Nick Reynolds responds to BBC critics…
As he promised, Nick Reynolds responded to Martin Le Jeune’s recent publication.
(link here). I think Nick’s response addresses a key issue. I think the difference is over whether we think that (i) the BBC should offer something for everyone (see the comment Nick passes along for that argument), or (ii) restrict its output to those genres and programmes where the market under-delivers — the classic ‘market failure’ argument.
Put me in the (ii) camp. Firmly.
Otherwise, we’ll end up … well … we’ll end up where we are. A BBC with eleven TV channels and ten radio channels. A BBC that airs Formula One. A BBC that uses our tax money to outbid commercial channels for imported television programmes. A BBC that offers its star presenters staggering salaries in the manner of a commercial media firm.
And it’s not just BBC bashers who are in the market failure camp. It used to be the main underpinning for state intervention into broadcasting. Now, just as multichannel television was really weakening the market failure rationale, the BBC came out in 2004 with a ‘public value’ argument that shifted the debate somewhat. As a matter of policy argumentation, it was absolutely brilliant. But we should abandon that approach. We should return to the market failure approach, combined with a much higher degree of accountability for the BBC (annual NAO audit).
Proponents of the BBC as ’something for everyone’ should read the Charter. Section 3 of the charter separates the BBC’s main ‘public purposes’ and Section 4 puts flesh on those bones. Formula One does not fit any of the public purposes. Neither does that human Tetris show! (lol…). Now to be fair the Charter does not contemplate that the BBC would become a boring ‘public purposes’ broadcaster, but it is nevertheless clear that purely populist approaches to broadcasting should be a minor part of the overall picture. I think Martin Le Jeune rightly pointed out in his recent publication that the BBC is in many cases becoming a me-too commercial broadcaster.
I don’t see anything happening soon… but hopefully a future Tory government will embrace a binding accountability and efficiency agenda for the BBC.
“inform, educate and entertain” is still in the Charter I believe.
Formula One entertains.
And it could be argued that it addresses a market failure as ITV decided not to bid for the rights before the BBC took them up.
Hey Nick,
Sure no doubt the BBC should seek to entertain. That definitely is in its remit.
But the 150-200m GBP spend on Formula One (in my opinion) is wrong-headed vis-a-vis the charter’s principles: around the same time the BBC cut back its natural history unit by 1/3rd. I’m sure there are other examples, such as from the news division…
I think what is needed — a good middle ground solution — is an annual external audit by the NAO. I’ve been told the BBC has always resisted this. I think it would be a good mechanism to hold the BBC to account.
Take care,
Russ
Well I obviously disagree. The Charter is a pretty high level document. It’s not intended to dictate strategic or editorial choices by BBC management.