Reviewing the BBC's Royal Charter
A response to a Department of Culture, Media and
Sport Consultation
Reviewing the BBC's Royal Charter: The
Future of BBC
·
Comments on the Secretary of
State's introduction
|
T |
he Secretary of State (right) describes the BBC as a "unique"
institution and that it is "unique" in the people's affections.
Further she states that the public "trusts" the BBC because she says
the BBC is a "benchmark of quality, integrity and diversity".
These are very bold assumptions that may be true but really ought to be
substantiated. It is not enough to make assumptions of this magnitude in order
to justify a belief in a "strong BBC".
Moreover, we do wonder why "the public has a chance to shape the
BBC's role" only because the communications revolution is gathering pace.
Why cannot this be a continuing process?
We also wonder how the creation of a single regulator will, on its
own, ensure that highest standards of broadcasting content are retained.
We note that the Department of Culture, Media & Sport has organised
a series of public meetings in different parts of the UK. We believe that such
meetings are essential and there should have been many more than six if the
public is to have a chance of putting their views to ministers. We note that
the meeting in York attracted only around 60 people and that only a few days
notice was given.
We
welcome the distribution of 'Your BBC, Your Say' leaflets through public
libraries although we have heard that some libraries have not had the leaflets
available and others have not even heard of the initiative. It is good,
therefore, that public spirited and interested organisations took the trouble
to circulate the leaflets but it would have been much more appropriate for a
direct mailing to all licence fee payers (shareholders) and this would have
elicited far more information about public attitudes towards the BBC.
We also believe that the above leaflet ought, specifically, to have
invited comments about programme provision and content rather than
"services".
·
General Observations
|
W |
e welcome the fact that the Government would like to receive views on
all aspects of the BBC (3) and that this is not limited to funding and
accounting.
We welcome the recognition that there is impact by the BBC on
individuals and society as a whole and that respondents are invited to go
beyond the framework of the consultation (4).
We agree that the BBC has played an important role in British society
(6) and we recall that Sir Christopher Bland, a former Chairman of the
Governors, said on the occasion of the 75th anniversary, that
"the BBC has helped to shape the taste of the nation".
We agree that there have been changes at the BBC and in society but we
question the assumption that these changes have simply happened on their own.
Attention should be focused on the role of the BBC, and other broadcasters, in
forcing the pace or promoting that change in culture, behaviour and attitude -
and largely without proper accountability or responsibility for the
consequences.
We acknowledge that the BBC has become a huge enterprise (7) and welcome
the development and introduction of new digital television and radio services
although much more, by way of incentives, should be done to make these universally
accessible. We also recognise the value of the BBC's commercial activities that
increase overall income for the corporation. The sale of programmes, magazines,
books, tapes and DVDs, along with economies, helps to minimise licence fee
increases. These commercial ventures help to fund BBC activities and provide
funding for new programmes. There is clearly a public demand for these products
and this is especially so of programming held in the BBC archives that are
unlikely to be aired again despite the increased number of channels operated by
the BBC. The BBC should continue to run commercial services and it is not
unreasonable for the BBC to collaborate with other companies in the production
and provision of programming.
We support the aspirations of the BBC's founding fathers to provide a
service of education, information and entertainment for the nation (8).
We note that the consultation refers to the review of Public Service
Broadcasting currently being conducted by the Office of Communications and
would refer to our submission published in January 2004 and to a submission to
the Independent Television Commission on the same subject published in 2000.
We view with some cynicism the observation (10) that competition with
other public service broadcasters has had "the aim of driving up
quality". This may be true in technical quality (wide screen, surround
sound) 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.
Of course there are many exceptions but 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.
