Keeping Broadcasting Public

Posted by 151/Mick Gosling

On Saturday 1 April the CPBF, TUC and Federation of Entertainment Unions held a conference in London to discuss the future of the BBC after publication of the Government White Paper. Mick Gosling, Chair of the NUJ Press and PR branch reports on the events and highlights of the day.

“We want the licence fee to act as venture capital for creative talent and nowhere is this clearer than in the BBC's investment in training and research and development." Well it was April Fools Day, but the confusing comment of James Purnell MP, minister for creative industries and tourism did not amuse union delegates and academic specialists at a conference on the new BBC Charter organised by the TUC, Federation of Entertainment Unions and the CPPF.

Indeed, the creeping commercialisation and privatisation of the BBC ran through the recurrent themes of the day: the Window for Creative Competition (WOCC), the growing role of Ofcom, the democratic accountability of the proposed new BBC Trust, and who will fund the switchover from analogue to digital and the threats and possible opportunities that the Charter renewal process may still offer.

At present the BBC has to give out 25 per cent of its production to independent companies. WOCC puts a further 25 per cent up for grabs, guaranteeing only 50 per cent in-house production by the BBC. Professor Georgina Born, author of Uncertain Vision, a study of the BBC, said the establishment by BBC Director General Mark Thompson and Chairman Michael Grade of the WOCC will “go down as a sign of appeasement" and “a sacrificial lamb to government."

Like Professor Born, Professor Tom O’Malley of the CPBF saw the creation of WOCC as a restraint and not a spur to future creative innovation from the corporation. The White Paper offered “no data, on what the impact of this will be on the BBC’s long term skills base, and on what the impact of this weakening of the skills base will have on creativity and innovation," he said. That base can only be built on continuity. Likening the WOCC to the operation of the Private Finance Initiative in other areas of public service, it was a means of diverting public resources into private hands.

Caroline Thomson, BBC Strategy Director and Executive Board Member confirmed that natural history programmes were all produced in-house and this would make it more likely that the independents would pick up the entertainment side of the schedule.

As Bernie Corbett, general secretary of the Writers Guild, pointed out, if you added these programmes to long running shows like Eastenders, Holby City, Doctors, Casualty and Judge John Deed, “it will mean that anything more innovative like a one-off play or two-parters will have to be produced by the independents, there will be nothing left in the BBC for in-house production."

Corbett was not optimistic that the independents would rise to such a challenge suggesting that their track record tends toward the game show and cheap comedy end of the market.

President of BECTU Tony Lennon said that Caroline Thomson had defined the White Paper as a victory for the BBC but the run up to its publication had seen the corporation undergoing its greatest upheaval in history. “The BBC has been left in a demoralised state with the cutbacks. They’ve done this to win the White Paper and 10 years of existence," said Lennon.

He warned that producers are saying that if they need to “buy in 50 per cent of content they will not be able to take a creative and innovative role." As a sign of the growing tendency to privatisation, Lennon quoted how the BBC had handed over technical training to a company that does not know how to train, namely Capita. Meanwhile, the company that owned BBC studios from the Manchester Ship Canal to the English Channel had been sold off. Lennon asked: “What does that say about the BBC’s commitment to training?"

And what of the growing role of Ofcom? Professor O’Malley saw the White Paper becoming a potential straitjacket via which Ofcom would ensure that the BBC was penalised to the benefit of its commercial competitors. Yet the point is that most of the important proposals in the White Paper are based on an assumption that the BBC will, not does –"unfairly" compete with others.

He cited the role of Ofcom in the market testing of new services, though whether they were rolled out or not would in the final analysis remain the decision of the proposed BBC Trust. He noted that Ofcom was insisting on a review of public financing after five years of the new charter.

It’s easy enough to criticise the existing system of governance at the BBC. James Parnell did so, describing the present role of the Board of Governors as acting as defendant, jury and court of appeal.

