tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/public-broadcaster-9401/articlesPublic broadcaster – The Conversation2023-01-26T15:08:57Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1986072023-01-26T15:08:57Z2023-01-26T15:08:57ZThe public or the state: who calls the shots at the BBC?<p>What’s the difference between a state broadcaster and a public broadcaster? The dispute over the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64383742">close relationship</a> between the BBC chairman, Richard Sharp and the former prime minister Boris Johnson, has seen some people – including on one occasion a BBC presenter – refer to it as a “state broadcaster”. The BBC is usually called a public service broadcaster (PSB) – and other PSBs around the world still look to the UK model as an example of good practise. The difference is significant and matters. </p>
<p>The formal distinction seems straightforward. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_media">State broadcasters</a> – as found in countries such as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Central_Television">China</a>, Iran, parts of the Middle East and increasingly <a href="https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2022/hungary">eastern Europe</a> – broadcast in the interests of the state. They have leadership directly appointed by the government, high levels of government editorial control or censorship, direct political funding, and are directly accountable to the government.</p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_broadcasting">Public Service broadcasters</a>, meanwhile, operate in the interests of the wider public. They enjoy editorial independence from government and are usually funded via some sort of mechanism designed to insulate them from direct political control but provide a degree of open accountability to the public that funds them. How that is achieved, however, can be complex and involve compromises. </p>
<p>The latest debate over political influence at the BBC raises some difficult questions about <a href="https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/sites/bartlett_public_purpose/files/mazzucato_et_al_call_for_evidence_bbc_funding_final35.pdf">independence and accountability</a>. </p>
<h2>Forms of governance</h2>
<p>Public broadcasters need to demonstrate they are impartial and not politically aligned or directed. At a moment of highly polarised politics, with the increased scrutiny and criticism it brings, <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-controversial-business-of-researching-bbc-impartiality-26401">this is difficult</a>. Users from both the left and the right <a href="https://learningonscreen.ac.uk/viewfinder/articles/myth-of-the-bbc/">regularly criticise the BBC</a> for not representing the world as they see it.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-controversial-business-of-researching-bbc-impartiality-26401">The controversial business of researching BBC impartiality</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>As a consequence, the <a href="https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/times-telegraph-trust/">BBC has suffered a decline in trust</a> in its services. With that comes scepticism about its impartiality and independence. </p>
<p>Traditionally, the BBC – like other public institutions – has enjoyed editorial and operational autonomy while being institutionally accountable to government through the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), the National Audit Office (NAO) and <a href="https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/378/digital-culture-media-and-sport-committee/news/172937/dcms-committee-to-question-bbc-chiefs-on-licence-fee-impartiality-and-earnings/">parliamentary select committees</a>. </p>
<p>For decades it was overseen by a government-appointed board of governors, separate from the management. This mutated in 2007 into the BBC Trust – still separate from management but with greater resources to scrutinise the executive. </p>
<p>In 2016, David Clementi, a former deputy governor of the Bank of England, undertook a further review of the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-review-of-the-governance-and-regulation-of-the-bbc">BBC’s governance</a>. He recommended a unified board, with management and non-executive directors around the same table, and a chairman appointed by government. Separate oversight moved to the <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/information-for-industry/bbc-operating-framework/performance/bbc-annual-report">media regulator Ofcom</a> (whose chair is also government appointed). </p>
<p>For most of its 100 years, a form of direct government appointment of non-executive governors, trustees or directors has been the norm. It has largely worked. Even when <a href="https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/bbc-world-service-soft-power-and-funding-challenges/">the World Service</a> was directly funded by government, it was widely recognised that its journalism was independent. </p>
<p>But in the current climate of distrust in both <a href="https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/bbc-under-scrutiny-heres-what-research-tells-about-its-role-uk">media</a> and the <a href="https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/2022/10/21/how-did-trust-in-the-uk-government-change-through-the-covid-19-pandemic/">UK government</a>, such arrangements are <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/ourbeeb/bbc-is-neither-independent-or-impartial-interview-with-tom-mills/">increasingly interpreted as interference</a>. The BBC sometimes <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/jun/08/does-the-government-want-the-bbc-to-be-a-state-broadcaster">attracts accusations</a> of being closer to <a href="https://twitter.com/LePlonge/status/1618560078965248002?s=20&t=rRD46Gie9b7DfkiAMHMcbw">state broadcasting</a> than a model accountable to the public. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1618560078965248002"}"></div></p>
<p>The suspicion is less about direct political interference than soft influence through appointments such as Sharp as chairman shortly after he brokered a £800,000 loan for the then prime minister and the appointment of <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2022/12/robbie-gibb-bbc-impartiality-control">non-executive directors with recent government experience</a> including Robbie Gibb, formerly director of communications for then Conservative prime minister Theresa May.</p>
<h2>Question of impartiality</h2>
<p>Governments of the past have often appointed those they believe to be politically sympathetic. But <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/aug/24/emily-maitlis-says-active-tory-party-agent-shaping-bbc-news-output">there is a sense</a> that the current Conservative government has taken Margaret Thatcher’s famous inquiry of “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/08/iron-lady-margaret-thatcher">Is he one of us?</a>” to new levels. </p>
<p>The BBC’s management has been openly <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2021/11/in-defence-of-tim-davies-crusade-for-bbc-impartiality">focused on impartiality</a> – largely interpreting this as political. The chairman is on record as saying he believes the <a href="https://www.thenational.scot/news/23168835.bbc-chairman-richard-sharp-says-broadcaster-fighting-liberal-bias/">BBC’s staff have a soft-left bias</a> which needs addressing. </p>
<p>Their problem is that the current crisis demonstrates that impartiality is as much about independence and accountability as it is about political balance. And those are harder to measure. </p>
<p>Further, the unified board means those responsible for demonstrating the BBC’s editorial independence on air, by reporting on itself, are around the same table as colleagues trying to defend the corporate interest. Chinese walls were easier when the governors or trustees sat separately from the management. </p>
<p>To stem further decline in trust, the BBC will need to demonstrate political independence at the highest level – beyond what has been required in the past. And it needs to find ways of demonstrating broader public accountability beyond Parliament and watchdog Ofcom. The public cannot practically oversee the BBC – but greater openness away from the committee rooms and <a href="https://twitter.com/alfiethreetimes/status/1618206721306165249?s=20&t=rRD46Gie9b7DfkiAMHMcbw">boardrooms of London</a> would help.</p>
<p>Some senior executives at least recognise this. The new CEO of BBC News, <a href="https://variety.com/2022/tv/global/deborah-turness-nbc-bbc-news-1235152389/">Deborah Turness</a>, announced on her arrival she wanted to bring greater transparency to how news judgments are made. <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/articles/2022/deborah-turness-message-to-staff-first-day">In an all-staff email</a> she said: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The question I would like to ask you all to think about here, is this: to ‘the pursuit of truth with impartiality and accuracy’, how might we credibly add, ‘and with transparency’ – to lead the world in delivering what consumers say they need, if they are to continue to trust us.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Greater independence, open accountability and transparency in operations are hard things to deliver. But they can reassure the public and build trust, they are increasingly recognised as <a href="https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/62185/1/Tambini_Problems%20and%20solutions_04_author_2015.pdf">core elements of the impartiality</a> expected of a public broadcaster, and needed to insulate them from any misguided accusations of straying towards state broadcasting.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/198607/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Sambrook worked for the BBC for thirty years, finally as Director of Global News and the World Service.</span></em></p>The row over the BBC Chairman’s relationship with former Prime Minister Boris Johnson has opened fresh questions about the level of political influence and independence at the broadcaster.Richard Sambrook, Emeritus Professor of Journalism, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1941162022-11-08T19:13:42Z2022-11-08T19:13:42ZCanada’s public broadcaster should use Mastodon to provide a social media service<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/494001/original/file-20221108-22-1h5b84.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5132%2C2887&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Mastodon's decentralized network could be leveraged as a model for future social media.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100px; border: none; position: relative; z-index: 1;" allowtransparency="" allow="clipboard-read; clipboard-write" src="https://narrations.ad-auris.com/widget/the-conversation-canada/canada-s-public-broadcaster-should-use-mastodon-to-provide-a-social-media-service" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter and ensuing confusion has driven many to look for alternatives to the platform. One popular option has been Mastodon, a social network distributed on many servers with no central ownership.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/twitter-mastodon-faq-1.6642946">Mastodon has seen its profile raised over the past few weeks, and user registration has skyrocketed</a>. Mastodon is not one company, but many federated servers working together. These individual servers need resources. These resources should be public.</p>
<p>As internet communications scholars, we propose that Canada’s public broadcaster, the CBC, should build a Mastodon server on the global network. </p>
<p>CBC starting a Mastodon server could be the start of the news organization seeing itself as not just creating content online, but building better infrastructure for Canadians to create online.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wfI4QeB2jE8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">ITV News explains why users are leaving Twitter for Mastodon.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Canadian social media</h2>
<p>Mastodon is free and open-source social media software, available to anyone who wants to install it on a computer server. Once installed, a Mastodon server allows people to sign up for accounts and from there do familiar social media activities, such as sharing posts and following others.</p>
<p>What makes Mastodon powerful is that it’s part of a larger network of servers referred to as the fediverse. This network allows one Mastodon server to connect to another — as well as to many other social media software systems. The result is a large, non-centralized network of smaller servers.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/citizens-social-media-like-mastodon-can-provide-an-antidote-to-propaganda-and-disinformation-192491">Citizens' social media, like Mastodon, can provide an antidote to propaganda and disinformation</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>So the CBC could use the Mastodon platform and build its own server to provide access to Canadians who want social media without the reliance upon predominantly American corporations. Ideally, this could be provided globally as an important service in an age when platform interests and national interests have increasingly aligned.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1589701721059565570"}"></div></p>
<h2>The future of public service media</h2>
<p>In the past, the CBC has been a little sensitive about its social media strategy. When <a href="https://www.canadaland.com/podcast/an-issue-worth-torching-your-job-over/">former CBC tech columnist Jesse Hirsh called out the public broadcaster for its over-reliance on Facebook, his spot ended</a>. </p>
<p>His comments raise an awkward point: why does a public broadcaster rely so much on privately owned platforms to reach its audience?</p>
<p>The reason is that the work of running a social media service is a challenge for an organization mostly dedicated to content production. But that’s not always been the case. </p>
<p>Historically, Canada’s publicly funded media has many great examples of thinking beyond content production. The National Film Board’s <a href="https://www.nfb.ca/playlist/challenge-for-change/">Challenge for Change program sent filmmakers to document the lives of Fogo Island residents</a>. CBC’s ZeD was an experiment in open-source television — the long-forgotten platform <a href="https://exclaim.ca/music/article/do_i_want_my_zed_tv-cbc_attempts_open_source">allowed Canadians to share their videos online in 2002, three years before YouTube launched</a>. </p>
