-m76dg2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81217/original/image-20150511-10239-m76dg2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81217/original/image-20150511-10239-m76dg2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81217/original/image-20150511-10239-m76dg2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">All arts organisations can expect further cuts.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">IR Stone / Shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Local arts in peril?</h2>
<p>The decline of funding from central government will be nothing compared with the collapse of local support. The Department for Communities and Local Government, if it survives in a reshaped Whitehall, will be given vastly reduced sums to offer local authorities. These authorities have a range of statutory duties to deliver, none of which include the arts. </p>
<p>So the gamble for arts organisations outside of London is where philanthropic and market, rather than state, forms of funding will come from. This, in turn, raises questions about programming and artistic focus. Outside of central London a turn to a model of more community focused, democratic, arts organisations may be on the cards. And in communities with high levels of social exclusion it’s difficult to see where the money will come from.</p>
<p>At the same time there are opportunities. The pre-election budget focused on creating and developing a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-31942291">Northern Powerhouse</a> around Manchester, with some leeway given around using local business rates and health budgets. Along with new buildings and investment in tech industries, Manchester might point the way for an integrated cultural, media and creative industries policy.</p>
<p>Because of these inevitable cuts, working across policy agendas for funds is likely to be important. Arts and health will be a crucial area of work for many regional cultural organisations, based on extra funding and the belief in the <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/ccut20/24/1">power of the arts to impact on wellbeing</a>. Research is needed to make the cultural case to those making health-spending decisions.</p>
<p>Education policy will be important and influential. This is not only as a result of continued worries about the place of culture and creative subjects across the various curricula in England’s educational system. It is also reflected in higher education and from there into the workforce for the creative industries. </p>
<p>Ensuring economic competitiveness through creative graduates will be part of Conservative policy discourses. How this is achieved remains to be seen. It is, therefore, another opportunity for cultural organisations, particularly those in areas with comparatively well-funded universities struggling to attract international students to the English regions.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81220/original/image-20150511-19566-c98460.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81220/original/image-20150511-19566-c98460.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81220/original/image-20150511-19566-c98460.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81220/original/image-20150511-19566-c98460.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81220/original/image-20150511-19566-c98460.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81220/original/image-20150511-19566-c98460.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81220/original/image-20150511-19566-c98460.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Up for grabs?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dantaylor/4660618/in/photolist-pTru-6Koaq-2jkCL1-4ACzWS-9Fud3b-P21X7-P227j-oAbUfD-4BRT15-4mAx1z-2LsJpG-9sX37E-7d4pmt-eELQh-7VrtHf-nLX6Y-6fsMrN-9pMtsf-7d8erN-k1St4-9x34Fm-oB2Tq7-8W1jQY-c4LP1y-8ka2LX-c4LSW9-7tQia9-4ZQ746-5KXTTu-6zSjqp-a2MfkJ-ejPmV-izj4PB-iziNY7-6Csr7-Hvnkh-izipg6-c5Mfcd-5Q99w-7mBpNk-P2yDK-7AJS2G-8o244i-9oUYwE-82dJSn-gFjw2s-8Rv1BT-5WDdz7-BE84a-kBQieg">dantaylor/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>BBC on the market</h2>
<p>Finally, the major cultural policy event for the Conservative administration will be the renewal of the BBC’s charter. Although we operate in an age of <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/westminster-university-debates-public-service-media-in-digital-age">public service media</a> rather than just broadcasting, questions of competition, costs and politics have been ever present in right wing discussions of the BBC. </p>
<p>A BBC subject to further marketisation may open up opportunities for freelancers across a range of creative sectors, along with The Conservative’s commitment to local TV. How the BBC commissions the same levels of content across the same platforms with reduced funding and stricter competition controls is much less certain, as is the development of local television stations outside London.</p>
<p>The example of <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/polis/2013/08/22/from-fee-to-mutual-what-kind-of-bbc-do-you-want-to-emerge-from-charter-renewal/">BBC charter renewal is one of many individual battles</a> that will see headlines. Others will include <a href="https://twitter.com/mauricewdavies/status/596952026501804032">national museums coping with free admission</a> alongside reduced funding levels and the inevitable closures of local authority run libraries.</p>
<p>We are also likely to see little movement on the inequalities underpinning how the cultural sector functions, including low (and sometimes no) pay and poor working conditions. The <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/only-one-in-10-actors-comes-from-workingclass-background-says-research-10230330.html">headlines worrying over the lack of diverse voices</a> in the arts are likely to continue, as an absence of political will to intervene in cultural and creative labour markets, reduced funds for new commissions, alongside the exacerbation of inequalities in the higher education system coincide.</p>
<p>Of course, the more culture depends on markets and philanthropy the less any democratic political agendas can be influential. For some voices this will be a delightful prospect. However, given the role of arts and culture in sustaining and supporting social inequality, from educational opportunities, through the makeup of the cultural labour force, through to what is depicted on stage and screen, we should be cautious about welcoming the withdrawal of the state.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41628/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dave O'Brien receives funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council.</span></em></p>Conservative cultural policy is likely to be defined by severe cuts – possibly even the abolition of the department itself.Dave O'Brien, Senior Lecturer in Cultural Policy, Goldsmiths, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/383312015-03-04T06:26:35Z2015-03-04T06:26:35ZSecuring the BBC’s future – in defence of the universal licence fee<p>The BBC is at the heart of British broadcasting’s delicate ecosystem. Owned and funded by the British public, it is committed to serving as a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/2011/annual_report">beacon of quality</a> across all genres of British programming – raising audience expectations of programme quality and, consequently, driving up standards among its competitors too. </p>
<p>So proposals to change how the BBC operates, or, indeed, what its role should be, deserve close scrutiny. Some of the recent <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/news/report-future-of-bbc/">recommendations for the future of the BBC</a> made by the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee could have alarming consequences. In my view, two are particularly serious, involving suggestions for replacing the licence fee and changing the BBC’s role as state broadcaster.</p>
