The Role of the BBC

Now a reply to noggin.

RE: GUARANTEEING IMPARTIALITY BY LIMITING CONCENTRATION OF BROADCASTING OWNERSHIP

You're very right about the need to be impartial and to prevent monopolies over the media. But there is a more insidious way that censorship and opinon-manipulation can occur. 60 Minutes on CBS tried to run a documentary that claimed that cigarettes caused cancer about 10 or 15 years ago. You can't image the furore that caused inside CBS once a few advertising clients related to implicated companies started threatening to take their business elsewhere.

Don't take this as an argument against allowing advertisements (or is it advertizements? ) on TV. But do consider this an example of the need for impartial journalists as well as brave network management personnel who arent easily intimidated by people who buy advertising time.

RE: CONFUSION OVER THIS STATEMENT



When I say "this era" I mean the period of BBC-tv and BBC radio before national competition like ITV came along (so, pre-1955).

And what I mean is I think the BBC's monopoly lasted too long. I'm almost certain that, even though there was the Depression to contend with, private companies could have and would have been able to compete with the BBC and provide broadcasting services.

RE: HISTORY OF CHANNEL 4

Thanks for explaining that...I don't know all of the important details. But it still confuses me why British TV is so centrally-planned. Why can't free-market forces determine what gets on the air (within reason)?

I mean it seems, in the 1970s at least, that the BBC and ITV were extremely effective in lobbying the government over the creation of a Channel 4 that wouldn't directly compete with either of them. I'm almost suspicious that, once BBC and ITV realised that neither of them would be allocated that fourth channel, they quitely asked for all sorts of restrictions on what it could do.


RE: WHETHER THE BBC IS MARKETING A PRODUCT OR SERVING AN AUDIENCE

My first reaction was "Oh please, get off your high horse. The BBC are selling goods just like any other vendor."

And after thinking about it for a few minutes, I still think that's true.

Public service provides public goods -- goods that aren't produced because private incentives are insufficient to ensure their reliable production (this is from simple economics).

So let the BBC do what others (ITV, 4, five) will not do. But why does the BBC get to say it is "serving it's audience" when it puts on Star Trek or The Weakest Link, but when ITV puts on Coronation Street or E4 puts on Lapdance Island they are just marketing a product and not serving an audience?


RE: ADVERT REVENUES (AGAIN)

I think it's time to discuss adverts again.

It's been said that the BBC cannot show adverts because, well "it is just the BBC." That's like saying that asians and blacks cannot be treated equally because historically that hasnt been the case. This argument is totally invalid IMHO.

Secondly, the notion that the BBC doesnt play adverts so that the private channels can protect their advert revenues is nonsense as well. Has anyone ever estimated what revenues the BBC would make if it was able to sell the access to its audiences to advertisers? If someone did it would quickly become apparant to them that because someone was watching BBC (and not ITV or another private channel) the BBC was taking away a viewer from a private channel. And, because the value of advertising time is based on the number of viewers who will see the advert, the mere existence of a BBC watched by anyone when programmes are also played on private channels undermines the potential advert revenues that private companies could generate. From this it makes sense to conclude that the way to ensure private companies make good advertising revenues is to ensure that as few people as possible watch the BBC. So the idea that the BBC is doing ITV a favour by not showing adverts doesnt make sense. If BBC wanted to do ITV a favour, it would cease broadcasting or broadcast stuff nobody wanted to watch.

Thirdly, saying that editorial independence is breached when one has an advert is a cop-out. The television station, especially the BBC (which can rely on other sources of funding as well), could refuse to be intimidated by threats from advertisers. But there's an even easier way to do this. Don't run commercials during BBC News or childrens' programmes (only entertainment programs). In fact, you could separate management so that advertisers wouldn't be able to influence the content of BBC News (thereby preserving pristine editorial independence).

So, again, I put the question: why not play adverts on BBC-tv?