<p>These media projects were not so much about creating content, but creating the possibilities for what we might call social media today. Running a Mastodon server would do the same.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/494157/original/file-20221108-22-9rh9ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="a building entry with CBC NEWS and CBC logos" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/494157/original/file-20221108-22-9rh9ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/494157/original/file-20221108-22-9rh9ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/494157/original/file-20221108-22-9rh9ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/494157/original/file-20221108-22-9rh9ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/494157/original/file-20221108-22-9rh9ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/494157/original/file-20221108-22-9rh9ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/494157/original/file-20221108-22-9rh9ka.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"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The CBC could consider its role as a public service for Canadians alongside changing technologies.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Re-inventing the future of media</h2>
<p>Starting a Mastodon server would also put the CBC on a path to re-invent what social media and online content could look like in the future. This will not be easy, but in our opinion, will <a href="https://runyourown.social/">raise questions that go along with starting a server</a> and are directly applicable to future social media policy in Canada: sustainability, moderation and trust.</p>
<p>First, we need to consider the sustainability of our internet infrastructure. There is already <a href="https://chaos.social/@greenfediverse">a green collective on Mastodon</a> trying to run on renewable energy. The <a href="https://www.akamai.com/company/corporate-responsibility/sustainability">CBC relies on Akamai Technologies</a> for its infrastructure. As <a href="https://www.akamai.com/company/corporate-responsibility/sustainability">Akamai</a> commits to lower the carbon footprint of its infrastructure, the same questions apply to the CBC. <a href="https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/media-centre/greening-our-story">Could making its Mastodon server help the CBC lower its footprint beyond just media industries</a>?</p>
<p>Second, each server needs to set its own community guidelines that decide its content moderation. The CBC has been <a href="https://cbchelp.cbc.ca/hc/en-ca/sections/115000541654-About-Commenting-on-CBC-ca-">quietly working on these issues for years around comments on its website</a>. Starting a Mastodon server would apply the lessons they have learned so far.</p>
<p>Rather than the top-down community values driven by corporate interests, there is an opportunity to align community standards with Canada’s established rights framework and media policy. Starting its own Mastodon service will require the CBC to interpret its own mandate and Canada’s Human Rights Code and Multiculturalism Act before drafting its own community standards for the service. </p>
<p>Third, the CBC would have to contend with fake media, such as <a href="https://thewalrus.ca/fighting-ai-with-ai-the-battle-against-deepfakes/">deepfakes</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/russian-embassy-in-canada-weaponizes-social-media-to-fuel-support-for-ukraine-invasion-180109">foreign propaganda</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/from-sunny-ways-to-pelted-with-stones-why-do-some-canadians-hate-justin-trudeau-167607">conspiracy theories</a>. </p>
<p>Strong moderation policies with clear guidelines would be essential. The CBC could bring the power of its fact-checking and verification to social media, tamping down on misinformation. Perhaps the service could even find its own alternative to Twitter’s blue check marks, helping Canadians find information sources they can trust. </p>
<p>Our proposal applies to Radio-Canada as much as the CBC — really, to any public service media. Indeed, we hope that taking alternative social media seriously would reignite a collective and global imagination of the future of public service media.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/social-media-and-society-125586" target="_blank"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/479539/original/file-20220817-20-g5jxhm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=144&fit=crop&dpr=1" width="100%"></a></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/194116/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fenwick McKelvey has received funding from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council, Les Fonds de recherche du Québec, and the Government of Canada.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert W. Gehl 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>With Twitter users considering a relocation to the decentralized social media network Mastodon, there’s an opportunity for the CBC to lead the way in re-imagining online futures for Canadians.Fenwick McKelvey, Associate Professor in Information and Communication Technology Policy, Concordia UniversityRobert W. Gehl, Ontario Research Chair of Digital Governance for Social Justice, York University, CanadaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1632812021-06-23T16:07:36Z2021-06-23T16:07:36ZChannel 4: rather than privatising public service media we should be expanding it online<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/407958/original/file-20210623-19-10jfdb0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4391%2C2905&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The UK government is reported to be planning to privatise Channel 4.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">TK Kurikawa via Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The UK government is reported to be pushing ahead with an investigation into <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jun/23/ministers-will-push-to-privatise-channel-4-in-tv-shake-up">privatising Channel 4</a>, reversing its <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/mar/28/channel-4-will-not-be-sold-off-but-could-be-moved-out-of-london">2017 decision</a> that the broadcaster was a “precious public asset” that would “continue to be owned by the country”. </p>
<p>Channel 4 was founded in 1982 with a <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/104094/Channel-4-Corporation-Remit-Research-Report-2017.pdf">public service remit</a> to create “media content of high quality” that reflects “a culturally diverse society”, to “promote measures intended to secure that people are well-informed and motivated to participate in society in a variety of ways”, and to “support and stimulate well-informed debate”.</p>
<p>In just under four decades, Channel 4 has developed a reputation for its coverage of news and current affairs, introducing flagship programmes such as the hour-long <a href="https://www.channel4.com/news/channel-4-news-scoops-5th-emmy-in-8-years">Channel 4 News</a>, the documentary programme <a href="https://www.channel4.com/press/news/channel-4-dispatches-big-winner-rts-television-journalism-awards">Dispatches</a>), and the debate format <a href="https://wias.ac.uk/after-dark-and-the-future-of-public-debate/">After Dark</a>. Together with the BBC, Channel 4 has helped to establish in the UK a strong public service media offering of high-quality news, documentaries and cultural programming as part of its mix, alongside reality TV, drama and comedy. </p>
<p>The BBC and Channel 4 are non-profit media organisations that are editorially independent from governments and private companies and have a public service remit. In the “post-truth era”, in which trust in news is at a premium, this model should not be undermined, but sustained and expanded. </p>
<p>But instead, public service media is under attack. It has been widely reported that the Johnson government <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/09/boris-johnson-looking-at-abolishing-tv-licence-fee-for-bbc">has investigated</a> abolishing the BBC licence fee, while in 2020 it <a href="https://theconversation.com/defundthebbc-the-anatomy-of-a-social-media-campaign-140391">announced its intentions</a> to decriminalise licence-fee evasion. Meanwhile a campaign to #DefundTheBBC has trended on social media. Research has <a href="https://www.vlv.org.uk/news/vlv-research-shows-a-30-decline-in-bbc-public-funding-since-2010/">shown</a> that the BBC’s real, inflation-adjusted public funding has fallen by 30% over the past ten years. Now the future of Channel 4 as a public broadcaster is in doubt as well.</p>
<h2>Unhappy online</h2>
<p>Research indicates that we need more public service media, not less – and not just in broadcasting. For the <a href="https://netcommons.eu/">netCommons</a> research project, a team of researchers I led <a href="https://zenodo.org/record/1294040#.YNL0BpMzb8E">found that</a> a lot of people have reservations about the business model of many large social-media companies operating online. </p>
<p>In response to our survey of 1,000 internet users, 82.4% expressed concern about YouTube and Facebook’s use of personal data and 78.7% said there are too many advertisements online, rising to 82% when it comes to targeted online adverts, the main business model for some internet giants. A massive majority, 87.6% of respondents, expressed interest in non-monopolistic alternatives to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Google.</p>
<p>That internet users are critical of the corporate practices of online platforms is nothing new. Back in 2009 I conducted a <a href="http://fuchs.uti.at/wp-content/uploads/SNS.pdf">case study</a> of social media that showed that while users place a high value on the services such platforms provide, at the same time they can be very critical of their business practices. </p>
<p>More recently, as part of the research network <a href="https://innopsm.net">InnoPSM: Innovation in Public Service Media Policies</a>, led by Alessandro D’Arma and Minna Horowitz, I conducted an exploratory study in 2020 of the future of the internet and public service media, involving 141 media researchers and audience members. This study will be available by the autumn of 2021 as a chapter in a book focused on the idea of a public service internet, published by <a href="https://www.uwestminsterpress.co.uk/site/books/series/critical-digital-and-social-media-studies/">University of Westminster Press</a>. </p>
<p>Study participants stressed the importance of public service media for providing high-quality news, information, educational programmes and documentaries – vital for democracy and a vibrant public sphere. <a href="https://medienorge.uib.no/files/Eksterne_pub/EBU-MIS-Trust_in_Media_2020.pdf">Research</a> also suggests that citizens across Europe tend to trust public service media – during the COVID-19 pandemic it has represented the most used and one of the <a href="https://www.ebu.ch/news/2020/03/public-service-media-are-trusted-source-of-information-on-covid-19-crisis-1">most trusted information sources</a>.</p>
<h2>Towards a public service internet</h2>
<p>Our study participants also envisioned an alternative, advertising-free, non-commercial, not-for-profit internet, with digital archives of public service content available to everyone for an unlimited period from anywhere at any time.</p>
<p>Leading on from this study, myself and Klaus Unterberger, the head of <a href="https://zukunft.orf.at/">ORF Public Value</a> – a department of the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation focused on studying the media’s public value – led a group of around 50 media researchers and practitioners in an online forum on the future of public service media and the internet. The four-month debate resulted in the <a href="http://bit.ly/psmmanifesto">Public Service Media and Public Service Internet Manifesto</a>, a collective mission statement for the defence of public service media and the creation of a public service internet, which has been signed by around 500 individuals concerned about the future of the media, including the philosopher <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/j%C3%BCrgen-habermas-who-is-the-philosopher-who-rejected-a-prize-from-the-uae/a-49234310">Jürgen Habermas</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/407921/original/file-20210623-13-1wz4kmu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="The Public Service Internet and Public Service Media Manifesto http://bit.ly/psmmanifesto" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/407921/original/file-20210623-13-1wz4kmu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/407921/original/file-20210623-13-1wz4kmu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/407921/original/file-20210623-13-1wz4kmu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/407921/original/file-20210623-13-1wz4kmu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/407921/original/file-20210623-13-1wz4kmu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/407921/original/file-20210623-13-1wz4kmu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/407921/original/file-20210623-13-1wz4kmu.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"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Public Service Internet and Public Service Media Manifesto.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The manifesto demands the safeguarding of the existence, independence and funding of public service media such as the BBC and Channel 4 as well as the development of a public service internet and the resourcing of public service media to provide online platforms to support this. </p>
<p>It has ten key principles, ranging from the need for the safeguarding of public service media, to a public service internet supported by sustainable funding mechanisms such as a licence fee or the <a href="https://www.nordicom.gu.se/en/latest/news/nordics-replace-licence-fee-public-service-tax">Nordic model</a> of a public service tax. A public service internet would be required to promote equality and diversity and to provide opportunities for public debate, participation and the advancement of social cohesion.</p>
<p>In an age of “fake news” and post-truth politics, the existence of high-quality media organisations both in broadcasting and online is more critical than ever. There’s a crying need for a news media that serves public, not private, interests. They should be media of the public, by the public, and for the public – media of the <a href="https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v12i1.552">public sphere</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p><em>The manifesto can be read <a href="https://bit.ly/signPSManifesto">here</a></em>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/163281/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christian Fuchs has received research funding from Austrian Science Fund (FWF), EU FP7, EU Horizon 2020.</span></em></p>In the ‘post-truth’ age, what is needed is more public service media, not less.Christian Fuchs, Professor and Director, Communication and Media Research Institute, University of WestminsterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1613282021-05-21T11:09:47Z2021-05-21T11:09:47ZBBC Diana ‘cover up’ – why Lord Dyson’s report is a body blow for broadcaster<p>The BBC is among Britain’s most valuable cultural exports, representing soft power at its most effective. Newcomers including Netflix and Amazon have deeper pockets, but the BBC has set enduring standards in British radio and television production. Executives at Sky, ITV and Channel 4 acknowledge its role as a benchmark that has enhanced the reputation of British broadcasting. Long a trusted source of news for the discerning, it has a global reputation for accuracy and honesty.</p>