We list here some films shown by the BBC in 2003, which portrayed
incidents of obscene language, incidents of violence and incidents of sexual
conduct:
OBSCENE LANGUAGE
BBC1 10/1/2003 Boiling
Point 19 x S***
BBC1 17/2/2003 Mallrats 31 x S***, 27 x F***
BBC2 11/4/2003 Clockers 37 x S***, 94 x F***
BBC1 25/5/2003 Fatal
Beauty 26 x S***
BBC1 14/6/2003 Total
Recall 19 x S***, 24 x F***
BBC2 15/8/2003 2
Days in the Valley 16 x S***, 40 x F***
BBC1 24/8/2003 Jailbreakers 11 x S***, 28 x F***
BBC1 30/8/2003 Red
Heat 36 x S***, 9 x F***
BBC1 7/11/2003 North
Dallas Forty 24 x S***, 24 x F***
BBC2 14/11/2003 The
Funeral 5 x S***, 29 x F***
BBC1 19/11/2003 A
Bronx Tale 8 x S***, 48 x
F***
VIOLENCE
BBC1 4/2/2003 Kiss
of Death 5 x Firearms, 15 x
Violent Assaults
BBC1 22/2/2003 From
Dusk Till Dawn 13 x Firearms, 5 x
Violent Assaults
BBC1 30/8/2003 Red
Heat 14 x Firearms, 3 x Violent Assaults
BBC1 7/9/2003 Heat 13 x Firearms, 7 x Violent Assaults
BBC1 14/9/2003 Cliffhanger 15 x Firearms, 1 x Violent Assault
BBC1 12/10/2003 Death
Train 16 x Firearms, 1 x Violent
Assault
BBC1 19/12/2003 Sniper 13 x Firearms, 4 x Violent
Assaults
SEXUAL CONDUCT
BBC1 30/5/2003 The
Players Club
BBC1 15/8/2003 2
Days in the Valley
BBC1 24/8/2003 Jailbreakers
BBC1 26/8/2003 Color
of Night
BBC1 15/9/2003 Death
Wish
BBC1 7/11/2003 North
Dallas Forty
BBC1 11/12/2003 To
Protect and Serve
In April 2003 the BBC
revealed that it had received a record number of complaints about its
programmes. Viewers lodged 1.596
grievances, more than double the 794 received in the previous 12 months. The proportion of complaints about sexual
conduct almost quadrupled - rising from 3.5 per cent to 13.5 percent in the
year ending in March 2003. The
programme 'The Virgin Mary' attracted 174 complaints and the gay kiss
scene in 'Casualty' attracted 114 complaints. The BBC's Programme Complaints Unit ruled that there was nothing
wrong with these two programmes. Greg
Dyke blamed the record number of complaints on email facilities, which opened
last August and made it easier to register protest. Entertainment programmes drew 22.5 per cent of complaints and
news and current affairs drew 22 per cent.
Daily Mail 30/4/2003
We welcomed these
figures demonstrating that licence fee payers have become more vocal and not prepared
to accept everything without question.
It was particularly significant that there has been a huge increase in
complaints about sexual conduct. This
proves that the claim that everybody has become more relaxed about this type of
TV content is just not true.
|
H |
owever, it is also indisputable that the BBC has made a
significant contribution to national life (11) and we are pleased to
acknowledge the wealth of good and interesting programmes provided. This organisation's
Annual 
Awards have been given to the following
BBC programmes: The Yellow River, Yes Minister, Challenge Anneka, Record
Breakers, Holiday (Right: Lady Howe presents the Annual Award to Sue Cook
in 1995), Great Ormond Street and Crimewatch UK. Over the years
the BBC has unquestionably enhanced education, information and entertainment by
a broad and range of excellent programming on television and radio.
We accept that the BBC has contributed to the democratic political
process (12) 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 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. Recent retrospective documentary series such as the 'I Love …
(year)' have celebrated the crucial role played by the media in promoting
permissive morality and lifestyles. These behavioural changes, popularised in
the 1960s, are now presenting serious and costly problems associated with
disorder, crime, social violence as well as marital breakdown teenage pregnancy
and sexually transmitted infections. The normalisation of bad language and
swearing is also undermining educational standards and communication skills and
remedial action is a drain on resources and educational funding.