However, Professor Born also saw problems with the concept of the Trust. She pointed out that the problem with the Governors in the past was their lack of knowledge of how the internal structure of the BBC operated. This ignorance had, particularly under John Birt, led to tendencies like casualisation and commercialisation taking place without many governors’ knowledge. She said: “What is needed is an accountable management to creative staff."

Focusing on the concept of knowledge as power Professor Born suggested the Trust needed a research function into the work of the BBC and said:. “Who will trust members be? Why is there no new independent cross party appointments panel?"

TUC general secretary Brendan Barber went further, stressing the new system of governance should provide for “the voices of working people to be heard." Purnell said: “We agree with the trade unions that Trust membership should be made up of the varied and the good, not just the great and good."

Just how varied remains an open question. “For all the rhetoric on accountability, it is about accountability to commercial competitors not licence fee payers," said Professor O’Malley, who called for the removal of Ofcom from BBC affairs and the reinstatement of the wider public interest into the White Paper. That would require a very different Trust indeed!

Then came the vexed question of the switchover from analogue to digital. The minister emphasised the benefit to the BBC and those licence payers who presently only have analogue access. “At present people without access to digital are having to pay for it," said Parnell. The minister declared that the process to decide the licence fee will be “the most open and robust ever."

What many participants wanted to know was, who would pay? There were clear concerns expressed as to how much of the cost of the switchover will be funded from the licence fee.

Thomson confirmed the BBC is looking for “enough funds to deliver in the next 10 years what the White Paper provides the basis to achieve." She confirmed that the switchover could not be done on the licence fee based on inflation rate level rises.

The minister had remained tight-lipped throughout regarding possible licence fee increases and, bearing in mind his reference to the licence fee as venture capital for the creative development of the UK, delegates had every reason to be concerned.

Professor Born was heavily critical of the role of Ofcom — which she claimed was “staffed by ex-Downing Street insiders" and “epitomised New Labour thinking" and its demand for a review public financing in five years time. She called for commercial broadcasters to be required to contribute to the cost of the switchover to digital broadcasting.

Journalist Victoria Brittain expressed her hope that if there were a grassroots revolt in favour of ring fencing public service broadcasting that there might be a backlash against the general tendency toward dumbing down in the media.

Granville Williams of the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom believes there is still a real future for public interest broadcasting. He said: “I don’t see it disappearing in an apocalyptic way. It will be more a case of pressure from government and the commercial broadcasters. We need to raise voices and use energy in an energetic way to ensure an independent BBC."

Labour MP John McDonnell, chair of the all-party NUJ parliamentary group also holds there is still a real chance to influence the future direction of the BBC and public service broadcasting. He said: “We are in a period of transition for six to 12 months maximum – the terrain is not all mapped out. We could get a foot in the door of the policy networks that surround ministers."

McDonnell said the legacy agenda and an unsureness as to where individual ministers would stand under a new leader meant there was an opportunity to make an impact.

“Maybe it is time to look to a limited campaign, bringing together specific groups over say 12 months with a specific agenda to influence ministers on. Through dialogue with ministers it could be possible to push back the private sector pressure," said McDonnell , who felt the window of opportunity was wider regarding the media because it was less of a priority for the government that say “health, education or invading other people’s countries."

Other areas where such a campaign could gain support included the Welsh and Scottish Assemblies, London Mayor and local government.

NUJ General Secretary Jeremy Dear welcomed McDonnell’s proposal and drew parallels between the way the BBC was now being privatised by stealth and what has been happening with the health and education services. He said: “The argument that the market offers greater choice to people does not add up when you study the evidence."

Dear said the activity of the opponents of public service broadcasting over recent months proves there is still all to play for. “We need an alliance of consumers, citizens and those who work in the industry. The argument that public service has to be put before private profit is the long term battle that has to be won."

We are watching the slow absorption of the BBC into the commercial sector, and the transformation of UK broadcasting towards a market centred system, with bits of public service broadcasting tagged around the edges. We need to campaign, initially, to reverse this trend, by arguing for change in the White Paper proposals. Only then will we be able to move forward to extend, democratise and build a diverse public service sector in the digital age.

With many thanks to Paul Donovan.