The Other 'Public Service Broadcasters': Some Initial Thoughts

In a post-BBC world, we would hope that the whole of broadcasting and the state's involvement in media and information is brought under renewed scrutiny and a new regulatory framework is developed.  As part of such a review, Britain's other 'public service broadcasters' ('PSBs') will need to be looked at - these are Channel Four (main channel only), S4C, Channel 3 (chiefly ITV - main channel only - and also ITN) and Channel 5.

Note: The BBC, itself Britain's premier 'public service broadcaster', [in]famously uses this same expression as its marketing tagline, but for the purposes of this piece we have in mind its more technical meaning.

Here we merely set out some brief and initial thoughts on the subject.  This is very brief, especially with regard to ITV: we will have much more detail to provide at a later point.  Our intention is to more fully flesh out the policy options and our preferences as part of a Green Paper consultation process.  Needless to say, our views here are completely separate from the issue of the BBC.

Channel Four

Channel Four is owned by the state and its content is controversial, but we do not see this as an issue of the same gravity as the BBC because in this case state ownership is only nominal - the channel actually receives its revenues through on-air advertising and other commercial ventures.  However, this does not mean that Channel Four is an entirely commercial operation.  While the state does not actually fund Channel Four in any way, the taxpayer does underwrite the channel and would be responsible in the event of losses or collapse.  (Incidentally, this is a point that those who favour commercialisation, even privatisation, of the BBC may wish to note!). 

It is essential in our view that Channel Four ceases to be publicly-owned, but unlike most people who comment on this issue, we would like to see Channel Four put into social 'not-for-profit' ownership.  We do not favour privatisation proper.  Under what we tentatively propose, Channel Four would be privately-owned, but it would not be profit-making.  Instead, any returns earned by the channel would be reinvested in programming or other acceptable ventures.

Socialisation of Channel Four would align with its ethics and values more completely than privatisation, would contribute to plurality in the broadcasting landscape, and would provide a more suitable outlet for alternative and fringe broadcasting - Channel Four's original mission - than a 'for profit' structure could.  What we also have in mind is that with the closure of the BBC, there would be a need to give the political Left and other radical and alternative movements a major terrestrial broadcasting concession that generally expresses their views, opinions and values.  That in itself is an important public service because it provides a virtual interest community for a sizeable section of the population.  At the same time, strict controls on expansion, diversification and audience share would need to be made explicit (using statutorily-codified corporate articles, if necessary) so as to ensure that the newly-structured and re-purposed Channel Four does not become 'another BBC'.  Of course, insisting on a 'not-for-profit' form for the legal entity would all-but preclude multi-media expansion and cross-ownership anyway, but the desire and wish to stop any such developments would need to be expressed in law and be backed-up by a regulator.

Who would own Channel Four?  We would envisage a broadcasting co-operative of cultural organisations and charities, as well as individuals and companies with a social conscience, and maybe even local authorities and other public bodies.  A useful model for this are socially-aware media enterprises like The Guardian and Private Eye, which are owned by trusts, seek to preserve editorial independence (within the parameters of their own socio-political biasing) and which do not seek to profit.  Interested investors and participants could come forward to take ownership of the channel and commit to providing the relevant public service content.  Bids could be invited or the government could adopt some other method of selecting suitable providers.

Of course if a co-operative could not be formed, some form of privatisation would have to be considered as the fall-back option - though care would need to be taken in that regard to ensure that the channel's sell-off or public flotation is seen to be commercially-viable in light of a failed socialisation initiative.  

S4C

Turning to S4C, the Welsh language channel, this is also a state broadcaster, but its programming and production are closely-tied to the BBC, to the extent that one might say that S4C is now almost-entirely dependent on BBC Wales and the wider BBC for its delivery.  Therefore the prospect of closure of the BBC would raise urgent questions about S4C.  

We would call for a referendum in Wales on whether the channel should be devolved to the Welsh Government or an attempt made to place it into private ownership.  If devolved, then S4C becomes the responsibility entirely of government in Wales and it will be up to the Welsh Government (accountable to the Welsh Assembly) to decide on the precise ownership structure and other arrangements.  If S4C has to be sold, then that is straight-forward enough: essentially it's a case of selling a going concern made up of a brand, programming archive and whatever plant and assets are available.

Alternatively, S4C could be affiliated in some way with a re-structured Channel Four along the same lines and under similar terms as the current S4C-BBC relationship.