We note, despite this consultation, that the BBC's Licence and Agreement
with the Government was very quietly and significantly amended at the end of
2003 bringing it into line with the Communications Act. To do so, having
already launched this consultation seems extraordinary and does bring into
question the value of the exercise.
The BBC today
What do you
value about the BBC?
·
What do you think of the BBC's
contribution to the life of the United Kingdom and to the wider world?
|
T |
he 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 have been exemplary. The provision of a broad mix of
programmes certainly, on BBC1 and BBC2, is what the general public expects from
the BBC. Traditionally, this is how the BBC has gained much of its reputation. Licence
Fee payers (shareholders) have become much more discerning consumers of
television and radio and on the whole do not expect the BBC to be like 'ITV
without adverts' but expect the commissioning of programmes that are
distinctive and different from and better than what is available elsewhere. The
underlying philosophy of the BBC should be to provide good programming that
evidently complies with the requirements set out in the Royal Charter and the
Producers' Guidelines. When introduced these Guidelines were described by Sir
Christopher Bland as the most comprehensive ethical code on broadcasting
anywhere in the world but we believe they could be better defined and more
faithfully observed by programme makers.
The BBC adds significantly to the overall provision of programmes that
could be described as public service. However, it is a mistake to lump together
all programming that may attract or be given a PSB label. We note that some
people in the commercial TV sector are making claims for licence fee revenue to
fund such commercial programming. Without some qualifying definition this
proposal would mean open access to licence fee money and this is not what
licence fee payers (shareholders) expect or want. It simply beggars belief that
Charles Allen, the Chief Executive of ITV plc described 'I'm A Celebrity …
Get Me Out of Here' as public service television and the producer of a new
Channel 4 series 'The Sex Inspectors' labelled her series similarly.
It is curious that there has been no mention of any reciprocal access to
advertising revenue for the BBC especially at times when there is an abundance
of funding. Even when times are hard Commercial Television is a very lucrative
business that carries with it an element of financial risk.
·
What value does the BBC add to
the wider provision of public service broadcasting?
|
T |
his question assumes that there is a wider provision of public
service broadcasting. As we observe elsewhere, the competing commercial sector
claims a public service remit but we believe this is subservient to the higher
priority of making profits for the companies, shareholders and investors. The
BBC, because of the way it is funded, alone embodies public service
broadcasting to which the commercial sector merely adds. In some respects we
agree with the Secretary of State that the BBC does provide a benchmark for
others to attain. The "value" of the BBC is that it does set
standards and it is a pity that some programming, such as that listed above,
falls short of expectations and damages the reputation on integrity and
quality.
We mention here programmes such as 'Naked' on BBC2 shown in June
1999, 'Adult Lives' shown in September 1999, 'Ladies Night' shown
in May 1998 and 'Close Relations' shown in June 1998. These are a few examples
that we believe failed to meet the 'good taste and decency' requirement set out
in the Royal Charter and certainly damaged the BBC's reputation.
·
How well has the BBC met its
purposes over the Charter period? What evidence do we have that the way the BBC
does this is successful compared to other broadcasters?
In
the report 'The BBC Beyond 2000' the BBC's core purposes are set out in
detail. It is a serious shortcoming of the consultation paper not to have
set these out for the benefit of respondents. The Executive Summary
suggests that the purposes remain constant and relate to the UK's heritage and
cultural life, enabling all sides to join the debate on issues, to help people
broaden horizons, to provide something of particular value and to offer opportunities
to create fresh and pioneering broadcast services. New public purposes are to
ensure no one is excluded from access to new kinds of service, to engage
audiences in new experiences and to act as a trusted guide in a world of
abundance.
These lofty aims read well but the passing of time shows that not all
have been achieved. It is undoubtedly true that
people have been brought together by sad events like the death of Diana,
Princess of Wales and by the death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen
Mother as well as other world events, like the attack on the World Trade Centre
in 2001 and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.
