tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/bbc-green-paper-18717/articlesBBC green paper – The Conversation2015-08-25T15:01:33Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/450222015-08-25T15:01:33Z2015-08-25T15:01:33ZFuture of the BBC: why the ‘market failure’ model is a flop in broadcasting<p>For any fans of the BBC – and that would include <a href="http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/howwework/reports/pdf/bbc_report_trust_and_impartiality_jun_2015.pdf">the 59% of Britons</a> who say it is the source they are most likely to turn to for accurate news coverage or, for that matter, the 34% of Americans who told Pew last year they turn first to the BBC for their news – then the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445704/BBC_Charter_Review_Consultation_WEB.pdf">government’s green paper</a> on the future of the UK’s public broadcaster will come as worrying news.</p>
<p>At the heart of the green paper is a belief that public funding should only apply to those areas where the market fails to deliver. It is worth reminding ourselves where this philosophy has prevailed and what it has produced.</p>
<p>Up until the 1960s broadcasting in the US was run purely as a commercial enterprise, lightly regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Programming was constructed around the needs of advertisers (who paid the bills) who had a preference for light, mildly entertaining fare that could be regularly interrupted with commercial messages.</p>
<p>US president John F Kennedy’s first chair of the FCC, Newton Minow, in a <a href="http://www.terramedia.co.uk/reference/documents/vast_wasteland.htm">memorable speech to commercial broadcasters</a>, castigated US broadcasting for its poor quality, formulaic and ad-filled content. The US television landscape, he said after having spent a week watching American TV, resembled a “vast wasteland” – repetitious, uninformative and cajoling. The UK system, meanwhile, run very much along public service principles, was entering a golden age of serious popular drama, biting satire, innovative comedy, news, current affairs and documentary programming rarely seen in the US.</p>
<p>Democratic administrations, looking enviously across the Atlantic, decided to introduce public service broadcasting into the US system, creating PBS and NPR. Under pressure from commercial broadcasters, however, they adopted the kind of <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/bbc_funding_review/annex8.pdf">“market failure” model</a> that appears to inform the current government’s thinking. Public television, in particular, was there to provide what that market did not.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9dGRgLfaGwo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">US television a ‘vast wasteland’.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Worthy but dull</h2>
<p>With the possible exception of children’s programming (notably Sesame Street), this pushed PBS away from making popular programmes. It quickly gained the reputation for being high-brow, worthy but dull. Its financial dependence on government also laid it open to budget cuts whenever politicians found its programmes too questioning or critical. This made PBS increasingly risk averse. So, for example, while Year Zero, John Pilger’s famous documentary about the genocide in Cambodia, aired on primetime on ITV, <a href="http://www.cjournal.info/2007/08/11/the-unseen-lies-journalism-as-propaganda/">PBS refused to show it</a> in the US. Many worry that our government’s threat to reduce BBC funding is having a <a href="http://www.channel4.com/news/rona-fairhead-interference-has-chilling-effect-on-bbc">similarly chilling effect</a>.</p>
<p>Politically compromised and under-funded, PBS does its best, but it pales by comparison with the BBC. While the BBC is the <a href="http://www.barb.co.uk/whats-new/weekly-top-30">most popular British broadcaster</a> – on TV, on radio and online - <a href="http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2010/04/12/where-did-the-primetime-broadcast-tv-audience-go/47976/">PBS is marginal</a> to American broadcasting.</p>
<p>Some would argue that this doesn’t matter, that US commercial broadcasters produce plenty of high-quality, innovative programmes. Having lived in the US for 12 years, I would ask anyone who thinks this to do what Newton Minow did, and sit down for a week in front of a TV in America – or even worse, to listen to the radio. This is the wealthiest media market in the world; it is far richer than the UK and yet the original, critically acclaimed shows it produces (think The Wire or the West Wing – or even well-crafted sitcoms such as Friends, Big Bang Theory or Parks and Recreation) are very much the exception rather than the rule. </p>
<p>Many of the critially well-regarded US shows are made on subscription channels such as HBO that are only really viable in a market as lucrative as the US. The rest, with endless repeats, commercials and hollow canned laughter, is so formulaic and derivative that it makes Bake Off and Strictly Come Dancing seem positively uplifting. As for radio, the BBC alone offers more high-quality and diverse programming than the entire commercial network in the US.</p>
<h2>Crowd-pleasing TV</h2>