<p>So, we should not be astonished that the BBC is ridden with intense angst about <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57189371">Lord Dyson’s report</a> into the corporation’s now infamous interview with Princess Diana, in which she detailed the breakdown of her marriage to the Prince of Wales. The report found that the BBC’s reporter, Martin Bashir, “used deceitful behaviour” to obtain the interview, and that the BBC knowingly “covered up” what it subsequently learned about this behaviour.</p>
<p>The process whereby Bashir, then a reporter for the Panorama documentary series, got the interview every competitor wanted was a mystery when it aired in 1995. It is a scandal now that Lord Dyson, a senior retired judge, has found that the corporation “fell short of the high standards of integrity and transparency which are its hallmark”. </p>
<p>It is now established as fact that Bashir commissioned fake bank statements and showed them to Diana’s brother, Earl Spencer, in order to secure his trust and gain access to his sister. That Bashir subsequently lied to his employer does not mean that blame attaches to him alone. This is a very dark day for the corporation, not just for one disgraced former reporter.</p>
<p>Princess Diana’s appearance on Panorama was a colossal coup for the programme and, ostensibly, for the BBC. More than 20 million viewers watched it on transmission. Many more saw it later. It was the moment when Diana spoke of there being “three of us” in her marriage to Prince Charles. She admitted having an affair herself and explained that Charles’ affair with Camilla Parker Bowles (now his wife, the Duchess of Cornwall) had made her feel worthless. </p>
<h2>Falling short</h2>
<p>The interview provoked enormous debate and controversy. I was a BBC editor in 1995. I believed that a flagship programme transmitting such a significant story must have checked and checked again the accuracy and integrity of its journalism. The real shock at the core of the Dyson report, is that it had not. Still worse, the BBC had not compelled it to do so.</p>
<p>Bashir got away with his schoolboy trick, in part, because his editor, the late Steve Hewlett, wanted his reporter’s story to happen. That said, Dyson’s report <a href="https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/martin-bashir-dyson-bbc-princess-earl-spencer-b936324.html">categorically cleared Hewlett</a> from the subsequent cover-up, writing that “his writ did not run beyond the programme” and that his wife, Rachel Crellin had offered “a detailed and strong response” to accusations that he was aware or involved in Bashir’s behaviour.</p>
<p>Tony Hall, meanwhile – the BBC’s director of news at the time, subsequently director general – gave Bashir the benefit of the doubt. Now Lord Hall, he has acknowledged that his 1996 internal inquiry that cleared both Bashir and Panorama “fell well short of what was required”. Lord Dyson puts it more bluntly. He says that investigation was “woefully ineffective”.</p>
<p>It is to the BBC’s credit that is has accepted the Dyson Report unreservedly. Tim Davie, the director general, adds that it should have made “a greater effort to get to the bottom of what happened at the time”. He confirms that it now has “significantly better processes and procedures” than existed in 1995. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1323983344795832322"}"></div></p>
<p>Those of us who retain our affection and respect for the BBC will hope he is proved right – not least because the BBC’s critics and foes are circling. Their arguments have been strengthened by this most deplorable mistake and by the regrettable fact that it has gone uncorrected for much longer than was necessary. Newspapers, <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bbc-journalist-martin-bashir-misled-dianas-brother-to-secure-bombshell-interview-2x6nj28jm">notably the Sunday Times</a>, the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday, drew attention to the allegations that have now been shown to be correct.</p>
<p>Such watchdog reporting by others also identified the sad truth that BBC managers <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/princess-diana-interview-documents-suggest-bbc-bosses-more-worried-about-whistleblowers-than-whether-martin-bashir-faked-bank-statement-12283835">were more concerned about having whistleblowers</a> than in investigating their evidence. Such failure may now mean that the BBC will be more extensively harmed than by any previous editorial error.</p>
<h2>Owning up</h2>
<p>Given its scale, ambition and age, the BBC’s major errors are not numerous. It worked too closely with the government during the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/research/editorial-independence/general-strike/">General Strike of 1926</a>. Panorama’s 1984 documentary “Maggie’s Militant Tendency” claimed Conservative MPs had links to far-right organisations and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/sep/09/mondaymediasection.bbc">cost the BBC £290,000 in damages and costs</a>. </p>
<p>BBC reporting of the US bombing raid on Libya in 1986 created <a href="https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/research/editorial-independence/libyan-bombing">fresh tension with Margaret Thatcher’s government</a>. More recently, the <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/02/uk-jimmy-savile-bbc/470943/">Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal</a> inflicted deep wounds. George Entwistle resigned as director general following <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20284124">Newsnight’s false implication</a> that Lord McAlpine had been involved in the abuse of children at Bryn Estyn children’s home in Wales.</p>
<p>Today, the BBC’s humiliation coincides with acute hostility from Boris Johnson’s Conservative government. The Financial Times reports that an influential group of authors, academics and film producers believes a government advisory panel <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/a8541974-57f3-46ac-b0fd-0f359db2b7a9">may recommend</a> substantial cuts in the BBC’s income. </p>
<p>Intense competition from wealthy streaming services that have secured loyalty from young viewers increases the BBC’s vulnerability. It needs friends today more than it has needed them at any time in its history. Enemies are circling – and the Dyson report has added blood to the water. The BBC cannot afford to alienate its friends with any further evidence that its journalism, the jewel in its crown, is less than entirely reliable.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/161328/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tim Luckhurst has received research funding from News UK and Ireland Ltd. He is a member of the Editorial Board of The Conversation UK and also of the Free Speech Union and the Society of Editors. </span></em></p>Critics of the UK’s public broadcaster will be sharpening their knives over the latest scandal.Tim Luckhurst, Principal of South College, Durham UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1576352021-03-23T12:42:13Z2021-03-23T12:42:13ZBBC plan for regional hubs makes financial sense and is good politics for the government<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/391115/original/file-20210323-14-1rvt8or.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=11%2C7%2C2576%2C1932&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">TasfotoNL via Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The BBC is calling it a “blueprint for the biggest transformation in decades”. The UK’s national public service broadcaster has <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2021/across-the-uk">announced plans</a> to move hundreds of journalists’ jobs and some programme commissioning out of London, to strengthen both local reporting and the creative economy in the UK’s nations and regions.</p>
<p>With hard questions about the BBC’s long-term financial future being asked, it is one of new director general Tim Davie’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/15/more-of-less-the-dilemma-facing-tim-davie-at-the-bbc">big initiatives</a> to win over a sceptical government that <a href="https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2020/02/james-frayne-the-bbcs-growing-problem-isnt-public-hostility-its-apathy-fewer-people-see-the-point-of-it.html">does not believe</a> the BBC represents a balanced view of Britain. </p>
<p>Despite vibrant creative sectors outside of London, politicians have long worried the capital has too large a slice of the creative economy, with almost one in three creative jobs <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/londons_creative_industries_-_2017_update.pdf">based there</a>. But relocating posts means existing members of staff face uncertainty about the future.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1372517485375848448"}"></div></p>
<p>The Conservative government has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/mar/05/uk-would-be-crazy-to-throw-bbc-away-says-new-culture-secretary-oliver-dowden">made it plain</a> that it does not believe its supporters’ views are given enough prominence by the broadcaster. It’s a view that has been reinforced by <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/half-of-britons-feel-the-bbc-does-not-share-their-values-gm0z9cfxf">recent opinion polling</a>. </p>
<p>But <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0267323117695736">Cardiff University research</a> has discovered that, despite noisy criticism from the right, there is no evidence that the BBC’s news coverage leans to the left. Indeed, <a href="https://theconversation.com/bbc-brexit-bias-claims-need-to-be-based-on-hard-evidence-75003">one study found</a> that during the Brexit referendum, politicians from right-wing parties were quoted five times as often as those in the centre or left of centre parties. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/bbc-brexit-bias-claims-need-to-be-based-on-hard-evidence-75003">BBC 'Brexit bias' claims need to be based on hard evidence</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The BBC intends to use the drive to get out of London to better reflect the makeup and views of other parts of the UK. Too often England has been treated as the <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14616700902797242">default setting</a>. But just because BBC2’s Newsnight is broadcast from Cardiff or Manchester a handful of times a year, does not mean that stories about viewers living in those cities are any more likely to get on air. Or – perhaps worse – there is a risk of clumsy, patronising stories being produced because London-based journalists on tour do not understand the nuances of local issues.</p>
<h2>London calling?</h2>
<p>One of the big questions that a regionalisation strategy must answer is: to what extent are the teams independent of the view from London? A programme that is commissioned locally and broadcast to a regional audience should be largely independent of London. A specialist team based in the nations or regions that is pitching stories to London-based programme makers will still have to take account of the view <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05s9g2q">from W1A</a>.</p>
<p>The big success story for regionalisation has been the development of the BBC’s northern base at <a href="https://www.mediacityuk.co.uk/">MediaCityUK in Salford</a>. The move of BBC Breakfast, 5 Live and BBC Sport has breathed new life into the media scene in the north-west. But that success is often analysed in economic terms – the extent to which has it aided the <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1068/a4030">regeneration of Salford</a> – rather than in demonstrating plurality or diversity of views in news coverage.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/391094/original/file-20210323-2323-1e3wm3z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C11789%2C4147&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Panoramic view of Salford Quays, with BBC Manchester, Media City and Lowery theatre." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/391094/original/file-20210323-2323-1e3wm3z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C11789%2C4147&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/391094/original/file-20210323-2323-1e3wm3z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=212&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391094/original/file-20210323-2323-1e3wm3z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=212&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391094/original/file-20210323-2323-1e3wm3z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=212&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391094/original/file-20210323-2323-1e3wm3z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=266&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391094/original/file-20210323-2323-1e3wm3z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=266&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391094/original/file-20210323-2323-1e3wm3z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=266&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">SAKhanPhotography via Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>After all – notwithstanding its success in recent years, BBC Breakfast has tended to follow a <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2021/bbc-breakfast-scoop-of-the-year-rts">similar news agenda</a> to other morning news shows that are based in London.</p>
<h2>Economies of place</h2>
<p>Senior editors at BBC News believe the regionalisation plans are a radical shake up that will use the best of BBC journalism across more broadcast and digital platforms and that will cut down on repetition.</p>
<p>The BBC has long faced criticism that it <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/radio4/entries/c3a9c718-c0da-3026-8e34-206f7f87f83d">doesn’t make the best use of its resources</a>. All too often, different programmes have deployed their own teams to report the same story. Meanwhile some high-profile and well-paid journalists work exclusively for one programme. That’s now unaffordable. </p>
