A Post-BBC World

Introduction

This piece does not form part of our case for the abolition of the BBC.  It is not strictly necessary that we should prescriptively set out how a post-BBC broadcasting world would work - and it is not our intention to do so.  However, as part of making our case, it may be helpful if we can demonstrate that broadcasting could and should function perfectly well - and better - in a world without the BBC.  In doing so, the starting point is to provide a provisional and rather tentative outline for a post-BBC broadcasting environment and possible regulatory structure.  What we propose here may be subject to change as our ideas develop.

What follows also serves another purpose in that it allows us to explain and communicate our opposition not just to the public sector statism of the BBC, but also the private sector 'pseudo-statism' of large media formations like ITV plc. and the ITV network, the latter of which - as set out here - we would propose should be broken-up into small, distinct and independent regional broadcasting outlets.

Our vision

We value the free market as part of a natural order and as an essential basis of plurality and choice for individuals, families and communities.  We see nothing particularly wrong with the notion that "the world is a business", in the sense that the world is organised broadly along competitive Darwinian lines.  As we see it, that is natural.  What we do take issue with is an adverse feature of capitalism that detracts from and undermines plurality and competitiveness: its tendency towards anti-competitive statism - whether public or private in the formal sense.

The BBC - despite what it claims - is, in effect, a state broadcaster; as such, the BBC dominates media in Britain, and its output is imposed on all of us and affects all of us, whether we like it or not.  This is wrong for a number of reasons - moral and political, as well as relating to broadcasting itself.  One strong objection to it is that, in a free society, the state is meant to serve we, the People, rather than we having to serve the state; and, those in charge of the government machinery should have no role in broadcasting or information - they should answer to us; we should not have to answer to them.

That being the case, the state should be minimal and its interventions in society should be carefully- and judiciously-considered.  Furthermore, the dissemination of information and the diffusion of ideas in a free society should be 'bottom-up' and 'horizontal', not (or not primarily) 'top-down'.  The BBC represents a top-down and rather patrician and patronising type of information and broadcasting provision, and this in turn lends itself to the practice of various abuses, the propagation of biases and the spreading of lies and untruths.

You may think that what we are saying here represents a rather idealistic, even Quixotic, point-of-view on things, but we reject that.  One thing we would ask you to bear in mind and reflect on is how the media environment has radically changed even just in the last few years.  The top-down model represented and institutionalised by the BBC, dating back to the 1920s, is becoming out-dated as people generate their own media content, often with thousands of subscribers, and as alternative and independent media outlets thrive on social platforms.  The BBC will reply that in a plural media environment, they should be maintained as a Platonic institution that guarantees impartiality, but nobody seriously believes the BBC is impartial about anything - nor can it be.  Impartiality is a fool's errand, and anti-bias campaigners are only trying to put pressure on the BBC to show bias towards them rather than their opponents.  Bias and the provenance of facts is a problem, but it's a problem with or without the BBC, and we now have a literate and educated population with a multiplicity of information sources: in that environment, it's surely preferable to allow people to make up their own minds than rely on good faith on the part of a state-owned and state-controlled broadcaster with a long history of institutional bias.

One important reason we oppose reform and improvement of the BBC - including commercialisation - is that any improvement can only serve to strengthen the BBC's grip on media and information in Britain.  The BBC has fulfilled its mission and now needs to be dismantled.  We accept that abolition will be a very sad thing indeed and will come at a price, and we fully acknowledge that there will be problems and issues; but it will also leave open a significant opportunity for other large-scale broadcasters to innovate, and we hope it will mark the beginning of an evolution towards hyper-competitiveness in public broadcasting and media, with new providers entering the scene, and greater freedom in news gathering.

The present regulatory situation

The current regulation of broadcasting in Britain is rather complex and can be summarised as follows:

(i). Broadcasting is regulated by the Office of Communications ('OFCOM).  All broadcasters, including the BBC itself, fall within OFCOM's remit.  The BBC's Operating Licence can be viewed here - it's some 40 pages long.  OFCOM assumes responsibility for content regulation, standards and overall superintendence of the broadcasters' various complaints procedures.