<p>There are many areas where a sensibly regulated market works well, but the evidence suggests that broadcasting is not one of them. So, for example, our <a href="https://corporate.sky.com/bigger-picture/sustainability-reporting/how-were-doing-2013-14/financial-revenue-and-profit">wealthiest broadcaster is Sky</a>, yet few could argue that Sky produces anything like the range of high-quality output produced by the BBC. British broadcasting is a huge success story precisely because it has a well-funded public service, commercial-free broadcaster at its core.</p>
<p>One of the reasons for this is that the programming produced by commercial broadcasters is designed to please advertisers – after all it is they, rather than the people watching, who pay the piper. The wishes of advertisers – who prefer mildly entertaining, easily interrupted content – are not the same as the preferences of audiences.</p>
<p>So, for example, when BBC and ITV show the same event live, people <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/bbc-coverage-trounces-itv-in-world-cup-final-viewing-figures-9604484.html">overwhelmingly choose to watch the BBC</a>. This is, in part, because of its reputation as a national broadcaster, but also because, given the choice, people prefer their TV commercial-free. The “market failure” model takes away this choice.</p>
<p>The success of UK television, in other words, is because of its mixed ecology, with strong public service and commercial channels, a system that offering far more choice and high-quality programming than a monotone, commercial model with a weak public service provider. With a smaller BBC, <a href="http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/publication/what-if-there-were-no-bbc-television">commercial broadcasters could make more money to provide more programmes</a>. But to suppose that they would do as good a job as the BBC is to take a huge risk. As the Americans would say: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45022/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Justin Lewis 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>If you want to see how the market failure model works, look across the Atlantic at PBS and NPR and be afraid.Justin Lewis, Professor of Communication, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/448142015-07-17T11:30:26Z2015-07-17T11:30:26ZInside the bizarre logic of the BBC review<p>Who would have expected that one of the central debates about the future of the BBC would not be about its <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/broadcast/2013/08/hard-evidence-how-biased-bbc">pro-business news coverage</a>, its <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22651126">financial mismanagement</a> or its <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/01/jimmy-savile-bbc">alleged cover-up of the Jimmy Savile scandal</a>, but about whether it should <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/14/battle-for-the-bbc">show Strictly Come Dancing on a Saturday night</a>? </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445704/BBC_Charter_Review_Consultation_WEB.pdf">green paper on the BBC Charter Review</a> signals the latest stage of a scuffle between the government and the corporation (and perhaps even <a href="https://theconversation.com/now-is-the-time-to-decide-what-kind-of-bbc-do-you-want-44735">between the government and BBC audiences</a>) about how big, independent and accountable the corporation should be in the coming years. </p>
<p>Dressed up as a sober debate about the purposes, scale and scope of the BBC, the green paper consists of a series of proposals that, while drafted in Whitehall, could easily have been conceived in the offices of the Daily Mail. It is effectively payback for the <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/study-election-coverage-shows-tories-positive-press-and-russell-brands-political-prominence">support given to the Tories by press barons</a> during the recent general election. </p>
<p>Instead of encouraging the BBC to reach out across all platforms and to serve all audiences, the starting point of the green paper is that the BBC’s very success is now its problem. Scale, not independence, accuracy or quality, has become the key issue. The BBC, the paper suggests, should focus not on popularity but on “underserved audiences” – that is, those affected by that wonderfully neutral phrase: “market failure”. The question has now become whether the BBC should relate only to audiences and genres that commercial broadcasters deem to be unprofitable and so leave the latter to gobble up large audiences while leaving the crumbs to the corporation.</p>
<h2>Major player</h2>
<p>The green paper claims to support the BBC’s current mission but also states that “changes to the purposes, scale and scope may be required to ensure that this does not result in an overly extended BBC”. For this reason, it is obsessed by the BBC’s “impact on the market” and manages to list more negative than positive consequences arising from the fact that the BBC reaches 96% of the UK population each week.</p>
<p>So it grudgingly acknowledges that the BBC’s size and spend “can result in positive effects for the creative industries”, a phrase that rather downplays the corporation’s contribution to the wider creative economy, an amount <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/entries/6f413249-6957-4288-a1bb-5979427a5f6e">reckoned by the BBC</a> itself to be £8 billion. </p>