ITV (Channel 3)

ITV is Britain's private sector 'public interest broadcaster'.  Although now privately-owned and very successful, this success has come off the back of a series of cynical and regressive corporate agglomerations that began during the 1990s.  These put profit before programming quality and the public mission of the Channel 3 providers.  

Against that background, we believe there is significant justification and scope for regulatory intervention in ITV in order to promote plurality in broadcasting.  If we could draw up the plans, we would make ITV this country's primary PSB and require that it leads a renaissance in regionalised broadcasting.  In short, we want ITV to return to its original mission and revert back to full and meaningful regionalisation and plural ownership and a true 'independent network' along the lines of America's PBS (though more in terms of structure than content).

We would like to see a regulatory structure that encourages this process over a gradual period of maybe 5 to 10 years, with the co-operation of the shareholders and company boards involved - but, if necessary, the regulator should force the issue, and even dictate new regionalised corporate structures.  The regulator should so act with the full moral support and legal and constitutional backing of Parliament.

ITV is perhaps the most challenging of the 'other PSBs' to deal with due to its commercial success and the natural reluctance to tamper with it.  We don't want to interfere with private property rights, and certainly it would not be the intention to injure the interests of shareholders - but we think re-regionalisation is essential, not least to promote a proper free market and real, meaningful choice.  

ITN (Channel 3)

ITN seems to us a success story, but ITN's purpose is to provide a national-remit news service for a commercial ratings-driven television network, thus its production values and news-style need to be somewhat sensationalist. Any damage it does is counteracted by the availability of information nowadays from numerous sources, especially social media.   

Channel 5

Channel 5 is the 'general entertainment channel'.  The bread and circuses option.  We have no outline proposals for this channel at this point.  Channel 5 is a trashy channel that broadcasts mostly rubbish, but that is what it was set up for, and it seems to us that it fulfils its remit.  People do have the right to watch rubbish.  Channel 5 delivers.  There can't be any complaints.

Further Comment

The core purpose of the 'public service broadcasting' concept is not to assure quality and standards, as such, but to provide the different and varied segments of the general audience with a televisual pantheon from which they can select their viewing options according to their own particular tastes and values.  The original idea was that those who want quality and more considered viewing will tune into the two main BBC channels; those who wanted quality entertainment and dramas, and programmes with a strong regional focus, would tune into the independent network; those who wanted programmes that were a bit esoteric or different could choose Channel Four.  With the establishment of a fifth channel during the late 1990s, viewers also had a popular entertainment option.

This 'pantheon' model for the PSB framework is being challenged by the expansion of broadcasting into multiple-channel Freeview and now social and micro-broadcasting platforms on the worldwide web.  These developments show that a pantheon of choice can be provided perfectly well by the free market and even by co-production among consumers themselves.  However, the PSB channels are adapting to the realities of Freeview, digital and online broadcasting, and the state should give them the freedom to continue to do so.  We believe the concept of 'public service broadcasting' should continue with it, but with a shift in meaning that reflects a 'rolling-back' of the state from superintendence (and in the case of the BBC, even interference and control) to minimal framework regulation.  

We would envisage the state's role as ensuring that PSBs together represent and provide a minimal range of choices in broadcasting, so that entirely market-driven changes in provision by non-PSBs do not degrade the minimal assurance of plurality.  This can be managed perfectly well without the BBC.  The end of the BBC would present an opportunity to look again at Channel 3 especially and re-regulate to encourage a renaissance in genuine regional broadcasting.

The Options

Here's a summary of the major options for dealing with the BBC:

1. Keep the status quo

Under this option, the BBC retains its Royal Charter and remains a statutory Corporation, and the TV licence system remains in place.  But this does not necessarily mean the status quo pura.  Perhaps there will be some further cosmetic reforms, as has happened in the past.  Or possibly under a 'status quo' avenue the TV licence could be ended and replaced with funding out of general taxation.  Or the Establishment might double-down and develop a tougher enforcement regime for the TV licence.  We would also include the Labour Party's latest proposals for the BBC (and the wider media) in this category.

2. Marketisation (the 'Status Quo Plus' option)

Under this option, the BBC retains its Royal Charter and remains a statutory Corporation, but the TV licence system is replaced with market-based funding, such as subscriptions or advertising (or a combination of such).

