tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/bbc-white-paper-27554/articlesBBC White Paper – The Conversation2016-09-13T15:12:39Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/653462016-09-13T15:12:39Z2016-09-13T15:12:39ZThe Great British Bake Off sell off is a sign of the TV times<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/137603/original/image-20160913-4983-1bwo6xr.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">BBC/Love Productions/Mark Bourdillon</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It is entirely predictable that the major British media controversy of the year so far – at least measured by the number of front page stories it has generated – is not about the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/12/bbc-charter-renewal-government-to-lay-out-major-overhaul-in-whit/">government’s squeeze on the BBC</a> or its attempt to <a href="http://news.sky.com/story/whitehall-in-combat-over-channel-4-sell-off-10338287">privatise Channel 4</a>. Nor is it about the press’ rampant <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/07/boris-johnson-peddled-absurd-eu-myths-and-our-disgraceful-press-followed-his">xenophobia</a> or the BBC’s “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jun/29/tvs-failure-to-properly-scrutinise-boris-johnsons-eu-claims-a-criminal-act">constipated</a>” coverage of the EU referendum. </p>
<p>No, the big media story is that Auntie has lost the rights to a show about baking, albeit one that happens to be the most popular programme on television, “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2015/oct/06/genius-of-great-british-bake-off">a fully fledged cultural phenomenon</a>” and a significant marker of contemporary British national identity.</p>
<p>But given that <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/the-great-british-bake-off-12314">The Great British Bake Off</a> is not actually disappearing off our screens but simply moving to Channel 4, an obituary is not necessary. Instead, we need an analysis of how it came to be that the BBC couldn’t afford to keep hold of its number one show. What does this tell us about the wider world of television?</p>
<h2>Being ‘distinctive’</h2>
<p>The first point to make is that the loss of Bake Off is a consequence of the government’s ongoing strategy to diminish the BBC in relation to its commercial rivals. </p>
<p>This takes both ideological and financial forms. The government’s <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-bbc-for-the-future-a-broadcaster-of-distinction">white paper</a> earlier this year warned that the BBC’s scale was potentially undermining other players in the market. Due to this, it insisted that the BBC should not rely on populist formats, of which Strictly Come Dancing and Bake Off are the most obvious examples. Instead, it advised that the BBC ought to be more “<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-demand-that-the-bbc-remain-distinctive-may-be-its-death-knell-59198">distinctive</a>” – a clear warning that it ought to focus more on programmes that commercial providers choose not to make. </p>
<p>The government also saddled the BBC with the cost of paying for free licences for the over-75s, a policy that is set to cost the corporation <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/06/bbc-pay-cost-free-tv-licences-over-75s-fee-deal">hundreds of millions of pounds every year</a>. Indeed, the last funding settlement agreed in 2015 will mean <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/08/bbc-increases-saving-target-to-800m-a-year-to-pay-for-drama-and-sport">savings</a> that amount to 23% of annual licence fee revenue. This will massively restrict the BBC’s ability to compete in the television marketplace.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/137641/original/image-20160913-4955-9bafvy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/137641/original/image-20160913-4955-9bafvy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=625&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137641/original/image-20160913-4955-9bafvy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=625&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137641/original/image-20160913-4955-9bafvy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=625&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137641/original/image-20160913-4955-9bafvy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=785&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137641/original/image-20160913-4955-9bafvy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=785&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137641/original/image-20160913-4955-9bafvy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=785&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">What will become of Mel and Sue?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">BBC/Love Productions/Mark Bourdillon</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The BBC reacted to this much more challenging environment by threatening redundancies in its news division, shifting BBC3 online and cutting back on some of its digital services, including <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/may/17/online-recipes-off-the-menu-of-slimmed-down-bbc">recipes</a> that might be of particular interest to Bake Off viewers. Given this, should it have swallowed hard and agreed to the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/sep/12/bbc-loses-great-british-bake-off?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Media+briefing+2016&utm_term=190064&subid=368004&CMP=ema_546">four-fold increase</a> that Love Productions, who produce Bake Off, were demanding simply in order to keep hold of its premier show? </p>