Analysis of the schedules shows that there are very few programmes
devoted to heritage and so the core purpose of "nurturing and cherishing
the rich diversity" has not adequately been met. Further analysis of the
schedules shows that programmes enabling debate of national, regional and local
significance are also few and far between. Question Time alone on BBC1
provides such an opportunity. Programmes such as Panorama, Despatch
Box, The Daily Politics and The Politics Show provide
information and we acknowledge the role of the BBC Local Radio in providing
opportunities for local issues to be aired.
BBC television through its national and regional programming reflects
the nations and regions but these are limited to early evening news and a
weekly magazine programme. Much more could be done to achieve this core purpose
by, for example, a weekly 'roundup from the regions' style of programme.
Broadening horizons is a fine aspiration and we believe that this again
is not really being achieved adequately by a narrowing of programme genres at
peak viewing time. Programmes like The Natural World, Horizon and
Omnibus help but such programmes are the exception in schedules
dominated by soaps, cookery and home or garden makeover shows.
The core purpose of exposing audiences to new ideas, to scientific
discovery, to great art, music and writing, to the spiritual and uplifting,
again, are limited by a narrowing of genres.
The Henry Wood Promenade Concerts and programmes such as the Genius
of Mozart provide classical music and we cannot overstate the importance of
Young Musician of the Year in encouraging new talent. But scientific
discovery seems to be limited to Tomorrow's World and Fred Dibnah's
programmes and specials like Inside The Bermuda Triangle. There is
little apart from Songs of Praise that could be described as spiritual
or uplifting. The Heaven and Earth Show provides an opportunity for
debate and discussion with a religious dimension and we acknowledge the
religious music aired on BBC Radio 3.
We
acknowledge that the BBC has invested in new drama like 'Down To Earth',
but most new productions like 'Attachments', 'Tipping The Velvet'
and 'Charles II' could hardly be said to comply with the good taste and
decency requirements as set out in the Royal Charter up until the end of 2003.
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 that militates
against the above stated core purpose. Comparing the BBC to other broadcasters
indicates a degree of sameness that we believe is determined by ratings and
audience share which seem to have become the overriding priority. This lack of
creativity is increasingly threatened by the latest generation of Personal
Video Recorders that can be set to record only favourite programmes.
·
What is it about the BBC that makes
it unique? How do we make sure that it is distinct from other broadcasters? Are
there better ways to deliver some of the contribution that we have
traditionally relied on the BBC to provide?
|
T |
he BBC is unique principally because of the way it is funded: by an
obligatory licence fee. It is also different from other broadcasters because
the programmes it produces and transmits are an end in themselves and not
calculated to deliver viewers to advertisers. The BBC can and should,
therefore, commission programmes that would not ordinarily be made otherwise by
other providers.
The BBC is also different because it provides numerous television,
national and local radio as well as on-line services. To be distinct becomes
ever more difficult because the BBC does not have a monopoly on talent or
programme ideas or on the means of production and transmission. The
de-regulation of the airwaves has made the task of the BBC to remain
distinctive far more difficult. However, we believe that the BBC, above all,
should not follow the commercial sector and should do more to raise and
maintain standards. We believe that programmes such as Billy Connolly's World
Tour series, because of the appalling bad language, should not be part of the
BBC's portfolio, whereas his excellent portrayal in the BBC film Mrs Brown,
BBC2, 30/8/2003, was exemplary.
We do not believe that there are better ways to deliver the contribution
that the BBC provides.
·
How well does the BBC serve the
constituent parts of the United Kingdom?
We believe that the BBC, by its local and regional radio output serves
the nations and regions well. However, the television output could be improved
by the inclusion of more regionally produced programming that is nationally
networked. Accordingly, we do not believe that the balance in programming is
right nor is the national or regional diversity being properly reflected
overall.