3. Commercialisation 

Under this option, the BBC loses its Royal Charter but remains a statutory Corporation (or a public enterprise on some other legal basis), thus notionally under public ownership (a quite similar situation to Channel Four).  The TV licence is ended.  Presumably funding would be by subscription or advertising, or a combination of these.   

4. Privatisation and re-chartering ('Privatisation-lite')

Under this option, the BBC retains its Royal Charter in some form but is no longer a statutory Corporation, instead one or more public limited companies that people buy shares in.  Presumably under this model a mandatory TV licence fee would no longer be considered necessary, as the new company(ies) would be free to seek private funding in the same way as any other listed concern.  That said, as chartered status is retained, the government would probably establish a commissioning body modelled broadly along the lines of the former BBC Trust.

5. Privatisation and dechartering 

The BBC loses its Royal Charter, which is revoked, and is no longer a statutory Corporation, instead it becomes one or more public limited companies that people buy shares in.  This is a complete break: no TV licence, no superintending bodies beyond those that apply to any other broadcaster.

6. Privatisation and pluralisation 

As with 5 above, this is a complete break: the BBC loses its Royal Charter and is no longer a statutory Corporation, therefore no TV licence and no superintending bodies beyond those that apply to any other broadcaster or media organisation. There is the added change that the BBC's services are 'pluralised', which is to say, split between a number of different businesses that operate independently of each other, taking the neo-liberal Birt reforms to their logical conclusion.  To get a picture of what this could look like, think of the privatisation of railway and train services (the British Rail group) during the 1990s, in which the government set up a private company for running the infrastructure, various operating companies for rolling stock, etc. and lots of train operating companies to run the actual train services.  One difference with a media/broadcasting privatisation and break-up is that, unlike with trains and railways, the new spun-out enterprises could potentially compete with each other, hence the disaster of this model for the trains and railways should not necessarily inauspicious.

7. Abolition 

This is what we want.  Find out why here and here.  Under this option, the BBC's Royal Charter is revoked, the statutory Corporation is dissolved and not replaced with anything else, transmission is ended and the BBC ceases to be a going concern; then, receivers take over management and control of the assets and commence, variously, selling-off and leasing these on the commercial market, etc., as they would with any other business.  Wage, salary and pension entitlements are protected and paid-out in the usual manner according to general law and contract, underpinned by a state guarantee.

To be clear, under this option the BBC ceases to exist.  That means all transmissions end.  That's a very important point because the ensuing receivership must not facilitate a privatisation by the backdoor.  The Corporation must be dissolved, must cease operating on a fixed date, must cease to be a going concern (save to the extent that management have a duty to assist the receivers and civil servants, as necessary), and the Corporation must be brought promptly under the management of government-appointed receivers with a view to complete asset fragmentation and disposal.

Further Comment

We would assume that most people involved with or supporting the BBC would want some version of Option 1, with quite a few favouring Option 2 (which could be seen as the 'Status Quo Plus' option).  That's fairly obvious.

But we also think there will be a sizeable minority within the BBC - maybe forming a majority of its very senior management and among its more shrewd and intelligent supporters - who would quite like the look of Option 3 ('Commercialisation') or Option 4 ('Privatisation-lite').  A commercialised BBC would be freer to seek private investment, while at the same time enjoying the stability and influence of a public enterprise with the 'BBC brand'.  The privatisation-lite option would retain the prestige of the Royal Charter, while allowing considerably greater commercial freedom than a public enterprise could have, albeit within the parameters of whatever commissioning agenda the government saw fit to impose as a condition of continued chartering.  With either option, the TV licence system is gone and much of the more meaningful criticism of the BBC is thereby neutralised. In that situation, the BBC's future is secured and its sinister agenda against this country can be pursued anew with vigour.

The BBC's greatest fear is the option we favour, Abolition - for obvious reasons.  They would also not like the more hardline privatisation options very much, especially if it involves a break-up of the BBC into discrete and competing entities.

Our Mission and Objective

We are the Campaign To Abolish The BBC.  

Our objective:

WE DEMAND THE ABOLITION OF THE BBC.

Most anti-BBC campaigners concentrate on the TV licence.  While we completely understand this approach and we agree that the TV licence system is outrageous, we believe that reforming the BBC's funding will ultimately not be enough. The BBC itself must be abolished.

Why Should The BBC Be Abolished?