<p>It is true that the annual £145.50 licence fee, payable by anybody who watches live television, is a cumbersome system for funding the corporation, not well liked by parts of the public nor by the BBC itself. But, as well as offering excellent value for money (a Sky subscription will cost at least £258 and probably much more, in addition to the licence fee), it has a number of real advantages. </p>
<p>The universal licence fee means everyone has the same stake in the BBC and that the corporation must serve everybody, regardless of wealth, taste or status. It also makes the BBC answerable to the public rather than just to politicians who would surely like to <a href="https://commsmedialiverpool.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/walking-a-tightrope-the-bbcs-precarious-role-in-the-2015-election-campaign/">tame its independence</a> at times. </p>
<h2>A two-tier corporation</h2>
<p>The report has made various proposals for change, including making some BBC services subscription only. This would make these BBC services responsive only to those willing to pay, creating a two-tier corporation, and could herald a move to an entirely subscription-funded BBC.</p>
<p>A subscription service would not only reduce the BBC’s reach, its revenue and, consequently, the quality of its programmes, but it would also undermine its <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/whoweare/mission_and_values">mission</a> altogether. </p>
<p>Rather than providing something for everyone, its revenue would be linked to the quantity of subscriptions. This would give it a quasi-commercial model, creating an incentive to chase large audiences and ignore altogether those audience fractions less likely to subscribe. What is the point of a public service broadcaster if it no longer operates for the benefit of the whole public? </p>
<h2>Risk of politicisation</h2>
<p>Another suggested option is for the licence fee to be replaced by a compulsory levy – essentially a <a href="http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=hypothecated-tax">hypothecated tax</a>. This too could be disastrous. The present licence fee preserves the independence of the BBC – it collects its own revenue. </p>
<p>Direct tax-funding, however collected, could easily expose it much more severely to the whims of government, with the risk that the BBC could be perceived as serving the state rather than the public. State broadcasters elsewhere (such as Italy) tend to serve their political masters and sacrifice public trust as a result.</p>
<p>I would favour a much more <a href="http://cstonline.tv/can-iplayer-save-the-bbc-licence-fee">imaginative solution</a>, first proposed by John Ellis, to move the charging mechanism from live television to the BBC’s online catch-up services. This would follow the present trend in audience consumption and eliminate the present costly system for collecting licence fee payments.</p>
<h2>Competing with commercial</h2>
<p>Even more worrying is the suggestion that the BBC should retreat from areas that are well-served by commercial broadcasters. Superficially, this is an attractive argument – similar material would be provided anyway – and it is honey to the BBC’s commercial competitors who see the corporation as a cause of market failure. </p>
<p>But if the BBC is to be a universal broadcaster, reflecting and serving the whole public, it cannot restrict itself to minority interest programming that the market is less likely to provide. Being a beacon of quality applies as much to popular programming as to any other sort. The lesson from other parts of the world is that commercial operators tend to maintain audience share by providing risk-averse programming which simply copies already-successful models. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73664/original/image-20150303-31835-1c330bm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73664/original/image-20150303-31835-1c330bm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=795&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73664/original/image-20150303-31835-1c330bm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=795&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73664/original/image-20150303-31835-1c330bm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=795&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73664/original/image-20150303-31835-1c330bm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=999&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73664/original/image-20150303-31835-1c330bm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=999&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73664/original/image-20150303-31835-1c330bm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=999&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Bake off: delivering on quality and quantity.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">BBC/Love Productions/Tom Dymond</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Certainly the BBC should be more innovative in its popular programming as this will drive up quality across the system to the benefit of all viewers. But avoiding popular programming would not only change and weaken the BBC’s purpose, but threaten its public support altogether. </p>
<p>The public rightly credits the BBC for popular programmes such as Doctor Who, Strictly Come Dancing and The Great British Bake-Off. These programmes make it much easier for the BBC to justify the funding and resources for the countless other services which are so valuable to much smaller segments of the audience. </p>
<p>Because of their quality, BBC shows are very popular with broadcasters around the world, making the British broadcasting industry a major global player and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/bbcworldwide/worldwidestories/pressreleases/2011/07_july/annual_review.shtml">lucrative national exporter</a>.</p>
<h2>Sensible and measured</h2>
<p>Despite these substantial concerns, overall the report is sensible and measured. Gratifyingly, it seems to grasp the value of much of what the BBC does and it has not, as might have been feared, been captured by some of the powerful <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/future-of-the-bbc/?type=Oral#pnlPublicationFilter">commercial vested interests that gave evidence</a>. </p>
<p>The criticisms the report makes of the BBC’s governance (weakness over the Jimmy Savile revelations, excessive salaries and payoffs, George Entwistle’s failure as Director-General and so on) are broadly warranted, including calling for the abolition of the BBC Trust and stronger Ofcom oversight. And, although <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2971264/BBC-staff-average-4-000-extra-working-days-MPs-blast-corporation-wasting-licence-fee.html">some media coverage</a> of the report seems to link governance failures to calls to reduce the BBC’s role and output, this erroneous link is not made by the committee. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, if adopted, there are recommendations here which could do untold damage to British broadcasting – so extreme care is needed. This report will not set policy for the BBC’s charter renewal in 2016 and, depending on the make-up of the next government, may be ignored altogether. But it has set the tone for lengthy debate on the future of the BBC. And once dangerous ideas are set running, they can often be difficult to recapture.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38331/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Goddard does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It needs reforming, but MPs should reconsider the universal licence fee for the excellent value it gives to the British public.Peter Goddard, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Communication and Media, University of LiverpoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/381362015-02-27T15:47:18Z2015-02-27T15:47:18ZMPs are right – BBC must wake up to new media realities<p>My advice to the BBC: ignore the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport committee report <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/news/report-future-of-bbc/">on your future</a> at your peril.</p>