(ii). In addition, the BBC is politically-regulated by the government under the terms of its Royal Charter, which is issued under Crown prerogative.  The current Royal Charter was issued last year, taking effect on 1st. January 2017 following a review of the BBC, and is accompanied by a Framework Agreement between the BBC and the Secretary of State; that Charter expires 11 years later, on 31 December 2027.  The Charter includes provision for regulation of the BBC by OFCOM.

(iii). There is additional regulation of the BBC through Parliament, especially by the Public Accounts Committee concerning the BBC's finances.

(iv). OFCOM polices broadcasting standards through a licensing system.  Each broadcaster is issued with an Operating Licence that is normally renewable every ten years.  All broadcasters must adhere to the Broadcasting Code.

(v). There are numerous public service broadcasters ('PSBs'), each with a distinct public service remit that goes beyond the Broadcasting Code and includes additional duties and responsibilities, known as the 'UK Public Services' of the relevant broadcaster.

(vi). Thus, a short definition of a PSB would be any broadcaster that provides UK Public Services and is regulated by OFCOM for this purpose.  We labour this point because it is important to note that not all OFCOM-regulated channels are PSBs, and furthermore, PSBs are at liberty to - and do - provide services that are not UK Public Services, notwithstanding that all such services are still regulated by OFCOM.

(vii). The BBC, including all its television channels and radio stations, is a PSB in its own right, by virtue of the Royal Charter and the relevant OFCOM Operating Licence.

(viii). There are additionally 21 'commercial' PSBs broadcasting from five different channels, as follows:

-The main channel only of ITV on Channel 3, a national breakfast TV concession operator, all ITN output and all the output of the fifteen regional licensees who all also broadcast from Channel 3.  To be clear, any other channels operated by ITV plc. itself are not PSBs.  For further clarity, we should also point out that ITV plc. is not the same as the ITV network (a group of regional and national broadcasters, each individually licensed by OFCOM).  The point is not terribly important for present purposes, but for now we will just say that ITV plc. is owned by the various member broadcasters of the ITV network, and ITV plc. itself operates various non-PSB digital channels.

-The main channel of Channel Four, which broadcasts from Channel 4 in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and from Channel 7 in Wales.  Channel Four's other channels (e.g. More4) are strictly not PSBs.

-S4C, a Welsh-language TV channel, which broadcasts from Channel 4 in Wales only.

-Channel 5, which broadcasts from Channel 5.

All other channels that are seen on Freeview and satellite are not PSBs.  Freeview channels are terrestrial and are therefore by definition classed as domestic, come within the ambit of OFCOM, and must have an Operating Licence.  There are also numerous domestic non-terrestrial broadcasters that need not command much of our attention here.  It is possible that some satellite channels that do not operate terrestrially and are not otherwise based in Britain may not need to seek an Operating Licence from OFCOM, notwithstanding that they may broadcast here, but that is a very technical subject and in any case we don't need to go into it here.

What we propose for the BBC

We believe that the BBC should be abolished and shut down completely.  To that end, we propose the following:

- all BBC transmissions, radio and television, to cease on a specific date and at a specified time to be decided by Parliament;

- the shutdown and closure of all BBC operations;

- revocation of the Royal Charter under which the BBC operates as a so-called 'public service broadcaster'.  This can be done by a government minister (under Crown prerogative), with approval by Parliament.  (On a separate but related note, and for the avoidance of doubt, the BBC's Operating Licence would terminate by operation of law once shutdown takes effect);

- dissolution of the statutory Corporation (this requires an Act of Parliament);

- receivership, break-up and sale on the commercial market of all the BBC's assets;

- the proceeds of this sale to be placed under the custodianship of a legacy trust (two government ministers as the trustees, and administered by civil servants), which will meet all continuing contractual, statutory and legal obligations whatsoever of the BBC (including commercial debts, redundancy payments, pension commitments and so on);

- for the avoidance of doubt, abolition of the TV licence in Britain (each of the Crown Dependencies, where the TV licence also applies, would make their own decisions according to local circumstances);

- the refund of TV licence money to licence payers through time-limited claims at branches of the Post Office (and perhaps other government-approved outlets); and,

- any surplus from the legacy trust to be paid annually to support community-based broadcasting and other non-state media initiatives that Parliament may wish to assist.

