As the BBC itself spends yet another week in the news, the case for a return of a BBC Trust-like body grows – an organisation with teeth which can scrutinise whether the BBC is doing all it can to achieve its Mission, Public Purposes - and acting in line with its Values.
The Corporation rightly has an assured future, with the Prime Minister confirming his support for it and its licence fee. But whilst few disagree with public money being spent by a public service broadcaster, what really matters is how it behaves and what it delivers. We need to know it is delivering high quality distinctive content efficiently – and that the environment is conducive to the creation of the finest work.
Many huge organisations become inefficient. Publicly funded ones more so. There’s a temptation for the BBC to fight for its survival rather than what it delivers. Fighting for Broadcasting House. The brand. The tradition. When Corporation leaders say ‘save the BBC’, they sometimes mean save them - and the lanyard that makes their mothers proud.
The list of impressive BBC achievements is huge. Some of the greatest content ever made has the latest BBC logo splashed across it. Adoring fans shake their heads in adoration and mutter ‘you’d only get this from the BBC’.
I’d counter that you may well get it from any broadcaster to which you awarded bundles of readies. The BBC does not have a monopoly on public service content. Indeed, much impressive BBC content is made by third parties who could have produced it for anyone. Drawing on two schemes I’ve had a direct connection with - the Audio Content Fund and the Local Democracy Reporter scheme – quality results can be delivered brilliantly on many platforms when public cash is injected.
When people say they like BBC output because of the absence of ads, the BBC has failed. We commercial operators could all drop ads if someone gave us your money.
On the ground, economies have been made by the BBC and we witness the painful impact on the news channel and local radio. Puzzling choices, given those services seem amongst the most distinctive. Management cuts are also trumpeted, but as many of those within the BBC will agree, fresh new senior roles appear to emerge quietly thereafter.
For over a quarter of its life, the dinner-jacketed Corporation was alone – there were no other broadcasters. In radio, it was alone for almost half its life. Even when other broadcasters eventually appeared, the offering was small until the advent of satellite and broadband.
Now, the BBC struts around as if life is the same. It is not. Amidst a wealth of commercial and community services many of which also deliver public service, it must ask itself: ‘what should we now be delivering’.
When the BBC was alone, it had to serve as many citizens as possible with the best variety. Now, we are also well-served by others. The value of Mr Bates vs The Post Office is clear – and it lost ITV a million pounds. The BBC outbid ITV for the Meghan Markle Suits drama – so the public purse paid for something it need not have.
The BBC should not agonise about dominating the new world as it did the old. Whilst it should deliver content in the right way for today’s consumers, it must focus on distinctiveness and quality – and interpret the Charter in that respect. It should not be judged by the percentage of citizens reached but how valuable its contribution - and that should be independently appraised. We all pay for all manner of things from which we do not personally benefit.
Let’s do some zero-based budgeting. If the BBC did not exist, what would be asked of it in today’s world?
It would have to justify its cost afresh - a significant tax. Let's remember the current cost is almost as much as some householders pay for their police service.
You'd have to demonstrate that BBC output could not be delivered by others and convince taxpayers their cash could not be better spent on more bobbies on the beat.
Critically - performance would warrant consistent and independent evaluation.
In that respect, the poor BBC is currently given a poisoned chalice. Since the BBC Trust shut its doors in 2017, it has been charged with marking its own homework. And, you know what kids are like, eventually they just stop bothering.
BBC management can thus do much without any detached scrutiny. Contrary to popular belief – it is not highly regulated. Almost a walled Embassy, scrutinised by UK law only when it commits murder.
Whilst Ofcom currently serves dutifully as the BBC’s regulator, the scale of the BBC’s operation means it is neither empowered nor equipped to evaluate all BBC activities. A BBC change can be small in regulatory terms, yet really affect consumers, such is the preciousness of our relationship with the media we spend our lives with – particularly radio.
People issues too, like the current Strictly controversies or ones relating to BBC individuals have no locus for the regulator, but a clear need for detached assessment to hold a public service to appropriate standards. In many ways, it would help the BBC too - it appears forever distracted by its own issues.
Let’s remember the then BBC Trust halted the closure of 6 Music and earlier planned local radio changes. With the Trust now gone, BBC local radio has been allowed to change from a true local service targeting those aged over fifty to a ragtag network targeting no-one. Although a highly distinctive BBC offering and one the commercial sector cannot deliver, no-one sensible intervened to tell the BBC Board 'no'. Little wonder sensible folk working hard within that network shake their heads in disbelief.
The BBC can also launch new services. As a co-founder of Boom Radio, I have a current concern, given our commercial radio service of nostalgia and big personalities is highly similar to a cheeky Radio 2 spin -off service proposed by the BBC.
The regulator Ofcom ultimately has a role in the approval process which it thankfully is discharging conscientiously, but the early formal tests on the wisdom of BBC plans are conducted by BBC bods themselves in an office just down the corridor from their BBC mates who dreamt up the idea. That is not a criticism – it is an impossible position for the BBC to be in. Should not all significant new publicly-funded plans deserve specific detached scrutiny away from those who have hatched them?
In a similar vein, the BBC is alone in enjoying a complaints process which demands complainants write to Auntie first – several times - before being permitted to write angrily to Ofcom. Most people give up, given that, in my experience, Auntie is tardy, forgetful and fails to investigate with due diligence.
The BBC Values of ‘one BBC’ demand creativity, trust, respect, accountability and that audiences be at the heart. It should be a world class employer, but too many bruised employees tell me it really isn’t. The staff surveys I’ve seen tell a damning story and– there's too little faith that action will be taken. If our public money is to be well spent and services be of top quality, the BBC environment needs to be better.
The BBC Board are entrusted to ensure pursuance of BBC Mission, Public Purposes and Values - but there is evidence that this is not working. Licence fee-payers deserve an empowered, detached body to ensure it is behaving as it should in all ways across the sprawling multi-billion-pound empire for which we pay.
The BBC Trust had set the strategic direction of the BBC, held the Executive to account for its performance of its functions, and for its compliance with the law, with regulatory requirements, and with the policies, guidelines and codes.
The BBC should be the most accountable of all broadcasters, yet it is sometimes the least accountable. That is neither good for licence fee payers nor the BBC.
Kommentare