A changing landscape
·
How should the BBC adapt to cope
with changes in technology and culture?
|
T |
he BBC has been a key player in embracing and promoting digital
technology. As such it has coped well. What it has not coped with, however, has
been the public inertia to take up the new technology. We note that recently
published research conducted by Ofcom indicates that around 50 per cent of
households now have the ability to receive digital TV transmissions. The
programming on offer, calculated to compete with other providers, has just not
been sufficiently attractive. In fact some viewers have been very disappointed
with the reality that many more TV channels have not delivered a wider range of
quality programmes. Moreover, it is obvious that many satellite and cable
channels have no other purpose that to sell records, DVDs, and holidays as well
as other consumer goods.
The audience share for BBC3 TV and BBC4 TV, as Annex A shows, has been
so small that it has failed to register in the weekly analysis of TV ratings.
Evidently these two channels have not succeeded in attracting even their target
audiences. CBBC and Cbeebies have faired better but News 24 is handicapped by
other competing 24-hour news channels. BBC Parliament, which is essential
viewing for some people, seems to be a channel that is there simply because
Parliamentary proceedings are capable of being televised!
Paying for the BBC
·
How should we pay for the BBC?
|
T |
he Licence Fee was introduced as a way of funding public service
broadcasting when the BBC was the sole provider of TV and radio services.
Enabling a system of broadcasting funded from advertising revenue to complete
with the BBC in 1954 was the beginning of a process that has undermined what
is, regarded by some, as a universal tax. The fact that viewers and listeners
can now exercise choice and opt to pay other providers and not use BBC services
at all has given rise to a grievance over the compulsory nature of the Licence
Fee. The BBC, of late, has itself contributed to this sense of grievance by
providing a range of digital and on-line services that are not accessible to
everyone when everyone has, in fact, paid towards the start up and continuing
costs.
In our submission, Funding the BBC, presented to the Davies
Committee, we said we could see no good reason why the BBC should not receive
some funding from the National Lottery, notably from the fund for Good Causes.
The Lottery owes its success to the BBC because of the twice-weekly draws shown
on the BBC and the promotion of it across the radio and TV schedules. The BBC
could certainly be said to be a 'cultural institution' that benefits every
household in the land. Moreover, because of its information and education
services we believe the corporation could be classed as a 'good cause' and
therefore qualify for funding from this source. The Licence Fee could be
stabilised or reduced and everyone would benefit. People voluntarily play the
Lottery and questions have been raised about some of the grants made to some of
the good causes. Giving some of the overall revenue raised to the BBC to
supplement the licence fee would benefit everyone, even those who rarely, if
ever, win a cash prize.
However, the Government has given the impression that the licence fee
system of funding the BBC is favoured and will be retained unless an
alternative scheme can be devised. Accordingly, we can see no prospect of the
Licence Fee being abolished completely unless the funding was to be sourced
from an increase in direct taxation. We are aware that this proposal would not
be popular and has been made in the past and has been rejected.
In the present climate we do not believe that sufficient funding could
be raised from advertising revenue given that so many commercial channels
depend for their survival on such revenue already. We suggest that advertising
on the BBC should be ruled out on the grounds that many viewers are
understandably irritated by commercial breaks and prefer ad-free TV.
However, we would point out that in its strenuous efforts to compete
with other providers the BBC in recent years has itself adopted a style not unlike
ITV! Not only is there a range of 'cultural identities' between programmes
there are also two or three trailers for programmes coming later or showing on
other BBC channels or promoting BBC digital TV and radio channels. This is
particularly irritating when they are for BBC3 or BBC4 or Radio 6 or 7 or BBCi
which not everybody can receive or access. What should not be permitted are
the self-serving promotions by the BBC at times when the licence fee is being
reviewed or when the future is being debated.
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. However, the number
of repeats is a matter of concern and should be addressed by the corporation
because they undermine public confidence in the 'value for money' claims.
