» SubscribeMain section
-
Top story
Public service broadcasting on the brink
John Reynolds
A personal viewIn the face of stiff competition from commercial broadcasters and now the House of Lords, the nation's broadcaster is at risk of selling out to commerciality its once highly regarded reputation and well grounded principles.
Following the Queen's speech last month, in which the government's Office of Communications (Ofcom) Bill was announced, as an attempt to protect public service broadcasting, it is apparent that its ethos is severely threatened by commercial challenges.
The bill, published on 13 July, is to have a second reading in the House of Lords on 15 October, the day that Parliament resembles after the summer break. The Lords plan to press for the government to bring the BBC under Ofcom regulation as well, with the aim of creating a level playing field for all broadcasters and to protect its reputation.
Although it may be a temporary solution to a potentially global problem, the bill is already meeting opposition from several viewers' organisations and trade unions, including the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), who are concerned about job losses, media diversity and the protection of the public interest.
Senior BBC employees have also expressed fears toward government regulation. Those who care for the future of public service broadcasting and the promotion of independent film and programme productions now realise that their principles are up against powerful commercial and political interests.
This comes at a time when ITV and ITV Digital are facing an uncertain future regarding a possible change in ownership, rumours of BBC programme rescheduling have been in the press recently as viewing audiences are in general decline. Furthermore, Labour peer Baroness Jay running as candidate for the next Corporation chairman has provoked accusations of cronyism in the press. There have also been recent reports and criticism of excessive bonuses and golden handshake payments to BBC employees.
This week, the Corporation has faced accusations of dumbing-down, over employing former topless model Melinda Messenger on 4 X 4, a new current affairs programme. One could be forgiven for saying that it is not exactly doing itself any favours in the eyes of licence fee-payers.
The creation of Ofcom and the government's deregulatory attitude to broadcasting defies the wishes of many viewers, journalists and associated unions, and has also provoked concern from opposition media secretaries, as it puts the onus of potentially conflicting public and commercial interests in the hands of a single government regulator.
The main issues of concern are the safety of content and diversity, and the Ofcom board - which is proposed to be government-appointed rather than independent. There is also growing scepticism about the nature of the self-regulatory approach that the bill proposes broadcasters should adopt, and whether it will be an effective safeguard against the domination of commercially driven programmes, rather than public service ones.
Jocelyn Hay, chairman of Voice of the Listener and Viewer (VLV), a viewer's organisation which is a subsidiary group of the larger Public Voice, believes that Bill Bush, DCMS special adviser and Ed Richards, media expert in the Downing St. policy unit, two ex-BBC appointees may be influential in safeguarding public interests.
"It is probably to the Corporation's advantage, as they will have an understanding of its particular needs, but nevertheless they will have to tow their master's line," she said.
VLV opposes a single regulator and is sceptical as to whether content and diversity will be protected effectively.
"A single regulator is draconian and Goebbels-like, and the potential for the abuse of power is tremendous. Also, the question of plurality is so important - it seems to be being overlooked.
"We believe that citizenship and social issues are much more difficult to quantify than commercial interests. This matter brings into question the issue of public service as an ethos. It is a total approach to programming and content," Hay said.
Public Voice calls for the white paper to be driven by the public interest, rather than commercial imperatives, arguing: "we call for reform to be led by public interest objectives such as plurality of voice, impartiality and objectivity in news, and diversity and quality in content right across the market."
Steven Barnett, Professor of Communications at the University of Westminster, feels that public service broadcasting is safe under this government. "Tessa Jowell is sympathetic about the role of public service broadcasting in improving people's lives, the BBC as a major national asset, and the need to unite the commercial and public sectors [of broadcasting]. She, the DCMS, and Number 10 are sympathetic," he told a recent public meeting of Public Voice and the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom (CPBF).
Concentration of ownership is also a big concern of journalists and associated organisations, including the CPBF, especially the threat posed by Rupert Murdoch lobbying Number 10 in the interests of his Sky TV. Many have little doubt that he would like no more than to get a foothold in terrestrial television here, to complement his satellite and newspaper empires.
