Regulation of the BBC - Term Paper Example

The Regulators and the BBC “Doing something about the BBC is no good unless something is done about the commercial sector as well. It is ludicrous to make the BBC...carry the responsibility for providing high-quality public service broadcasting whilst their competitors provide whatever cheap fare makes a profit." (CPBF, Media Manifesto 2005, pg. 15). Analyse the extent to which you believe that the current ownership or content regulations in the UK protect this balance in public service responsibilities? Introduction While it was commonly proposed a few years ago that the internet would replace the television as the medium of choice, that situation has not come to pass. In fact, in several places around the world, the internet itself has become one of the services offered by television. This is particularly true in places like America where people can use their television and cable boxes to check their email, surf the net and even download music. In spite of the internal onslaught, television as a medium continues to grow and remains a healthy source of information and entertainment for the public. Naturally, whenever the public is involved, there is also the question of the public interest. This question is often answered by those who are the guardians of the public interest and they may be elected, appointed or self-appointed. The BBC in the UK is considered a public service which is run from the primary source of funding provided by the licensing fees paid by every television set owner in Britain. The governors of the BBC (soon to become trustees) are also appointed by the government yet it remains independent to some extent. The extent of the BBC’s independence is controlled by the regulations which the government has placed on the body. The BBC is supposed to provide high quality broadcast programming for the public and it has to compete with other players in the market who have obtained broadcasting licenses from the UK government. However, the regulations placed on the BBC and the demands made of the BBC as the premier British media company are quite different from the one which have to be followed by the competition. This has led several critics to question the validity of the regulations and it deserves a through examination from all sides. The central question which needs to be answered is, what is the responsibility of the BBC and how can it be conducted in the face of stiff competition from the private sector and the regulations from the government. A brief historical overview of the BBC and its responsibility is necessary before a study of BBC regulations can be conducted. Historical Background and Continual Conflict The BBC was formed in 1922 as a radio service and included amongst its founders the radio pioneer, Marconi. A daily broadcast service was established and by 1925, transmitters and relays took the voice of the BBC across the United Kingdom (Wikipedia, 2006). The original purpose of the company was to encourage the sale of radio sets but the higher purpose envisioned by the general manager, Lord Reith was to ensure that the public had access to independent news and information which was not based on political viewpoints or commercial motivation (BBC, 2006). Even so, there were guidelines which the BBC followed including timings for the news bulletins which could only be aired after 7pm. This was done to ensure that newspaper sales were not hurt by this free source of information. In 1926, the general strike meant that the BBC had the responsibility of being the sole source of information for the public, Churchill who was the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, recommended that the government should take over the BBC but this was averted through the discussions Lord Reith had with Prime Minister Baldwin at the time (BBC, 2006). The very next year, in 1927, the British Broadcasting Company turned into the British Broadcasting Corporation when it was granted a royal charter. The altercation mentioned above was just the first of many which would pit the BBC against the government several times in the future and the BBC began to regulate and censor itself with the programmes it decided to broadcast to the public. Even in the 1930s, comedians had to be careful what they joked about and any humour regarding religion, alcoholism and sexual innuendo was banned from the airwaves (BBC, 2006). The BBC was the first media company in the world to have a regular television service that started in 1936 from Alexandra Palace in North London. The coverage provided during the war helped the aims of the government to the extent that coverage of the war was provided in forty different languages and Josef Goebbeles; Hitler’s propaganda specialist, admitted that the BBC had been victorious as far as the intellectual war in Europe was concerned. This victory was short lived since just a few years the war, ITV came up to provide competition to the BBC and the viewers of BBC dropped to less than 30% of the total television owners in the UK (BBC, 2006). The BBC was again in conflict with the government over the coverage of the Suez Canal situation and the government threatened the BBC with a complete takeover. The viewpoint of the BBC was said to be unpatriotic and negative towards the government (BBC, 2006). This accusation would be oft repeated with the