<p>According to the consumer group Voice of the Listener & Viewer (VLV), since 2010 cuts have reduced the net public funding of the BBC’s UK services by <a href="https://www.vlv.org.uk/news/vlv-research-shows-a-30-decline-in-bbc-public-funding-since-2010/">30% in real terms</a>. With BBC News cutting back on staff as it strives to implement a further <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-51271168">£80m worth of cuts</a> announced in January, there’s a strong case for more sharing of content between different show. An interview recorded for BBC 5 Live, should be equally at home on Radio 4’s Today programme. Gone are the days of programmes rejecting content just because it was made by a rival part of the BBC.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A man with a TV camera filming across the River Thames to Westminster Palace and the Houses of Parliament." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/391116/original/file-20210323-15-13mujjz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/391116/original/file-20210323-15-13mujjz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391116/original/file-20210323-15-13mujjz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391116/original/file-20210323-15-13mujjz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391116/original/file-20210323-15-13mujjz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391116/original/file-20210323-15-13mujjz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391116/original/file-20210323-15-13mujjz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">How many camera crews does the BBC need in London?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">PeskyMonkey via Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The COVID-19 crisis has made it clear that even traditionally newsroom-based journalists and production staff can work from home, meaning cost-cutting on offices is an inevitability. If guests can be interviewed via Zoom and viewers will accept lower-quality production values on-air, then broadcasters no longer need to maintain expensive regional studios and newsrooms.</p>
<h2>A new culture?</h2>
<p>ITV was established in the 1950s as a truly regional public service broadcaster, with franchises and bases around the UK. But during the pandemic, one senior ITV executive told me that its response to the crisis meant the company was getting out of the bricks and mortar business for good.</p>
<p>Journalists will have to come to terms with the culture change of working from either a large regional hub or from home. That is especially true for people starting out in their careers, as some older hands have pointed out.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1372858554907033600"}"></div></p>
<p>A balance of risks and benefits then for the BBC in its move to push jobs and commissioning outside of London.</p>
<p>But there is one other big winner in all of this. The UK’s government. The Conservative party’s scepticism of the ongoing and future value of the BBC has meant that it has been able to strong-arm the Beeb into backing its “<a href="https://www.ft.com/content/d29049ac-a47b-409f-a39c-8af59f1ec281">levelling-up</a>” agenda.</p>
<p>For a party with an eye on both the post-COVID recovery and the election of 2024, there is a lot to be said for moving jobs and money to parts of the country that, perhaps surprisingly, <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/215ce50f-8bc1-455d-a3fb-5cfb33932b14">backed it in 2019</a>. That may just be the price for putting up with the status quo in BBC funding for another decade.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/157635/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matt Walsh is affiliated with Cardiff University.</span></em></p>Funding cuts will force the national broadcaster to implement a root and branch reorganisation.Matt Walsh, Head of the school of journalism, media and culture, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1502982020-11-17T13:53:08Z2020-11-17T13:53:08ZIs UK public broadcasting still ‘fit for purpose’ in the digital age?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/369792/original/file-20201117-21-fnnv0t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C7%2C4928%2C3245&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Still fit for purpose?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">seeshooteatrepeat via Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The future of UK public broadcasting is in play. On November 10 the culture minister <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-54885985">Oliver Dowden announced</a> that he was establishing a panel to advise his department as part of the government’s strategic review of public service broadcasting. Ominously he wrote, in an article in <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/11/10/time-ask-big-questions-future-bbc/">The Daily Telegraph</a> that the review would “ask really profound questions” about the role of public service broadcasters in the digital age, “and indeed whether we need them at all”.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/public-service-broadcasting-advisory-panel">panel includes</a> former Downing Street spokesman Robbie Gibb, Michael, former chief executive of Channel 4, BBC chair and executive chairman of ITV, Andrew Griffith, MP for Arundel and South Downs and former chief operating officer of Sky, and Jane Turton, chief executive of All3Media.</p>
<p>Given the UK-wide remit, voices from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland appear to be thin on the ground. And, as the former Labour home secretary David Blunkett has pointed out in a <a href="https://twitter.com/arusbridger/status/1328683234440458241">letter to the Financial Times</a>, most members of the panel have had either close ties to the Conservative government or have professional backgrounds which might colour their thinking on public broadcasting.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.gov.uk/guidance/public-service-broadcasting-advisory-panel-terms-of-reference">aim of the panel</a> is to provide “independent expertise and advice” for the review of public service broadcasting, taking into consideration a number of issues, including whether it is still needed. The panel will also consider whether the current funding model for the UK’s public service broadcasters – the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, S4C, STV and Channel 5 – is sustainable and fit for purpose.</p>
<p>Public service broadcasting has a specific and challenging remit in the UK. Trying to define it in a single sentence is notoriously difficult. For proponents, the phrase embodies ideas of quality: “the best”. Its detractors, on the other hand, might argue that it is a covert method of state interference and influence over what people listen to and watch.</p>
<p>At the heart of public service broadcasting is a desire to provide something for everybody, to provide access to information, education, and entertainment regardless of class, status, background, gender, race. Idealistic, some might argue, yet surely a cornerstone of a healthy democracy and a pluralist society. Apart from anything else, public service broadcasters provide content that the market alone cannot provide.</p>
<h2>Inform, educate, entertain</h2>
<p>But the world in which the concept of public service broadcasting, as espoused by the BBC’s first director general, John Reith, was developed and nurtured has long gone. The argument, put forward by government-appointed committees in the 1920s, that the scarcity of space on the airwaves necessitated a broadcasting service “in the nation’s best interests”, and that it should be a monopoly is dead. </p>
<p>In those early days, broadcasting was viewed as a public utility, and – as the broadcasting historian Paddy Scannell has argued – the mandate to develop it as a national service in the public interest came from the state.</p>
<p>This Reithian approach to public broadcasting in the early days of radio broadcasting was based on four tenets. First, the need to protect broadcasting from commercial pressures was safeguarded by creating an assured source of funding (a licence fee for all those who owned wireless sets). Second, the service was to be provided for the whole nation regardless of the geographic location of the listener. The policy of a universal service was achieved, third, by the establishment of a National Programme (broadcast from London) and, fourth, by a Regional Programme from selected cities across the UK (including Cardiff and Birmingham).</p>
<p>When Independent Television (ITV) broke the BBC’s monopoly on broadcasting in 1955, many painted a picture of a broadcasting landscape in which public service broadcasting was represented by the BBC and commercial broadcasting was championed by ITV. Yet this is misleading, as the commercial network was firmly established on public service broadcasting principles, with a state-appointed authority to regulate it and ensure programme quality. There were clear public service obligations laid down in the <a href="https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/208620585.pdf">1954 Television Act</a>, and in subsequent broadcasting Acts, although it’s fair to say that since the 1990s, these have been gradually eroded.</p>
<h2>Modern times</h2>
<p>During the 1980s, the BBC was embroiled in a bitter battle with the Conservative government under <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/feb/20/bbc-war-margaret-thatcher-life-on-earth-grange-hill-eastenders-falklands">Margaret Thatcher</a>. At the heart of it was a clash of ideals and a desire on the part of the government to “modernise” the corporation (including a failed attempt to <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-30622889">introduce advertising</a> to the BBC in the mid-1980s). </p>
<p>By the end of the 1980s and early 1990s, it was the turn of ITV to face the wrath of the government, and the Broadcasting Acts of <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/42/data.pdf">1990</a> and <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/55/contents">1996</a> led to a process which would change the face of ITV forever. The legislation set up a sealed-bid auction for ITV franchises and relaxed the laws on the ownership of ITV companies.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Channel 4's new offices under construction in Leeds." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/369798/original/file-20201117-17-io9osi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/369798/original/file-20201117-17-io9osi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369798/original/file-20201117-17-io9osi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369798/original/file-20201117-17-io9osi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369798/original/file-20201117-17-io9osi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369798/original/file-20201117-17-io9osi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369798/original/file-20201117-17-io9osi.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">Spreading the love: Channel 4’s new HQ in Leeds.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Duncan Cuthbertson via Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Since then, increasing competition from satellite broadcasters and now companies such as Netflix and Amazon, not to mention social media platforms, all pose a threat to public service broadcasting. But as the BBC’s centenary approaches, we cannot abandon the core principles upon which the broadcasting services of the UK’s nations and, indeed, the public broadcasting services of myriad other countries, including Germany, Japan and Australia, have been founded. </p>
<p>Despite a feeling in government, perhaps, that the BBC and other public services broadcasters are an anachronism, a relic of the past, broadcasting historians are more than happy to show that they have, in fact, <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1329878X1415200129?journalCode=miad">always adapted to changing times</a>. They have managed to adapt for a hundred years – they need to be allowed to continue to adapt for another hundred.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/150298/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jamie Medhurst receives funding from AHRC, British Academy, Leverhulme Trust</span></em></p>The UK government has set up a committee to report on the future of public broadcasting – sounds ominous.Jamie Medhurst, Reader in Film, Television and Media/Co-Director, Centre for Media History, Aberystwyth UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1344712020-03-25T10:22:08Z2020-03-25T10:22:08ZCoronavirus: as the UK faces more restrictions, the public needs clearer government information<p>The UK government’s decision to introduce strict new measures to limit social contact comes after many people continued to ignore official advice not to mix in large groups. The health secretary branded people “<a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/03/23/people-failing-self-isolate-selfish-health-secretary-says/">selfish</a>” for not heeding its initial guidance. But the goverment’s own communication strategy should also be held responsible for failing to adequately inform the public about the actions needed to stop the spread of the coronavirus. </p>
<p>Last year the government <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50181485">set aside £100m</a> for an advertising blitz about getting ready for Brexit, despite the topic being intensely debated over the previous three years. Today, there is a far stronger case for investing significantly more money into a high-profile public health campaign that will prompt immediate behavioural change. </p>
<p>While a <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-we-can-all-play-our-part-government-campaign-offers-advice-to-stop-the-spread-11924298">limited government campaign</a> was launched in early February – to “Catch it, Bin it, Kill it” – the messaging was clearly not stark enough to alert people about the dangers of spreading the coronavirus. More public health warnings have been produced since then, but given the government’s fast-changing official guidance, adverts have not always remained up to date.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1241795484311851008"}"></div></p>
<p>In public speeches, media appearances and press briefings, the government’s own communication about the risks of coronavirus and the guidance people should follow has been patchy, <a href="https://www.wired.co.uk/article/coronavirus-uk-response-boris-johnson">with often evasive, ambiguous and confusing messaging</a>. </p>