<p>Over the past 30 years the BBC has largely been the author of its own misfortune. While the journalists and programme makers have continued to create and inform, executive leadership has been busy digging the corporation’s future grave. </p>
<p>It’s easy to dismiss the media committee’s various incarnations as a small bunch of parliamentarians washed up from ministerial sackings and twilight political career grazing. But I believe the reports it produces give a bracing and independent wake-up call to anything it investigates.</p>
<p>What the Future of the BBC says is essentially this: your purpose and most of what you do is worthy, vital, and much-loved, great this and great that, but …</p>
<p>The conjunctive “but” in British politics is the equivalent of a mini-stroke that might make you slur your words for a bit, or a small-scale earthquake that will leave some dogs barking and one or two chimney pots toppling to the ground. </p>
<p>But what happens next does not bear thinking about. </p>
<h2>Wake up Auntie, times are changing</h2>
<p>In the same way that there are very few people under 30 buying any kind of newspaper, <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2731277/Now-BBC-threatens-make-iPlayer-users-pay-licence-fee-Director-General-admits-charge-modernised-apply-programmes-catch-service.html">fewer and fewer people under 30 are paying the BBC licence fee</a>, or have any wish to do so. <a>Fewer and fewer are consuming BBC media programmes as live.</a> When they watch or listen again it’s in a new multimedia topography that resents and will not tolerate those unpleasant and threatening letters about not paying the licence fee. </p>
<p>My understanding of the younger generation, even up to the age of 40, is that they think the criminalising of people who don’t pay is utterly immoral. The generation of under 30s, apart from a lucky few in wealthy families, faces a future of debt obligations and credit control.</p>
<p>They are not going to give a meal ticket to BBC executives and “talent” to snuffle £150,000 to £500,000 per annum when, after five years of higher education and interning, a 23-year-old would be lucky to earn £20,000 and find somewhere to live in a London room-share.</p>
<p>Financial insecurity and anxiety is by no means the curse of the young. It’s spreading exponentially to all classes and ages as quickly as distribution of wealth is shrinking. Meanwhile the BBC is a bit like a heroin addict in the advanced stages of an addiction illness. There are no friends and family left to either lend to them, or for them to steal from.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2969436/BBC-mauled-MPs-slam-bosses-squandering-money-accuse-corporation-never-apologising-insist-licence-fee-axed.html">Associated newspapers</a> and News UK publications have always been hyper-critical because ideologically and commercially they are rivals and competitors. But the committee’s observations about the BBC blundering into all kinds of non-broadcasting markets has meant that it is long past the tipping point of having more enemies than friends. </p>
<p>The committee acknowledges the value of the BBC’s “continuing importance as a provider of impartial news and its capacity to bring the country together where its output remains universally available”. But this is constantly hindered because what the BBC has lacked at the top is the imagination always expressed by those at the bottom.</p>
<h2>Towards a new funding model?</h2>
<p>The committee report offers many interesting solutions. It’s argued that “the <a href="http://www.internations.org/germany-expats/guide/16032-media-communication/the-german-radio-and-tv-landscape-16007/broadcast-fees-in-germany-2">German model of a broadcasting levy</a> on all households is our preferred alternative to the TV licence”. Does the BBC have a clear strategy on what would work as a replacement for the licence fee? </p>
<p>The committee suggestion talks of a levy on all households which would obviate the need to identify evaders and provide a fairer way of ensuring those people who use only BBC radio and online services contribute to their costs. It works in Germany which has a thriving public radio and television system alongside the commercial sector.</p>
<h2>Crown jewels</h2>
<p>The committee also quite rightly observes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>At a time when countries like Russia and China are significantly increasing their investment in global media outlets, including services aimed at the UK, we believe that the World Service has an increasingly important role in what is a global information war.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The UK has begun to lose this war because of a disastrous decision to destroy the separate and independent role of the World Service in partnership with Foreign and Commonwealth Office funding. The leaving of Bush House, being absorbed as some kind of expat refugee in the national broadcasting edifice and dependent on licence fee charity has inevitably resulted in lost power and independence.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73317/original/image-20150227-16166-d4d0ha.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73317/original/image-20150227-16166-d4d0ha.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73317/original/image-20150227-16166-d4d0ha.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=313&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73317/original/image-20150227-16166-d4d0ha.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=313&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73317/original/image-20150227-16166-d4d0ha.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=313&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73317/original/image-20150227-16166-d4d0ha.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73317/original/image-20150227-16166-d4d0ha.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73317/original/image-20150227-16166-d4d0ha.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Ariel between Wisdom and Gaiety.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ariel_between_Wisdom_and_Gaiety.jpg#mediaviewer/File:Ari">by Mike Knell. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The committee observed: “Given its new funding and oversight arrangements, we fear the importance of the World Service could be diminished.” It’s not a case of could be. It has been.</p>
<p>In 2009, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/aug/28/james-murdoch-bbc-mactaggart-edinburgh-tv-festival">James Murdoch’s MacTaggart lecture</a> accused the BBC of mounting a “land grab” with its online and regional news services “dumping free, state-sponsored news on the market” making it “incredibly difficult for journalism to flourish on the internet”. </p>
<p>He was right – and the report suggests: “We believe there must be a more symbiotic relationship between local media and the BBC, where each benefits from the other.” </p>
<p>The committee was very blunt when it stated the BBC “must not expect to receive others’ news content without providing something in return”. </p>
<p>This is an invitation to dance, not to charge at each other with elbows splayed out. </p>
<p>Extending independent commissioning to news offers exciting collaborative opportunities. The BBC could commission multimedia reporting centres at local and regional government and court centres thus investing in core journalistic specialisms that enhanced democratic scrutiny of key public institutions.</p>
<h2>Who cares, shares</h2>
<p>Wouldn’t the BBC be an inspiration in this context? Why should the riches of drama and cultural programming, remain sealed in the BBC’s own territory? The establishment of a Public Service Broadcasting Commission, could ensure substantial investment in innovative and artistic new writing by seeding sound and visual arts projects in the community and independent broadcasting sector. </p>