ENDING NOTES
This has been another long message...but I hope it furthers the debate.

The BBC is not funded "in perpetuity".

It has a Royal charter renewal process every 10 years or so. This process allows the UK Parliament to decide if it wishes to change the way the BBC is funded, and change what services the BBC provides. The charter also allows Parliament to decide the funding formula (i.e. how much the licence fee - if the licence fee is retained - changes each year)

Between charter renewal periods, any major changes to BBC services are governed by the DCMS (Dept of Culture, Media and Sport)with Parliament being consulted on the major changes.

The advantage of a 10 year renewal is that it insulates the BBC from instantaneous change, and sudden political changes.

I am surprised that the US PBS system is funded annually - surely that makes it far more difficult for it to effectively plan long-term programming (the BBC has made long term programmes that have been 3-5 years in production - charting Doctors and Vets from selection to graduation) if it has no guaranteed revenue stream?

PBS has major finding problems, year after year. IIRC most of their cash comes in from the annual telethons ..!! Hardly a good funding model for the BBC.

And as you say, at any time the political forces in Congress can strive to silence the public voice of NPR and PBS as is documented at -

Media Power & the Right-Wing Assault on Public Broadcasting

<http://www.somewhere.org/NAR/writings/critical/barsamian/main.htm>

I assume that the report was run in full - and the management and editorial staff did not cave in?

This wouldn't be an issue in the BBC - if the story could be substantiated - and was legally watertight - it would run... No questions asked. This is a major benefit of a commercially independent broadcaster. Editorially it is not beholden to advertisers or parent companies.

Yep - but what about the commercial owners of broadcasters. What would happen if there was a story about Disney being involved in something it shouldn't be? Would ABC News feel free to run it?
(This is purely hypothetical - I'm not for a minute suggesting Disney is involved in anything dodgy...)

Hmmm - you have to remember that until 1953 the TV audience in the UK was relatively small.

Although the BBC launched a regular 405 TV service in 1936 - this was from a single transmitter in London - and there were not a huge number of viewers as TVs cost a lot of money, and there were few sets installed in homes.

TV broadcasting ceased from 1939-1948 as a result of the war. (And remember rationing in the UK lasted well after 1945 - Britain took a long time to recover - just as Germany did - and there was not a lot of money and facilities around to mass produce TV receivers). It wasn't until the early 1950s that TV started to spread further across the UK (with new transmitters opening) - and it wasn't until the 1953 Coronation that TV really started to take off. People bought sets specifically to watch the coronation - which was a huge OB for its time. Within 2 years of he Coronation commercial TV had been launched with ITV and the BBC had a strong competitor. Hardly a huge length of time for the Beeb to enjoy a monopoly of a large TV audience...

Radio - I accept - was a different story. However I genuinely believe that there was no real concept of radio being a commercial, market-driven, operation in the UK. It was perceived as a public service - possibly re-inforced by the great public service it served during WWII. (When it totally reconfigured its output to provide entertainment and information on different services - music for workers in factories, decent news for those listening in Europe etc.)



I don't think that the UK has ever believed that market forces provide the best public service. The US (and to a degree the Australian) network broadcast model is certainly widely held to be something to be avoided in the UK. It is often cited as a reason not to follow the model of 3 (now 4) commercial networks with a weak public service bolt on service that seems to comprise the US system. However comparisons like this are not strictly fair - as the US has historically had a longer history of cable, and extra Pay TV channels than the UK, where OTA broadcasting via the main 4 networks has, until fairly recently, been the dominant force.


I'd be interested to know what you based your suspicions on... Sounds like you are just guessing. If you have read any of the books surrounding the history of the launch of C4 - ISTR Jeremy Isaacs who launched the channel wrote a decent early history - I'd be surprised.

You seem to make the assumption that commercial broadcasting is the natural state of things - and that there is a conspiracy in the UK to avoid it? Why?