<p>On the one hand, Bake Off is a classic example of public service broadcasting – it aims to unite the nation around a common pastime and highlights the multicultural face of Britain – and deserves its place in peak-time schedules. On the other hand, the BBC also needs to take risks and should be constantly renewing its offer and developing new ideas. In this context, throwing £25m a year at a single brand is not necessarily an imaginative use of public money.</p>
<h2>Still public?</h2>
<p>It’s certainly good news for Bake Off fans that it’s not moving behind a paywall. But given that Love Productions are 70% owned by BSkyB, this is presumably less of an ideological commitment to public service broadcasting than a commercial decision. After all, it will be more able fully to exploit its income-generating possibilities by remaining with a free-to-air broadcaster. Think of the various spin-offs that could be developed in a conjunction with a broadcaster that doesn’t face the financial inhibitions and regulatory demands placed on the BBC.</p>
<p>But wait: Bake Off has simply moved from one public service broadcaster <a href="http://www.channel4.com/info/corporate/about">to another</a>, albeit the channel that is most dependent on and comfortable with the output of indie outfits like Love Productions. Channel 4’s willingness to invest heavily in the programme reveals quite a lot about the way in which it now interprets <a href="http://annualreport.channel4.com/downloads/The-remit-and-model.pdf">its remit</a> to provide “high quality and diverse” programming and to foster innovation and creativity.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/137642/original/image-20160913-4983-v7x18d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/137642/original/image-20160913-4983-v7x18d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137642/original/image-20160913-4983-v7x18d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137642/original/image-20160913-4983-v7x18d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137642/original/image-20160913-4983-v7x18d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137642/original/image-20160913-4983-v7x18d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137642/original/image-20160913-4983-v7x18d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The BBC’s last group of Bake Off hopefuls.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">BBC/Love Productions/Mark Bourdillon</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Bake Off fits the bill in its celebration of multiculturalism but it’s hardly a shining example of risk taking or experimentation. So Channel 4’s move is much more of a statement about the show’s compatability with lucrative formats. It really does make <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3646052/">The Bandung File</a> and <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118273/">Brass Eye</a>, both genuinely innovative Channel 4 programmes, seem like a very long time ago. It’s also far from certain that, following its well documented over-reliance on <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/jun/10/broadcasting.channel4">Big Brother</a> some ten years ago, such a heavy investment in a single title is necessarily the right way to go for Channel 4.</p>
<p>What’s happened to Bake Off epitomises the state of British television. For all the moments of inspiration and energy, our TV landscape remains obsessed with formulae and beholden to ratings. It is awash with subscription cash (from BSkyB and new entrants like Netflix and Amazon) even if public service broadcasters remain by far the biggest investors in original programming. It has a dynamic independent sector that is fantastic at developing formats with huge export potential even if that sector is increasingly dominated by US corporations who gobble up the profits. </p>
<p>Television is a cultural form that remains highly influential and popular despite the attraction of other digital platforms. But it’s also one that is overwhelmingly cautious and all too reluctant to relate to the polarised nature of UK society. Once you’ve accepted this, you’ll hardly bat an eyelid to note that Bake Off, like so many other popular British institutions, has just been sold off to a higher bidder.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65346/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Des Freedman is project lead for the Inquiry into the Future of Public Service Television, chaired by Lord Puttnam, and a former chair of the Media Reform Coalition.</span></em></p>What’s happened to Bake Off epitomises the state of British television – it remains obsessed with formulae and beholden to ratings.Des Freedman, Professor of Media and Communications, Goldsmiths, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/595802016-05-20T00:11:14Z2016-05-20T00:11:14ZThe Conservatives and the BBC – falling in love again?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122921/original/image-20160517-9494-sgvpub.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">Reuters/Peter Nicholls</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>We who love and cherish the BBC, even from afar – and I am unashamedly one of them – have been awaiting with some anxiety the UK government’s white paper on the future of the corporation. </p>
