This is a briefing paper on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport Sec. Teresa Jowell’s proposal to abolish the BBC (British Broadcasting Company) Board of Governors and replace it with a Board of Trust and an Executive Board which will be doing the two separate tasks the governors formerly did-1. managing the company; 2. maintaining accountability to the licence-paying public. The Secretary’s Green Paper maintained that, though the BBC is still one of the most trusted and liked entities in Britain, in light of certain controversies, e.g. the suicide of Dr. David Kelly and the ensuing Lord Hutton report, and because of the clamour by the public, it is now high time to reform the company (Green Paper 2005). Jowell furthered that there was conflict of interest on the way the governors did their job. While the latter were responsible to see to it that the BBC is accountable to the public, they were also in charge of its management and all the concerns attached to it, not excluding profits.

          The reasons posed by Sec. Jowell may be in the correct perspective. Yet, a cursory glance at the Green Paper would show how the proposed changes may be too shallow. For the Board of Governors to be abolished and replaced by two bodies doing its former tasks separately would seem to open up a lot of questions on influence and conflict of interests- the very same issues brought up on the governors. While separating the tasks into two bodies would seem logical, the question arises whether the BBC Board of Trust could really manage to control, or even direct the Executive Board to tailor the various BBC programmes according to public clamour and interest.

          This paper aims to explore the nuances and vicissitudes of the British broadcasting system. It will focus upon BBC and its unique role as a publicly-funded yet autonomous government media company. The main purpose will be to look upon the rationale behind the proposed changes as contained in the Green Paper and analyse the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments presented. In the end, the paper will endeavor to compare the pros and cons of replacing the Board of Governors.

Introduction

          The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has come along way since its inception by Royal charter in 1927. Since then, it has been one of the largest media company in the world with TV, radio and internet programmes and broadcasts (Wikipedia n.d.). On domestic television, its services include BBC One, BBC Two, and the news channel BBC News 24. In the international arena, BBC maintains a BBC World Service radio and a television co-managed with the British Foreign Office. At home, its radio programs include Radio 1 and radio 4.

          Funding comes mainly from licence. This comes in the form of annual television tax to British citizens. It also gets a chunk of its revenues from commercial advertising and from its international sales of its catalogue of programs. Though in theory, the BBC is accountable to the licence-paying public, its additional revenue-generating schemes make it less so.

          Since its inception in 1927, the BBC has been run by a board of governors put in place by the current government. Before, the board held the position for as long as five years. Now, it has a term of four years. The management of the organization is put into the hands of the Director-General who is chosen by the members of the Board. The latter, meanwhile, are given the dual task of making the company accountable to the licence-payees- the public- while managing its affairs as a corporation.

Controversies- The Roots of the Jowell Proposal

          Theoretically, the BBC is public-owned. Thus, it should be accountable only to the British public and remain neutral in partisan issues. However, history is full of charges and counter-charges of the company siding with the opposition, or abetting the incumbent government. Because the members of the Board of Governors are appointed by the government, accusations of bias may stem from these appointments. Too, commercial advertisements have been at the forefront of the company since its inception.

          Sparks (1995) posits that the British broadcasting industry has been governed by culturalist ideas. This rests on the assumption that broadcasting, but most especially TV, should be grounded on serving the public and not on commercial grounds. From 1927 to 1954, the BBC monopolized television broadcasting. The 1954 television Act finished it by allowing commercially-funded programming, the very first in the UK. This opened up a whole array of competition strategies for new entrants. Popular entertainment shows were introduced, as well as changing the aspects of news and drama delivery to be attuned with advertisement ways (Sparks 1995, p.142).

          With the proliferation of TV laden with commercials, it was imminent that the public, having been used to the BBC monopoly of advertisement-free shows would react negatively. The government saw it prudent to form a Committee on Broadcasting to do a study on commercialized broadcasting. It concluded that the role of commercialized TV is “to provide a service of television broadcasting which will realise as fully as possible the purposes of broadcasting" ( Pilkington Committee, 1962 , p. 166 cited in Sparks 1995). While advertising was inevitable, the report became critical on how TV broadcasting was being debased. It proposed strengthening of the regulatory authority so as to contain the negative impact of commercialization. On funding, the report offered that the licence system stay while advertisements the amount “certainly should not be increased . . . and…further reduced" (ibid., p. 84 cited in Sparks).

          Results in legislation were substantial. BBC was given its second station while the powers of the regulatory authority, then the Independent Television Authority (ITA) were increased. The committee eschewed a competitive commercial sector. The general opinion of the Pilkington (Sir Harry Pilkington headed it) Committee was that increased commercialization would ruin the quality of broadcasting which primarily aimed for the good of the public (Ibid Sparks, p.144). What emerged was a competition between public and private or commercial broadcasters in the most minimal sense. The quality of service overrode revenue considerations

          The 1970s opened up with yet again another committee tasked to carry out a study in view of the entry of a fourth TV channel. Its concern drew from its precedent- commercialization should be strictly limited. The Annan Committee, as it was called, stressed that broadcasting should be designed in a manner which eschews competition for diversity and specialization in terms of services or source of funding. It recommended the formation of a governing body, the Open Broadcasting Authority, which would manage competition between the different commercial companies. This was not, however, adapted by Parliament.