opposition saying that the BBC takes the government’s viewpoint to heart and the government saying that the BBC takes the opposition viewpoint to be true. In terms of programming and regulation the 60s became the golden decade for the BBC where a lot of quality programmes were distributed over the airwaves (Billen & Allardice, 2004). In 1977, the Annan Committee Report was published that accused the BBC of being weak on making decisions and having no clear guidelines for operation or programme content. New channels (including channel 4) were launched and structural changes were made at the BBC to bring it out of the situation it had placed itself (BBC, 2006). However, the tumultuous relationship which the BBC had with the government continued to manifest itself with exploits like the Panorama accusations of conservative MPs who had links with the far-right, the coverage of the American bombing in Libya and the censorship of the information on the Zircon spy satellite (Campbell, 2005). Clearly, the BBC feels deeply about its commitment to providing the public with the information they deserve as a national service. This was demonstrated in 2003 when the Iraq war over weapons of mass destruction was underway. The BBC reported that the government had exaggerated the case for the war and the government demanded a retraction of these statements (Wikipedia, 2006). The suicide of the government advisor, David Kelly, stunned the media community and the Hutton inquiry was formed to judge the situation. The findings of the inquiry caused the chairman of the BBC (Mr. Davies) to resign along with the director general Mr. Greg Dyke (BBC, 2006). With a history full of controversy and battles with the government, it is surprising to see that the BBC still functions as a semi-independent body and has not been taken over by the government. However, it is never to the advantage of the BBC to irk the government to a high level since the licensing fees and the Royal Charter certainly help the running of the enterprise. It appears that everything boils down the money involved in running and maintaining the BBC as a viable and thriving enterprise. According to the 2005 Annual Report of the BBC governors, nearly 3 billion pounds were earned in revenue from the license fees which is more than doubled the figure of all the other commercial revenue generating activities of the BBC put together. The public might think it is a heavy price to pay for the upkeep of ‘Auntie’ (as the BBC is affectionately called) but the government being the mother that she often is, continues to charge the fees. With this situation in mind, the government is clearly shown to take the viewpoint that regulation of the BBC is necessary and perfectly natural. Regulation of the BBC The current regulation of the BBC is based on the plan given by former chairman Mr. Davies and is being implemented by current chairman Michael Grade (Cox, 2004). The changes in regulation include a method to formalise the relationship between the Ofcom and the BBC, increase the accountability of both parties, clarify murky regulatory situations and to satisfy other commercial setups which are controlled by the regulations given by the Ofcom. The nature of the Office of Communications (Ofcom) is quite expansive since it includes several areas of regulatory power. For the BBC and other broadcasters, it acts as a watchdog to ensure that the viewer’s interests are protected. At the same time, it is free to interpret the viewer’s interests and can cause problems for the BBC if it is harder on auntie as compared to other broadcasters in terms of program quality and public acceptance of the broadcasts. The House of Commons would love to have control over the BBC since they want full regulation of the broadcaster to come from the Ofcom. In fact, the governors of the BBC seem to agree that regulation from the Ofcom is in their own best interest because without regulation and to remain independent from the Ofcom would mean being open to accusations and mudslinging from the competition in the commercial sector (BBC Governors. 2005). The BBC is no longer the primary player in the broadcast arena and has to be careful about negative press generated by those who think it could be better managed under different situations. Regulation from the Ofcom are supposed to flow to all broadcasters under its authority in terms of business ethics, decency and content problems as well as quotas for regional, independent and original productions undertaken by the various channels. It is in the interest of the BBC to keep a level playing field and keep the competition at bay in an environment where other broadcasters are particularly hostile towards the BBC as it is. The relationship between the BBC, Ofcom, commercial broadcasters and the culture secretary is broadly defined in terms of their regulatory powers. The Ofcom has the authority to regulate both the BBC and commercial broadcasters but the final authority for regulatory matters which concern the BBC will be the cultural secretary since the primary funding for the BBC comes from public sources. The formalised relationship between the BBC and the Ofcom is given as follows in terms of regulation (Ofcom, 2006): Maintaining the privacy of those involved in the programmes. Protection of minors appearing on television. Application of rules for subtitling, sign language