<p>The culture secretary responsible for the review process leading up to this document, John Whittingdale, had made a number of statements indicating this would be a tough Charter renewal round for the Beeb. With a Conservative majority in parliament, and many Tory MPs hostile to public service media, there were grounds for concern about the outcome. </p>
<p>Well, now <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/522824/DCMS_A-BBC-for-the-future_linked__1_.pdf">the paper has been published</a>, and it turns out to be a rather strong endorsement both of the principle of public service media in general, and of the BBC’s place within it. </p>
<p>After wide consultation of stakeholders, including a survey of 9,000 members of the public, Whittingdale concludes that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The BBC has a vital and enduring role … It is a revered national institution, and familiar treasured companion. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>After a period of serious cuts to its budget, the BBC’s licence fee will be permitted to increase with inflation for more than a decade ahead. That is nearly $8 billion income in 2016, secure into the reasonably long-term future. </p>
<p>All good. But there are conditions attached to the deal. </p>
<p>The BBC has had a difficult few years, faced with criticism over excessive salaries for talent, waste and bloated management, anti-competitive practices, and a dysfunctional culture (exemplified by the Jimmy Savile scandal and the public relations disaster which followed). </p>
<p>Commercial rivals such as the Murdoch-owned UK media were at the forefront of that criticism, as one would expect, but these were concerns expressed widely among the public and other stakeholders. There was consensus that things at the corporation had to change. </p>
<p>Thus, the white paper records huge majorities of the public in support of maintaining a strong BBC, assures us that this is government policy, and then gets into the task of fixing some of the broken bits. </p>
<p>Key points include a requirement for all BBC programming to be “distinctive”, not in the sense that it should become a “market-failure” organisation, but in providing content that has clear “public value”. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Distinctive programmes can have wide appeal … [but] popularity should not be the BBC’s primary objective; its public value must come first.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>How program-makers and commissioning editors apply this balance, particularly in primetime entertainment slots, will be interesting to watch. Will the BBC still feel able to produce game shows and reality TV formats of the type also seen on commercial free-to-air, often in the same timeslots? The UK government clearly feels there is too much of this at present. </p>
<p>A major strand in the white paper is to make the BBC much more transparent and accountable – not unreasonable, given the $7.5 billion of public money it receives annually. </p>
<p>The unpopular Trust goes, and independent regulator OFCOM steps into monitor “distinctiveness”, as well as the market impacts of current and proposed BBC activities that might be anti-competitive. </p>
<p>The National Audit Office – a state organ independent of the government of the day – will take over scrutiny of the BBC’s financial operations, holding it to account for its spending. </p>
<p>A unitary board of 12-14 members will be established, with six members appointed by the government through the ostensibly impartial public service appointments process (including one for each UK nation). Whittingdale assures us that the BBC will have a majority of its appointees on the board, but this proposal remains the most controversial, given the potential for politicisation of public appointments. </p>
<p>There will be more commissioning of independent production at the BBC, with only news and news-related current affairs kept exclusively in-house. A $40 million annual fund for new content providers will be established, with four years of funding in the first instance.</p>
<p>There will be less London-centrism, and more resources devoted to representing the UK’s nations and regions, such as Scotland. </p>
<p>Crucially, the BBC will be mandated to support local journalism through sharing of resources and content, the provision of local journalists and material for pooling, and other steps. </p>
<p>The white paper calls for a step-change in how the BBC engages and works with its competitors, seeing itself not so much as a self-interested player in a zero-sum ratings game with the big commercial organisations, but a privileged (because protected from market conditions), public cultural resource within a much larger media ecology where it should facilitate and support as well as compete. </p>
<p>The government will also legislate to make digital users of BBC content pay the licence fee, recognising the shift in consumption patterns away from the box in the corner to the mobile device. </p>