<p>But the green paper counters this with five ways the corporation may eat into the activities of its commercial rivals. When it argues that “the scale of BBC’s online offer is impeding the ability of other UK news outlets to develop profitable business models”, it ignores the fact that the BBC was encouraged in the late 1990s to innovate and to build digital platforms at a time when the vast majority of the press had no inclination to take the risk of investing in online services.</p>
<h2>The logic of the market?</h2>
<p>But there is a more profound question. Why should we measure the BBC simply in terms of its wider impact on the marketplace? Do we judge the NHS on the basis of whether it makes life difficult for Bupa or do we welcome its status as an institution that treats everyone irrespective of background or income? Do we want to curb spending on schools in case this hits the pockets of the independent sector and “crowds out” commercial competition?</p>
<p>This is an austerity-led consultation, obsessed (much like the BBC itself) with the pursuit of “efficiency”. This is obviously the case in relation to new funding proposals although it is hard to take too seriously the green paper’s commitment to safeguard the BBC’s independence in the light of the culture secretary’s recent <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/11722572/BBC-is-a-branch-of-the-welfare-state-director-general-suggests-amid-new-TV-licence-powers.html">backroom deal</a> where he removed the licence fee freeze in return for the BBC part-funding the government’s welfare cuts by paying for free licences for the over-75s. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/88821/original/image-20150717-13752-1ied6dz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/88821/original/image-20150717-13752-1ied6dz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/88821/original/image-20150717-13752-1ied6dz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=592&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88821/original/image-20150717-13752-1ied6dz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=592&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88821/original/image-20150717-13752-1ied6dz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=592&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88821/original/image-20150717-13752-1ied6dz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=745&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88821/original/image-20150717-13752-1ied6dz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=745&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88821/original/image-20150717-13752-1ied6dz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=745&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 efficiency obsession.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Department for Culture, Media and Sport</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Value for money, however, also applies to those services where it is hard to apply standard economic arguments - such as the provision of different language services within the UK. So, for example, it notes that the cost of S4C in Wales and BBC Alba in Scotland is “considerably higher than cost per hour for English speaking content”. This is hardly breaking news – how could it be otherwise in serving more dispersed communities? It totally misses out the whole point of public service broadcasting which is about reaching out to minority audiences despite the cost. This was the logic used by the BBC Trust in its ultimately unsuccessful attempt to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/services/radio/service_reviews/asian_network.html">shut down the Asian Network</a>. </p>
<p>By noting that these services are expensive to run because there are relatively few Gaelic and Welsh speakers, it also contradicts its own stated aims: to shift the BBC away from popular programming and to focus on content not provided by the market.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/88829/original/image-20150717-13766-10vs5bw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/88829/original/image-20150717-13766-10vs5bw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88829/original/image-20150717-13766-10vs5bw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88829/original/image-20150717-13766-10vs5bw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88829/original/image-20150717-13766-10vs5bw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=455&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88829/original/image-20150717-13766-10vs5bw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=455&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88829/original/image-20150717-13766-10vs5bw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=455&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Yes, it costs more to reach the Hebrides.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Scalpay,_Inner_Hebrides.jpg">Richard Webb</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Value judgements</h2>
<p>The green paper does raise some important questions on underlying values and performance. For example, it is absolutely right to refer to the fact that the BBC has a poor record in both hiring and representing ethnic minorities. But how on earth will a smaller, narrower and more ghettoised BBC relate better to groups that it has previously marginalised? Does the culture secretary imagine that a “market failure” broadcaster will suddenly offer more prospects to under-represented groups as opposed to seeking those groups who, at least in the long-term, may yield valuable subscription revenue? </p>