<p>Take, for example, the government’s daily press briefings. Just a few days ago the prime minister, Boris Johnson, was clearly not two metres away from other speakers, breaching the government’s own advice to the public. Now, with more restrictive measures in place, the importance of visually communicating the government’s guidance has been recognised. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1242493024292286464"}"></div></p>
<h2>Reporting the science</h2>
<p>The government has consistently claimed its decision making has been in response to “<a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51915302">the science changing</a>” – a line echoed in many news headlines, including across BBC output. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1239823300857118720"}"></div></p>
<p>Broadcasters, of course, have to carefully navigate how they impartially report the scientific evidence. The <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality">BBC’s editorial guidelines</a>, for example, state: “In applying due impartiality to news, we give due weight to events, opinion and the main strands of argument”. But in the case of reporting a global pandemic, interpreting the “due weight” of the “main strands of argument” means making difficult editorial judgements about which political actors and scientific experts to include and exclude.</p>
<p>After all, many countries implemented tougher restrictions on its citizens’ movements before the UK. In doing so, should broadcasters have broken free from a reliance on state information and led with scientific perspectives that advocated a different approach to countering the spread of the disease than the UK?</p>
<p>At the same time, would routinely counterbalancing the goverment’s judgements – informed by its scientific advisers – with the actions of other national governments and leading experts in fields such as epidemiology and virology add more confusion than clarity about the UK’s response? </p>
<p>To help people understand how the scientific evidence informs government decisions, broadcasters could more prominently feature the goverment’s own medical and health experts. For example, in one <a href="https://publish.twitter.com/?query=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FStephen_Cushion%2Fstatus%2F1240636895589093377&widget=Tweet">live press briefing</a> – without the government present – they transparently explained many of the factors that the scientific advisory group for emergencies (SAGE) is grappling with when it recommends what action to take and when.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/covid-19-to-counter-misinformation-journalists-need-to-embrace-a-public-service-mission-133829">COVID-19: to counter misinformation, journalists need to embrace a public service mission</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>While journalists have asked the government tough questions about its response to the pandemic in press briefings, most people don’t tune in live to the daily Downing Street conferences but – as recent <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0028/174088/bbc-news-review-deck.pdf">Ofcom research</a> has confirmed – they rely on the framing of news media stories, such as scanning headlines about the science changing. Of course, given the unprecedented health crisis, people may be reading the news more carefully.</p>
<p>It doesn’t help that professional controversialists such as Brendan O'Neill, the editor of Spiked magazine, and Peter Hitchens <a href="https://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2020/03/23/a-plague-of-hot-takes-lazy-contrarians-are-putting-everyone">have been ignoring</a> much of the scientific advice, undermining government guidance and giving cover to people who still want to congregate for parties.</p>
<h2>Responsible scrutiny</h2>
<p>Broadcasters, by contrast, have taken a more <a href="https://theconversation.com/covid-19-to-counter-misinformation-journalists-need-to-embrace-a-public-service-mission-133829">responsible public service role</a>, carefully informing people about the latest government advice. But, rather than just conveying government statements could they have questioned the government’s policy more robustly? After all, the public needs rigorous independent analysis of the expertise informing the government’s scientific judgements.</p>
<p>As news bulletins have often focused on the prime minister’s press briefings, the government’s official health guidance has not always been clear or consistent. While its previous advice had been people are still free to go to public parks, for example, it was left to Sky News reporter Sam Coates to highlight the flaw in this plan.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1241784833191432193"}"></div></p>
<p>As the country looks to unite and collectively respond to what the government has called a “national emergency”, it’s understandable why broadcasters turn to the prime minister for guidance and leadership. After all, <a href="https://publish.twitter.com/?query=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FJake_Kanter%2Fstatus%2F1242384602313961478&widget=Tweet">approximately 25m people</a> watched Boris Johnson speaking to the nation about the UK’s lockdown, making it “one of the most watched broadcasts in British TV history” according to the <a href="https://publish.twitter.com/?query=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fjimwaterson%2Fstatus%2F1242386966769029121&widget=Tweet">Media Guardian’s editor</a>. </p>
<p>But while the focus of media coverage is often on the prime minister’s statements, journalists covering the pandemic – judged by the government itself as <a href="https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/government-gives-key-worker-status-to-all-journalists-reporting-on-coronavirus-pandemic/">key workers</a> – have a duty to explain whether the government’s finer judgements are justified on scientific grounds.</p>
<p>When there is ambiguity in the government’s approach, we need journalists prominently holding them to account. Not long after the lockdown was announced, for example, ITV’s Good Morning Britain presenter, Susanna Reid, <a href="https://publish.twitter.com/?query=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fsusannareid100%2Fstatus%2F1242359499517833218&widget=Tweet">exposed</a> the government’s confused messaging about whether children with separated parents could move between households. </p>
<p>Now more than ever the government’s strategy needs to be articulated clearly and without ambiguity. But we also need journalists to continue questioning the official guidance and the scientific evidence that informs it. </p>
<p><em>This article was amended on March 26 to correct an error in which Peter Oborne was named instead of Peter Hitchens, as was originally intended. We unreservedly apologise to Peter Oborne.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/134471/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Cushion has received funding from the BBC Trust, Ofcom, The British Academy, ESRC and AHRC </span></em></p>It’s not enough to say the science has changed – now, more than ever, we need clear accountability and transparency about the government’s decisionsStephen Cushion, Chair professor, Cardiff UniversityLicensed 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/855932017-10-26T19:09:17Z2017-10-26T19:09:17ZSouth Korea’s public broadcasters are in an impossible political position<p>Compared with their counterparts in other democratic countries, South Korea’s national public broadcasters are politically vulnerable.</p>
<p>Tied to whichever government is in power, they are saddled with a compromised board system and limited options for editorial independence across TV, radio and online content. </p>
<p>This has led to strikes demanding freedom from political influence. Most recently, the unionised staff at two of Korea’s largest broadcasters – the Korean Broadcasting System (KBS) and the Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) – <a href="http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2017/09/137_236151.html">walked off the job</a> in September.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/tackling-climate-change-could-bring-north-and-south-korea-closer-and-help-stabilise-the-region-82046">Tackling climate change could bring North and South Korea closer and help stabilise the region</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Although a version of KBS launched in the 1920s under the Japanese colonial government, KBS TV was established in 1961 by the Korean military dictator Park Jung-Hee. It was owned and operated by the state until 1973, when it transformed into a national public broadcaster.</p>
<p>MBC, on the other hand, started as a commercial entity in the 1960s. It was forced to become a public broadcaster during the 1980 media reforms. These placed all existing broadcasters under the umbrella of “public service broadcasting”. </p>
<p>Not currently run by the government, it is majority-owned by the Foundation of Broadcast Culture (FBC), which is subject to political influence. For this reason, it is widely seen as a public broadcaster.</p>
<p>From this patchwork of businesses, Korean television broadcasting has become a highly politicised industry – one that is troublingly susceptible to state intervention. </p>
<h2>A lack of mission</h2>
<p>From the beginning, public service broadcasting in Korea has operated without a clear justification for its existence as a non-commercial nor non-politically-influenced institution. </p>
<p>This is especially true when it comes to funding. KBS’s revenue comes from licence fees and advertising, while MBC’s funding is solely from advertising. </p>
<p>The board members of KBS and the MBC are selected on the basis of their political and ideological stance. This is not always the case in other regions. For example, the board members of Australia’s public broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), are appointed as part of an arguably merit-based and transparent <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2014C00721">selection process</a>.</p>
<p>In South Korea, the board members of KBS and FBC, the public organisation responsible for MBC management, are all directly or indirectly appointed by the Korean president at the recommendation of the National Assembly, the country’s legislature. </p>
<p>For KBS, this includes seven members associated with the ruling party and four from the opposition party. For FBC, there are six and three, respectively. </p>
<p>Also, unlike <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2014C00721">in Australia</a>, no laws specify the role of public service broadcasting. The absence of legal guidelines has created a situation where both KBS and MBC are in competition with each other, and with other commercial broadcasters like the Seoul Broadcasting System (SBS). </p>
<h2>The political lapdogs</h2>
<p>Korea’s public broadcasters have periodically attempted “self-censorship” in support of the government of the day. </p>
<p>During progressive governments (1998-2007), the presidents of the two public broadcasters were more or less handpicked by the progressive presidents, and their boards were controlled by party-supported members.</p>
<p>During recent conservative governments (from 2008 to April 2017), the conservative-supported presidents and board members largely dictated programming.</p>
<p>In this sense, Korea’s public broadcasters have operated more like an arm of government than as independent public broadcasters.</p>
<p>For example, during the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-you-should-know-about-south-koreas-political-scandal-the-same-old-story-but-with-a-twist-68722">Choi Soon-Sil scandal</a> – a case of political corruption that emerged in 2016 and led to President Park Keun-Hye’s impeachment in March 2017 – both KBS and MBC failed to provide accurate, objective news. </p>
<p>In particular, at the initial stage of the scandal, their coverage was biased in favour of President Park.</p>
<p>Likewise, in 2004 when the progressive President Rho Mu-Hyun was impeached, KBS and MBC coverage was biased in favour of the incumbent president and the ruling progressive party.</p>
<h2>No will to change</h2>
<p>The politicisation of the public broadcasters in Korea has created profound internal conflicts. </p>
<p>Encouraged by the progressive candidate’s victory in the 2017 presidential election, the progressive unions within KBS and MBC went <a href="http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2017/09/371_235931.html">on strike</a> in September. They demand the resignation of the president of each of the two stations and editorial independence. </p>
<p>It is not the first time that the unions have staged strikes against alleged management interference in news coverage. The same unions held a strike <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/10/world/la-fg-korea-media-strike-20120711">for several months in 2012</a> in protest of the conservative President Lee Myung-Bak government’s attempt to control the media, but it subsided without success. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-bbc-and-public-service-tv-has-a-future-but-it-must-change-to-survive-62006">The BBC and public service TV has a future – but it must change to survive</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The current Moon Jae-In government – via the unions and the government regulator, the Korean Communication Commission – is pressuring the conservative-supported board members of KBS and FBC to stand down. They are also attempting to oust the presidents of KBS and MBC, who had been handpicked by former President Park.</p>
<p>This time around, the government and ruling progressive party support the strike. It’s likely to achieve some of its aims: two conservative-supported board members of FBC have already stepped down in recent weeks.</p>
<p>Yet we have seen this before. In 2008, the conservative president Lee Myung-Bak and his administration also forced the progressive president of KBS and board members to resign. </p>
<p>This is the key problem: the presidency will continue changing hands. If the government and ruling party control the appointment of personnel, and have a say in the editorial process, Korea’s public broadcasters will always be compromised.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/85593/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ki-Sung Kwak 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>Compared with their counterparts in other democratic countries, South Korea’s national public broadcasters are politically vulnerable.Ki-Sung Kwak, Associate Professor, Department of Korean Studies, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/721132017-01-31T15:54:36Z2017-01-31T15:54:36ZAre MPs up to the task of fixing South Africa’s troubled public broadcaster?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154762/original/image-20170130-7653-lh5jh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"> Demonstrators protest against censorship by the South African Broadcasting Corporation.