transmission and audio description for the blind. Exclusion of objectionable material which may lead to issues of public disorder or criminal activities. Responsibility of understanding the religious sensitivities of the public. Maintenance of quotas for independent and in-house productions. Refer complaints to the Ofcom. The Ofcom clearly states that there are several areas where the BBC is not regulated by them in any way, (Ofcom, 2006) e.g.: Impartial viewpoints in news, discussion or any other programs. Accuracy and validity of presented material. Placement of commercial products within televised programmes. The Office of Communications encourages and promotes the idea of broadcasters regulating themselves and the future might hold the creation of a combined Self Regulatory Organisation much like the NASD in the American finance market. Till that time, Ofcom will take a lenient view and deal in a friendly manner with those broadcasters who show clear evidence of regulating themselves in terms of the guidelines given by the Ofcom. The Requirement for Regulation Regulating commercial media is always a tricky business for the government since the freedom of the media is important to keep intellectuals and the general public happy. At the same time, the media can be a cause of embarrassment for the government if it is allowed to expose every secret that the government hopes to keep. There are also technical issues, like digital broadcasts which the government might seek to encourage through regulatory controls (Douglas, 2004). More than that, there are several presentation viewpoints which the government would prefer the media to take. Wilby (2005) reports in the New Statesman that Rupert Murdoch was told by Tony Blair that the BBC’s coverage of Hurricane Katrina was full of negative comments about the American presidency and claims about the incompetence of the American government to handle the aftermath. Wilby goes on to quote headlines from The Times which declared that the Bush was caught napping and that the president strummed while the city of New Orleans drowned. The Sun on the other hand was all praise for the American government and tried to gather British support for the relief efforts. Tellingly, Wilby suggested to the BBC that if they wanted to stay in the good books for the prime minister, they should take the tone which was adopted by The Sun (Wilby, 2005). In some reality, the British government can take over the BBC and make it their mouth piece for whatever they wish the public to hear but such propaganda (for the lack of a better word) would not be accepted in a democratic and largely accountable society like Britain. It might even be questioned if media regulation is required or at all possible since the internet allows every kind of opinion to be voiced and heard by anyone who has access to a connected terminal. The coming of foreign Television and programs from the EU can also hasten the need for regulatory controls on the media (Hatfield, 2003). Co-regulation or Self Regulation Given the current regulation and information access scenario, regulating television solely from government mandates and directions coming from the Ofcom seems very old fashioned. It is heartening to know that the chairman of the Ofcom has his sights set on the future and expects the co-regulation will become the method by which all companies, regardless of the nature of the media they work with, will operate (Higham, 2003). The process of Co-regulation makes perfect sense given that companies who control what they broadcast will also control the content and nature of the programs as well as the internet transmissions which they distribute from their websites. If the networks and broadcast stations decide to police themselves and let the Ofcom function as their supervisor, the benefits gained from such a process would be enormous. Not only would the Ofcom save the taxpayer’s money in terms of monitoring costs and handling complaints against the stations, the Ofcom would have a better chance of getting its own regulations accepted by the broadcast station where a culture of following norms and laws is already in place (Higham, 2003). This development could certainly take place quickly if the government decided to help and give technical support and consultations to those broadcasters which decide to go down the route of co-regulation. The model of co-regulation could be based on the type of self regulation which is followed by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA, 2006). The purpose of the authority and the regulations given by it are to ensure that print, written and cinema based advertising falls in line with the requirements of legality, decency, and honesty towards the people. Of course the central problem for the Ofcom is making sure that all the various broadcasters can agree to a few basic requirements for their stations and the programs they distribute. Additionally, the costs of the regulation also have to be considered. The TV and radio stations of the UK may find it more beneficial to just let the government decide what can be put up in the media and what can not rather than have in house setups to go over their programs for internal reviews. The BBC of course has its board of governors who have the broad responsibility for honesty and truthfulness of the content presented by the station (Ofcom, 2006), but