<p>The BBC needs radical surgery but this skewed and hugely partisan consultation will do nothing either to democratise the BBC or to secure a more pluralistic and diverse media landscape.</p>
<p>We urgently need new voices to counter the dominant, monotone voices we hear throughout both online and offline spaces. We urgently need to find ways of providing funding to <a href="http://mediastandardstrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Positive-Plurality-policy-paper-9-10-14.pdf">hyperlocal journalism</a>, <a href="http://www.commedia.org.uk/go/community-radio/">community broadcasters</a> and <a href="http://tcij.org">investigative journalists</a> who are assuming public service roles that are increasingly being shed by commercial operators.</p>
<p>We urgently need media outlets that are truly independent of vested interests and bold enough to challenge “common sense” arguments on, for example, immigration and austerity. </p>
<p>We urgently need media outlets that look and sound like the audiences to whom they are supposed to be accountable. An ideological campaign fought on behalf of the BBC’s commercial rivals really isn’t the way to go about this.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44814/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Des Freedman is the chair of the Media Reform Coalition which has been funded by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust to campaign for more democratic forms of media ownership.</span></em></p>The government’s review of the BBC’s scope paints the corporation as a victim of its own success.Des Freedman, Professor of Media and Communications , Goldsmiths, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/447352015-07-16T18:49:10Z2015-07-16T18:49:10ZNow is the time to decide: what kind of BBC do you want?<p>There is now a clear choice following the publication of the British <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445704/BBC_Charter_Review_Consultation_WEB.pdf">government’s green paper</a> into the future of the BBC. </p>
<p>In one corner, we have the traditional view of public broadcasting, offered by the BBC and supporters, based on the principle of universality. This says the BBC should be for everyone, providing quality programmes for all audiences, including comedy and entertainment as well as drama, news and high arts programming. </p>
<p>In the words of Huw Wheldon, this view sees the BBC as being about “making the popular good and the good, popular”. It believes there is an increasing role for a trusted voice in the increasingly crowded digital market – one that is accountable, focused on the public – as opposed to commercial or political – interests; that seeks to bind the country together through shared experience and national debate; that seeks to offer a diversity of views to challenge the homophily of our other media habits; that contributes to supporting and developing the creative sector in the UK and which ties the UK together to the rest of the world through international programming and services. It recognises the BBC as the UK’s only global media brand – and one which has to have the resource and remit to continue to innovate in a dynamic, international marketplace. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"621674721004941312"}"></div></p>
<p>In the other corner is a view, supported in the past by the Culture Secretary John Whittingdale, which rejects the notion of universality. It says in the digital age of plenty the BBC should no longer try to offer something to everyone. Instead, it should focus on market failure – offering only those programmes and services which the market will not provide. So goodbye to Strictly Come Dancing, The Voice, Radio 2 and concentrate on news, documentary, the arts. It says the licence fee is an anachronism in the modern world and favours mixed funding or subscription. It believes in a smaller BBC serving niche audiences with commercial media serving everyone else. It believes the current scale of the BBC distorts and impedes the market for those competitors. And it doesn’t believe the BBC can or should try to compete with the global behemoths starting to dominate our media consumption. </p>
<p>One view is inclusive and outward focused, recognising a UK role in a global market. </p>
<p>The other is driven by more insular concerns about the UK market and exclusive in its approach to programming. </p>
<p>Both claim to address the looming realities of the digital age – but in radically different ways. </p>
<p>Whittingdale has promised a far reaching review of scope, funding, governance, and content of the BBC in what looks set to be a major reform. He’s assisted by an expert panel of largely commercial media experts most of whom have been critical of some aspect of the current arrangements. </p>