Outline of a post-BBC world

1. The broadcasters

General approach

Without the BBC, we believe there is scope for greater choice, competition and innovation in broadcasting, but further reforms will be required to derive maximum benefit from the opportunities that a post-BBC world will open up.  

Instead of treating broadcasters as members of some sort of quality hierarchy, we favour an ecological model in which each broadcaster is valued for their own contribution as part of an overall symbiosis, and each has its own evolutionary trajectory to pursue according to a designated thematic role.  Channel 5, for instance, will never become an ITV and shouldn't.  It should instead be expected to develop its own distinctive flavour of programming that caters to a popular taste - an important part of an overall picture of choice and plurality.  

We are also averse to 'content policing' and regulatory micro-managing because it harms choice and erodes viewer autonomy.  We would abolish the various broadcasting codes, and in contrast to present arrangements, we would ask channel operators to agree on their own voluntary broadcasting codes; their content would otherwise be subject to general criminal and civil law.  If Channel 4 or Channel 5 were to seek to emulate others in their programming in the interests of some sort of snobbery or under pressure from conservative 'taste and decent' campaigners, they would lose their distinct identities and important segments of the viewing audience would lose their preferred television options.  Some people like watching sensationalist news, action films and 'adult' programmes, or want to watch socially-concerned news and current affairs programmes.  These tastes should be respected.  Conversely, those who do not like that type of broadcasting should not have it imposed on them by a state-owned broadcaster paid-for by tax under the threat of imprisonment.  They should instead be offered their own choices in the pantheon, with the assurance that the relevant channel operators are privately-owned and respond to the market.

The PSB Pantheon

In the case of the PSBs, we see them as a 'pantheon', each catering to a particular audience type or broad taste in viewing.  This helps to guard against market failures in Freeview and satellite; where providers may not be able to viably provide certain types of programmes, there would remain a core of channels that, together, can cater to as broad a range of tastes as possible.

Channel 3

We would break-up, re-regionalise and pluralise ITV so that the fifteen regional operators become truly independent again and the network becomes a confederacy along broadly similar lines to America's PBS network, with regional mainline programming as the majority of the output and competitive commissioning between regions for some peak time viewing.  This re-structuring would not be immediate, but would take place over perhaps a period of 5 to 10 years.  Among the measures needed, we would insist that each regional operator is the major provider of Channel 3 programming in its region, and (so far as possible) operated inimitably to that specific region.  We would ban cross-ownership and cross-control, and would also enact laws preventing major shareholders from taking significant equity stakes in more than one regional operator, whether directly or through proxies.

In addition to this, we would allow the separate regional broadcasters to pool their resources into national broadcasting to enable them to compete for elite sports events and top-rated films, etc.  We would also allow the regional broadcasters to appoint a Director of Vision and Innovation at the national level, to ensure there is a joint strategy and collaboration where appropriate - enabling the regional networks to effectively compete with other commercial channels.

We would propose that the national breakfast concession -currently Good Morning Britain - should be sold by ITV plc. to an independent provider.

We do not propose any significant changes to the arrangements for the national news concession, ITN.

Channel 4

Channel Four is owned by the state but the channel 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.

It is essential in our view that Channel Four ceases to be publicly-owned, but we would like to see it put into social 'not-for-profit' ownership.  Under that arrangement, 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 (more on which in section 3 below).

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

S4C is the Welsh language channel, funded out of the TV licence.  The channel is state-owned and governed and operated by the S4C Authority, a state-appointed body - thus quite similar to the BBC itself.  Under the terms of a partnership agreement, this channel largely relies on BBC Wales, and other sections of the BBC, for production of its programmes and for programming innovation.  That being the case, obviously should the abolition of the BBC ever become a realistic prospect, there will also be urgent questions about S4C's future.  There are already ripe doubts about S4C's viability, due to the marginalisation of the Welsh language in Wales itself.  

