Murray Rowlands says the future of public service broadcasting is at risk as the BBC’s enemies target the licence fee and ITV struggles
ARE we about to witness the death of public service broadcasting? The recent review from broadcasting regulator Ofcom appears to indicate an end to the BBC’s monopoly on the license fee after 2010 – which may coincide with the election of a Tory government.
The instinctive reaction of anyone concerned about the future of intelligent broadcasting is to leap to the defence of the BBC’s monopoly. However, the corporation is no longer the paternalistic monolith with high public service ideals that Lord Reith set up. You have to wonder about the mindset of an organisation when lies are told on programmes such as Children in Need and Comic Relief. Then there are massive salaries some BBC directors involved in these scandals continue to be paid. And £18 million for Jonathan Ross has not done the BBC’s reputation any favours, either.
However, the BBC still commands a great deal of respect because of its ability to produce high quality television and radio programmes, even though former Director General John Birt broke up many specialist production units and contracted out their work.
Unfortunately, that support for the BBC and the licence fee is becoming increasingly qualified. According to research conducted for Ofcom, only 33 per cent of us think the licence fee is good value for money, although 61 per cent say that BBC1 is our favourite channel. However, there is a widening generation gap, with young people no longer growing up with a commitment to the BBC. And many of them do not pay for the licence fee. The greatest support for the television licence is among those aged over 65.
Only a third of us agree the BBC’s main selling point is that the quality of its programmes is unavailable elsewhere. The greatest opposition to this proposition comes from those aged between 23 and 44. These tend to be people paying for satellite channels on top of the licence fee.
The fear is that a Tory government would break up the BBC once and for all. Right-wing complaints about the corporation are old and familiar: it is too big, the licence fee gives it an unfair advantage over its rivals and it is insufficiently geared towards the market. The BBC is able to deflect some of these criticisms by pointing to the crtical and commercial success of much of its television, radio and internet output.
Nevertheless, there are legitimate arguments that the BBC could be funded more efficiently and economically. One alternative might be to merge the licence fee with the council tax. Of course, the assumption then would be that every household has a television. But France moved away from the licence system and saved 65 per cent of collection costs.
Meanwhile, ITV has fallen on hard times. Some of this is put down to regulation governing the management of the company formed through the merger of Carlton and Granada. ITV has seen its share of televison’s advertising revenues drop by 40 per cent, as companies switch to rival channels and digital outlets. Consequently, ITV and Channel 4 are struggling to meet the costs of the public sector programmes their charters oblige them to make.
To complicate things further, there is the forthcoming switch to digital, due to be completed by 2010, and the fact that increasing numbers of people rely on the internet rather than terrestrial television. Ofcom maintains that, if the public service remit of ITV and Channel 4 were ended, the result would be a serious decline in broadcasting standards. Nevertheless, the five main television channels’ audience share fell by 17 per cent between 2003 and 2007, although they still have almost two-thirds of all viewers. The decline is greatest among 16 to 24-year-olds and ethnic minority viewers.
Ofcom insists that public service broadcasting is best served if the BBC faces competition to produce innovative and challenging content. It suggests that public sector programming could be produced by a range of providers outside the BBC. Yet the funding of public service broadcasting has declined in the private sector by a quarter since the passing of the Communications Act in 2003. That’s £130 million in real terms. Ofcom has failed to recognise that the production of programmes which meet its quality criteria would require an expensive infrastructure beyond the capability of a private sector wedded to the demands of profitability.
Ofcom has put forward a number of models for the future of public service broadcasting. All appear to accept ITV’s contention that it will be unable to provide the current level of public service programmes unless it receives additional funding.
One proposal is likely to be particularly attractive to a future Conservative government. A funding agency would be established to seek competitive bids for public service broadcasting. Under this model, the BBC would be reduced to providing core programming which the market would be unable to deliver.
Another proposal is that the commercial sector should no longer be obligated to provide public service broadcasting. Alternatively, the commercial sector’s public service commitments would be reduced, leaving the BBC as virtually the sole provider. It has been also suggested that Channel 4 could have a remit to provide coverage of current affairs, science, the arts, religion and social issues which might be financed from part of the licence fee hitherto reserved for the BBC.
Certainly, public service broadcasting must reinvent itself. With the digital switchover, viewers will have an almost limitless choice of programmes although the variety of them may be rather more circumscribed. Viewers must be equipped with the tools to navigate their way through the new televison age and sort out the significant from the trivial.
Channel 4 chief executive Andy Duncan has attacked the BBC’s continuing occupation of broadcasting’s middle ground as a monopoly. He has also been critical of its production of “everything for everyone at huge public cost”. Nevertheless, while lauding his own employer for its ability to “stimulate, infuriate, debate and create”, he knows that the commercial sector will do none of these things if it is left to its own devices.
But the danger is that a future Conservative government might regard breaking up and selling off the BBC as both easy to do, popular and profitable. Certainly, the Tory right and Rupert Murdoch’s empire – which would have much to gain from the BBC’s demise – would applaud such a move.
BBC bosses might be advised to talk to their Channel 4 counterparts now about how they can work together to justify the £139.50 for which every licence fee payer is asked every year. This may involve greater co-operation in making new, more dynamic and innovative programmes in the digitalised age.
Sadly, the failure of Labour’s media policy is exemplified by the fact the
19 million people in this country who follow cricket will be unable to watch next year’s series against Australia unless they have access to Sky TV. BBC viewers will be able to watch Formula One motor-racing, which is returning the corporation after several years on ITV. No one bid against the BBC for the rights to F1.
Meanwhile, on the football front, the BBC has lost the rights to the FA Cup and matches involving England in the qualification for the 2010 World Cup finals. It won’t even have any highlights.
Is it any wonder the public is sceptical about the BBC’s ability to provide public service broadcasting?
