CHANGING BROADCASTING LANDSCAPE
From the desk of MD
POLITICIANS, often, find it easy to attack the BBC. Unlike the print media, where Editors of national newspapers can call for the election of another party, the BBC is stifled in its tracks from being party political. That probably has as much to do with how the BBC is governed by its Royal Charter and, for some, the reason as to why it has had a stranglehold over the licence fee. Despite monopolies in many industries now being a thing of the past, the BBC is still able to stave-off competing claims for parts of the licence fee from other broadcasters who have an equal claim for parts of it. “Top slicing” is an argument that has been raging for some years now. Channel-4, for instance, provides excellent public service broadcasting through its news coverage, yet is still being denied access to funds in meeting with the digital challenges of the future.
As a body that is continually dependant on state subsidy, the corporation is in no position to bite the hand that feeds it. At the same time, though, politicians of all political persuasions find the BBC a useful scapegoat. When the Blair government, for example, became deeply unpopular over its handling of the invasion of Iraq, it was actually the BBC’s chairman and chief executive who ended up resigning, following the inquiry into the suicide of Dr. David Kelly, a government scientist.
Over the decades, the corporation has had to put up with a lot of political pressure but – usually – it has refused to succumb. As a result, we could easily conclude that British public service broadcasting has added immeasurably to our democracy and to our cultural values.
However, there are times when the BBC comes under criticism for perfectly good and legitimate reasons. Just this week, the new Culture and Media Secretary, Ben Bradshaw, suggested that the BBC’s director-general, Mark Thompson, and the chairman of the BBC Trust, Michael Lyons, were being “wrong headed” in their total opposition to letting other media organisations share in the licence fee. Rightfully, the government – after some considerable public input – has agreed to launch a consultation into plans to top-slice 3 percent of the £3.5-billion annual licence fee to fund regional news and children’s programmes made by other broadcasters. This should be welcome news for everyone who wishes to see fair and equitable allocation of funds that might just offer enhanced quality of programming. Michael Lyons attempted to rebut Mr. Bradshaw for engaging in so-called “personal criticism”.
ISSUES
There are two issues here. Firstly, should the BBC continue to be allowed in monopolising the entire licence fee in an age and era of multiple electronic broadcasting platforms? As channels fragment, and commercial broadcasters chase viewers and advertisers, the BBC has been able to use its vast subsidy to build dominant market shares, which the private sector has no way of challenging. Thus, the BBC’s website operation dwarfs all competitors while local and regional newspapers are dying for want of the advertising that has migrated to the internet. Against this background, there has to be strong case for top-slicing to support other forms of public service broadcasting. Hence the proposal which is gaining momentum to fund alternative local news broadcasts or to subsidise independent producers, especially in Scotland.
The second issue is the head-in-the-sand attitude of the BBC’s senior executives towards change. The explosion of digital broadcasting and “citizen journalism” makes it hard to imagine the public will countenance the continuation – and certainly the growth – of the licence fee. As a result, it seems quite likely that neither Labour nor the Tories will support the current BBC funding arrangements. But instead of leading the debate on reforming public sector broadcasting, Mark Thompson and Michael Lyons are content to defend their empire, oblivious of the anger that has grown up over profligate BBC salaries and bonuses.
WHAT IS NEEDED NOW – in the BBC and among politicians – is an open period of general consultation on the future. The BBC has to accept that change is coming; it is time the BBC accepted that and be part of the government’s consultation in how it should adapt for the future.
© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected
Filed under: Broadcasting, Digital Age, Media, SNP, Scotland, Westminster, scottish government | Tagged: bbc, bbc funding, bbc trust, ben bradshaw, channel 4, citizen journalism, digital broadcasting, digital switchover, future of broadcasting, gordon brown, licence fee, mark thompson, Media, michael lyons, public service broadcasting, regional news, royal charter, Scotland, scottish broadcasting commission, top slicing, Westminster


I couldn’t disagree with you more Mark.
1. Top slicing is an idea which has been floated many times over the past twenty years and each time it has been looked at it has been rejected. You seem to have missed OFCOM’s two year review of Public Service Broadcast. Even OFCOM ruled out top slicing in that review. See this blog post:
http://nickreynoldsatwork.wordpress.com/2009/07/02/reasons-not-to-top-slice-4/
2. The BBC management has not had its head in the sand over the current situation in the media. Only six months ago the BBC brought forward a number of partnership proposals to try and bolster the rest of the industry.
The Minister also seems to have prejudged the result of his own consultation before it has finished. He seems to be saying “I want top-slicing and if you disagree with me that means you’re a poor leader”.
NB I work for the BBC but these are my personal views
[edited response]
BBC journalists do not decide, and when they decided, would have the story second start but finally, thank you and regards