<p>And of course this follows a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/16/government-review-of-bbc-could-result-in-u-turn-on-licence-fee-agreement">licence fee deal</a> once again rushed through behind closed doors with significant extra costs imposed on the BBC under the threat of worse if it didn’t agree. The promise in return of an index-linked licence fee is hooked to conditions about the broadcaster’s future shape. Although the BBC insists it is a <a href="http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/tony-hall-hails-right-deal-for-the-bbc/5090142.article">fair deal</a>, most external experts conclude it will mean a significant loss of revenue. </p>
<p>It’s the way governments hobble public broadcasters the world over. In Canada, supporters of <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/11/17/alain-saulnier-cbc-radio-canada_n_6170710.html">the CBC are protesting</a> at the revenue and governance arrangements imposed by the conservative government which they say puts it at risk of disappearing forever. </p>
<p>In Australia, a government-sponsored efficiency review has led to significant cuts in <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-19/abc-funding-cuts-announced-by-malcolm-turnbull/5902774">the budget of the ABC</a> following politicians’ complaints about bias and insufficient support “for the home team”. </p>
<p>Now in Britain a similar assault is underway. In the House of Lords this week, the Conservative peer Lord Fowler led a short debate on the BBC. <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2015-07-14a.521.1&s=speaker%3A10212#g521.2">He told his</a> colleagues: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I fear that I must warn those who support the BBC that we have something of a fight on our hands. The cards are marked and somewhat stacked against us. The advisory group advising the Secretary of State clanks with special interests and past opinions. Even more, the charter process leaves decisions in the hands of the Government, who make much of their Green Paper—but the fact is that, at the end of the day the royal charter process means that they do not have to listen to anyone.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And there is the crucial paradox. In an environment rich in talk of public accountability, the rights of the licence fee payer, fit for purpose governance and transparency a deal is rushed through at dead of night and even the longer more fundamental debate can be determined without or in spite of the views of the public. </p>
<p>At the launch of the BBC’s Annual Report the director general, <a>Tony Hall came back fighting</a>. After setting out the programming successes of the last year he spoke of : </p>
<blockquote>
<p>… a clash between two different views of the future. Because there is an alternative view: that prefers a much diminished BBC. It’s a view that is often put forward by people with their own narrow commercial interests or ideological preconceptions. I don’t support this view. Nor does the British public. Nor do programme-makers across the creative sector.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>He’s right that while right-wing politicians and newspapers, ideologically opposed to large public intervention in the market, <a href="https://theconversation.com/bad-news-week-for-bbc-as-murdoch-press-sharpens-claws-44621">fuel discontent</a> about the BBC, most <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/12/08/bbc-bias-tv-license-fee-elign-marbles/">opinion polls</a> suggest the public still likes and trusts the organisation and see the £145 licence fee as good value. </p>
<p>What’s noticeably missing so far in the debate is hard evidence to inform it. What is the public (as opposed to the press) view of the licence fee? What is the BBC’s contribution to the creative economy in the UK? What impact does the BBC really have on newspapers? Most discussion is governed by a triumph of opinion over fact. </p>
<p>As Tony Hall said in his speech, the BBC does not belong to its staff or to any government – it belongs to the public. The arrangements for representing them through the BBC Trust is deemed by many to have failed. Now we have a three-month period of public consultation – with no compunction to act on what is heard. </p>
<p>Britain has a love-hate relationship with the BBC. The public tends to love the programmes but resent the corporate infrastructure required to deliver them. We know from <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/corporate2/insidethebbc/howwework/reports/bbc_report_pwc_update_efficiencies_july_2015">a recent PWC report </a>that the BBC is now among the most efficient public organisations in the UK – but of course its critics will swiftly step around that inconvenience. As a senior manager there I used to tell staff who felt under siege with wave after wave of newspaper and political criticism that it meant we still mattered. And that is the point. Its critics, for ideological or commercial reasons, want it diminished and to matter less. </p>
<p>If the people of Britain do not want to see the erosion and dismantling of one of the country’s most successful public institutions, they need to make it unambiguously clear now. So what kind of BBC do you want?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44735/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Sambrook is a former Director of Global News for the BBC. He left in 2010 and has no ongoing relationship with the corporation. </span></em></p>It’s time to work out how we really feel about the BBC.Richard Sambrook, Professor of Journalism, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.