Defending the BBC

They say that you don't know what you've got until it’s gone. Like all trite sayings, it is frequently untrue. Many of us are well aware of much of what we have, and are very grateful. One institution I suspect most people would be more grateful for if they knew what was at risk is the BBC.

The BBC is unique. State funded - so independent of commercial pressure - but largely independent of state control, with a remit to provide news and education to the world which it takes seriously. The BBC is the envy of the world. Which isn't to say the BBC is perfect - there is much to criticise, from their treatment of Doctor Who to the personal political slant of a certain Today journalist. But consider the alternatives. Where in the world is there an organisation that comes close to the BBC? Whether you look at the balance of its news coverage, the quality of its programming, or the investment in alternative (and free!) media for information delivery, the BBC is simply in a class of its own.

In fact, Britain is doubly blessed, for where there is a rival that can compete with the BBC in any individual area, it is frequently based in Britain. We have Channel 4, whose current affairs coverage is almost unique worldwide in matching, even surpassing, the BBC. We have ITV, which can compete on the production of costume dramas and soaps. We have the Guardian, whose free online presence rivals the BBC. Where the BBC is unique is in excellence in so many areas. And, I believe, it is that BBC excellence that drives its British rivals to such heights. Without the BBC as a yardstick, Channel 4 could achieve the status of "best current affairs coverage" with far less effort. Does anyone doubt that this would happen?

You only need to look at the news overseas to see the difference. American news television is dominated by Fox and CNN. Both exhibit an enormous right wing, pro-big business bias - indeed Fox News has become widely derided as little more than a spokesman for the Bush administration. Their coverage focuses on Republican friendly, simplified political coverage and banal human interest stories. An unwillingness to offend perceived interest groups means that little or no criticism of, for instance, Israel or the Christian right receives air time. In America, news ratings battles are not fought on quality - quality means taking risks, and no network has a need to do that. Instead, ratings battles focus on the personalities presenting the news, slick advertising campaigns, finding audiences whose political views they can reinforce, never challenge.

The result is something that looks much like American television in general - cheap and tawdry, with money poured into a few sure fire winners, and bulked out with lowest common denominator talk shows, game shows, and repetitive drama. Few risks are taken, and where they are, those risks are subject to criteria that nearly always guarantee their early demise.

In Britain, we are lucky to have the BBC. We are lucky to have the quality of rivals that it provokes - I'll single Channel 4 out for especial praise once more. But will we always be so lucky? Will many of us soon be recognising what we had by its absence? There can be little doubt that the BBC is under threat. The Labour government has repeatedly discussed the BBC's licence renewal during the Iraq dossier row, a clear threat given that the renewal isn't due until 2006. Murdoch, especially through his newspapers the Sun and the Times, has repeatedly attacked the BBC, telling lies about its impartiality, seeking to undermine public trust in the corporation. The Tories have already stated they would axe important BBC provisions like the websites, and would bring the BBC under direct government control via OfCom. In just three years, the BBC as we know it could cease to exist.

So, how can the BBC's independence be protected? True protection would come in two parts - a clause in a written constitution guaranteeing the existence, independence and funding for the public service broadcaster, and a constitution for the BBC to codify the impartiality and quality expected from the corporation, along with its worldwide education and news provision remit. The first of these isn't going to happen. The arguments for a written constitution and a detailed analysis of what should be in such a document will need to wait for another column. At present, it is sufficient to note that our leaders (and their potential replacements) are content with the status quo, where our rights only exist at their sufferance.

Instead, it is the second half of the ideal that is achievable. A BBC charter is not a new idea, but at this point it makes sense for the BBC to draft a document to which it will bind itself on renewal. The BBC needs a strong charter, one which strengthens its commitment to impartial reporting, quality programming, education and the world service. By listening to its critics, and renewing its traditional values, the BBC can short-circuit the debate. A strong, well-written charter could leave the BBC's critics with a choice between arguing over minor details, and openly opposing the basic idea of a public broadcaster.

The BBC is a unique and valuable institution. But it is an institution threatened as never before. Commercial rivals and government discomfort are combining to threaten the independence that makes the BBC what it is. In just three years we could see a watered down BBC, incapable of pursuing its worldwide education role, or of politically independent, balanced reporting. The BBC needs its supporters more than ever. All those of us who believe in this valuable institution need to protect it as best we may. The primary defence, however, needs to come from the BBC itself. By strengthening its core values, by preparing robust answers to potential criticisms, the BBC is its own best defender. There are few politicians who would have the guts to attack a public service broadcaster committed to the very ideas that makes such a body so potentially valuable.

Graham Robinson. 24th September 2003.

archives :: links :: faq :: feedback

Find out how you can support Online Opinion

Online Opinion is a trademark owned by Graham Robinson. All rights reserved. The copyright on all articles, columns, and letters on this site is owned by the original author. The copyright on all other material is owned by Graham Robinson. Permission is granted to download and store these pages for personal or research purposes only, and only as is consistent with normal viewing of web pages. All other rights reserved. Permission is granted to freely link to any page within this site, as long as ownership of the material linked to is clear. No advertisements may be associated with this site, whether explicitly or implicitly, without prior written permission.