We note that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently permitted
people over 75-years-of-age to receive a free TV Licence. There are calls for
the age at which this benefit applies to be reduced. This reduction in revenue
has to be made up by increasing the level of the licence fee for those who have
to pay it. The Chancellor levies a duty on the Lottery of 12 per cent of the
total income. We suggest that a proportion of this tax could be diverted to the
BBC in order to supplement the licence fee income. Accordingly, we believe that
there is an argument for a mix of revenue streams: Licence Fee, Lottery Duty,
Lottery Good Causes Fund, Commercial Activities, Efficiency Savings and
Subscription. Although efficiency savings were required in the latest
settlement with the Government it is not clear that savings of £1.1 billion
have been achieved or what progress has been made in achieving this target.
We note press reports, Broadcast 19/3/2004, that 2 million people
are currently evading the licence fee and that the sum owed, around £200
million, according to the Daily Mail, 26/3/2004, is the size of the
Corporation's current overdraft.
In recent years, at licence
fee-payers expense, the BBC has published lavishly illustrated
brochure/booklets setting out what they regard as annual programme
achievements. However, we would argue that the BBC is not sufficiently
accountable to the viewing and listening public in the way that it expends
resources and in the style and content of all programmes provided. In our
opinion there is an over reliance on programming not originating in the UK, and
therefore, reflecting differing cultural values and ideals. We do not suggest
that this is necessarily a Bad Thing but many people do resent the imposition
of a global television culture manufactured largely in America.
Monitoring conducted by mediawatch-uk shows that American films portray
violence and civil disorder that undermines social policy. We welcome, and draw
attention to, the remarks about violent entertainment made recently by The Rt
Hon Charles Clarke, MP, the Education Secretary, The Times, 29/12/2003,
and more recently by The Rt Hon David Blunkett, MP, the Home Secretary. The
Sunday Times, 21/3/2004.
These films, and other programmes, also portray sexual conduct and the
use of bad language to such an extent that they represent an unprecedented
assault on our health service and education system. We note that STI's have
reached epidemic proportions among the young and that violent crime among the
young is at an all time high. According to Home Office figures the number of
criminals aged 11 and under has soared by 150 per cent in the last 10 years.
Children aged between ten and seventeen committed 49,200 crimes in 2003. Daily
Mail 30/12/2003.
It is this age group which is targeted by filmmakers and who are most
influenced by macho heroes who validate violence and sexual promiscuity. In
so far as the BBC commissions produces and buys in programming of this sort we
believe it is a public disservice.
Governance, regulation and constitution
·
How should the BBC be governed
and regulated?
|
T |
he Governors of the BBC are appointed to safeguard the public interest
in the affairs of the Corporation. Exactly how this works in practice is not
clear. The Governors rarely if ever make themselves accessible to the public
and only when there is a crisis, such as the publication of the Hutton Inquiry
findings, does the Chairman become visible. The process by which the Governors
are appointed is shrouded in mystery and only when the Annual Reports are
published is reference made to them. We do not doubt that all of the Governors
are worthy people with wide experience that work together well but we believe
that much more should be known about them and what they do on our behalf. It is
good for our democracy that the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport
interviews the Chairman and Director General from time to time. But the
Governors and senior management really ought to use the media, over which they
have control, to communicate much more with their viewers and listeners
(shareholders). This way accountability would be improved. We regret the demise
of 'It's Your BBC' which was an innovation shown in the early 1990s when
Marmaduke Hussey was Chairman.
The
establishment of Ofcom has not noticeably altered the role of the BBC's
Governors. We acknowledge that Ofcom's regulatory function is rightly
limited to handling complaints about fairness and privacy and harm and offence.
It is in the public interest that there should be a single 'port of call' or a
'one-stop-shop' for all complaints about television and radio content. This
meets the original intention to overcome public confusion about regulation of
the media. We welcome the establishment of Ofcom's Contact Centre with its own
national rate telephone number.
