State Broadcaster or Public Sector Broadcaster?

Our critics and opponents – the defenders and stooges of the BBC – have various tricks up their sleeves.  One of them is pedantic word-play in which they draw us into arguments over distinctions which, while of some importance in certain contexts, are of little relevance in the overall scheme of things.  One such distinction is between state media and public sector media.

The BBC’s defenders argue that since the BBC is operationally autonomous (a bit like an English local council or, let’s say, the Bank of England) and not under the direct editorial control of any arm of the state, this means it is not a ‘state broadcaster’, but a public sector broadcaster – or, to use the BBC’s own self-flattering jargon, a ‘public service broadcaster’. 

The reason this point is so important to the BBC and its defenders is because it allows them to claim that the BBC somehow serves the public interest and so abolishing it would leave us without an important public institution and amenity.  A subsidiary reason it matters to them is that it allows them to set up ‘Gotcha!’ moments in debates over the BBC.  Most normal, plain-speaking people are not very well informed about these little distinctions and differences, which means that the BBC and its stooges can easily make critics look ignorant.  It’s still just word-play and settles nothing in terms of the actual questions facing the BBC, but the perception is that the critic doesn’t know the subject and this helps the BBC avoid justified criticism.

The way to combat word-play like this is to look at the reality of the situation. 

We must be clear that the distinction between state broadcasting and public sector broadcasting isn’t terribly important from our point-of-view – we oppose both in Britain and we just call the BBC a state broadcaster, because that is what it is in plain-speaking terms.  But it is a distinction that the BBC’s apologists and defenders like to emphasise, so let’s look into this a bit more closely and see if there’s any substance to it.

Some facts about the BBC’s origins and history and how it operates today:

(i). The BBC (as the then-British Broadcasting Company) was established in the early 1920s as popular radio broadcasting technology began to emerge.  The first BBC was a conglomerate of various interests in the radio and communications industry - so originally, the BBC (or its immediate precursor) was a private enterprise. However the government intervened early on and started meddling in the running of things to allow for ‘remote state control’ of broadcasting (a phrase used at the time).

(ii). The BBC was soon turned into a statutory Corporation by Act of Parliament, and re-named the British Broadcasting Corporation - operating under Royal Charter, and run by government appointees. 

(iii). State editorial control of the BBC has happened recurrently.  The obvious example is during the Second World War.  The Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s 1948 novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, was based on the BBC.  A more recent example is the BBC’s policy on coverage of the Invasion of Iraq in 2003.  The BBC’s senior management wanted to adopt a critical editorial line, and the BBC’s defenders often use this affair as an example of the BBC’s independence – often mentioning the Gilligan Affair - but this was soon put a stop to and in the event, the BBC’s coverage of the Iraq War was bland and conformist.  The truth is that the BBC folded like wet cardboard.

(iv). The BBC has failed to cover other wars in a critical way on numerous occasions.  Another example would be Britain’s military intervention in Libya in 2011, in which the BBC’s coverage was mostly bland and supine.  These examples illustrate the dangers of having a broadcaster under state influence and control.

(v). Today, the senior managerial and executive tiers of the BBC are thoroughly politicised, much like the Senior Civil Service.  The BBC is formally accountable to government ministers for its operations and ministers decide the terms and parameters for the operation of the BBC.  The government awards parts of the BBC grant-aid out of general taxation and even settles the TV licence fee each year.  This political control will inevitably have a broad influence on the BBC's editorial direction, its institutional culture and values, and its editorial narratives concerning key issues and controversies.

(vi). Five members of the BBC Board - its governing body - are appointed by the state, including the chairman and one non-executive member for each of the Nations (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland).  Members of that Board are analogous to shareholders in a limited company, thus state appointees strategically direct the BBC.  It is the case that a majority of the Board are appointed by the BBC itself through its nominations committee, but it would be naive to assume that there is no government influence in these appointments.

(vii). Furthermore, all senior management appointments at the BBC must be approved by government ministers.

(viii). It can be added that the TV licence fee is officially regarded as a tax, and payment is ultimately enforced by the state with the assistance of the police (albeit the police only assist passively), the courts and prisons.

Taking all of the above points together, our position is that the BBC is state-owned and, in its essentials, a state broadcaster.  We’re cutting out the flowery rationalisations and distinctions that are there to trick you and take you round in circles and we’re saying that ultimately it is the state that runs the show.

We furthermore reject assertions that the BBC is either impartial or independent, whether of the government itself or of the wider Establishment.  It is manifestly neither.  While we do not suggest that any arm of the state exercises detailed editorial or other operational control over the BBC, we do assert that public service broadcasting, as defined by the BBC, is largely a fig-leaf concept in Britain and in reality is pretty much non-existent.