It is just one of many broadcast models - and has just as many flaws as other models. Why should a money-making broadcast model provide better programmes than a non-profit model? Surely in terms of money-on-screen a non-profit making model, that is not based on paying shareholders dividends, should provide a better viewer service? IN Europe there are many models for broadcast services - some even cross borders (The Franco/German ARTE service for example)

I don't think the BBC had to lobby hard to avoid a 3rd commercial and populist competitor channel launching - I think the use of broadcast spectrum to serve those not then served at all was a stronger force politically.


But they aren't domestically (though BBC Worldwide obviously is when it sells programmes and formats abroad and to domestic repeat channels) The BBC gets paid in the short term whether its shows get watched or not.



But you are using the language of the commercial market to analyse a public service. The BBCs role as an educator (through the Open University, schools broadcasting, wider educational in factual shows) , a cultural supporter (through commissioning new playrights to produce radio drama, new music for Radio 3, supporting orchestras, commissioning new drama for BBC Three etc.), a community service (through BBC local radio) is wider than just producing programmes. The BBCs activities are more than just filling the gaps between adverts on a TV channel - unlike many other commercial broadcasters.

Sure you could split the BBC up into little pieces - and fund each operation differently. However the sum would be far less than the whole - which those looking from outside seem to ignore.

The BBC as an organisation is able to build on its various parts - so that Radio 3 will commission a new piece of music from a composer, it will be performed in public at a BBC Prom concert, possibly by a BBC orchestra, and then broadcast on Radio 3, BBC Two or BBC Four. Similarly a radio comedy series will be commissioned by Radio 4, become popular, then transfer to TV on BBC Three or BBC Two.


Well the BBC created the Weakest Link (or nurtured its creation), and has made a lot of money out of licensing it to other broadcasters. This is massively in the public service interest, as the money raised from the format sales will have not gone to a shareholders payout (as would be the case with a commercial company) but has gone back to make better, or more, programmes for the viewers who funded the development of the format.

The BBC took a risk in developing The Weakest Link - it was one of the first daytime quiz shows to buck the "cosy parlour game" image that C4 had developed over the years. It was nurtured on BBC Two in daytime, before it became popular enough to transfer to BBC One and prime time. It was not an overnight success...

(As for Lapdance Island - you do realise that was a comedy spoof don't you???!!!)

I don't think I have ever said that ITV is not serving its audience when it shows Coronation St. I do believe that ITV is not serving its audience by not showing decent factual programmes though - instead it is chosing to please its advertisers by not taking risks with programmes...



Others differ. Your use of a racial metaphor is pretty unpleasant IMHO.

Why should all broadcasters operate in the same way? Why should TV and Radio always be based on commerce? What is so special about advertising that it is the best way of funding a broadcast service?


Yep - the Peacock report did this during the previous charter renewal process and I believe the Davies report carried out similar (though not identical) research when investigating the BBC digital services.

The BBC currently shows shows that appeal to a higher proportion of the most desirable advertising targets (AB etc) - though they may get lower ratings for these shows than ITV1 and C4. The view was that BBC One would be a very strong advertising prospect, and ITV would be massively damaged as a result.

Is it not a little arrogant to assume that no-one has done this obvious research?


Yep - but it doesn't work like this does it? Current advertising rates are based on the available advert outlets and the number of viewers watching these outlets, not on the total number of available viewers watching all channels. The minute advertising is available on all channels the amount paid per viewer to advertise will drop.

If the BBC suddenly starts carrying adverts, the advertising budgets of UK companies is not suddenly going to double is it? Instead the money that is currently mainly spent on ITV1, C4 and Five TV advertising would be split, with a massive proportion diverted to advertising on BBC One, and a significant amount (presumably similar to C4s current viewer reach) diverted to BBC Two. This would drive the amount ITV1 could charge per ad/per viewer down...

Are you suggesting that suddenly advertising budgets for TV in the UK would double?