<p>What is at stake is £4 billion of annual funding for news, entertainment and cultural communication. Now that’s a prize that should court humility not the boasting and cynicism that sometimes comes with greed and mediocrity.</p>
<p>The BBC needs to pick up on the spirit of the regular adjectives and adverbs used in the report: bold, alternative, wider, fairer, better, and perhaps focus on the regular nouns: transparency, plurality and efficiency. If the BBC is something we all pay for, perhaps the money it has should reach more of those it has never or not so well served.</p>
<p>Perhaps it should be investing more in those 23-year-olds in one bedroom flat-shares who can make exciting programmes on their laptops and smartphones for audiences the BBC is completely unaware of.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38136/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tim Crook is affiliated to the Chartered Institute of Journalists as a member and serves on its professional practices board.</span></em></p>The Future of the BBC report was right on a number of counts. The public broadcaster would do well to take heed.Tim Crook, Reader in Media and Communication (Goldsmiths), Visiting Professor of Broadcast Journalism (Birmingham City University), Goldsmiths, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/336962014-10-31T13:33:18Z2014-10-31T13:33:18ZBBC flexes its money-making muscles as Guardian calls foul<p>The BBC has put the cat among the pigeons with the <a href="http://www.marketingmag.com.au/news/bbc-global-news-ramps-up-australian-team-and-native-offerings-ahead-of-g20-summit-in-brisbane-57166/#.VE4hwvnkfYh">news</a> that its commercial arm, <a href="http://www.bbcworldwide.com/">BBC Worldwide</a>, will <a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/medianews/article4246017.ece">beef up its presence in Australia</a> by hiring local journalists and launching a dedicated news service on BBC.com. </p>
<p>The news went down particularly badly at The Guardian, which has – of course – recently beefed up its own presence in Australia, taking advantage of the newsroom carnage which has seen hundreds of journalists laid off in recent years to hire some of the country’s most experienced and credentialed reporters and editors.</p>
<p>The Guardian says it has more than doubled its market share in Australia since launching its local edition in May 2013, and that it now reaches more than 1.9m unique visitors a month.</p>
<p>What’s really bugging The Guardian, of course, is that BBC Worldwide will sell advertising into its Australian operation, thereby cramping a market that the executives at Kings Place had earmarked for expansion.</p>
<p>In his Polis public lecture at the London School of Economics recently, Guardian Media Group chief executive <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/gnm-press-office/2014/oct/23/andrew-miller-global-news-media-the-next-horizon">Andrew Miller</a> said: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Australia is already a diverse and highly competitive market. The BBC’s expansion into Australia goes beyond its public service remit. More than that, it does not benefit UK licence fee payers or meet the requirement of the BBC to provide news in parts of the world where there are limited alternatives.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Echoes there of James Murdoch’s now-infamous <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/aug/28/james-murdoch-bbc-mactaggart-edinburgh-tv-festival">McTaggart lecture</a> in 2009, when he delivered a fierce “Get your tanks of our lawn” message to the BBC about the public broadcaster’s digital ambitions:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There is a land-grab, pure and simple, going on - and in the interests of a free society it should be sternly resisted. The land grab is spear-headed by the BBC. The scale and scope of its current activities and future ambitions is chilling. Being funded by a universal hypothecated tax, the BBC feels empowered and obliged to try and offer something for everyone, even in areas well served by the market.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Given the way The Guardian likes to trumpet its difference from the Murdochs and News Corp in terms of its moral ethos and value set, it was interesting to hear Miller making almost exactly the same point as Murdoch, five years on. Being supported by the licence fee, he said, the BBC “doesn’t have to worry about its funding.” Its role, therefore, should be to “constructively support those British news brands that do.”</p>
<p>Miller’s comments on the BBC were interesting, constructive and not limited to the Australian venture, though. He has some workable ideas on how the BBC might ‘constructively support ‘its commercial counterparts. </p>
<p>What if, he posits, the Guardian, the Mail and such like had access to the raw news feeds coming in from court cases, Royal weddings, key Select Committee hearings and other global breaking news events? What if the BBC released its back catalogue to content providers “to create new content that the BBC doesn’t have the time, inclination or expertise to create”?</p>
<p>To be fair to Miller, he doesn’t imagine that the BBC do all this for free out of the goodness of its heart. He states that in territories where BBC Worldwide had a commercial interest, the content could be chargeable along the same lines as the agreement the BBC currently has with its own commercial news service. But in situations where no such commercial value exists, “content should be made freely available for national, local and hyper-local organisations to explore.”</p>
<h2>Major player</h2>
<p>Some of what Miller said is easily challenged. It’s worth noting, for example, that <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/guardian-boss-bbc-distorting-news-market-australia-google-needs-take-editorial-responsibility%20-">BBC Worldwide</a> is the corporation’s commercial arm and its operations overseas are not funded by the licence fee. But his description of the BBC as a truly “dominant world player” is undoubtedly bang on the money.</p>
<p>In its 2013/14 <a href="http://www.bbcworldwide.com/annual-review/annual-review-2013/ceo-review.aspx%20,">annual review</a>, BBC Worldwide chief executive Tim Davie stated that the public broadcaster’s commercial arm was a fully-integrated global content company doing business in over 200 territories, expanding into areas as diverse as Cambodia and Romania. </p>
<p>Far from not benefiting the licence payer, the continued expansion means that in <a href="http://www.bbcworldwide.com/annual-review/annual-review-2014.aspx">2013/14</a> £173.8m was paid to the Corporation in dividends and investments, while £88.9m was invested in BBC in-house productions. Light entertainment formulas are sold all over the world: think of The Great British Bake Off, which, as <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/oct/13/tv-shows-overseas-great-british-bake-off-downton-abbey">The Guardian</a> reported, has been successfully adapted in a whole host of other territories. The modern adaptation of Sherlock Holmes, meanwhile was licensed to 224 territories in 2013 and the third series attracted more than <a href="http://www.mediaweek.co.uk/article/1304803/benedict-cumberbatchs-sherlock-helps-bbc-worldwide-return-1738m-bbc">67 million hits on China’s digital platform YouKu</a>.</p>
<h2>Business plan</h2>
<p>While BBC Worldwide operates under the BBC’s <a href="http://www.bbcworldwide.com/about-us.aspx">Charter and Agreement</a>, it actually has a commitment to be commercially efficient. In the US, where revenue is close to US$600m, Tim Davie is mapping further growth. For him, BBC America is “<a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/bbc-worldwide-ceo-targets-us-674423.">a small big business, which needs to grow</a>.” It’s this logic which is behind the most recent developments. </p>
<p>American Movie Classics (AMC) Cable Company has bought a 49.9% stake in BBC America for $200m (£125m). Under the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/worldwide/2014/amc-networks-bbc-worldwide-partnership">terms of the deal</a>, AMC will take over operational control and advertising sales of BBC America. </p>
