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 BBC and Wales

There's dissatisfaction with broadcasting in Wales:

"A WOMAN has vowed to fight her case in court after refusing to pay her TV licence as part of a campaign to devolve broadcasting powers to Wales. 

"Heledd Gwyndaf, a former Ysgol Dyffryn Teifi pupil and now chair of Welsh-language campaign group Cymdeithas yr Iaith, is one of three campaigners who are facing court over non-payment of the licence fee. 

"Cymdeithas said that more than 70 people are refusing to pay for their licences as part of the campaign, and that the three are expecting court cases soon."

Specifically regarding the BBC, we find the following on the Cymdeithas yr laith website:

"Language campaigners have expressed concern over BBC bosses’ lack of ambition for their Welsh language services today, saying that a new independent Welsh language provider is needed. 

"The news comes following Radio Cymru’s ‘national conversation’ about how the station should develop over the years to come. Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg has responded by arguing that the fact the corporation has doubled the number of English language stations it broadcasts in Wales since the start of the 90s proves the BBC is not committed to its Welsh language services.

...

"Speaking today Greg Bevan added: “The BBC is institutionally anti-Welsh-language. Having doubled the number of English-language stations they broadcast in Wales, they’re now cutting the hours and budget of the only Welsh-language radio station in the world. For the language to flourish we must demand our own free and independent broadcaster.”

"According to the campaign group: “We can’t trust the BBC to ensure the future of broadcasting in Welsh after it has treated its Welsh language services as second rate for decades. The BBC should release finance … from its coffers to establish new interactive services by new multi-platform providers, free from the BBC’s British straight jacket." 

"In its correspondence to the British Broadcasting Corporation, Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg’s Broadcasting group chair Greg Bevan says: “We are very concerned BBC managers in Wales aren’t doing enough to fight for expanding the corporation’s Welsh language services as they should. We also note that the pattern over recent decades has been to manage decline the Welsh language services, while there’s been a significant investment in English language services."

Comment

Public sector broadcasting in Wales is an interesting and complex aspect of the wider UK picture.  In addition to receiving the same public service broadcasting as everybody else (i.e. the BBC itself and Channel Four, as well as ITV, which has a public service remit), Wales also has its own dedicated Welsh language channel called S4C, which is overseen by the S4C Authority, claimed to be an entirely independent body, though its members seem to be appointed or approved by the BBC Board (presumably with input from government ministers).

Like the BBC, S4C is state-owned and it is almost-entirely funded by the public - 90% of S4C's budget comes from the TV licence, 8% direct from the UK government and only 2% from commercial revenues.  The government is now phasing out its direct contributions, meaning that by 2022, the only public funding source for S4C will be the TV licence.

To be clear, and contrary to what a government minister recently claimed, TV licence revenues are the BBC's.  In point of fact (and point of law), it is the BBC that negotiates the TV licence fee annually with the government (a government minister decides what it shall be and how much of it S4C receives) and it is the BBC that collects the TV licence fee.  In plain speak, the TV licence system belongs to the BBC.  That the BBC contracts-out the task of administration, collection and enforcement of the TV licence to the private sector does not alter the fact.  

We mention all this because the upshot of S4C's financial arrangements and its reliance on the TV licence is that the BBC basically pays for S4C, ergo it would appear the BBC owns S4C de facto, thus - contrary to what is being claimed - the S4C Authority is not independent at all, and S4C is, like the BBC, a state broadcaster, albeit at one remove.  Indeed, further reading on this subject reveals:

(i). The BBC is required to produce Welsh language programming, but screens these via S4C, providing much of the programming output for S4C.  The BBC has done this ever since S4C's establishment in the early 1980s.  Not a lot of people outside Wales or the BBC will know that S4C's most popular programme is a daily Welsh language soap-opera, Pobol y Cwm, which was first broadcast on the BBC in 1974 and is the longest-running soap opera produced by the BBC.

(ii). The BBC and S4C annually negotiate S4C's budget, for which the cost centre appears to be BBC Cymru (BBC Wales).  A complication is that S4C also seems to be consulted by the government during annual TV licence fee settlement and there may be negotiation with S4C over what its annual slice of the TV licence revenues should be, though it's unclear and everything seems to be relatively informal.

We will be investigating S4C further.  It's a rather obscure area of British state broadcasting and we expect most British people are not even aware a channel called S4C exists or have ever watched or know about any of its programmes.  We must admit that until we sat down to write this piece, not one of us had heard of a Welsh-language soap-opera that apparently everybody in Wales (or every Welsh speaker, at any rate) raves about.  We were quite oblivious.

For present purposes, we will observe that this year, the S4C Authority has entered into a memorandum with the BBC which (among other things) supposedly maintains S4C's independence from the state broadcaster (they claim), but allows the BBC to screen S4C programmes through its iPlayer.

The claims of Welsh language activists need to be evaluated against all this.  There are the good points that a Welsh language public sector broadcaster is operating, and the BBC are at least giving it access to its digital platform and continuing with a mandate to produce Welsh language programming.  There is though the bad point that for Welsh speakers who wish to watch television in Welsh, choice seems limited to one channel and the BBC itself is not catering for Welsh speakers or even for wider Welsh culture on its own channels through BBC Wales.  This arguably is a further point that reflects badly on the BBC's monopolistic character.  It should be said that the only private sector Welsh language television stations are a minor satellite children's channel and a local station that broadcasts only to Swansea and which appears to mainly advertise small businesses.