other TV companies may not be able to afford this luxury of having paid media professionals to watch over their output on a continual basis. Moreover, in the case of a dispute between a co-regulated/self regulated TV station and the Ofcom, the word of the Ofcom would probably reign supreme therefore the idea of self-regulation loses its charm for the broadcaster (Higham, 2003). Even though allowing the communications industry to create its own codes of conduct, enforce them on their own and solve customer issues on their own would take a lot of work away from the Ofcom, it would also create its own legal issues which might become pitched battles between the Ofcom and the broadcaster in question. The Ofcom is moving ahead with its plan for co-regulation and has identified TV and radio advertising as the first place where co-regulation can be applied (Higham, 2003). The flexibility of co-regulation is just too attractive for it to be passed on and the responsibility of controlling the nature, content, decency and truthfulness of the advertisements run on their networks or airwaves could soon be given to the radio and TV stations which make their revenue out of the same ads. This would be in addition to the BACC’s (Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre) suggestions for TV and radio ads compliance reports which check for compliance with ITC (Independent Television Commission) regulations and the RA (Radio Authority) regulations. Fundamentally, the nature of co-regulation and self regulation appear to be more or less the same. Higham puts it best when he says that, “Co-regulation, looks like self-regulation - except that the regulator sits next door with a big club (Higham, 2003, Pg.1)”. That big club is the threat of fines and sanctions which a self regulated body can not bring against itself. The Press Complaints Commission (PCC) (PCC, 2005), is one such body which has been established and funded by newspapers while it is supposed to make the same newspapers avoid destroying the privacy of the public. Needless to say, the success of this body has been less than stellar in admonishing those who keep it alive. The Responsibility of the BBC No matter what form it takes, government regulation, co-regulation or self regulation, the central issue will remain the quality of the programmes which are created by various broadcast stations. There can be two viewpoints taken on the subject, the first suggests that high quality programs like the ones which were on the BBC during the golden decade of the 60s will be instantly popular and be watched with high a high number of viewers tuning. On the other hand, the other side of the argument suggests that the most popular programs are high quality to begin with and the masses should be given what they want not what the government thinks they should view (Dawtrey, 2004). The numbers agree with the second viewpoint, viewers will always gravitate towards what entertains them and if the news and documentary shows produced by the BBC are not good enough to keep them on the same channel, the taste of the viewers or the quality of the program should not be blamed. The BBC can go on producing program after program which leaves the television critics in awe, but until the public actually approves of the programs shown by the BBC, all they would be doing is crowding the broadcast spectrum since the masses are watching something else. This situation was clearly exemplified in 1999 when the government stopped forcing ITV to show a news based programme during the prime-time television hours. Clearly, the government thought that the people should be made aware of the news for the day and nothing else could be better than to watch the prime minister and others in power perform their duties during prime time. Once that mindset was changed a key time slot was available to the ITV to show whatever it thought would be most entertaining and it launched the famous show, Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? (Economist, 1999). Even though critics have said that the show is intellectually challenged and is not really of the calibre of other British quiz shows like Mastermind and the like, the popularity of the show can not be denied and the figures speak for themselves. While ITV was showing the news show at 10, BBC1 and ITV evening ratings had been at par with each other. After the news show was replaced with the quiz show, the ratings of the ITV increased by 40% (Economist, 1999). In fact, the ratings changed so dramatically that the BBC had to question its own program schedule (Turner, 2003). The public clearly knows why they watch TV and what they think is quality programming, they may be fickle, uncultured or even ignorant about the mechanics of television, but they know what entertains them and how. With that in mind, it is clear that the responsibility of the BBC is to entertain the people who pay for its upkeep. Fundamentally, it is a mass medium; it can not be run with a focus on niche culture and higher morals like the British Museum which also funds itself through government grants and the patronage of the well to do in society. The BBC is patronised by every taxpayer and television set owner in Britain therefore it has to provide what the public wants. The regulators and law makers who do not accept that are simply putting the BBC in a situation where it will