<p>BBC director-general, <a href="http://www.jomec.co.uk/blog/wp-admin/%E2%80%99http:/www.theguardian.com/media/2014/oct/23/amc-networks-share-acquisition-bbc-america">Tony Hall</a> (who is also chairman of BBC Worldwide) has clearly signalled that the US is a huge target for BBC growth. One can assume the same to territories such as Australia.</p>
<p>So this is the problem for Andrew Miller, James Murdoch and others: the BBC’s international power is clearly growing and it is forging alliances with major global players. It is expanding in areas where its interests will collide with other news providers. The case for co-operation and collaboration made by Miller in his LSE speech may be persuasive from a public service, utilitarian perspective. </p>
<p>Whether the business plan makes sense to BBC worldwide, though, remains to be seen.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/33696/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The BBC has put the cat among the pigeons with the news that its commercial arm, BBC Worldwide, will beef up its presence in Australia by hiring local journalists and launching a dedicated news service…John Jewell, Director of Undergraduate Studies, School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/291042014-07-11T16:33:18Z2014-07-11T16:33:18ZDirector general’s BBC plans look like the start of a revolution<p>The debate on the BBC’s <a href="http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/broadcasters/bbc-charter-renewal-talks-set-for-2015/5068133.article">forthcoming charter renewal</a> has taken a while to gain momentum. It seemed like the corporation was loath to enter the painful discussion of how the licence fee might be sustained in an era of iPlayer viewing and when criminal sanctions are likely to be removed for non-payers.</p>
<p>But now director general Tony Hall has seized the initiative by launching a bold and dramatic <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/10/tony-hall-bbc-compete-compare-speech">proposal</a>. He has not confronted the vexed issue of the funding directly but in a clever political move has neatly changed the terms of debate by focusing instead on the core activity of programmes, how they are made and how that might be done differently. </p>
<p>In a significant speech at City University on July 10, Lord Hall <a href="http://www.city.ac.uk/news/2014/jul/bbc-director-general-announces-plans-for-a-competitive-revolution-for-the-uk-broadcast-industry">summarised</a> his message as “compete or compare”. The most eye-catching suggestion was the way that both the contribution of independent producers and also of BBC in-house producers might be reconfigured.</p>
<h2>The quotas begin</h2>
<p>Historically almost all BBC programmes, with the exception of films and a few imports, were made inside the corporation. The 1980s and the birth of Channel 4 saw the emergence of a whole new industry in the UK of small independent producers, commonly known as the “indies”. <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/oct/24/politicsandthemedia.communicationsact">In 1990</a> in response to effective lobbying, the BBC agreed to a quota system whereby 25% of its output (excluding news) had to be bought in from these new entrepreneurs. (Of course some were staffed by recent BBC employees who resigned and conveniently benefited from sweetheart deals.) </p>
<p>The system worked well overall and by the last charter period it was extended so that a further 25% was identified as a “window of creative competition,” whereby commissioners were free to take from whoever can make the best programmes, both insiders and outsiders. But still the remaining 50% was guaranteed to BBC in-house production.</p>
<p>Now Lord Hall is suggesting a radical departure. All BBC commissioning should be free to accept programmes from outside if they choose. But before the indie producers pop the champagne, there is a crucial provision. As a quid pro quo, BBC in-house production departments should be able to offer their wares anywhere they can pitch them. </p>
<p>So we could see BBC productions competing with independents to have their programmes transmitted on Channel 4, ITV, Channel 5 or anywhere else. Hall stresses that it all depends on achieving a genuinely level playing field. But if this can be achieved, he says he is willing to go as far as removing the overall in-house guarantee for the whole of BBC production.</p>
<p>This all appears like exciting and bracing competition. It could extend scope and opportunities for indie producers and viewers, or it could be a cold wind that could logically see the BBC reduced to a commissioning entity like Channel 4. </p>
<h2>Indies onside?</h2>
<p>There are obviously still swathes of detail that would need to be worked out, but there are certainly some interesting implications. For one thing, Hall has cleverly gathered up the considerable vocal lobbying power of the independent sector behind him in the forthcoming battle over funding the BBC, in which politicians are already positioning themselves. Indies are a key player in the UK’s much discussed creative industries explosion. If the enticing prospect of being able to pitch to the whole of BBC output is being offered, it will very much be in the interests of the independent sector for the corporation to be as well resourced as possible.</p>
<p>We also need to have a clear understanding about how the competitive market would work. While commissioning indies once meant a few chums in a basement bouncing around ideas, the industry now includes huge players who represent a totally different kind of independent. Not only has there been a consolidation into so-called “super-indies,” some have morphed into global media organisations on the scale of the BBC itself. </p>
<p>For example, Shine and Endemol have recently merged with 21st Century Fox and Apollo Global Management. Tony Hall has rightly questioned whether such producers should be given guarantees or protections and is making a distinction between them and those emerging young indies still requiring encouragement and support to grow their talents.</p>
<p>Finally, what about those working in-house? For a start the commissioning and production arms of the corporation will need to be further separated. BBC production may also need to free itself of considerable overheads to make it competitive with outsiders. </p>
<p>Successful independents also often go on to make big commercial gains from rights and distribution. Danny Cohen, director of television, has already <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26340305">hinted</a> that ways may need to be found to translate such benefits for insiders. Otherwise, now that the staff security blanket is potentially being removed, is there still a point of remaining within the corporation? The best and brightest may take their chance and leave. Whatever happens these are interesting times for programme makers.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/29104/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Suzanne Franks does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The debate on the BBC’s forthcoming charter renewal has taken a while to gain momentum. It seemed like the corporation was loath to enter the painful discussion of how the licence fee might be sustained…Suzanne Franks, Professor of Journalism, City, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/250452014-04-01T05:11:19Z2014-04-01T05:11:19ZThe BBC World Service is a force for good – look after it, or risk losing it<p>The BBC World Service is well-known to insomniacs tuning in to Radio 4 in the middle of the night, intrepid travellers, expat Britons and aficionados of international news. Few other British citizens appear to be very aware of, or indeed care much about this international news service targeted at overseas audiences in 28 languages, including English. </p>