<p>Use of tablets and other devices to access BBC content has increased by 400% since 2009, while the number of UK households with a conventional TV has fallen by 2% in the same period. Bringing that 400% into the licence fee system will strengthen the corporation’s resource base going forward, especially when it is now required to absorb the costs of free access for senior citizens.</p>
<p>Michelle Guthrie and her ABC executives will be poring over the white paper with great interest, one imagines. The challenges facing the ABC are similar in many ways to those now being addressed by the BBC.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/memo-to-michelle-guthrie-as-local-newspapers-die-might-the-abc-help-out-58983">As I wrote recently in this space</a>, the ABC could play a bigger role in the support of Australia’s local journalism, and this white paper provides practical examples of how a public service media organisation can do that, some of which might be transferable. </p>
<p>Considerations of “distinctiveness”, “public value” and market impact also apply to the ABC in a time of tough public spending rounds.</p>
<p>The ABC is overwhelmingly popular with the Australian people, like the BBC, and for much the same reasons. But like the BBC too, there can be no complacency in identifying and tackling the challenges generated by our fast-changing media system and ecology in the years and indeed decades ahead. The UK white paper makes a helpful contribution to that effort.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59580/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<h4 class="border">Disclosure</h4><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brian McNair receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is a Chief Investigator within the Digital Media Research Centre at QUT. </span></em></p>We who love and cherish the BBC, even from afar – and I am unashamedly one of them – have been awaiting with some anxiety the UK government’s white paper on the future of the corporation. The culture secretary…Brian McNair, Professor of Journalism, Media and Communication, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/595652016-05-17T16:11:23Z2016-05-17T16:11:23ZBBC gets out of the kitchen as government turns up the heat<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122896/original/image-20160517-9464-1eul4b3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">More than 11,000 recipes will go in the bin as the BBC drops it's much-loved Food site.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">BBC</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>I suppose it says a lot about our current national obsession with all matters gastronomic that the focal point of media attention concerning the BBC’s decision to “redefine” its online presence centres around the decision to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36308976">take down its food website</a>.</p>
<p>But it also says a lot for the power of social media that, within hours of the announcement, BBC management <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/may/17/bbc-climbdown-over-online-recipes-after-public-outcry?CMP=share_btn_tw">went back on its plan</a> to bin more than 11,000 recipes, announcing that the bulk of them would instead be moved to its commercial <a href="http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/">BBC Good Food</a> website which will remain open for business. What really appears to have angered the 120,000 or so people who signed a <a href="https://www.change.org/p/bbc-save-the-bbc-s-recipe-archive">change.org petition</a> calling for the decision to be reversed is the unnecessary attack on such an altruistic, beneficial and tangible example of public service provision.</p>
<p>According to Lloyd Shepherd, who was instrumental in <a href="https://medium.com/@lloydshep/recipe-for-disaster-24acde3f273a#.xvhrs5euz">conceptualising and creating the original food site</a>, public service responsibilities were uppermost in the minds of those at the forefront of development. As he writes, the recipes posted had already been paid for by the licence fee payer and could be used for very little further cost. Added to this the fact that nutrition has become a public health issue and there is a role to play in the BBC publicising and helping to combat obesity issues.</p>
<p>As the text from the change petition states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>When the government is trying to promote healthy eating, surely it is madness to remove such a comprehensive archive which has taken years to create … This is a much loved and used website and a precious resource for people across the country providing easy, free and importantly independent information on a vast range of foods and recipe options. The database provides inspiration for those with a few ingredients to come up with meal ideas and cook from scratch.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Could this be, as many journalists <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/louise-ridley/bbc-recipes-website-cut_b_9869872.html">have already pointed out</a>, the catalyst which rouses from slumber into open revolt those members of the public previously indifferent the future of the corporation? </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"732473545343700992"}"></div></p>