continually lose viewers to other channels who are giving the public what it wants the most (Daily Variety, 2005). Protecting a Public Service Since the BBC is established as a public service running on public funds, it can be protected in the same way other public services are protected. The BBC governors have to admit that they are not the saviours of British culture and taste which will continue to exist even if the BBC does not (Billen, 2001). The producers and directors of the BBC programs have to realise that without effective competition they can not improve their quality of output. Finally the regulators must realise that the protection of government interests and the protection of the BBC’s interests may not always be the same item on the agenda (Clarke, 2003). Questions are also raised about the Americanisation of the British media and the money which the BBC spends on acquiring programs from the United States (Guider, 2003). These are issues which the governors of the BBC must address since the majority of popular programs on the BBC have been home grown in the past. The quality of the programs depends on them being accepted by the viewers and the BBC is not short on creative talent or management resources therefore there is little excuse for the governors of the BBC to not have the quality which can take away viewers from other stations (Billen, 2001). Most importantly, the BBC does not have to seek advertisement money therefore it is relatively independent in some areas to explore or experiment with new types of programs without securing the blessings of the advertisers. This protection is more or less guaranteed by the government due to the yearly bill presented to the taxpayer for the BBC services and it is high time that the BBC started to perform on its own without requiring regulatory controls to protect itself from the competition which often has to play on the back foot when it comes to the actual supply of cash resources. Considering that the future license fee may be as much as 200 pounds, there responsibility is even greater (DTG, 2006). Conclusion Clearly, the current regulatory rules come across as sufficient for the BBC to perform on its own without external help from the government. Although the future is always uncertain, it can be seen that the British media industry could be moving towards a position of co-regulation or self regulation where the BBC could have a greater role to play in being the guide for other stations. Whether they like it or not, the governors of the BBC have the responsibility towards the public (by the very nature of their position as appointed officers) that they do their utmost to provide high quality programmes which entertain, educate and enlighten the public. If they can not do that despite the tremendous resources they have at their disposal (BBC Governors. 2005), they should start looking for other positions. Word Count: 4,436 Works Cited ASA (Advertising Standards Authority). 2006, ‘Advertising Standards Authority’, ASA.org, [Online] Available at: http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/ BBC Governors. 2005, ‘Annual Report and Accounts for 2004/5’, bbcgovernors.co.uk, [Online] Available at: http://www.bbcgovernors.co.uk/annreport/index.html BBC. 2006, ‘About the BBC’, BBC.co.uk, [Online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/ Billen, A. 2001, ‘Liddiment's lament’, New Statesman, vol. 130, no. 4553, pp. 32. Billen, A. and Allardice, L. 2004, ‘Still switched on’, New Statesman, vol. 133, no. 4685, pp. 38-40. Campbell, D. 2005, ‘The day Cook saved the NS’, New Statesman, vol. 134, no. 4754, pp. 14. Clarke, S. 2003, ‘Ball Bawls out fat cat BBC’, Variety, vol. 392, no. 3, pp. 22. Cox, D. 2004, ‘Grade expectations at the BBC’, New Statesman, vol. 133, no. 4683, pp. 30-31. Daily Variety. 2005, ‘ITV opposes proposal for another pubcaster’, Daily Variety, vol. 287, no. 49, pp. 33. Dawtrey, A. 2004, ‘BBC Quality Control’, Daily Variety, vol. 284, no. 7, pp. 9. Douglas, T. 2004, ‘BBC digital stations are not there for the masses’, Marketing Week, vol. 27, no. 43, pp. 21. DTG (Digital TV Group). 2006, ‘SCBG warns of £200 BBC licence fee’, DTG.org, [Online] Available at: http://www.dtg.org.uk/news/news.php?class=&subclass=&id=949 Economist. 1999, ‘The Beeb's bust’, Economist, vol. 350, no. 8111, pp. 61. Guider, E. 2003, ‘TV's melting pot full of Yankee stew’, Variety, vol. 393, no. 9, pp. 66-68. Hatfield, S. 2003, ‘A merger reshapes U.K. TV; stage set for foreign investors’, Advertising Age, vol. 74, no. 41, pp. 21. Higham, N. 2003, ‘The challenge of media regulation’, BBC.co.uk, [Online] Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/2679593.stm Ofcom (Office of Communications). 2006, ‘Ofcom's regulatory relationship with the BBC’ Ofcom.org, [Online] Available at: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/about/accoun/bbc/ PCC (Press Complaints Commission). 2005, ‘Report of the Chairman of the Commission’, PCC.org, [Online] Available at: http://www.pcc.org.uk/about/reports/2004/chairmansreport.html Turner, M. 2003, ‘ITV tops ratings in U.K. for first time in 2 years’ Hollywood Reporter (International Edition), vol. 378, no. 32, pp 65-67. Wikipedia. 2006, ‘BBC’, Wikipedia.org, [Online] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC Wilby, P. 2005, ‘The media column’, New Statesman, vol. 134, no. 4759, pp. 12. Read More