It is not the BBCs job to do ITV a favour - however the BBC doesn't remove revenue from ITV by showing popular programmes - instead it spreads the revenue around more effectively.


Historically this doesn't always happen - and cannot be guaranteed. It certainly can't be guaranteed if the BBC was commercially owned - what if the BBC were to air a show critical of its owners?

(Would this happen in the US - would Fox News air a report critical of the performance of another Murdoch company?)

Historically the BBC HAS ensured it is independent of editorial control by third parties. The most prominent example of this was the closure of the BBC World Service Television Arabic service. This was funded in association with a Middle East broadcaster (Orbit TV) When the funding organisation started objecting to the content of some of the BBCs output - and requested a change - the BBC closed the service and pulled out, refusing to be editorially compromised.

Yep - the BBC benefits from other sources of funding - however it doesn't "rely" on them. It will work with co-producers to a certain degree - but there are levels of control it will not cede.

Do you believe that this is in any way practical?

Would this work on the childrens only channels?

How would the finances be organised so that commercial revenue on other BBC outlets was ring-fenced for childrens programmes without regulation?

Do you think an advertiser would think to themselves "Oh! I'm not buying a slot in a news show, therefore I won't worry that that channel is airing reports critical to my company?"

I don't agree - I think that an advertiser would threaten to pull their ads from other areas of the schedule. Short of making BBC News a separate operation entirely (and weakening the BBCs corporate structure as a result) I don't see how you square this.

Because the UK advertising community would not replace the approx £1.6bn/year (not sure how accurate this figure is currently - think it is larger than this now) you would be removing in licence fee revenue. The BBC would be a poorer service, the UK would be a poorer place to live.

Apologies for another long reply.

I thought the £1.6bn was BBC1 alone.

Yep - I think you may be right. I think that the BBC as a whole now a bit over receives over £2bn / year ? (BBC One takes a large proportion of the total fee?)

Not always true Noggin. John Birt cancelled a critical report on British Airways because it criticised his friend who ran the company

Yep - accepted. However personal influence is as likely in either a private or a public broadcaster - at least a public broadcaster is insulated from commercial pressures to a degree.

You make it sound like a bad thing? At the worst it makes PBS apolitical, but it more likely forces PBS to be careful and thorough when taking a political stance.

I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing -- had the BBC done that Lord Hutton wouldn't be quite so busy right now.

To go back to the original question -- the report was eventually run in its entirety after a long-overdue government inquiry into tobacco's predisposal to addiction. However, CBS was literally threatened with being purchased wholesale by Phillip Morris, as PM (at the time) had more than enough money to do so. As a result, CBS made the hard decision of not broadcasting the report.

Incidentally, there was a movie about this whole thing called The Insider with Russel Crowe. So, if you need a movie to rent this weekend, and you haven't seen it, then I highly recommend it.

As to how this affects journalistic credibility, American journalism has crossed the spectrum of everything from biased to neutral, funding or not. For instance, The New York Times , which up until very recently was the most credible newspaper in the U.S. is partially funded by advertising, as is every other major daily newspaper in the country. As far as television news is concerned, take the CBS Evening News for example. They're more likely to show adverts for laxatives and adult diapers because that's apparently who watches network news now --- the aged. And not once have I seen an a story on that programme saying "laxatives cure cancer" or "adult diapers at the height of fashion."

Television news generally hold themselves to higher standards than, say, fashion magazines, that run "complementary copy" to appease advertisers. Media-savvy individuals (such as those who frequent this forum) know when they're being sold. I know when I'm watching a video news release about some "medical breakthrough" or are reading a press release nearly-verbatim in the paper. Such people don't like to be sold to, and therefore will generally find other outlets that tell more of the truth.

