|
T |
hese
days broadcasting issues are rarely out of the newspaper headlines whether they
concern the latest appalling behaviour in the Big Brother household or the BBC spending £50 million on
re-training its 7000 journalists!
This
week the BBC launched its campaign, called Building
Public Value, for the renewal of its Royal Charter. It focuses on funding and management issues
although it says that all BBC television, radio and Internet services will have
to meet a 'public value' test to stay on air.
Every
ten years the Corporation has to submit to scrutiny of its performance in the light
of its core purposes, as set out in 'The
BBC Beyond 2000', and the objectives set annually by the Board of
Governors. Because of the unique way
the BBC is funded it is right that there should be rigorous public
accountability although I would argue that such scrutiny should be more
frequent and far more openly discussed in TV and radio programmes.
Earlier
this year, and for the first time, the Government invited the public to respond
to a consultation on the renewal of the BBC's Royal Charter. The results of this consultation, 'Your BBC, Your Say' are currently being
analysed and a Green Paper setting out policy options is expected before the
end of this year.
The
consultation paper made a number of questionable observations including one
that said competition with other public service broadcasters has had "the
aim of driving up quality". This
may be true in terms of technical quality but in terms of programme content it
could be said, in some respects, to have had the opposite effect! Indeed, the emphasis placed by the BBC on
ratings and audience share has led to a perception of "dumbing down"
and "lowest common denominator" programmes.
Regrettably,
and without discussion or consent, the BBC has played its part in the
incremental movement towards more screen violence, greater use of obscene
language and ever more explicit depictions of intimate sexual activity. Some programming has had a negative effect
by the promotion of degrading values and models of behaviour that undermine
social order and traditional family values.
The
BBC has certainly contributed to the democratic political process but has
evidently been biased in favour of permissive ethics and morality presenting
such as the norm and excluding or ridiculing opposing views. This has occurred in discussion programmes,
talk shows and in news and current affairs programmes. This was especially true in the 1960s when
the foundations of the "permissive society" were laid and in the 1970s
and 1980s when these were built upon.
The BBC, of course, was not alone in doing this, but because it was the
"trusted BBC" it carried greater weight and authority.
Creating
fresh and pioneering television, on the whole, seems to be a failed objective
bearing in mind that a number of programmes seem to have become immovable
pillars around which others have to fit.
Such as: Grandstand, Top of The
Pops, EastEnders, The Simpsons, Newsnight, Neighbours, Holiday, University
Challenge, Top Gear, A Question of Sport, Casualty, Parkinson, Songs of Praise,
Never Mind The Buzzcocks, The National Lottery, Ready Steady Cook, Antiques
Roadshow, Gardeners World, Ground Force, Only Fools and Horses and Last of The Summer Wine.
This
is not to say that these programmes are bad or not popular but to point out
that there is a certain perpetuity evident. Comparing the BBC to other
broadcasters indicates a degree of sameness that seems to be determined by
ratings and audience share which have become the overriding priority.
Taken
as a whole, however, the BBC's contribution to the life of the United Kingdom
in its 80-year history has been enormous.
The BBC's record in providing news, current affairs, drama, sport,
lifestyle, regional and children's programmes, politics, national and
international events has been exemplary.
The provision of a broad mix of quality programmes certainly is what the
general public expects from the BBC.
The underlying philosophy of the BBC should be to provide excellent
programming that evidently complies with the requirements against harm and
offence set out in the Royal Charter and the Producers' Guidelines.
Few people would doubt
that the BBC provides value for money.
The argument that the BBC costs less than a daily newspaper is
compelling. The number of TV and Radio
channels, national and local, and the broad range of material provided is
itself evidence of value for money.
The
BBC has undoubtedly set benchmarks for others to aspire to but the simple truth
is that there are now other competing providers who meet the viewing and
listening needs of a growing proportion of the population. As a society we have to ask ourselves
whether the overall broadcasting environment would be better or worse without the
BBC? Equally, the BBC must ask itself
how to engage more effectively with its 'shareholders' especially on the
question of taste and decency standards.
This article was first
published in the Church of England Newspaper 1/7/2004
‘Building Public Value’
can be obtained from BBC, Media Centre, London, W12 7TQ
Click here for Reviewing the BBC’s
Royal Charter
Click here for
news release on Building Public Value
Click
here for Joining Form