The BBC faces a battle for its soul
Richard Sharp is the least of the BBC's problems. The corporation needs to focus on the aspects of its remit that commercial rivals would never touch.
Richard Sharp has resigned as BBC Chairman ahead of the publication of a report which found he was in breach of the rules for public appointments. Hats off to Gabriel Pogrund and Harry Yorke of the Sunday Times, who broke the story which set off this whole chain of events.
In an article which will be fairly critical of the BBC, it’s only fair to begin by commending the corporation for covering an issue which so directly affects them so well. It’s difficult to see how any other broadcaster could do so. Over in the States, both CNN and Fox News have steadfastly refused to cover stories about themselves in the wake of high-profile departures and the latter’s involvement in a defamation suit.
Conservative MPs like Jacob Rees-Mogg insist that the BBC would never appoint those who hold Conservative* views. It’s a pretty mind-boggling position to hold; for all that Tories like Rees-Mogg and Nadine Dorries enjoy BBC-bashing as something of a sport, their position is undermined by the fact that Richard Sharp, Director General Tim Davie, and board member (as well as former BBC political editor) Robbie Gibb are all, or have all been, notable supporters of the Conservative Party.
Regardless of Sharp’s departure, the BBC faces an uphill battle. Whilst the Sunak government has been markedly less volatile towards it than those of Johnson and Truss in its dealings with both the BBC and Channel 4, backbenchers like Rees-Mogg and Dorries will continually be baying for blood in the run up to the next election and beyond.
The licence fee is due to rise next year in line with inflation. This was signed off by Dorries during the period in which she was Culture Secretary. Despite this, there could be uproar from MPs like Dorries and Rees-Mogg if the new Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer allows this to go ahead. Dorries has already indicated her displeasure with the arrangement, and critics of Rishi Sunak like her could be looking for any reason to lash out should the Tory party’s standing in opinion polls not be sufficiently improved.
The freezing of the licence fee has done incredible damage to the corporation’s finances - and that’s in a period when inflation has been consistently low. Despite the rise due to go ahead next year, more cuts are forecast, such is the state of the financial situation. Much of the focus of this has been on cuts to the BBC’s performing groups, including the botched plan to axe the BBC Singers, condemned by Sir Simon Rattle as “vandalism” and “political ignorance”.
It remains unclear whether the reprieve of the Singers is merely temporary, simply there for the sake of communications management, as Rattle has alluded to; plans to reduce the musicians in the English BBC orchestras by 20% are still very much in play.
Meanwhile, BBC Four, the arts-dedicated channel, has been gradually eroded in recent years. An announcement in May 2020 indicated that the channel would, in effect, become an archive service and that original arts programming would be shifted to BBC Two.
I’ve alluded to the funding challenges the BBC has faced already, but it has to be said that there has been an absence of clear and consistent strategy for the corporations linear television output. BBC Three was taken off air and made online only in 2016, the logic being that its programming is youth-oriented and that it was the best way to reach that demographic. It’s now back as a linear channel, but is struggling to attract the viewership needed to justify the £80m cost of relaunching it. It’s probably not helped by its relegation in the TV listings (it lost its prized no. 7 slot on Freeview and the best it’s been able to do since relaunching is 23 in Wales and Scotland).
Soon after, the corporation announced plans to close CBBC and BBC Four as linear channels, moving them online. Again, this will be done as a cost-cutting measure and it’s pretty dispiriting; the decision will likely harm its long-term standing as children find it more difficult to access content. How many of us, after all, are loyal to the BBC simply because of the marvellous children’s programming that generations of us have enjoyed?
Older viewers who use BBC Four (who may not even have an internet connection, let alone use of a smart TV) could turn to programming elsewhere. The BBC may yet revisit the BBC Four decision, given how badly the BBC Three relaunch went.
It’s pretty exhausting trying to keep up with what the corporation wants from its linear output - personally, I won’t be joining in with any rioting unless they take Only Connect off air, but I’m unhappy with the situation as both a licence fee payer and a defender of public broadcasting services.
There’s little evidence of consistent long-term planning and this has implications for any significant increase of funding for the BBC if a Labour government is formed following the next election; the Labour Party, led by Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves, are keen not to be seen as big spenders, and will want to be sure that any licence fee increase will be spent wisely. The constant see-sawing such as that outlined above will not provide that reassurance.
*
When Tim Davie was appointed, there were hopes that with his experience as Chief Executive of BBC Studios, one of the corporation’s commercial arms, we might see more freedom for the BBC to use its extensive reserve of content commercially - particularly in overseas markets like the US where shows like Doctor Who and The Graham Norton Show are incredibly popular - to make up for the shortfall on income from the licence fee. So far, the signs aren’t promising.
When the BBC Singers were given their reprieve, the vague notion of alternative funding was mooted. They were invited by Rattle to perform with the London Symphony Orchestra in recent weeks. It’s not clear that this has ever happened before and it has significant implications on what it means to be an ensemble or entity with BBC branding and funding.
It’s not just programming; trust in the BBC’s impartiality is under threat. Whilst Rees-Mogg lives in a fever dream which convinces him that Conservative views have been banished from the corporation, the evidence is quite clearly to the contrary. Most recently, it’s been briefed that satirical panel shows have come under threat due to “political pressure”. In any case, the BBC will struggle to defend its impartiality whilst No 10 has a role in appointing positions like the BBC Chair, as pointed out by Paul Waugh in this excellent piece.
*
BBC shows like Doctor Who and Strictly Come Dancing which have entertained us for decades. But that word ‘entertained’ is pertinent. When the BBC was formed, Lord Reith, the first Director General, promised that it would “inform, educate, entertain”.
Maybe the formation of those words is of no consequence, but one might note that the word ‘entertain’ is the last of the three. The BBC has been on a journey in the last century; it began as a radio service, then took its place as the UK’s sole television provider in time for the late Queen’s coronation. In the 1960s, ITV was formed as a commercial alternative. In the 1980s, Channel Four was set up by the Thatcher government as an additional publicly-owned channel with a remit for “alternative” programming; by the end of the decade, Sky Television would launch. Since then, we’ve seen countless streaming services spring up, as well as video-sharing websites such as YouTube - the BBC’s competition has never been greater than it is today.
But with some exceptions, these many commercial alternatives will focus on ‘entertaining’ rather than ‘informing’. They are chasing subscription fees and advertising revenue and so have a rather different set of priorities than a public service broadcaster would. They don’t have a requirement to cater to religious demographics (see Songs of Praise and Choral Evensong). Amazon Prime doesn’t have a requirement to provide impartial news coverage (nor, apparently, do the likes of GB News and TalkTV). Netflix has no requirement to invest in British programming, even if they do occasionally venture in that direction, but very much with their much larger American audience in mind. And I can’t see any of them taking up the Proms were the BBC to fall tomorrow.
The corporation will be reluctant to cut its more popular programming - but the alternative is to cut the sort of content outlined above which commercial broadcasters would never touch. It’s important that they don’t lose sight of this; if the BBC becomes something indistinct from its commercial rivals, those of us wanting to defend it from a government that’s intrinsically anti-PBS may not have any convincing arguments as to why they should be left well alone.
*I was unsure whether to capitalise the word, but Rees-Mogg does and so I can only assume he’s specifically referencing those who hold the views of the Conservative Party as opposed to conservative views more generally.