{"id":227,"date":"2010-09-24T08:46:14","date_gmt":"2010-09-24T08:46:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/79.170.44.135\/global-briefing.org\/?p=227"},"modified":"2011-01-21T16:40:44","modified_gmt":"2011-01-21T16:40:44","slug":"the-bbc-expands-its-global-reach","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.global-briefing.org\/2010\/09\/the-bbc-expands-its-global-reach\/","title":{"rendered":"The BBC expands its global reach"},"content":{"rendered":"

A major cultural export, the British Broadcasting Corporation has a loyal following at home and abroad, but as it expands it risks becoming vulnerable to the very commercial pressures it has been courting<\/strong><\/p>\n

The BBC can be a very confusing beast. On the one hand, it puts out its World Service news bulletins \u2013 complete with the familiar \u2018Lilliburlero\u2019 signature tune and its (still) patrician voice tones \u2013 while, on the other, it acts as a ruthless business operator for as much cash as can be extracted from your local broadcaster for commercially-attractive programming like \u2018Top Gear\u2019 or \u2018Dancing with the Stars\u2019. If the BBC is starting to look big that\u2019s because increasingly it is.<\/p>\n

The World Service alone \u2013 funded by grant-in-aid direct from the UK government \u2013 employs over 2,000 people and provides programmes and content across radio, TV, online and even mobile phone networks, in English and 31 other languages. Then there is BBC Worldwide, which is the commercial subsidiary of the UK-based, licencefee- funded public service broadcaster. Worldwide employs nearer 3,000 people, sells finished programmes \u2013 and increasingly programme formats \u2013 and magazines, as well as running 41 TV channels round the world, 29 of them BBC-branded. It has a formats and production unit in Los Angeles and similar outfits in Germany and India (with plans for more) along with significant commercial investments in local independent producers in other territories. It generates in excess of \u00a31 billion of revenues and even has a \u2018Global Brands\u2019 department.<\/p>\n

Behind these is of course the \u2018mother ship\u2019 \u2013 the UK licence-fee-funded public service broadcaster with its 20,000 workers, four national TV networks, a 24-hour news channel, two children\u2019s TV channels, seven countrywide radio stations, national stations for each of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and its extensive network of local radio stations across the whole of the UK. And that\u2019s not to mention its award-winning and hugely comprehensive online news and entertainment service, which includes the market-leading videoon- demand catch-up viewing and listening platform, BBC iPlayer. It all adds up to a substantial operation.<\/p>\n

The BBC\u2019s reach and status as a global media brand is something British governments have always had a soft spot for (and some might say a blind spot) but domestically the sheer scale and scope of the BBC\u2019s operations have been starting to cause problems. Commercial competitors have found long standing arguments about its potential for negative market impact are beginning to get real traction. The recession hasn\u2019t helped, but complaints about the licence-fee- funded BBC \u2013 with no requirement to make commercial returns on its investments \u2013 crowding out would-be commercial operators, and making life difficult for competitors, who must make profits to survive, have been increasingly well received. At least in the policy sphere.<\/p>\n

In fairness, the BBC hasn\u2019t just grown by accident. Successive governments have sought to use the organisation (and the licence fee which funds it) to pursue broader policy goals. The BBC\u2019s move into multichannel digital TV was an agreed policy to help attract British viewers into the digital age. It was a prerequisite for the long-planned digital switchover which would release so much valuable analogue spectrum. But that channel expansion \u2013 from two to at least seven \u2013 while it might have helped people to move from analogue, has certainly left the organisation looking much bigger than before. If you throw in an element of \u2018digital panic\u2019 and the BBC\u2019s fear of losing its salience with audiences in the emerging digital world, you can see how the BBC became vulnerable to the twin charges of being too big and too competitive.<\/p>\n

But however much \u201ctoo big\u201d and \u201ctoo competitive\u201d might worry policy-makers (and infuriate competitors) it doesn\u2019t in itself really impact with most of the public. But two things that have gone hand in hand with the BBC\u2019s digital expansion certainly do \u2013 eye-wateringly high levels of talent and executive salaries. The BBC\u2019s decision to pay chat show host Jonathan Ross an all-time record-busting \u00a318 million over three years did not go down well. Neither did the fact that, in the name of attracting the best management, a string of top executives were taking salaries in the region of \u00a3500,000 a year, with pensions and benefits to match. And when, in the wake of the 2009 MPs\u2019 expenses scandal, it emerged that the BBC had no less than 146 managers being paid more than the Prime Minister, the press had a field day. And this is a press that is now finding itself toe-totoe with the BBC in ways that are entirely new \u2013 with real commercial edge \u2013 as they try to make a living in the converged online space.<\/p>\n

If there is a concern that has resonated with the British public, it is about what might be called the BBC\u2019s moral compass. They want the broadcaster to be competitive on screen and on air and they still really like (and in many cases love) the programmes and services \u2013 at least the ones they personally enjoy \u2013 and even now they still don\u2019t generally really mind paying the licence fee. But they are not quite so sure about the corporation itself: \u201cIs Auntie still, well, Auntie?\u201d they wonder. And this is a key source of potential political vulnerability.<\/p>\n

The vulnerability arises because the BBC\u2019s core asset \u2013 and possibly its most extraordinary characteristic, certainly by international standards \u2013 is its independence from government control. All of the BBC\u2019s journalistic integrity and reputation stem from that key attribute. But when you look at what sustains it you find a series of individually weak, almost filament-thin conventions.<\/p>\n

In recognition of the fact that the BBC should be kept beyond the reach of politicians for as much of the time as possible, the BBC\u2019s Royal Charter is always ten years long and licence fee settlements are a minimum of five. In recent times the BBC has had an effective monopoly on licence fee revenues, which are hypothecated to it, thus avoiding the need for the corporation to compete with other good causes for funding ahead of some other body appointed by government for the purpose. And whilst the BBC is fully subject to the law and its programmes subject to oversight by broadcasting regulator Ofcom, the BBC is otherwise regulated and governed by its own sovereign body \u2013 the BBC Trust.<\/p>\n

But here\u2019s the rub. When there are questions about the moral quality of the BBC\u2019s behaviour, and especially when those begin to resonate with the wider public, any number of obvious-sounding changes to the way the corporation is run and held accountable (for how it spends its \u00a33.4 billion of licence fee cash) run the risk of doing real lasting damage to the core asset: the BBC\u2019s independence.<\/p>\n

It may be that at home and abroad the BBC might have to pull in its commercial horns if it is to retain the affection of audiences that is key to its continued freedom from political intervention and control. If that priceless quality were to be eroded or undermined, it would not just be the British public who were the losers.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A major cultural export, the British Broadcasting Corporation has a loyal following at home and abroad, but as it expands it risks becoming vulnerable to the very commercial pressures it has been courting The BBC can be a very confusing beast. On the one hand, it puts out its World Service news bulletins \u2013 complete […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10673,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[28,33,41,50],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.global-briefing.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.global-briefing.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.global-briefing.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.global-briefing.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10673"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.global-briefing.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=227"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/www.global-briefing.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":229,"href":"https:\/\/www.global-briefing.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227\/revisions\/229"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.global-briefing.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=227"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.global-briefing.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=227"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.global-briefing.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=227"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}