How to Save the BBC

How to save the BBC ANTONY JAY CENTRE FOR POLICY STUDIES 57 Tufton Street, London SW1P 3QL 2008 THE AUTHOR SIR ANTONY JAY joined BBC Television in May 1955. He was a founder member of the BBC Tonight team in 1957, becoming Editor in 1962 and Head of Television Talk Features in 1963. In 1964 he resigned to become a freelance writer and producer. He was a member of the Annan Committee on the future of broadcasting from 1974 to 1977. He is, with Jonathan Lynn, author of the Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister series. He is currently editing the fourth edition of the Oxford Dictionary of Political Quotations. The aim of the Centre for Policy Studies is to develop and promote policies that provide freedom and encouragement for individuals to pursue the aspirations they have for themselves and their families, within the security and obligations of a stable and law-abiding nation. The views expressed in our publications are, however, the sole responsibility of the authors. Contributions are chosen for their value in informing public debate and should not be taken as representing a corporate view of the CPS or of its Directors. The CPS values its independence and does not carry on activities with the intention of affecting public support for any registered political party or for candidates at election, or to influence voters in a referendum. ISBN No. 978-1-905389-74-2 Antony Jay, July 2008 Printed by 4 Print, 138 Molesey Avenue, Surrey CONTENTS 1. A lesson from the great radio crisis 1 2. Do we need the BBC? 5 3. A temple of broadcasting purity 7 4. Zero-based reconstruction 11 CHAPTER ONE A LESSON FROM THE GREAT RADIO CRISIS BACK IN THE DAYS of the Great Radio Crisis in the late 1950s, when the BBC’s radio audience was deserting in millions for television, someone pointed out that the real problem was that radio had been invented first. If television had come first, radio would have addressed itself to the needs that television could not meet: motorists, manual workers, small localities – all the audiences that radio now satisfies. Instead, the BBC tried desperately to hang on to all the drama, documentary and variety output that the audience had stopped listening to. Eventually, of course, the logic of broadcasting prevailed. But the adaptation was slow and painful. The same is true of public service broadcasting today. If broadcasting had started as a purely commercial enterprise, then when the public service broadcasters arrived they would have sought out the audience needs that the commercial stations were failing to meet. This indeed is what happened in the United States where the Public Broadcasting Service raised the money and devised the programming to fill the market gaps left by CBS, NBC and ABC. But in Britain, we decided to entrust all our broadcasting to a state monopoly, funded by a broadcast receiving licence rather than by taxation revenues in order to distance it from the government of the day. 1 HOW TO SAVE THE BBC This device could have been little more than a fig-leaf, delicately concealing the reality of a government-funded broadcasting service. The fact that it was not was principally due to the powerful personality of its first General Manager (later Director General), John Reith who guarded, fought for and established its independence during his 16 years at the helm. But there was a price to pay. That same intellectual dominance and moral fervour that championed the BBC’s independence also imposed on the BBC a mission to set the nation’s cultural agenda, to raise public taste (to use the patronising phrase that went unquestioned for a generation), and to set a standard for British public discourse that went well beyond the remit of an ordinary broadcasting station. Since Britain had no other broadcasting organisation to compare it with, it was happy to accept the BBC’s view of itself as a national institution. This was enormously reinforced by the War, which broke out only one year after Reith left. The tremendous importance of the BBC throughout the War is well known and hard to over-estimate. I was nine years old when it began and fifteen when it ended. The BBC was not only my principal, almost my sole, source of information about the progress of the War but also the medium through which I shared the events and experiences with all my fellow- countrymen. It was the national forum, an institution of state. The idea of having a second broadcaster, let alone several others, never crossed anyone’s mind. It would have been as bizarre as having a second monarchy or a second parliament. But it went even further. The foreign language broadcasts of the BBC’s Overseas Service had, by the end of the War, gained a unique reputation all around the world for their 2 A LESSON FROM THE GREAT RADIO CRISIS accuracy and objectivity. The US counterpart, the Voice of America, was seen as a propaganda channel. But the BBC was widely trusted and deeply respected. Even in 1956, 11 years after the War had ended, when I was in Vienna covering the Hungarian revolution for Panorama, we were given permits and access as BBC representatives that were given to no other broadcasting service. It is not surprising that countries setting up broadcasting organisations after the War should have looked to the BBC as the model for a non-commercial broadcasting system. For all these reasons, the BBC acquired a status and prestige that went well beyond that of a supplier of radio and television programmes. It became a national institution, an arbiter of taste, a custodian of British culture, an exemplar of British civilised values. To be honest, this became too much of a burden for a broadcaster to bear once it had become part of a competitive system. Once ITV took to the air in 1955, we in the BBC’s production departments were focused on programmes the audience would watch and enjoy. But the high-minded opinion-formers and bien-pensant decision-makers (who composed the governing class) pressurised the BBC to transmit programmes that they believed it ought to show, whether people wanted to watch them or not. The politicians even imposed a formal obligation to transmit news and current affairs programmes, not least because they did not want to lose the opportunity of getting themselves on the telly. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this paternalist and patrician view of the BBC is its persistence. The BBC is now only one voice among hundreds. We now have analogue and 3 HOW TO SAVE THE BBC digital, terrestrial, cable and satellite, DVD and VHS, PC and laptop, mobile and blackberry not to mention other competitive visual diversions like platform games, YouTube and Facebook that throng cyberspace and the blogosphere. And yet there are still those who see the BBC as it was 60 years ago, who do not realise that for the vast majority of the nation it is just another broadcasting station, and its only difference from other subscription channels is that, even if you never watch it, you can be fined if you do not pay your subscription. And sent to prison if you refuse to pay the fine. And that is the heart of the matter. There is no longer a case for taking £4 billion a year from the public to produce programmes they do not want or can obtain free elsewhere. If there is a demand for a particular programme, the broadcasting market will supply that demand, without the licence fee. So the real questions are: do we need the BBC at all? And, if we do need it, how can we save it? 4 CHAPTER TWO DO WE NEED THE BBC? THERE IS A STRONG CASE for dismantling the BBC. It spends over £4 billion every year, most of it on undistinguished programmes which are indistinguishable from what is available on competitive unsubsidised channels. It also uses this subsidy to compete unfairly with commercial companies in areas like publishing and the internet. Many people also see it as a propaganda vehicle for the liberal élite whose views and values are at odds with those of most of its audience. There is however still a case to be made for retaining, at least for the time being, a public service broadcaster of some sort. Such a broadcaster would provide a service free from advertiser pressure for those who cannot afford to pay for subscriptions. Advertisers, for example, tend to be more interested in younger audiences, a market failure which a public sector broadcaster could counterbalance. Equally, there are some programmes for which advertising breaks are an intrusion. More importantly, the BBC has some excellent production centres of international repute – the Natural History Unit is the most frequently cited, but it is not alone – which would need to be preserved on the principle that if “it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” And most people feel it is culturally desirable to have a channel 5 HOW TO SAVE THE BBC that is committed to material sourced in Britain. Not because imported programming is rubbish; quite the reverse. Much of it is excellent, so much so that it could in time displace the home-made shows that are more expensive to produce. So there is a case to be made for keeping those native production units alive for as long as they deliver good value. And a public service channel is often a better place for innovation: it can afford to persist with a series that is not quite right, when a commercial competitor would be forced to abandon it.

Load more