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Mike Hutchings </span></span></figcaption></figure><p>South Africa’s public broadcaster, the SABC, is in trouble. It has been for years. But things are a little more dangerous than before. There are two critical processes on the go, one to address the SABC’s financial and governance crises and the second to appoint an interim board. </p>
<p>Each must be concluded in the public interest. If the processes unravel there may be little hope of arresting the SABC’s long-term decline and marginalisation. And that will also be a problem for democracy. Through its radio and television offerings, the SABC has the widest media reach in the country.</p>
<p>With the rise in sponsored, commercial content and fake news globally and in South Africa, the country needs a professional, independent public broadcaster offering context, professional fact-checked news and a multitude of views.</p>
<p>The two critical parliamentary processes are the inquiry into the fitness of the SABC board to <a href="http://citizen.co.za/news/news-national/1401609/watch-parly-inquiry-sabc-board-debates-final-report/">fulfil its duties</a>. This is being overseen by an ad hoc committee specially set up in 2016. The other is the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Communication’s appointment of an <a href="http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/criteria-set-for-sabc-interim-board-nominees-7501311">interim board</a>.</p>
<p>The ad hoc has done admirable work. But the process of completing its task is being held up by bickering between the governing African National Congress and the main opposition party, the Democratic Alliance. It’s critical that this gets resolved. The work on appointing an interim board is ongoing but it too needs to be concluded urgently.</p>
<h2>The work of the ad hoc committee</h2>
<p>The ad hoc committee has hit a rocky patch. Members of the DA on the committee have <a href="http://www.enca.com/south-africa/da-mps-walk-out-of-sabc-inquiry">walked out</a> and haven’t endorsed a <a href="http://www.parliament.gov.za/Multimedia/misc/2017/Interim_Report_of_the_Ad_Hoc_Committee_on_the_SABC_Board_Inquiry/SABC_Ad_Hoc_Committee_Interim_Report_27_Jan_2017_adopted_published.pdf">draft report</a> produced by the remaining committee members. </p>
<p>Their complaints are that the report only contains findings and doesn’t include recommendations and that this has significantly watered down the power of the report. Also, in particular, they accuse ANC MPs of protecting Communications Minister Faith Muthambi by not including recommendations for her firing.</p>
<p>But MPs from the governing ANC argued that recommendations should come later after the committee had received further inputs from Muthambi as well as comments from other interested parties.</p>
<p>The ad hoc committee was set up in November 2016 in the wake of multiple crises at the SABC. Its brief was wide-ranging and included:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>looking into the financial status and sustainability of the SABC,</p></li>
<li><p>the corporation’s response to the Public Protector’s critical 2014 report <a href="http://www.pprotect.org/library/investigation_report/2013-14/WHEN%20GOVERNANCE%20FAILS%20REPORT%20EXEC%20SUMMARY.pdf">When Governance and Ethics Fail</a>, which followed her probe of the broadcaster</p></li>
<li><p>the SABC’s response to court judgments against it, and its response in particular to the <a href="http://ewn.co.za/2016/07/11/SABC-responds-to-Icasa-ruling-on-censorship">ruling</a> by the Independent Communication Authority of South Africa.</p></li>
</ul>
<h2>Tough findings</h2>
<p>The committee did its work with what seemed to be an unprecedented level of cooperation among political parties in parliament. Some even went as far as to say parliament had at last found its backbone after years of weakly standing by as finances, governance and editorial principles crumbled at the SABC.</p>
<p>The broadcaster’s board and management <a href="http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/sabc-members-walks-out-of-parliament-inquiry-20161207">fought</a> against the process. They walked out of proceedings and refused to provide documents and then maliciously complied through sending hundreds of emails. But the committee stood strong.</p>
<p>It heard testimonies from a range of key stakeholders. These included the Public Protector and the Auditor General as well as NGOs and human rights organisations. It also interviewed former board members, former SABC employees and <a href="http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/47a0a0004f4dd823a397f35d9cc72cdd/%E2%80%9CSABC-8%E2%80%9D-continue-testifying-before-Parliament-20161212">eight</a> journalists who had been fired for standing up to management against its illegal ban on showing footage of violent protests. </p>
<p>The committee’s subsequent draft report captured the hours of testimony and pointed to a number of deep structural challenges. It pointed to the conflict between the <a href="http://www.gov.za/sites/www.gov.za/files/a4-99.pdf">Broadcasting Act</a> and the <a href="http://www.gov.za/documents/companies-act">Companies Act</a>. It said that Muthambi had selectively used the Companies Act to give herself powers to fire board members. The report said that the SABC’s independence needs to be protected and that </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Broadcasting Act is undoubtedly specific to the SABC, and is therefore the primary law applicable to the public broadcaster.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It also highlighted irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure. It calculated that there had been irregular expenditure of R5.1bn and fruitless and wasteful expenditure of R92.5m. It also included a section on “suspicious transactions”.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154757/original/image-20170130-7685-1q72eas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154757/original/image-20170130-7685-1q72eas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154757/original/image-20170130-7685-1q72eas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154757/original/image-20170130-7685-1q72eas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154757/original/image-20170130-7685-1q72eas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154757/original/image-20170130-7685-1q72eas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154757/original/image-20170130-7685-1q72eas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Communications Minister Faith Muthambi and former SABC COO Hlaudi Motsoeneng.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">GCIS</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The report included a section on the SABC’s editorial policies, concluding that these had been passed without sufficient consultation. It also pointed to problems with their content, including the fact that they undermined the role of journalists by insisting that they refer all ‘controversial’ editorial decisions upwards to management.</p>
<p>The report highlighted the problematic role of <a href="http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/sabc-inquiry-muthambi-crucified-in-draft-report-7530722">Minister Muthambi</a> and her tabling of the <a href="http://www.gov.za/documents/broadcasting-amendment-bill-b39-2015-5-dec-2015-0000">Broadcasting Amendment Bill, 2015</a> which calls for her to be given powers to appoint board members. The report stated that this showed the lengths that the minister has been prepared to go to “concentrate power in the ministry”. </p>
<p>It pointed to her illegal role in appointing Hlaudi Motsoeneng to the position of permanent Chief Operating Officer, despite the public protector’s findings that he lacked the necessary qualifications for the role.</p>
<h2>Next steps</h2>
<p>The ad hoc committee’s findings were powerful. It would have been better still if it had included recommendations in its draft report. But what is now critical is that the process isn’t scuppered. MPs need to work together to ensure a final report is delivered which contains strong recommendations. ANC MPs have promised to do so. This is a good start, but they need to be held strongly to account.</p>
<p>As far as the <a href="https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2017-01-24-sabc-interim-board-appointment-process-gets-underway/#.WI5TYRt95PY">interim board</a> is concerned, the portfolio committee is due to select one shortly. According to the Broadcasting Act it should be made up of five non-executive directors and three executive directors who will sit for no longer than six months. Its task is to implement the ad hoc committee’s recommendations that will be included in the final report.</p>
<p>What’s essential is that parliament selects a competent group of individuals, ready to roll up their sleeves. It’s essential that they have the required technical skills. But they also need to have political clout. They must be brave and resilient and have the guts to work against the SABC’s entrenched networks of power and corruption.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72113/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kate Skinner received funding from the Open Society Foundation. She is affiliated with the SOS: Support Public Broadcasting Coalition. </span></em></p>It’s vital that the problems at the South African Broadcasting Corporation be fixed in the public interest and for democracy, given its wide media reach in the country.Kate Skinner, PhD student in Media Studies, University of the WitwatersrandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/664072016-10-03T04:55:18Z2016-10-03T04:55:18ZThe Conversation working with The ABC<p>Today I’d like to fill you in on some work we’ve been doing behind the scenes. The Conversation’s mission is to help create a better informed public debate by making it easier for academics and researchers to take part. </p>
<p>One way we do this is by sharing the expertise of The Conversation’s academic authors as widely as we can. We make everything we do free to republish under creative commons and work in partnership with key media organisations in Australia and globally.</p>
<p>A few weeks ago we deepened our collaboration with the ABC to ensure the Australian public broadcaster gets the best from The Conversation authors. For the past six weeks Adam Connors, a senior member of the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/">ABC news</a> team, has been working with us to alert ABC journalists to our upcoming articles and identify opportunities to work with the ABC to inform its audience with deep context and explanation.</p>
<p>In that time Conversation articles have been viewed more than 1 million times on the ABC and there has also been a terrific appetite to interview authors on TV and radio. It’s a good result for everyone involved: the authors, The Conversation, the ABC and most importantly everyone who wants to better understand what’s going on in an increasingly specialised and complex world.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66407/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The Conversation is sharing more of its articles with the ABC.Misha Ketchell, Editor, The ConversationLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/459202015-09-01T05:38:16Z2015-09-01T05:38:16ZWhat is the BBC for? Why not let the people have a say for a change<p>The BBC was set up to inform, educate and entertain, but the government’s <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33556009">recent green paper</a> tries to conflate those public purposes with commercial issues in a blatant attempt to limit the range, scope, scale, primary remit, funding and regulation of Britain’s public broadcaster. </p>
<p>Looming large is the government’s desire to give something to the unhappy commercial sector which is presently floundering without a viable business model. You only have to read recent editorialising in some of Britain’s biggest papers to get a feel for the sort of pressure being piled on David Cameron by the commercial news sector.</p>
<p>Here’s <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3150473/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-EU-zealots-shamed-voice-democracy.html">the Daily Mail</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The BBC is supposed to be a public service broadcaster but it is acting more like a rapacious commercial giant, trying to corner the market in news delivery.