So, the facts are this. America would do well to have as well a funded public broadcaster as the BBC. Outlets like Fox News attest to the need for a publicly-funded, unbiased-as-possible news source that's more and better than PBS and NPR. However, if the BBC were to become a commercial organisation, I doubt that their credibility would instantly vanish. I think that since they've had such high standards for years, they would continue to maintain those standards. Having those values would attract high-quality advertisers, and the relationship would be mutually beneficial. Many broadcasters, regardless, have parent companies upon parent companies, so being able to avoid becoming part of an AOL Time Warner Turner NBC Starbucks Viacom McMicrosoft Disney Capitol Cities ABC conglomerate will certainly add to the BBC's credibility.

Of course, this is not a projection. Perhaps the above would be true for about a year, then you'd see a gradual degradation in the quality of programming. It's what happened to Fox, so it's not out of the question for any other broadcaster.

http://homepage.mac.com/robertpalmer/tvforum/sig.gif

It might not. But, then again...it might.

Inspite of influential media being private in the USA, there's been lots of scandal broke by media that (by your reasoning) could have been easily silenced.

For example, the Pentagon Papers were published by The New York Times despite INCREDIBLE political pressure.

And 60 Minutes did do its cigarette thing.

And another CBS programme, called "See It Now" and hosted by the legendary Edward R. Murrow, exposed Senator Joseph McCarthy as a political opportunist in the early 1950s.

The little things might slip through the cracks in America, but the media is far less captive than you might think.



I wonder if the audience would have grown faster if there had been more broadcasting content to choose from?

What's more likely to get you to buy a radio or television: only one major channel, or several of them showing diverse content?

Would you have subscribed to an internet service provider if you could only surf the BBCi webpage?



There are still only 3 major networks; FOX never really established its presence in a consistent way. The only long-running hit programme they have is The Simpsons.

And I still disagree with you about lacking public service. Before CNN the evening/nightly news programmes on the big three networks were among the most-watched television programmes anywhere in the world. Everyone knows who Walter Cronkite is....although not many of you probably know who Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, John Chancellor (all NBC) or Peter Jennings, Frank Reynolds, Howard K. Smith, and Max Robinson (ABC) are. NBC News's "Meet the Press" has been running consistently since 1949 (it began in 1947 but was cancelled briefly). NBC News Today has been on air since 1952 and is the most profitable program (of any genre) on television in the world ($250 million per annum in advert revenues). CBS's "Face the Nation" has been a cheap knock off of Meet the Press for decades. This constitutes a plethora of current affairs broadcasting for the purposes of involving the public in political debate in the USA. I think you're short-selling the American networks too quickly.



I'm not just guessing. You do have to recognise that C4 didn't directly compete with either ITV or the BBC when it was launched. Doesn't it strike you as slightly fishy that it was in no way empowered by its mandate to come even close to stepping on the toes of the powerful BBC and ITV?



Because, like Maggie Thatcher said, "the BBC is full of pinkos and communists who can't wait to turn things over to the Kremlin."

No, seriously, I think that commerical broadcasting results in a more diverse selection of programming. I will admit that commercial broadcasters are slaves to fashion, trends and whatever is "hot" at the moment. But each of them is constantly trying to put their own, unique spin on the general trends so that they can capture as much audience attention as possible. At the very least, if private firms can be kept in a state where they have to compete with each other, the consumer will win in the long run.



That's an excellent question. Let me attempt to explain.

ITV would never take 100 quid from you (or however much the licensing fee is) and use part of it to film skateboarders and waste 30 seconds of air time showing it to you -- however cool it looks on first viewing.

For ITV and other profit-motivated companies, it's all about using ever dollar to maximum effect. The BBC, on the other hand, can sometimes get lost on decadent spending sprees where they overspend on things like image. ITV's celebrity idents are great because they promote both the network and the programmes on which the celebrities appear (it's two adverts in one). Now, when was the last time you saw dancers or a hot air balloon regularly starring in a BBC series?

Don't get me wrong, dancers and balloons are great ideas -- unique really, but British people paid for them. The BBC could have easily had a cheaper ident and everyone could have saved a few pence on their licensing fee.