<p>But we should care about the World Service not just because very soon we will be paying for it through the licence fee, but because its <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmfaff/1045/104504.htm">future is precarious</a>. We might lose a very precious organisation that has been a force for good in the world just because we are ill-informed about its value.</p>
<p>The biggest shake up to the funding and governance of the World Service since World War II is taking place: the Foreign and Commonwealth Office ceases funding the World Service which will henceforth be funded by the licence fee, along with the BBC’s domestic public services. </p>
<p>The BBC Trust sets its budget and overall strategic direction and, with the foreign secretary, agrees the languages in which it operates. It can close specific language services, as it always has done, according to strategic priorities, market competition and/or informational need. Some changes may <a href="http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/consult/wsol/wsol_positioning.pdf">also require agreement</a> by the secretary of state for culture, media and sport.</p>
<p>The government’s rationale for these changes remains unclear. It will only slowly dawn on licence-fee payers that they are funding a multilingual service for overseas audiences. The danger is that the value of the World Service is going to be judged mainly in terms of value for money and/or the immediate, obvious, tangible benefits that it brings, or rather does not bring, to the taxpayer.</p>
<h2>Cost vs benefit</h2>
<p>If the public debate is framed in terms of short-term benefits to UK citizens as opposed to long-term investment in fostering international understanding, trust and empathy, this would have damaging consequences. The World Service’s reputation of trust and the benefits that it brings to Britain were built up slowly over eight decades. But trust is very quickly lost, and with it Britain’s place in the world diminished. The World Service is <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/soft-power-and-the-uks-influence/news/soft-power-report-24mar14/">vital to UK “soft power”</a> but its value extends well beyond.</p>
<p>The World Service has been an international public service broadcaster par excellence since its inception, providing a global model for public service broadcasting. Of course, its roots are indisputably colonial, given its incarnation as the Empire Service in 1932. But it is its paradoxical nature that makes it one of the most intriguing of British cultural organisations. </p>
<p>These paradoxes include: its colonial- style cosmopolitanism; its financial dependence on and its editorial independence from government; its reliance on one of the most polyglot workforces in the world to voice credible broadcasts that, ultimately, serve British national interests; and the intimate connection forged with overseas audiences and its silent presence and invisibility in the UK.</p>
<p>Built on an ethos of high-quality, independent professional journalism, the World Service connected colonials overseas to the “Motherland” in the 1930s and 1940s, was a beacon of light when the dark forces of fascism prevailed during World War II and formed a cultural bridge over the Iron Curtain during the Cold War. </p>
<p>From Burma to Baluchistan, it has continually reached people in parts of the world that most other international broadcasters can’t be bothered with. It has offered succour and hope to people living in zones of conflict or disaster, as well as captives and tortured prisoners. It has driven a global news agenda that stands in stark contrast to the parochialism of domestic agendas, national rhetorics and commercial imperatives. And as the consumption of international news declines, as sources of news fragment, as the principle of “fast, first and flawed” bulletins prevails, as social media create a confusing cacophony blurring fact and opinion, the role of the World Service as a key reference point, a fact checker, and a space of civil debate becomes ever more important. </p>
<p>It has been and is one of the most cosmopolitan organisations in the world, building bridges between peoples and languages. UK citizens should be proud of its legacy and the way in which it serves and connects publics at home and abroad.</p>
<h2>‘Mothership’ of BBC values</h2>
<p>If you think the above accolades rely solely on the subjective views of a supporter you would be wrong. The value of the World Service is demonstrated in <a href="http://www.open.ac.uk/researchprojects/diasporas/core-research">Open University research</a> over nearly a decade. </p>
<p>Our research has brought to public light the previously invisible lives and working practices of diasporic staff at World Service. We have demonstrated the significance of its cultivation of a cosmopolitan culture: the myriad ways in which the refugee and exiled writers, linguists and artists who worked at Bush House – the historic home of the WS and a microcosm of the 20th century migrations – influenced and changed the BBC and, as a consequence, Britain. </p>
<p>Our research has investigated its <a href="http://www.open.ac.uk/researchprojects/diasporas/cvp">cultural value</a> and traced how the World Service became the foundation of the BBC’s global networks today and, in the words of its former director, John Tusa: “the mothership of all BBC values”.</p>
<p>That is why we should care about the World Service. We should safeguard its deep institutional memory of cosmopolitan practice and move with the times. The licence fee payer stands to gain a great deal from the infusion of World Service values into the BBC’s domestic services. It will give us a domestic BBC news service better adapted to a globally interconnected world – one in which trust, empathy and international understanding reign above parochialism and patriotism. </p>
<p>But if we do care about the World Service then need to ask and seek answers to the following crucial questions: Why has the BBC Trust failed to ring-fence funding for the World Service? Will this failure and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/attempts-to-carve-up-the-licence-fee-are-the-real-threat-to-the-bbc-23494">decriminalisation of non-payment of the licence-fee</a> create intolerable financial insecurity for World Service? Given its powerful global voice, why has World Service been deprived of a voice on the BBC’s executive board? How will its interests be protected in the wider BBC? Will World Service be able to maintain its distinctive cosmopolitan voice as it integrates into the wider BBC? Will the historic hierarchies and inequities between the domestic and foreign language services be reproduced in the new home of World Service at New Broadcasting House? And above all, will it continue to be an international public service capable of reaching people and parts of the world that other news services do not or dare not go? </p>
<p>These are <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/mar/31/bbc-world-service-mps-fears">vital issues</a> and we need to hold our politicians and the BBC to account to ensure that we don’t lose the most precious part of the BBC.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/25045/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marie Gillespie receives funding from the AHRC and ESRC.</span></em></p>The BBC World Service is well-known to insomniacs tuning in to Radio 4 in the middle of the night, intrepid travellers, expat Britons and aficionados of international news. Few other British citizens appear…Marie Gillespie, Professor of Sociology, The Open UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/239342014-03-06T11:00:03Z2014-03-06T11:00:03ZFlawed and could improve, but BBC is still the best of British<p>If the current media debate about the future of the BBC is anything to go by, the corporation seems to be facing the gravest crisis of its 92-year history. Indeed, this week a book with the title: “<a href="http://www.abramis.co.uk/books/bookdetails.php?id=184549621">Is The BBC In Crisis?</a>” has been published with scores of hard-hitting critical and analytical essays from past BBC chiefs and luminaries, the brightest “hackademics” and authoritative historians from the traditional plains of cultural history. </p>
