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.

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.