But it would eventually get its budget reduced if it continued to make bad programming.



I dont begrudge the BBC doing those things...nor would I divide those parts.

But I do think that the BBC does lots of silly things that do not fall into those categories (The Weakest Link is one example, showing American movies in prime time is another, and so is dumbing down BBC1's image to appeal to fickle teenagers, 20-year olds and 30-somethings who havent quite settled down yet).



My point was that The Weakest Link was a risky venture that the BBC shouldn't have been a part of. And saying that it was a good thing because it created money that could go to other public broadcasting initiatives ignores the fact that the BBC could easily have lost a lot of the money it put into developing The Weakest Link had it not been a success.



Yes...yes I do.



Allowing advertising is the best way to generate lots of revenue.

Commerce pervades human existence...nobody ever prospered (even spiritually) by denying or resisting this.

If all broadcasters operated similarly, the broadcasting industry would need less regulation because they would be more equal in terms of their ability to compete for audience attention.



So the "BBC Purists" use this to justify keeping up with a stuffy tradition and the "Pro-ITV Crowd" use this to support their claim for a government assistance grant.

How nice that the two oligopolists can collude to prevent any seriously innovative or radical change to British television .



It might be...but the general mood at the BBC is probably biased towards maintaining the status quo. So why do research that could potentially disrupt that?



Not necessarily.

If one outlet had only half as much advert time during prime time programming they could charge more for it because the large audience they had at that time would be subjected to fewer commercial messages (so the ones they did see would be more clearly remembered).

There are many dimensions on which price differentiation can occur (size of audience, time of day, region, sub-region, duration of commercial, repetition, priority in the event of a time squeeze, etc.).



Yes, a greatly increased "supply of available advertising" would shock the market over the short-run.

But, as prices fell, more and more businesses would demand advertising. New businesses that didn't advertise on TV before might start to do this. Or firms that currently advertise could increase their advertising. For example, more car commercials could occur (even more than at present ).

Over the long-term the extra supply would create an extra demand because, in this case, demand is determined by price-level not by quantity (i.e., your economic reasoning is logically correct, except you proceed in the opposite direction).



Not suddenly, but over time they would change. New advertisers, firms that hadnt advertised on TV before, would likely play the biggest role in expanding the size of this market.

It's really no different that what happened when cars became available to the masses. They were no longer luxury items, "relative price" fell causing more working class people to demand them. Then the infrastructure was installed to support them. And now you have a vastly larger car industry than you did in 1920, say.

Your arguments about economic collapse/market failure seem to think that any attempt to increase the size of a market though structural change would destroy it.

I think that's because you're assuming that peoples' behaviour is fixed and unresponsive. I would aruge that that is not the case.



Sure the BBC does. If it broadcast dead air instead of EastEnders imagine the surge in ratings that ITV would experience!

ITV could then raise the rates for adverts shown during that time, because its ratings were consistently high at that time.



Well, the BBC did show a news clip highly critical of Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell and look how well that turned out .



Likely not. Although NBC News regularly reports on GE (it's parent company) whether the news is good or bad; and it even mentions that it is owned by GE.



Ever hear about "Fund Accounting" ? I think even the British version of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles has something to say about this.

Sources of funds are matched with uses of funds...it's that easy.



Not ever advertising company will make the Ten O'Clock News for doing something evil.



Actually, I think the trend towards centralising BBC News (as it will be in its new Broadcasting House mega-complex) may lead to a sort of segmentation of News either within or beside the other parts of the BBC. But this won't happen for years.



I didnt say anything about scrapping the licensing fee. I think it might as well stay -- public broadcasting should be paid for by the public. I was just wondering if the BBC could handle adverts as well as public funding. It would be much easier for the BBC to create new, blatantly populist channels (like the original plans for BBC THREE) if they were commercially funded.