          Another issue debated on the British broadcasting system was on culture or nationality. Given that the UK was composed of different nationalities, the English nature of the system was increasingly being questioned. As Annan said, "Our society's culture is now multiracial and pluralist. . . . The structure of broadcasting should reflect this variety" (ibid., p. 30 cited in Sparks). Results included the setting up of a Welsh language channel, the Sianel Sianel Pedwar Cymru.

          Despite the attacks on culturalist values, policy-makers continued to defend the British broadcasting set-up. It was most critical of the American set-up which it saw as of low quality and non-values oriented. Protectionism was the byword. And though the state refused to yield to calls for rejection of overseas shows, it strongly commented that the foreign programmes should be of quality, at available price, and designed consciously for the British audience (Ibid Sparks, p. 146).

          The onset of the 1980s saw a general reversal of protectionist policies. Almost all public utilities like telecommunications, gas, electricity, and water were privatized, as well as the nationalized industries of oil, coal, motors and steel. The control over currency was ended. Broadcasting was not spared. The Peacock Committee, the third since Pilkington, was tasked "To assess the effects of the introduction of advertising or sponsorship on the BBC's Home Services" (Peacock Committee, 1986, p. 1 cited in Sparks p. 148). As concurrent with the government’s ideology, the Committee put the BBC in the line of free-market economics. Though the abolishing of the licence was eschewed, it stated that the BBC might have to consider other fund-generating ventures other than the licence fee. This was a departure from the two previous committees in that theoretical models of economics were explicitly utilized (Ibid Sparks).

          The committee proposed a subscription mode on channels. This would serve the purpose of giving consumers what they want while profits could be earned. The Peacock Committee’s report was translated into the 1990 Broadcsasting Act. This centered on the regulation of commercial TV. In here, it was clear that culturalist notions still stayed. It was a clearly a compromise between the economic and cultural as the market was further opened up while stressing the role of television as serving the cultural tastes of the public. The Independent Television Committee (ITC) expressed concern over the quality of programs introduced with the opening up of the market.

          It was in 1995 that debates about the status of the BBC as a public-owned company surfaced. The 1992 Green Paper sparked the debate with its concern over the BBC lagging behind foreign competitors on revenues needed for. The paper stressed BBC’s tasks: "informing the national debate" by the provision of high-quality news and current affairs programs; sustaining a fairly elitist definition of the national culture, particularly through drama productions; carrying out an educational role for the whole of society; and "communicating between the UK and abroad" (BBC, 1992, pp. 19-23). Since then, the debate has grown especially with the launching of the BBC World Wide and since it launched its satellite. To grow, the BBC has to be freed from “the regulatory burden they labour” in order to grow (Andrea Wonfor, Joint Managing Director of Granada Television cited in Maddox 1995, p. 10).

The Government’s Role- At Present

          Increased liberalization and the opening up of markets have seem to decrease the role of the state. In particular, the British state has been on the defensive in its role on the BBC. This would seem to show a new era of non-government involvement in broadcasting.

          However, trends have been on the government side. First, before, the BBC Board of Governors were chosen by the main parties and these men and women were thought to be within the bounds of consensus. This has been changing (Doornaert & Omdal 1989; Greenwood & Welsh 1992). Governments have been putting individuals who were there because of loyalty and not because of their acumen or skill (Barnett & Curry, 1994; O'Malley, 1994). These party soldiers have influenced the directions of the company including its personnel. The company thus, had the tendency to become captive to the whims of whatever incumbent government was. This opens up a lot of avenues for the Opposition to charge the BBC of bias. It is a two-way street however. The Government, through the 1990s and most recently in 2004 became critical of the way BBC reported about the war in Iraq. The suicide of David Kelly called for a legislative inquiry headed by Lord Hutton. The Hutton Report showed how BBC personnel erred on their reporting. This caused the resignation of BBC Chairman Gavyn Davies and made way for Sec. Jowell’s recommendations. The third reason why the government has been encroaching back into broadcasting is the putting up of a censor body, the Broadcasting Standards Council (BSC), though its has not yet involved itself in politics.