Barnett feels that if Murdoch can lobby the highest level of government, then he and the CPBF and other concerned organisations should do so as well. "We should go and see Tessa Jowell, Bill Bush, Ed Richards and Tony Blair to voice our concerns. If Rupert Murdoch can walk in and out of Number 10, I see no reason for us not being allowed to see Tony Blair as well. I think there are many people in government who would welcome such a countermeasure to the commercial lobby," he said.
Tory shadow media secretary Peter Ainsworth is also sympathetic to some of the CPBF's and VLV's views.
He appears to have little confidence in the government, particularly regarding Murdoch's influence in Downing Street, commenting: "I have no confidence in the present Government's willingness to put the public interest before its own in any area of policy, and I think that the white paper is pretty feeble about public service broadcasting.
"Governments, regulators and even broadcasters consistently tend to underestimate the public's appetite for high quality, home produced, thoughtful, innovative and challenging programmes," he added.
Ainsworth further reflects some of the views of the VLV and CPBF, arguing that the white paper needs to adequately define public service broadcasting and the role of the BBC.
He also defended the argument for Ofcom's board to be independently appointed saying: "It is essential that those responsible for the regulation of broadcasting can carry the confidence of both the industry and the public. This will be hard to achieve if they are government-appointed. Politicians should learn when to let go."
Ainsworth's Liberal Democrat counterpart Nick Harvey has similar reservations about the nature of the Communications Bill.
He values the BBC and "hopes it will continue to be a special case," rather than also coming under Ofcom regulation, which would delight the Corporation's commercial competitors.
"They would love to see the BBC regulated by Ofcom. All public service (market failure) programmes would go there and it would decline and die," remarked Professor Steven Barnett on this matter.
Harvey also echoes the CPBF's concerns about increased concentration of media ownership, having "considerable misgivings" about relaxed regulation. "What we don't want to see is the media in the hands of too few organisations," he added.
As for Ofcom taking on potentially conflicting responsibilities, and contrary to other views, he believes: "it makes sense to have just one regulator looking after both the commercial and the public interests."
Instead of a government-appointed board, an alternative structure for Ofcom would be one that was independent and more accountable, with Parliament taking a greater role. Harvey is critical of Parliament in not having promoted the whole issue of the Communications Bill very effectively, and seems to favour Ofcom independence. "Greater independence from government would be welcome, although I'd prefer to see Parliament having a greater role - in promoting and debating the issues," he said.
The public seems to be largely uninformed about the issue, he maintained. "Whether people would be caught unawares by government legislation on this issue remains to be seen, but I would have thought that it would receive more attention."
Renowned journalist and documentary maker John Pilger sees the Communications Bill fundamentally as: "the biggest threat to democracy our country has ever seen… a collaboration between journalists and corporatism, a servility of journalists to corporate propaganda that takes away the universal public service broadcasting ideal."
In a passionate speech to a Spring CPBF conference, he continued: "This turns the freedom of the press in to a commodity, and will mean BBC services will be judged for their market impact, meaning that the nature of the public service broadcaster is destroyed. We need to stop the assault on freedom that this represents.
"This should be opposed by all journalists and broadcasters. It is about a seizure of power, and it is our job to warn the public."
Commenting on Ofcom's role of acting in both commercial and the public interest, he called it a "total conflict of interest, [which is] quite scandalous." Its government-appointed board is "typical of this government, with its disregard for true accountability," he added.
Alan Yentob, BBC Director of Drama, Entertainment and Children, has expressed anxiety over the white paper, saying: "We are anxious about New Labour's commitment to public service broadcasting."
BBC Director of Public Policy Caroline Thomson feels that the Corporation needs to make an effort to justify its special role in broadcasting.
"We need a more specific definition of citizenship in order to justify our special role and the license fee. We need to appeal to all parts of the audience, with quality in acting scripting, high production values and new writing talent. We should also find new genres and revitalise older ones."
European Broadcasting Union President Arne Wessberg echoes Thomson's views, saying that aspiration and innovation is crucial to the survival of good public service broadcasting.
"I do not believe it is about providing what the market is not. It should keep up values and standards which are important, and this should be its broad role in Europe. Public broadcasters must strengthen their role as an essential resource for democracy," he said.