<p>The book launch featured a panel discussion with Cardiff University professor and former ITN editor Richard Tait, Westminster University’s Steve Barnett, Suzanne Franks of City University, and David Elstein who held the tiller at Channel 5, Sky and Thames. </p>
<p>Professor Franks’ analysis of <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/content/how-bbc-lost-plot-executive-pay-devastating-results-staff-morale">how the BBC lost the plot on executive pay, with devastating results for staff morale</a> is uncomfortable to digest in reading and public discussion.</p>
<p>The gathering of the book’s authors was haunted by fraught speculation over director-general Tony Hall’s anticipated decision <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2571777/BBC-axe-one-TV-channels-bid-save-100m-Announcement-month-BBC3-BBC4-go.html">to axe BBC 3</a> to save £100m in the interests of “putting quality first”. </p>
<p>The Guardian is planning its own book on the BBC’s woes and lamentations later this year. The media chatter has the tone of wailing. <a href="http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/sir-howard-davies-lacks-trust-in-the-beeb-9138612.html">Howard Davies</a> described the post-Hutton creation of the BBC trust as <a href="https://twitter.com/taraconlan">“a kind of son of Saddam Hussein.”</a> </p>
<p>I personally have contributed to the growing brouhaha for I have a chapter in the book called BBC Radio censorship rows: lessons from history. I argue that the BBC seems to be losing its ability to withstand collateral damage from political crises detonated by controversial programmes. My conclusion could not be described as particularly optimistic: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Mistakes are not permitted, rarely forgiven, and the future is less certain and secure for the BBC than it has ever been in its 92-year history.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>The BBC’s part in my downfall</h2>
<p>This is the point at which you would expect me to declare an interest - and any brief foray on Google might <a href="http://biasedbbc.org/blog/2012/11/14/the-bbcs-black-propaganda-offensive/">give you the impression</a> that I am a cheer-leader for the BBC. The barbed roasting I got for going on BBC 5 Live to analyse strategies by which the BBC could deal with “Savilegate” challenged my partiality, pointing out that for 22 years I had been a visiting lecturer to the BBC in media law and ethics. Ipso facto says the blogger: “Pretty clear where he stands.” </p>
<p>But although lively and entertaining as a blogger, “Biased BBC” was unfortunately unaware of the fact that my attempts to challenge the BBC’s hegemony of radio drama more than 20 years ago did not exactly further my career prospects. I criticised what I perceived to be unethical abuses of their powerful dominance of broadcasting and commercial media markets. </p>
<p>The grief arising from the consequences of this cat-fight is best buried in archives beyond the reach of search engines, but a taste of the frisson can be sampled via a subscription to Nexis UK and a 1993 article in the Observer where I was delightfully characterised in quotation by the late Russell Twisk as one of those boys “<a href="http://www.lexisnexis.com.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/uk/nexis/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T19358160692&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=226&resultsUrlKey=29_T19358160696&cisb=22_T19358160695&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=143296&docNo=242">across the River</a>”.</p>
<p>It’s impossible to rationally prove the extent of the reach then and now of the BBC’s power, but to say that I was well and truly kyboshed is an understatement. A colleague in independent broadcasting once sympathetically observed: “Tim, you are Don Quixote charging a Panzer division with a broken lance, sitting astride a lame donkey.”</p>
<p>In my parallel career in academia, my future prospects appeared destined for the deep freeze. I was the “lecturer who was anti-BBC”. I had the pleasure of being heckled at academic conferences and when I grappled with BBC apparatchiks in print, the disapproval of my superiors was made palpably clear. </p>
<p>Anybody reading my <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Radio-3-Volume-Christopher-Sterling/dp/1579582494">academic analysis</a> of the wide panoply of BBC history in the Fitzroy Dearborn Encyclopaedia of Broadcasting published in 2003 should observe an aspiration to impartiality on all matters to do with the BBC. Anybody involved in any aspect of BBC audio drama creativity and production would find it very hard to trace any evidence on my part of personal hostility and lack of respect. What happened to me has happened to many others. And I suspect this may be a factor in the current hyper-vulnerability of the BBC. </p>
<p>I was taught by a father who survived the horrors of the World War II and embraced the consensus of equality of opportunity post 1945, and a Tory to boot, that forgiveness, compromise and the British national interest are everything. </p>
<p>As the late writer Alan Plater once poignantly remarked to me: “There’s nothing intrinsically awful about people in the BBC who behave dreadfully. Sometimes the BBC makes them awful. Something happens to them.” </p>
<p>Individuals and the institutions they lead and work for make mistakes and errors of judgement. Sometimes these are catastrophic, unjust, unfair and indeed illegal. But there is something intellectually and philosophically lacking in the argument that in ensuring that “something is done”, institutional and structural change is imperative. </p>
<p>Canada, New Zealand and Australia are three commonwealth cousins who have diminished and scaled back the funding and power of their BBC equivalents. We do so at our peril. Longstanding and successful public and private bodies do not deserve to be terminated because they foul up from time to time. When corruption has been exposed at the heart of the Metropolitan Police, what purpose is there in liquidating the organisation? When a Royal Marine is court-martialed for the worst crimes, do we really need to merge them with the Rifles? </p>
<h2>Great Britain plc</h2>
<p>The BBC is not just a national cultural journalistic, entertainment, education and information indulgence. It is Great Britain plc in terms of global soft power. When our hard-edged military, trade, economic, industrial and manufacturing position has declined, our political, cultural, information and media position has expanded; largely through the BBC’s eccentric and anachronistic arrangement of distance from government influence through royal charter and licence fee. </p>
<p>The BBC seeds and contributes an extraordinary fostering and conceptualising fusion of intellectual, creative and communications goods and products. These disseminate positive human values of tolerance, democracy, liberty and humanitarian fairness through its journalistic and dramatic programming. </p>
<p>I really don’t mind if the BBC people who turned me over and squashed me flat on the hard-shoulder decades ago have prospered and profited. Good luck to them. But as a smudge in the tarmac, I would whole-heartedly support a continuation of BBC licence-fee funding, closely index-linked to inflation, and a continuation, indeed enhancement of independent governance. </p>
<p>Competitive angst, slights and disappointments, the perception of unfairness, need to be put aside. Enduring, continuing and indeed expanding BBC multimedia publication in a pluralistic and global media market is in all our interests.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/23934/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tim Crook has worked as an instructor in media law for the BBC for a 22 year period, and continues to work as a freelance journalist and programme producer for different BBC outlets.