The reasons are both political and operational. The BBC is a malignancy in our national life. It is a hotbed of Leftism, and anti-patriotic thought and sentiment, and is openly subversive.  Quite apart from this, there is no longer any need for a state-owned 'public service broadcaster' in Britain (even on a commercial basis).  We now live in the digital age, where there is choice and innovation and even ordinary people can set up their own digital channels on the web and attract thousands of viewers and subscribers. The BBC will reply that, in a pluralistic Information Society where there is a multiplicity of different media, it should remain as a guardian of impartiality, but the BBC is hopelessly biased. The guardian should be the free market that already exists and that can thrive without the BBC monolith.  Parliament should revoke the Charter, dissolve the Corporation, then sell-off its assets to the private sector. Its staff should be expected to seek employment in the commercial world.

Why Anti-TV Licence Campaigns Are Strategically-Flawed

To be clear, we are not suggesting people should continue to pay the TV licence.  Quite the opposite: we endorse civil resistance and we openly support and agree with anybody who refuses to pay it.  Anti-TV licence campaigners, whether avoiders or evaders, have our sympathy and support.  They are persuing an effective tactic that could, if it gains ground, put considerable financial pressure on the BBC.

Our point, however, is that there is a need for an overarching strategy.  We think that without this, campaigns to end the TV licence alone, while perfectly understandable and satisfying in their own way, may ultimately prove to be counter-productive - and may even strengthen the BBC's position in the end.  Those who rest on proposals to end the TV licence system tend to think that commercialising the BBC through advertising or subscription viewing, or a combination of these, will either reform its internal culture or, if not that, then will at least mean that the general public are not forced to fund its output.  They tend to assume that the BBC can, in effect, become another Channel Four: a commercially-operated, nominally-public broadcasting body.  

With due respect, our view is that this is the wrong approach in strategic terms for the following reasons:

1. The BBC needs to be looked upon as an enemy bureaucracy.  It is a base of employment, cultural struggle and moral and financial support, etc., for the Left in Britain, and perhaps always has been.  For that reason alone, it is important that the BBC as an organisation in and of itself is attacked, brought down and destroyed for good, not just reformed.

2. Strategically focusing on the TV licence system is the wrong approach because simply demanding that the BBC reform itself financially puts the initiative with the political and media elites, who can then come up with a new funding model that satisfies those who object to the TV licence system.  The result will most likely be a continuation of the BBC in its present form, possibly even funded out of general taxation.  If that happens, it will be a complete humiliation and defeat for anti-TV licence campaigners as we will all be in a worse position than before; but even if an entirely commercial funding model is found and agreed, the BBC's future will then be assured and all the problems it causes will continue.

3. The example of Channel Four proves that the model of notional public ownership combined with commercial operation will not work. Channel Four is a left-liberal backwater, its output mostly fringe, but it still has some effect on the national culture.  Likewise, the BBC's dangerous tendencies will only continue, even if commercialised.  It is also worth noting that the BBC is already part-commercialised, but that seems to have had no effect on its poisonous culture and ethos.  If the BBC is fully-commercialised and marketised, it will retain its place at the centre of British civic life and as part of the Establishment, and will continue to damage the country and public debate.

4. The vision of a 'commercial BBC' is inherently paradoxical.  A broad-spectrum public service broadcaster cannot also be a commercial broadcaster, as advertising and viewership pressures will ultimately take priority in broadcasting decisions, to the detriment of its putative public mission.  Channel Four only succeeds because it is allowed to cater to a niche audience.  No doubt a Commercial BBC would re-structure and adjust itself to audience capture, which would then raise questions about how it will also fulfill its manifest public mission.  You may ask: Why should this be a problem?  Whatever else they may be, the BBC Board and its executives are politically-adept and will find ways to reconcile the conflicted mission of a 'commercialised' public service broadcaster.  Consequently, a Commercial BBC will potentially be even more powerful and abusive than it is today.  The BBC Board and executives will be able to defend their funding model as entirely commercial, and therefore unassailable, while also using their public status to subvert British life still further. Not that we're suggesting the BBC fulfills its public mission as it is, and it must also be acknowledged that the BBC has pandered to viewer whims for a very long time (the Points of View programme was/is an example of this), but that only reinforces our point that a Commercial BBC posing as a public service broadcaster - with all the dignity and credibility this implies - would be harmful to British public life.