In regard to S4C, we would propose a referendum in Wales which would offer two options, either:

-responsibility for S4C should be devolved to the Welsh Government as a public sector broadcaster, on the proviso that, first, the new public sector entity must be formed as a company limited by guarantee and subject to restrictions to protect competition and (to be on the safe side) prevent market dominance (for example, all broadcasts must be in Welsh).  Furthermore, any funding model to be decided in Wales must be commercial: there must be no imposition of a tax on the Welsh people to pay for S4C; 
OR,
-an attempt should be made to privatise S4C as a commercial PSB with Welsh language commitments, failing which it is closed-down and subjected to an asset-sale.

Other specialist PSB channels

BBC Alba

We would also offer a plebiscite in Scotland in regard to the future of BBC Alba.  The question to be posed to the electorate would be along the same lines as that which we propose for S4C, with analogous solutions.

Again, if the Scottish people vote for devolved public sector broadcasting, there must be advanced notice of certain provisos that the UK government needs to insist on.  The new entity must be limited by guarantee and subject to restrictions that protect plurality and competition and guard against dominance.  This will include, among other things, that all broadcasts are to be in Gaelic.  These measures will also protect, not just the Scottish people, but the British people as a whole from the prospect of the BBC being resurrected by the back-door.  There must be no imposition of a tax on the Scottish people to fund a Gaelic language channel - the UK government should add that proviso to protect the Scottish people themselves from the imposition of a bullying funding mechanism by bossy politicians in Edinburgh.

BBC Parliament

BBC Parliament's operations should be brought in-house as 'Parliament.TV' or something similar.  Parliament will be free to contract-out the operation of this channel to the private sector, if it likes, and assuming a private provider can find a commercial market for such coverage.  Coverage of the devolved parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would become the responsibility of those bodies themselves, as should be the case anyway, and it will be up to them to decide whether, what and how such coverage continues.

2. What about Channels 1 and 2?

Channel 1 

With the downfall of the BBC, there will be a space for a new top-line provider on Channel 1.  We would propose an open competition for a general purpose, ad-free, subscription-based commercial broadcaster, to provide (among other things) more of a national focus than the ITV network, more mainstream appeal than Channel Four, and a considerably higher quality output than Channel 5.

Couldn't the BBC itself adapt into a commercial 'Channel One'?

The new Channel 1 operation would not be a reinvention of the BBC. What we have in mind is an entirely privately-owned broadcaster, which is unchartered and has no relationship or connection whatsoever with the state beyond that is licensed to provide one main channel for PSB purposes through a completely commercialised operation.  Furthermore, the channel operators would submit to restrictions on market share and expansion (as set out in the section on Regulation below).  That is a completely different basis to the BBC's organisation, which if it were commercialised in some way, would structurally, institutionally and culturally be completely unable to adapt to what we propose.  Nor can all of the problems of the BBC - outlined at length on this site - be resolved through reform and adaptation.

Channel 2

There would also be room for one or more new Channel 2 providers.  Initially we would propose a new operation modelled broadly on America's C-SPAN, to be underwritten and funded by the commercial PSBs (including the new Channel One operator, when established) as a condition of their operating terms.  They would also nominally own the operation as a company limited by guarantee and would appoint a board of directors from the commercial world, though the relevant company articles would assure complete editorial independence for Channel Two's management and journalists.

The output of Channel 2 would 

- present and expound on high culture (classical music, opera, fine art, literature, classical civilisation, ancient history, etc.);
- provide a considered, fact-based news service; and,
- fill any other cultural and social gaps in the output of the commercial PSBs and Freeview channels.

There is the question of whether funding from the commercial PSBs should be set-off by commercial advertising or some sort of subscription model, or the whole operation should simply rely on the PSBs' subsidy.  Our view would be that this should be a decision for the commercial PSBs themselves, albeit respecting the editorial independence of the Channel 2 operator itself, as they are best-placed to decide on an appropriate method of funding.  The proviso that any returns earned by the channel would have to be re-invested in programming rather than considered profit.