Wessberg has also expressed concerns similar to those of CPBF and Public Voice, on the lack of public debate on the white paper and the Ofcom board being government-appointed, saying: "I do believe that those appointed [by government] are free in their decision making. They must be able to make informed independent judgements."
The National Union of Journalists has, understandably, been another concerned voice on the Communications Bill and its implications. Paul McLaughlin, National Broadcasting Organiser, feels that a single regulator is "primitive", and that there is an inherent conflict of interest between public and commercial interests. "It must adequately and effectively serve the public interest," he added.
On the issue of Murdoch's influence in Number 10, McLaughlin maintained: " I am highly sceptical about discussions being held behind closed doors."
The NUJ is also concerned about public awareness of the issues in question. "The main media issue during the election was John Prescott's punch when the future of broadcasting was at stake. We've been encouraging people to find about it and trying to raise awareness," he said.
So far, the issue has received little high-profile attention in the mainstream media. Apart from articles in Media Guardian that seemed to take a soft approach, there has been very little attention paid to the Communications Bill and its implications in the national media.
John Pilger is highly critical of the apparent media silence. There is a "silence of journalists with the authority to speak out," he said.
"Where are the high-profile broadcasters and newsreaders who assume a celebrity status, the OBEs and MBEs? Where are the fearless terriers of Newsnight and the Today programme? Surely they are not waiting until the BBC meets the same fate as public broadcasting in Italy, which was put on a "level playing field" with Silvio Berlusconi and reduced to a tragic joke."
Following his remarks, I contacted John Humphrys and Jeremy Paxman at the BBC, to ask if they would give their views on the nature of OFCOM and the white paper.
Humphrys declined to comment, saying: "I think I'd rather keep out of this one at the moment." Paxman didn't even reply to my email.
And what of the views of the major commercial broadcasters - ITV, Channel 4 and BSkyB? Unsurprisingly, they would welcome the BBC coming under Ofcom regulation, as this would most probably lead to them increasing audiences.
BSkyB, for its part, did not even reply to my faxes, emails or phone calls. Strange, that the company that may arguably have the most to gain from media deregulation, and whose proprietor holds great influence with Downing Street, declines to comment on the concerns of those who are likely to be most affected by it.
News International, the newspaper arm of Murdoch's empire, welcomes deregulation and wishes to be "closely involved" in any future government consultation. It comes as no surprise either that it favours continuing the self-regulation and argues that there should be no "additional statutory or regulatory apparatus and without the need for any underpinning of that nature."
Channel 4, in its response, welcomes a single regulator and would like to see the BBC "brought fully within the ambit of Ofcom," welcomes self-regulation, and is pleased that there is: "the strong endorsement of public service broadcasting and the recognition that its strength lies in its being a competitive system which embraces both commercial and licence fee-funded broadcasters." Like the BBC, Channel 4 also recognises that it: "must adapt to attract innovative talent."
ITV, in its response, appears to give greater recognition to the nature of public service broadcasting. "Public service broadcasting fulfils social and public purposes over and above the satisfaction of audience tastes and commercial goals. Public service broadcasting is not a commodity that can be neatly contained or defined. It is an amalgam of attributes, aspirations and achievements that together distinguish a service from those for whom commercial success is the sole imperative," it says.
ITV also welcomes BBC coming under Ofcom regulation, asking: "How can any regulator make a reasonable assessment of what the commercial public service broadcasters should be held to do when the main public service broadcaster lies outside its control?" Furthermore, it wishes to see "far less prescriptive regulation."
What is noticeable in the commercial broadcasters' responses is the absence of any mention of the risks to the BBC that this poses. Its audiences would decline and its role, distinctiveness and influence in national broadcasting, would also be in danger. Populism - the current trend for docusoaps and entertainment values - and market failure programmes would dominate. There have already been press rumours about Newsnight being moved to a later slot and Panorama being moved to BBC 2, and we now have Melinda Messenger as presenter of a current affairs programme. An Ofcom-regulated BBC would probably see this and worse. Public debate and current affairs analysis would be in danger of being further marginalised.