What has not been resolved, however, is the current and on-going
relevance of the mechanisms put in place by the BBC and whether the Programme
Complaints Unit will continue to function or be disbanded.
The Royal Charter of the BBC certainly adds prestige and authority to
the Corporation but perhaps the time has come to establish the BBC by Act of
Parliament so that legitimate grievances can be pursued, if necessary, through
the courts.
Accountability
·
How do we ensure that the BBC is
properly accountable to the public and Parliament?
|
T |
he accountability of the BBC could be improved if those who govern and
manage the corporation were much more accessible to the viewing public
(shareholders) by being interviewed more frequently about policy objectives,
expenditure priorities and programme content. We acknowledge publication of the
Annual Report and Accounts as well as a range of policy documents and annual
Statements of Promises. These, however, set out targets that the BBC sets
itself and judges itself on how well they have been met. Independent scrutiny
is essential.
The most appropriate forum through which accountability can be examined
is the Select Committee system in Parliament as well as by an annual debate in
Parliament on the corporation's Annual Report. In addition we believe that new
ways must be devised by which licence fee payers (shareholders) can be involved
and properly represented. The Regional Advisory Council structure is
established but these are so low in public profile that few people outside the
BBC know they exist. Yet they do have direct access to the Governors and so
much more should be done to promote these Councils, for example by using the TV
licence renewal system. A leaflet about them could be included giving contact
information. It is not enough simply to include this information in the Annual
Report, which few people read.
6 April 2004
Click here for Funding the BBC
Click here for
mediawatch-uk submission to Ofcom on PSB
Click here for mediawatch-uk submission to the
ITC on PSB
Click here for A Viewers’ Charter
Click here for The Daily Grunt
Click here for The Daily
Grunt Part 2
Click here
for ‘Promoting a Culture of Violence 2’
Click here for Spring 2004 newsbrief
Click here for Joining Form
£3bn-a-year BBC doubles the number of repeats
|
T |
he BBC is showing twice as
many repeats as ten years ago in spite of being ordered by the Government to
stop padding its schedules with re-runs of vintage sitcoms. The worst offender is BBC2 which toworrow
will show 13 hours of repeats out of a total of 18 hours of broadcasting. Television watchdogs last night condemned
the figures as 'highly regrettable' and accused the corporation of 'selling
less for more'. John Milton Whatmore, chairman mediawatch-uk
said the BBC was trying to fudge the issue.
'This business of "its not a repeat if people have not seen it
before" is totally off the wall'.
Daily Mail 7/7/2003
BBC Chairman launches pre-emptive independence strike
|
S |
enior BBC executives are
convinced that they are involved in a battle for the corporation’s
independence. The intervention
yesterday by the Chairman, Gavyn Davies, was seen as a tactical strike in that
battle. His scathing dismissal of “an external
regulator that will bring the BBC to heel was, sources say, a direct response
to a warning by Tessa Jowell, the Culture Secretary, that the BBC could forfeit
its right to self-governance. The
warning that the BBC would not succumb to “political bullying” was intended to
send a message to the Government to back off over charter renewal. Ms Jowell said: “The charter review that was
due in the normal way will be conducted in the normal way without any reference
to recent events. We entirely reject the
BBC Chairman’s attempt to confuse our desire to correct the original story by
Mr Gilligan with an attack on the BBC’s independence.”
The Times 28/7/2003
Writing in the Sunday
Telegraph 27/7/2003 BBC Chairman, Gavyn Davies, suggested that there were threats
to the BBC’s independence that “are serious and sinister”. He went on to say the “the immense strength
of the BBC’s system of governance is that the 12 individuals on the board are
beholden to no one. Not to management,
not to competitors, not to Government.
They are not doing the job for the money, or to climb the greasy
pole. They are doing it simply because
they believe in the independence of a great institution. That is why they guard that independence so
jealously, and always will.