Why on earth should the taxpayer have to fund this naked empire building?
Mr Osborne hinted at plans to curb its website but he needs to be bolder. With four TV channels, a sprawling radio network and international business arm, the BBC is simply too bloated.
It must be forced to slim down, cut its costs, sell off non essential functions and concentrate on what it does best – make brilliant programmes. Everything else should be left to the market.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Needless to say many of the other national papers have been singing from the same songsheet.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The problem with all this is that the BBC’s commercial rivals are castigating the public broadcaster for doing what they ought to have done themselves. It is laughable to criticise the BBC for developing ways to expand into digital, global and engage with future young audiences, develop diversity and invent think tanks to lead the field in areas such as gaming and interactivity. </p>
<p>That’s what any forward-looking media organisation ought to have been doing for years. If the BBC wasn’t doing it, the taxpayer would be entitled to ask why not.</p>
<h2>Future proof</h2>
<p>An extensive report called <a href="http://www.centreforum.org/assets/pubs/broadcasting-by-consent.pdf">Broadcasting by Consent</a> was published in February which warns that discussions of the BBC’s public purposes and its funding should not be converged. The BBC, it says: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Needs to be fit for a pluralistic, competitive and digitised future and thus online needs to be brought into the licence system which should embrace consumption of all BBC content on any device.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The report was written by Jacquie Hughes who is special advisor to the Lords Communication Committee on Charter Renewal, now in its eighth sitting. The inquiry invites expert witnesses to give oral evidence on the BBC’s Public Purposes and how they are measured. </p>
<p>Unlike the commercial sector which wants less regulation, former director general <a href="http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/communications-committee/bbc-charter-renewal-public-purposes-and-licence-fee/oral/18731.html">Lord Birt said</a>: “We must regulate with as much precision and rigour as possible.” </p>
<p>The public, he went on to say, understands the remit, has expectations about and trusts the BBC. When the public broadcaster makes a mistake or drifts away from its public service remit, the public is usually the first to complain.</p>
<h2>Public purposes</h2>
<p>So what are the primary aims of the BBC? For the best part of a century its mandate has been to educate, inform and entertain. The founding principles were further developed in the last charter review into <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/corporate2/insidethebbc/whoweare/publicpurposes">six public purposes</a> which form the starting point for the BBC’s processes of internal and external regulation, accountability and testing of judgements. The purposes are a set of principles and values, underpinning everything the corporation does, not a shopping list of strategic objectives or corporate plans.</p>
<p>Currently these are: sustaining citizenship and civil society, promoting education and learning, stimulating creativity and cultural excellence, representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities, bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK and in promoting its other purposes, helping to deliver the benefit of emerging communications technologies and services to the public. </p>
<p>The BBC wants more regulation of the purposes which it wants underpinned by the following set of values: independence, impartiality, value for money and a mandate to uphold the highest editorial and creative standards.</p>
<p>The BBC’s initial response to Whittingdale’s review updates the public purposes to do the following:</p>
<ol>
<li> Provide news and information to help people understand the world around them, so – production of high quality news and current affairs for all parts of the UK and the wider world.</li>
<li> Provide specialist educational content to support learning in ways that are accessible, engaging and challenging.</li>
<li> Show the most creative ideas and highest quality content, set the national and international standard, be distinctive and bring the best new talent to audiences.</li>
<li> Reflect diversity and represent the whole UK population, its nations, regions and communities.</li>
<li> Be a catalyst for the creative industries, promote the UK abroad, and work with other sectors to bring the benefits of technological change to UK citizens.</li>
</ol>
<p>The future charter should then, be inclusive, universal and representative of all corners of the UK. Not scaled back at all.</p>
<h2>Age of enlightenment</h2>
<p>Following the green paper, a group of academics <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/letters/letters-consultation-skewed-against-the-bbc-10431602.html">wrote an open letter</a> published in a number of newspapers which expressed concerns that the terms of the review were “skewed”.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>They are so preoccupied with an assumed negative impact of the BBC on the commercial media market that they ignore the considerable evidence of the BBC’s enormous contribution to the UK’s creative industries and to society more generally.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The green paper, they wrote: “seems determined to repeat (without any empirical justification) criticisms of the BBC that regularly surface in the commercial press” and it’s intent is: “not to secure a future for a well-funded, genuinely independent and innovative public service provider, but to shrink the BBC in the interests of its commercial competitors”.</p>
<p>In The Observer the following weekend, BBC director general Tony Hall warned that: “While no one wants to abolish the BBC, there will be some who want to diminish us for their own narrow interests. We must remind them that the British public do not share their views.”</p>
<p>As the BBC embarks on its biggest survey of public attitudes yet, maybe its time for the people to start talking loud and government to be forced to listen.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45920/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lyn Champion is affiliated with the BBC as a producer/supplier. She has worked for the BBC as an independent producer for 30 years. Lyn is a member of the Labour Party.</span></em></p>The BBC has called for a national debate on what it is for. The public needs to speak and the politicians need to listen.Lyn Champion, Senior Lecturer in Journalism, Course Leader MA Documentary Journalism, Nottingham Trent UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/414052015-05-06T16:44:07Z2015-05-06T16:44:07ZBritain’s broadcast media could be kingmakers after the election<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80695/original/image-20150506-10919-z5u7mm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">With power comes responsibility.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/91454795@N06/14945595054/">Duane Jones Cheshire1963/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Depending on the electoral arithmetic, the next 48 hours could be a real test of how broadcast journalists interpret public perceptions towards any post-election coalition deals. If, as <a href="http://may2015.com/category/poll-of-polls/">polls</a> continue to suggest, a hung parliament is imminent, the debate will almost exclusively focus on which party can (or should) lead a coalition government over the next five years.</p>
<p>Already, the question of forming a coalition is not just about which political party can gain a working majority in parliament, and successfully pass a new programme of laws in the Queen’s speech. It’s also about whether the combination of parties seeking power will be viewed as “legitimate” by voters. </p>
<p>As it stands, an <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/20/tories-still-ahead-labour-latest-guardian-icm-poll">ICM poll</a> shows the public favour in almost equal measure either a Conservative/Liberal Democrat or a Labour/SNP coalition. But crucially, a fifth of people surveyed indicated that they didn’t know which coalition to back.</p>
<h2>Where does legitimacy come from?</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/60641/cabinet-manual.pdf">Cabinet Manual</a> – written in 2010 after the last coalition negotiations – makes clear it is parliamentary legitimacy which is crucial in allowing a government to function. But whichever party leader attempts to form a government will also need to reflect on public support.</p>
<p>So how broadcast journalists interpret “public” legitimacy could be crucial in policing the boundaries of negotiations between parties, in the post-election period. Since most people have yet to cast their vote, at this point in time it is difficult to interpret where any “public” illegitimacy towards possible coalition deals is emanating from. </p>
<p>For example, it could be that broadcasters are responding to newspaper coverage of public perceptions, rather than relying on more reliable ways of assessing the public mood, such as opinion polls. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80693/original/image-20150506-10937-1i2jqpw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80693/original/image-20150506-10937-1i2jqpw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80693/original/image-20150506-10937-1i2jqpw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=950&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80693/original/image-20150506-10937-1i2jqpw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=950&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80693/original/image-20150506-10937-1i2jqpw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=950&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80693/original/image-20150506-10937-1i2jqpw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1194&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80693/original/image-20150506-10937-1i2jqpw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1194&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80693/original/image-20150506-10937-1i2jqpw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1194&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Caption.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/595694942523121664">Twitter</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The right-wing press has already <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/may/06/sun-ed-miliband-labour-mail-telegraph-election">swung into action</a> and sought to delegitimise any prospect of the Labour party winning the second largest number of seats and governing with the support of the SNP. A Daily Telegraph headline this week read: “Nightmare on Downing Street”, with a picture of SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon prominently placed.</p>
<p>But the mood music of what constitutes an “acceptable” coalition government has been playing for some time among right wing papers. According to a search of the newspaper database Nexis, articles discussing “legitimacy” in the context of the general election have increased in recent weeks. Most of these encourage readers to think the largest seat-winning party should be the one entitled to govern.</p>
<h2>A heated debate</h2>
<p>Of course, the question of which parties will share power after the election is a legitimate point for debate. While partisan newspapers are free to pursue whatever editorial angle they please, broadcasters have strict impartiality requirements.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/may/07/tv-news-election-race-policy-cardiff-university">Our research</a> shows the major evening bulletins – including Channel 5 at 5pm, Channel 4 at 7pm, and at 10pm on BBC, ITV and Sky News – have increased the amount of airtime spent discussing post-election deals. In the first and second week of the official campaign, total election airtime covering coalition deals amounted to 4.3% and 1.1%, respectively. From April 13 to May 1, however, it increased substantially to between 13.4% and 14.3% per week.</p>
<p>Despite Ed Miliband’s regular insistence his party would not enter into a coalition alliance with the SNP – most memorably on the BBC leaders’ question time debate – the overwhelming focus in TV coverage has been about a possible Labour and SNP coalition deal. Other parties have made the prospect of an SNP minority government central to their election campaigns; especially the Conservatives.</p>
<iframe width="100%" height="500" frameborder="0" src="https://emp.bbc.co.uk/emp/embed/smpEmbed.html?playlist=http%3A%2F%2Fplaylists.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Felection-2015-32541078A%2Fplaylist.sxml&title=Labour%20leader%20Ed%20Miliband%20says%20he%20will%20not%20form%20a%20Labour%20government%20-%20if%20it%20means%20making%20a%20deal%20with%20the%20SNP&product=news&lang=en-gb"></iframe>
<p>In more recent days, there has been some speculation about a possible deal between the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats, UKIP or the DUP. But the role of the SNP as a potential kingmaker in the next government has clearly been the dominant coalition narrative over the election cycle in TV and print coverage, as well as being hotly debated on social media.</p>
<h2>Broadcasters, beware</h2>
<p>If the vote is as close as predicted, parties will inevitably squabble between themselves about who “won”. But the public will rely on journalists to mediate. And since TV news remains by far <a href="http://www.mediaweek.co.uk/article/1344407/election-2015-people-news#5dBEHkzkTDwcYsyE.02">the most widely used source</a> of news for general and detailed information about the election, the impartiality of broadcast journalists will be put under the spotlight.</p>