We are very sympathetic to Welsh language provision, especially given that the loyal and patriotic Welsh voted overwhelmingly for Brexit, and it seems that here we have an example of the BBC not fulfilling its public mission to ensure diversity.  In this case, the BBC is failing to fully accommodate an entire indigenous British culture: the Welsh and their beautiful and important language, still widely spoken throughout Wales, and a first language in large parts of north and west Wales.  We wonder how similar complaints from the Moslem community would be addressed?  We suspect Moslems and other non-white cultures, both here and abroad, receive a more favourable reception from the leftist BBC than do the white British, whose national and regional indigenous ways and traditions are being snuffed-out by the BBC's anodyne multi-culture.

As if to underscore this, consider the recent contribution of Evan Davis and BBC Newsnight to discussion of the Welsh language:

"The BBC has said it "regrets" an item on its Newsnight programme that asked whether the Welsh language was a "help or hindrance to the nation". 

"The broadcaster had been urged to apologise after Wednesday's programme.Welsh Language Minister Alun Davies said the BBC had a "cultural problem" in London and a "serious question" needed to be asked. 

"Campaigners want an independent review to look at all BBC content containing a reference to the Welsh language. 

"A BBC spokesman said: "Whilst different perspectives were included in this item on the Welsh language, the discussion of such an important subject would have benefited from more thorough analysis and debate. 

"We regret that, but believe it was important to look at this topic and we will do so again in the future."

That relates to a BBC Newsnight programme broadcast in August 2017.  Sadly, we can't find a clip - we rather suspect a shame-faced BBC have removed it wherever it appeared online, which is a pity.  Embarrassingly for the BBC, the Welsh Language Minister (Welsh Government), Alun Davies, was moved to say this in response:

"They (the BBC) don't understand what the UK is, they don't know what the culture of the UK is and they don't understand Wales. 

"This problem goes beyond Newsnight, last night's Newsnight reflected the problem. But I believe the BBC's problem goes further regarding the BBC in London's editorial values. 

"It's a very serious question for the BBC." 

He added: "Can you imagine the programme asking if the first language of any other group or nation was a hindrance? 

"The tone was as if the Welsh language had to justify its own existence. 

"Newsnight seemed to have no knowledge of the fact that Welsh is the first language of many people in Wales and all those who do speak Welsh also speak English.

And here's a real Welshman on why the language matters to the Welsh:

The problem with the BBC and Wales isn't just the way Wales and its people, language and culture are portrayed (or not, as the case may be).  The Welsh language controversy is also an example of how the BBC stifles creativity and innovation by virtue of its sheer mass and dominant presence, though it has to be said that the responsibility is not just with the BBC.  When the lady-campaigner in the newspaper article (mentioned at the beginning of this piece) says she wants to “devolve” broadcasting to Wales, what she means is that she wants to continue to impose the TV licence on the Welsh people.  Why not instead support a campaign to abolish the BBC and fill the gap in provision with commercial and independent content that caters to Welsh speakers?  This could include content that Welsh speakers, like these campaigners, devise and produce themselves.  Why not?  But then, there's also the question of why they should wait for the BBC to be abolished (or reformed) to do this?  Why is it assumed that services have to be provided for us by a Big Mummy state when everybody has equal and neutral access to digital platforms?  Again, we highlight a little-mentioned difficulty caused by having this massive state conglomerate dominate everything: risk-taking, creativity and initiative have been discouraged.

Here's another, slightly better, example of how the BBC likes to portray the Welsh.  

To the casual observer, the feature seems to have its good points: it seems balanced and well-made.  But it's neither.  It's crap and an example of the BBC's shallow journalism.  Wales (like northern England and Cornwall) is generally always portrayed by the BBC's national journalists as 'run down' and full of problems. This is no doubt well-meaning, if rather patronising - and, we must remember, Wales does have problems - yet it also reflects a London-centric and metropolitan attitude to provincial Britain.  Notice too how Clegg fails to solicit the opinions and views of ordinary working people.  Instead he goes for two extreme demographic groups: older people and the very young (a bunch of Sixth Formers).  There is nothing wrong with seeking the opinions of those groups of course, but they're hardly going to be representative.  Sticking to those groups allows Clegg to portray the simplistic dichotomy that suits his agenda: older prejudiced 'conservative' people on one side of the fence, and younger 'progressive' people on the other.  We don't hear from the people who are actually paying for Newsnight.  We do hear from a rather dim A-level Politics student with spots and a scruffy beard, who one may imagine has never done a day's work in his life, and who dismisses concerns over immigration as 'fear'.  We may ask: fear of what?  If he had any brains, he would ask that too.  Meanwhile, a young lass who looks like she's not even old enough to vote informs us that everybody should be treated equally in the Welsh job market, regardless of where they are from, and foreigners should be allowed to take jobs meant for locals.  We can only wonder if the Welsh people who actually pay for the TV licence think the same.  We wonder, but we don't know, because Nick Clegg doesn't bother interviewing any of them.  The BBC and Mr Clegg want to censor out the native Welsh working class by omission.