The Green Paper- Pros and Cons

          With this backgrounder on the British broadcasting system, we can now proceed to analyzing the arguments behind why or why not a content of the Green Paper-here, specifically abolishing the Board of Governors and replacing it with the BBC Trust and an Executive Board- bodes well for the British people. Is this beneficial for the British people? Sec. Jowell’s proposal can be understood in the light of the recent controversies which occurred between the BBC and the current government. First, the BBC came neutral in reporting about the war. While Blair was explicit in supporting the American invasion of Europe, the BBC kept a neutral, sometimes even critical view of it especially with the involvement of British troops. What drove the wedge between the two was the report of BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan which told of how the government “sexed-up” intelligence materials to justify the invasion of Iraq. This resulted to the suicide of David Kelly, the purported leak from the government and the ensuing Hutton Inquiry which castigated BBC management and Gilligan for the report. This would cause the resignation of top-level BBC officials including the Chair Gavyn Davies, Director General Greg Dyke, and Gilligan himself.

          The proposal to break down the Board of Governors into two distinct bodies, from a functional point of view, may be a wise move. The division of labour would make the two bodies work more effectively. The task of the BBC Trust is to oversee the corporation – with responsibility for the licence fee and for making sure the BBC fulfils its public service obligations. The Executive Board, meanwhile, is responsible for delivering the BBC's services within a framework set by the Trust.

          Indeed, at first glance, the rationale behind the separation seems valid. Division of labor enables each body to concentrate fully on its task/s. While the BBC Trust takes care of the licence fee and for making sure the BBC fulfils its public service obligations, the Executive Board is responsible for delivering the BBC's services within a framework set by the Trust. The main problems here are the issues of independence and influence. Are the two bodies co-equal? If yes, then there is the tendency for the Executive Board not to heed the Trust’s guidelines or even impose upon the latter what framework they would want to work with. Co-equality would mean each body would not easily give up its independence. The Trust is supposed to issue guidelines for the Executive Board to follow. Are there assurances that the latter will heed?

          Structure and accountability are other pertinent matters addressed in the Green Paper. This may be the area of the proposal’s strength. The lack of clarity in the role of the governors has made the BBC very vulnerable to government intervention, as the Hutton Report would show. If the Executive Board is explicitly stated as accountable to the Trust, then there would be no problem. Of course the Executive Board would be accountable to Parliament but this would be again a very different story. A majority government would mean the Trust would be exposed to the predilections of he politicians. A more consensual one would bode well for the company and the public as well. On the downside of it, dividing the governors’ tasks would mean more people. More people would entail an increase in expenses. Thus the plan, without a conscious cost-benefit, may hurt BBC’s finances.

Conclusion

          The BBC is on its crossroads. In 2006, it will have a new Charter. As a precursor to the expected company overhaul, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport last March 2005 has issued a Green Paper detailing some changes on the way BBC will be managed. Though less authoritative than a White Paper, the Green Paper serves as a blueprint to guide future changes.

          Indeed, the BBC has come a long way. From its inception in 1923 to its Chartering in 1927 as a publicly-owned company, to the deregulation of the broadcasting industry in the 1980s, it has been through major changes in British history. It is no wonder why the people in the United Kingdom are proud of this major player in broadcasting, local and international. Controversies, however, have sullied the company’s reputation. Primary are the accusations of bias thrown by both the government and the opposition regarding the treatment of news. Indeed, the rationale behind Sec. Jowell’s Green Paper is that those managing BBC were torn between two quite opposing tasks- managing the business affairs of the company while seeing to it that the interests of the main shareholders- the licence-paying public- are protected.

          The prescription of the Green Paper over the oft-spoken “conflict of interest” in the governing board- giving the two major tasks to two separate bodies- needs further analysis and clarifications. Indeed, dividing labour may look effective. Yet, is it efficient? Too, the Green Paper reads more like the re-phrasing of an essay. The changes seem too shallow, too cosmetic. How sure will it be that the Executive Board will heed the Trust’s guidelines? Due credit, however, should be given to the creators of the green paper. As a start for an overhaul of the BBC, it does not look too bad. The advise is to refine it, including giving the Trust real power over the Executive Board. Politics should not water down the reforms. It should not be about the Whigs or the Tories. It should be improving the BBC to make it more responsible and responsive to its customers- the people of the UK.

References:

Barnett, S., & Curry, A. ( 1994 ). The Battle for the BBC. London: Aurum Press.

BBC Charter Review: The green paper (n.d.) Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS).           http://www.bbccharterreview.org.uk/.

BBC News UK Edition (March 2, 2005).  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3434661.stm

BBC-Wikipedia (n.d.) www.mvlife.com/mv/mvlife_wiki/bb/BBC.html

Doornaert, M., & Omdal, S. E. ( 1989 ). Press freedom under attack in Britain. Brussels, Belgium:           International Federation of Journalists

Greenwood, W., & Welsh, T. ( 1992 ). McNae's essential law for journalists. London: Butterworth

Maddox, B. ( 1995, March 30 ). End to "regulatory burden" on media groups urged. The Financial           Times, p. 10.

O'Malley, T. ( 1994 ). Closedown? The BBC and government broadcasting policy, 1979-92. London:           Pluto Press

Sparks, C. (1995). The survival of the state in British broadcasting. Journal of Communication, vol. 45.