<p>If the <a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/bbc-to-shut-down-recipes-website-2016-5?r=US&IR=T">reaction on Twitter</a> is anything to go by the BBC realised that if, come June, middle-class cooks up and down the country searching for BBC recipes collectively received the 404 Not Found Error message there would be a spectacular and simultaneous combustion which would not have been a pretty sight.</p>
<h2>Slicing and dicing</h2>
<p>Flippancy aside, this is clearly about much more than recipes. As part of the plan to implement cuts and address government concern that the BBC is “<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/bbc-confirms-online-closures-in-bid-to-save-15-million-a7033566.html">unfairly competing with commercial online publishers</a>”, the head of BBC news and current affairs James Harding announced that, subject to approval and in order to save around £15m, Radio 1’s Newsbeat, the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iwonder">iWonder service</a>, the travel website and the local news indexes for more than 40 geographical areas around the UK will all close. BBC online news also announced, separately, that <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36308976">plans are afoot</a> to merge the News Channel with the BBC’s international 24-hour television news service.</p>
<p>These measures must of course be seen in the context of the recent government <a href="https://theconversation.com/bbc-white-paper-the-worst-has-not-come-to-pass-but-the-leash-is-tightening-59282">White Paper on the future of the BBC</a> where the culture secretary, John Whittingdale, spoke of the BBC’s plans to reduce magazine-style content in online services. The focus should be, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/may/12/bbc-white-paper-key-points-john-whittingdale">said Whittingdale</a>, on “rigorous, impartial analysis of important news events and current affairs”.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"732588046814679040"}"></div></p>
<p>Whittingdale was quick to distance himself from the gathering storm. Within hours of the announcement, he told a conference of the radio industry body RadioCentre’s that it is not his job to tell the BBC whether or not to put recipes up on its websites. Instead he alluded to the fact that the BBC had reacted to vigorous pressure from <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/sep/02/bbc-digital-news-operation-must-be-curbed-say-newspaper-publishers">certain sections of the press</a> calling for action on the BBC’s expansion into online “lifestyle content”. </p>
<h2>Pressure cooker</h2>
<p>Well, “vigorous pressure” from the <a href="https://theconversation.com/bad-news-week-for-bbc-as-murdoch-press-sharpens-claws-44621">government and press combined</a> has been a feature of the BBC’s history and its certainly true that in September 2015 the New Media Association, the trade body of the UK press, pleaded that the BBC’s burgeoning digital presence was damaging the business interests of commercial operators. As <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/sep/02/bbc-digital-news-operation-must-be-curbed-say-newspaper-publishers">reported in the Guardian</a>, in its submission to the BBC’s Charter review, the association recommended specific controls on BBC online and fundamentally disagreed with the BBC’s ambitions to expand its online provision. For those that see the hand of Murdoch in these things it will come as no surprise to learn that the association’s chair is Mike Darcey, who is also a former <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jun/12/news-uk-mike-darcey-departure-rebekah-brooks-return-speculation">chief executive of The Sun and Times publisher, News UK</a>.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"732525237292654592"}"></div></p>
<p>BBC bashing is of course the perennial sport of The Sun and Times and some, including singer and activist Billy Bragg, see the furore over recipes as a significant moment in the “battle against Murdoch” and by extension against the government’s sustained attacks on the ethos and existence of the BBC.</p>
<p>For News UK it is business as usual. As the news of the closures was breaking <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/content/29-bbc-journalists-alleged-be-earning-more-pms-%C2%A3150k-salary-named">Press Gazette reported</a> that the News Corp-owned website Heat Street had revealed the names of 41 BBC stars it believes are paid more than the prime minister’s £150,000 salary. </p>
<p>A number of food and recipe websites are waiting in the wings to launch. Two of them – as one <a href="https://tompride.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/who-benefits-from-the-tory-decision-to-axe-bbc-recipes/">blogger has already noted</a>, Taste and Bestrecipe, have the same names as websites in Australia owned by – you guessed it – the Murdochs. But that’s just coincidence, obviously.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59565/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The national broadcaster’s decision to close its food website is a direct result of political pressure.John Jewell, Director of Undergraduate Studies, School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.