<p>This puts a huge amount of responsibility on broadcast journalists interpreting the results as they come in, during the early hours of Friday morning. Tired but full of adrenaline, broadcast journalists may well be influenced by the pace of the news cycle and the pressure to call out a “winner”. No doubt many of the partisan newspapers – most of whom have endorsed the Conservative party – will be seeking to sway readers in their Friday and Saturday editions.</p>
<p>As public attitudes are formed over the next 48 hours, broadcast journalists will therefore need to be careful in how they interpret the “public legitimacy” of the election results and any possible coalition deals, in light of their impartiality requirements.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41405/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>It may all come down to how broadcasters interpret their impartiality requirements.Stephen Cushion, Senior Lecturer, School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, Cardiff UniversityRichard Sambrook, Professor of Journalism, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/240332014-03-17T19:35:14Z2014-03-17T19:35:14ZWhat would the Australian media look like without the ABC?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/43713/original/t5p27xy6-1394605945.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The challenge for the ABC as it faces political opposition is to remind taxpayers of the good value it represents and of the public service journalism it creates.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dave Hunt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Abbott government is preparing to cut funding to the ABC. The end of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/lost-in-transmission-the-australia-network-soft-power-and-diplomacy-22580">Australia Network</a> in its present form is one saving <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/feb/05/australia-network-overtaken-by-technology-malcolm-turnbull">already flagged</a> by communications minister Malcolm Turnbull. And while the <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/01/22/our-trust-in-media-abc-still-leads-as-commercial-media-struggle/">popularity of the ABC</a> protects it from the threat of imminent destruction, the vultures are circling.</p>
<p>The Conversation UK <a href="https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-what-would-tv-look-like-without-the-bbc-23674">recently asked</a> what Britain would be like without the BBC, as it too <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/07/bbc-biggest-losers-bbc3-closure">struggles with looming cuts</a>. But what would Australian culture be like if the ABC didn’t exist?</p>
<p>The most obvious absence would be impartial news and current affairs journalism of a certain quality and tone. All commercial media organisations produce news and current affairs, and often very well, but to very different criteria than those laid down by the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/abca1983361/s6.html">ABC’s Charter</a>. </p>
<p>Privately owned media are subject to commercial imperatives that are not present for the ABC. Like the ABC, commercial organisations provide and are committed to public interest journalism, but it is not their sole purpose and sometimes commercial imperatives come into conflict with it.</p>
<p>Channel 9’s <a href="http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/">A Current Affair</a>, for example, sounds like a program dedicated to public interest reporting. However, on a day when the news agenda was dominated by civil war fears in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/ukraine">Ukraine</a> and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/manus-riots-illustrate-a-failure-of-australias-refugee-protection-23373">death of asylum seeker Reza Barati</a> on Manus Island, ACA’s lead story was <a href="http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2014/03/11/19/24/twins-share-everything-even-boyfriend">“Australia’s identical twins,”</a> a warm tale of two girls and their boyfriend problems.</p>
<p>Without the influence of the ABC, this is very likely all that mainstream, free-to-air Australian TV network viewers would get in the way of “current affairs”: a light, frothy, occasionally sensationalised and prurient mix of human interest, lifestyle and advertorial content. </p>
<p>This is not to criticise all human interest journalism, as it has an important and legitimate place in the recreation and entertainment schedules of millions of Australians. But what if that was all there was?</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/43714/original/sm7mncgx-1394606513.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/43714/original/sm7mncgx-1394606513.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=366&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/43714/original/sm7mncgx-1394606513.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=366&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/43714/original/sm7mncgx-1394606513.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=366&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/43714/original/sm7mncgx-1394606513.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/43714/original/sm7mncgx-1394606513.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/43714/original/sm7mncgx-1394606513.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The ABC, like the UK’s BBC, exerts competitive pressure on profit-driven providers not to take audiences for granted.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Andy Rain</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Public service media makes cheap and nasty news and current affairs look exactly like that by providing a benchmark for others to emulate. It doesn’t preclude the lighter touch of the commercial providers, but sets a context within which all serious journalism must be seen to be of comparable quality in terms of resource allocation and production standards.</p>
<p>We see this very clearly with Sky News in Australia, part-owned by Rupert Murdoch. Sky’s 24-hour news service is excellent on many criteria. But would Sky News Australia be so watchable in the absence of the ABC?</p>
<p>In the UK, Sky News is also a worthy provider of 24-hour news, highly respected and multi-award winning since its launch in 1989. News Corp’s UK tabloid newspapers, however, are vicious, morally bankrupt packages of sleaze and sensation. Rebekah Brooks and other former News employees are <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/11/rebekah-brooks-never-heard-glenn-mulcaire">currently in a London courtroom</a>, defending themselves against charges which – if proven – could well see them doing serious prison time. </p>
<p>A comparable public service competitor in the British newspaper market may have may have had a positive influence, in the same way the BBC obliged Sky News from the start to produce 24-hour news content of a quality competitive with the dominant publicly funded player.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/43803/original/s7f6t7tb-1394681023.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/43803/original/s7f6t7tb-1394681023.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/43803/original/s7f6t7tb-1394681023.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/43803/original/s7f6t7tb-1394681023.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/43803/original/s7f6t7tb-1394681023.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/43803/original/s7f6t7tb-1394681023.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/43803/original/s7f6t7tb-1394681023.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The News of the World transgressed as it did because of the lack of any public service obligation or moral constraint.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Facundo Arrizabalaga</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>All of this is not to say that BBC and ABC editors do not make mistakes, or that commercial journalism on TV or radio can’t be both innovative and excellent, or that the ABC isn’t sometimes lacking in the “oomph” factor when it comes to breaking news. Impartiality can be hard to make interesting because of the requirement to treat all sides in a debate fairly. </p>
<p>But we’d miss the ABC if it were gone and replaced by an endless procession of controversialists, shock jocks, ranters and class warriors. Think the Daily Telegraph or Alan Jones in high definition, big screen, surround sound, forever.</p>
<p>Our <a href="http://www.qut.edu.au/research/research-projects/politics,-media-and-democracy-in-australia">research</a> highlights the growing importance of the ABC in Australian political culture. During 2013, we mapped the Australian public sphere, including established and familiar formats such as broadsheet news, current affairs and magazine television, “expert” or “insider” panel and debate programs, and public talkback radio, along with new and experimental human interest and infotainment genres, satire and public participation formats. </p>
<p>While the map provides a contemporary snapshot of Australia’s political public sphere, a historical comparison highlights key changes over the last 20 years.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/43750/original/j7945df3-1394662378.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/43750/original/j7945df3-1394662378.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/43750/original/j7945df3-1394662378.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/43750/original/j7945df3-1394662378.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/43750/original/j7945df3-1394662378.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/43750/original/j7945df3-1394662378.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=578&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/43750/original/j7945df3-1394662378.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=578&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/43750/original/j7945df3-1394662378.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=578&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Authors</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As the table shows, between 1996-2013 Australia’s free-to-air commercial broadcasters devoted less time to political coverage while in the same period the ABC’s political coverage dramatically increased, thanks largely to the introduction of ABC News 24.</p>
<p>Digital platforms have further strengthened the ABC’s national coverage and allowed the introduction of experimental genres, styles and formats of political discourse. The ABC Charter requires the ABC to encourage innovation and to guarantee universal availability. The ABC also has to provide for minority and special interest groups, and offer educational and cultural programming that the commercial sector would be unlikely to supply on its own.</p>
<p>Examples of this programming include <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/atthemovies/">At the Movies</a>, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/">Catalyst</a> (science), <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/messagestick/">Message Stick</a> (indigenous), <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/austory/">Australian Story</a>, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/rage/">Rage</a> (music video), <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/landline/">Landline</a> (rural), <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/">Foreign Correspondent</a>, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/">Media Watch</a>, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/gardening/">Gardening Australia</a> and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/compass/">Compass</a> (religion and ethics).</p>
<p>These programs often rate well for the ABC, as <a href="http://www.oztam.com.au/LatestAvailableReports.aspx">OzTAM ratings</a> figures for the week February 16-22, 2014 (Consolidated Metropolitan Total TV Share of All Viewing 5 City Share), show.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/43751/original/qw3wgnnx-1394662429.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/43751/original/qw3wgnnx-1394662429.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/43751/original/qw3wgnnx-1394662429.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/43751/original/qw3wgnnx-1394662429.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/43751/original/qw3wgnnx-1394662429.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/43751/original/qw3wgnnx-1394662429.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/43751/original/qw3wgnnx-1394662429.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/43751/original/qw3wgnnx-1394662429.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Authors, OzTAM</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The challenge for the ABC in these times of political tension is to promote and defend the corporation’s achievements to counter some of the myths which circulate in the commercial media, and to remind taxpayers of the good value it represents. </p>
<p>The BBC receives the equivalent of about A$8 billion in revenue from various sources each year (mainly the licence fee). With this, it services more than 65 million viewers, listeners and online users.</p>
<p>The ABC makes do with an annual budget of <a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/2012-13/content/bp4/html/bp4_ar_04_dbcde.htm">A$1.2 billion</a> to serve a population of 22 million. That’s about 45% of what the BBC gets, per head of population. Given the quality of the ABC’s output overall, that’s a good deal for the Australian taxpayer. Don’t let any private media proprietor tell you otherwise.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/24033/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brian McNair receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adam Swift 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 Abbott government is preparing to cut funding to the ABC. The end of the Australia Network in its present form is one saving already flagged by communications minister Malcolm Turnbull. And while the…Brian McNair, Professor of Journalism, Media and Communication, Queensland University of TechnologyAdam Swift, Senior Research Associate, ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.