Tom O'Malley, a Principal Lecturer in the Media at the University of Glamorgan reinforces this view. "Since the 1990 Broadcasting Act, intensified commercial competition has pushed up the amount of soap operas, cooking programmes and docusoaps across all channels," he said.
University of Westminster Professor of Media History Jean Seaton is also wary of these effects. "Rampant market systems as that in the USA are undesirable and anti-democratic. If it costs Britain the equivalent £3 billion a year to secure the BBC and Channel 4, then with all their faults it is money well spent. The costs of going down the American road will be very much greater," she says on Opendemocracy.net, an internet public debate website.
Tony Lennon, President of the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union and CPBF activist says that the CPBF now intends to do its best to put its case to MPs and the wider public. "We will be briefing MPs, having meetings in regional centres, fringe meetings at party conferences, and attempting to get the issue raised on current affairs programmes.
"We take our broadcasting history for granted. It was shaped by courageous people, and I hope those of us who care for it will be able to do the same to safeguard its future," he said.
Attempts to put the main issues of concern to the government proved fruitless. DCMS did not answer questions on the Communications Bill that I put to them. Following numerous emails, faxes and phone calls, neither Broadcasting Minister Kim Howells, nor Tessa Jowell, nor any DCMS spokesman would comment on Ofcom's role being of a conflicting nature, Rupert Murdoch's influential relationship with Number 10, or the threat to diversity and plurality that deregulation posed.
© John Reynolds, 2001.
Please ask for my approval of any editing.
Last modified: Sunday, October 10, 2004
Previous government policy stories
The Communications Revolution : Who Benefits? (CPBF Pamphlet)
Response to the Communications White Paper - February 2001
Additional Submission to the Communications White Paper Reform Team - November 2000
Comments for the Communications Reform White Paper - 22 June 2000
-
Notices
Events & Announcements
World Press Freedom Day
More reporters are currently imprisoned in Turkey than in any other country in the world. Only a matter of weeks ago lawyers failed to persuade a Turkish court to release a 76-year-old journalist from a Turkish internet news station.
World Press Freedom Day on Friday May 3, 2013 is being marked in Britain by a rally to highlight the dangers facing journalists in Turkey and in this podcast, Nicholas Jones speaks to Barry White, Organiser at the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, and Sam Bamford, the TUC's policy officer for Eastern Europe and Africa about the importance of a campaign to highlight international press freedom.
The World Press Freedom Day rally is being staged by the National Union of Journalists at the NUJ head office, Gray’s Inn Road, London WC1 on Thursday May 2, 6pm-8pm.
DATELINE: 27/4/13
UK launch of EU media campaign
DATELINE: 13/3/13
The UK launch of a 'European Citizens' Initiative' calling for EU rules against concentration of media power will take place on Thursday March 21 from 11:00am – 12:30pm in Committee Room 4A at the House of Lords, London. Guest speakers will include actor and activist Hugh Grant (pictured), media consultant Claire Enders, Professor Steven Barnett, Barry McCall (President of the NUJ) and Marc Gruber (Director of the European Federation of Journalists).
A European Citizens' Initiative is an official petition, like a Downing Street petition. If it succeeds in gathering a million signatures across the EU, the Commission is obliged to respond.
This petition calls for the EU to act to protect media pluralism and press freedom.
CPBF Annual General Meeting
DATELINE: 1/3/13
Make a note in your diary
Saturday 13 July 2013 from 10.00am
NUJ HQ, 308/312 Gray's Inn Road, London WC1.
Leveson, media ownership, CPBF future work.
DOWNLOAD FREEPRESS NOW
DATELINE: 26/3/10
Download Freepress in PDF, ePub or mobi format. Issue 194 now available.
MEDIA FOR ALL CONFERENCE
DATELINE: 26/3/10
Papers from the Media for All Conference
MEDIA MANIFESTO
DATELINE: 26/3/10
The media’s job is to inform and entertain us but we rely on them too to tell us what our rulers and representatives are up to. In the run-up to the Iraq war the government used spin and disinformation in the media to create panic and mislead people. The truth is coming out now, but we need stronger, more independent media to be able to scrutinise governments and make informed choices.
-
Previous stories