He is affiliated by membership with the Chartered Institute of Journalists and is a member of the Institute's Professional Practices Board.</span></em></p>If the current media debate about the future of the BBC is anything to go by, the corporation seems to be facing the gravest crisis of its 92-year history. Indeed, this week a book with the title: “Is…Tim Crook, Reader in Media and Communication (Goldsmiths), Visiting Professor of Broadcast Journalism (Birmingham City University), Goldsmiths, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/236742014-02-26T06:00:03Z2014-02-26T06:00:03ZHard Evidence: what would TV look like without the BBC?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42468/original/2d5yq2kw-1393335178.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">What if there were No BBC television?</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Critics of the BBC argue that it <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/aug/28/james-murdoch-bbc-mactaggart-edinburgh-tv-festival">distorts the UK’s media market</a>, making it hard for commercial competitors to prosper and meet consumers’ needs. Their view is that viewers would be better served if the BBC was smaller – allowing commercial broadcasters to expand – and showed only public service programmes that the market will not provide.</p>
<p>But this is not what the numbers suggest. On the contrary, our research suggests that cutting the BBC licence fee would reduce consumer choice and value for money, as well as greatly damaging UK programme producers.</p>
<p>We believe that without the BBC, the UK television industry’s revenue would most likely be lower. While there is a wide range of uncertainty that must be taken into account when making these calculations, it is likely that total investment in programmes would be 5-25% lower and investment in new UK programmes 25-50% lower. This would be a severe blow, not just to viewers, but to the UK television production industry as well.</p>
<p>Our analysis is based on comparing the UK television market in 2012 with projections of what the market might have been like if there had been no BBC TV and no licence fee. The net impact of BBC TV is the difference between the two. We developed two different scenarios: one highly optimistic from the industry’s viewpoint, and the other highly pessimistic. </p>
<h2>Damaging loss</h2>
<p>The figure below shows what the overall revenue to the television industry would look like without the £1.6 billion portion of the BBC licence fee revenue allocated to television content.</p>
<p>Our pessimistic and optimistic projections of the percentage changes in these revenues if there had been no BBC give us the following ranges (rounded): </p>
<p>• Subscriptions: zero to +50%<br>
• Advertising: -15% to +25%<br>
• Other commercial revenue: zero to +30% </p>
<p>The net effect of these changes, after allowing for the loss of BBC licence fee revenue, is that compared with the actual situation in 2012 (with the BBC included), total TV industry revenue would be reduced by over 25% in the pessimistic scenario and increased by almost 10% in the optimistic scenario.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42469/original/r6sffx7y-1393335340.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42469/original/r6sffx7y-1393335340.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42469/original/r6sffx7y-1393335340.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42469/original/r6sffx7y-1393335340.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42469/original/r6sffx7y-1393335340.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42469/original/r6sffx7y-1393335340.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42469/original/r6sffx7y-1393335340.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42469/original/r6sffx7y-1393335340.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Total TV Revenue in 2012 (£bn)</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">What if there were no BBC television?</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These projections are conservative, if anything. In performing these calculations we have accepted the claim made by so much of the commercial television industry, that the BBC “crowds out” some of the investment in programming that would otherwise be made by commercial broadcasters. </p>
<p>In fact, on balance, the evidence suggests that the BBC probably forces commercial channels to spend more on programmes in order to attract viewers. If this is correct, losing BBC television would be even more damaging to viewers and programme producers than the report projects.</p>
<p>The estimates allow for uncertainties as to what effect removing the BBC would have on commercial broadcasters’ revenue, and uncertainties in the percentage of that revenue they would invest in content in a market without the BBC. </p>
<p>As the figures below suggest, removal of the BBC’s £1.6 billion investment in television content would mean a net loss to the overall television market, but both commercial public service broadcasters (such as ITV or Channel 4) and especially other commercial broadcasters would be able to expand to meet some demand from increased subscriptions and advertising.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42473/original/w99wyzkx-1393337213.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42473/original/w99wyzkx-1393337213.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42473/original/w99wyzkx-1393337213.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=236&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42473/original/w99wyzkx-1393337213.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=236&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42473/original/w99wyzkx-1393337213.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=236&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42473/original/w99wyzkx-1393337213.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=297&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42473/original/w99wyzkx-1393337213.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=297&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42473/original/w99wyzkx-1393337213.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=297&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">investment in total content.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But the net effect on the investment on UK first-run content would be dramatic.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42472/original/gyzjxwvm-1393337133.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42472/original/gyzjxwvm-1393337133.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42472/original/gyzjxwvm-1393337133.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=263&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42472/original/gyzjxwvm-1393337133.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=263&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42472/original/gyzjxwvm-1393337133.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=263&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42472/original/gyzjxwvm-1393337133.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=330&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42472/original/gyzjxwvm-1393337133.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=330&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42472/original/gyzjxwvm-1393337133.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=330&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">BBC investment in first run content.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>None of the BBC’s critics argue for the BBC to be abolished overnight, but many argue that it should be scaled back without providing any evidence that this would be better for the public. But our analysis suggests the opposite: although scaling back the BBC would not be as bad as abolishing it, it would still have a detrimental effect on UK viewers and producers. </p>
<h2>Salami slicing</h2>
<p>The scope of our report is necessarily limited in two ways: firstly, it focuses solely on television, while in fact the licence fee also funds other services and activities such as radio, online services, the World Service, S4C and broadband delivery. Of course, were there no BBC television and no licence fee, these other activities would also need to be cut or another way of funding them would have to be found.</p>
<p>We have also limited ourselves to assessing and discussing the BBC’s impact on the public as “consumers” rather than as “citizens”. So the BBC’s contribution to British culture, society, the economy, child development, technology adoption and many other of those “citizenship” benefits are necessarily excluded. But ever in those limited terms a smaller BBC would be bad for the public.</p>
<p>Households would either have to pay slightly more for slightly less choice or pay slightly less for much less choice. Britain without BBC television would also be likely to mean less money being spent on programmes overall – and far fewer new programmes would be produced, so viewers can look forward to TV schedules being packed with repeats and imports. </p>
<p>The idea of a future without BBC TV is not just a hypothetical scenario – it is the logical conclusion of the government’s current “<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/tony-hall-debate-over-licence-fee-damaging-9147728.html">salami-slicing</a>” policy of freezing the licence fee and diverting more and more of it to fund activities outside the BBC’s UK services – while the rest of the market keeps growing. If this policy continues – or even accelerates, as some are advocating – within a generation the BBC will be reduced to a minor sideshow, the UK equivalent of PBS (the Public Broadcasting Service) in the United States. </p>
<hr>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/hard-evidence">Hard Evidence</a> is a series of articles in which academics use research evidence to tackle the trickiest public policy questions.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/23674/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Critics of the BBC argue that it distorts the UK’s media market, making it hard for commercial competitors to prosper and meet consumers’ needs. Their view is that viewers would be better served if the…Patrick Barwise, Emeritus Professor of Management and Marketing, London Business SchoolRobert Picard, Director of Research, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism and a Research Fellow, Green Templeton College, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.