A point to add is that if Channel 2 does end up not being directly funded by PSBs, one objection to this could be that it amounts to a disguised hypothecated tax - a TV licence by another name, the cost passed on to commercial PSB viewers.  The government can address this situation by offering tax incentives and exemptions to the PSBs in return for their goodwill, and by pointing out to the public that PSBs are at all times free to commercialise Channel 2's funding model in any way they choose.

3. Regulation

3.1. General principles

Our basic position is that the state should have no involvement in broadcasting, press, media and information: the media industry.  This is for moral, aesthetic and political-economic reasons.  In short, the state needs to get out of the way, but we are not suggesting that the state should be out of the picture completely.  The state does have a minimal role to play in overseeing public service broadcasters (PSBs), in a system we would call 'structural and framework regulation' ('SFR').

3.2. Structural and framework regulation

The purpose of SFR would be to:

(a). assure a free market and competition on the part of PSBs;
(b). pursuant to (a) above, among other things, oversee channel changes and the gradual re-structuring of ITV, and to take action where necessary to encourage PSBs to fill gaps in specialist broadcasting by the wider market (Freeview and satellite providers), and break-up PSB-led corporate groups and broadcasting operations that become overly-dominant;
(c). superintend self-regulation by PSBs and monitor the complaints processes of operators;
(d). monitor the compliance of PSBs with their public service remits;
(e). provide a mechanism for state intervention when free markets and competition are threatened;
(f). provide agreed protocols for emergency state intervention and editorial control under the state's civil contingencies.

SFR would not concern itself with:

(g). the quality or content of PSB output (beyond the broadest considerations of whether a PSB is generally fulfilling its public service remit);
(h). the business strategy or operational and business affairs of PSBs and other commercial matters; and,
(i). whether the agreed basic standards of a free, plural and democratic society are being met by PSBs.

In short, SFR would focus in the main on maintaining a free market, as that is the key to desirable outcomes, and would not be about meddling in the detailed business of PSBs or the content of their output.

SFR would be enforced through a licensing system.  There would be a de minimis rule so that  smaller and subsidiary media entities and other low-level providers affiliated with PSBs in some way, such as bloggers, independent content creators and citizen-journalists and so on, can be exempt from the strict scope of licensing and regulation.

3.3. Organisation of SFR

We would propose to end OFCOM's role in broadcasting.  Instead, the functions of SFR would be split between, one the one hand, one or more self-regulatory bodies set up by the PSBs themselves, and on the other, a government operation ('the SFR Authority'), whose personnel could be drawn from one or more government agencies or departments (though the government could contract-out to the consulting industry).

The self-regulatory bodies would focus on overseeing the different complaints processes and any industry codes and best practice they decide to agree on between themselves.

The role of the SFR Authority would be to:

3.3.1. monitor compliance with the terms of the Operating Licenses;
3.3.2. refer to the relevant government minister whenever a breach occurs or seems likely to occur.

3.4. Operating Licences

Operating Licenses would contain three main elements:

3.4.1. Thematic scope of UK Public Services.
3.4.2. Commitment to media plurality and competition.
3.4.3. Commitment to free speech and free expression.
3.4.4. A funding commitment to establish and run an independent Channel 2 operator.

In the case of 3.4.1., PSBs will not enter into particular or detailed commitments, as at present.  Instead, the Operating Licence will set out the thematic scope of the relevant UK Public Services.  These could roughly take the form of the following:

Channel 1: high-quality general programming; elite sports events; top-rated films; serious journalism, news and current affairs.
Channel 2: high culture and fact-driven news; in addition, filling market gaps in specialist broadcasting elsewhere.
Channel 3: general programming with a regional focus; national broadcasts of top-rated films, elite sports, news and current affairs.
Channel 4: alternative, radical and fringe coverage of culture and challenging social issues; socially-concerned current affairs programmes, in-depth news, investigative journalism.
Channel 5: popular entertainment, action movies, tabloid-style news, 'adult'-themed programming.

This is intended to be thematic rather than prescriptive.  PSBs will essentially be able to broadcast what they like, but must endeavour to fulfill their own thematic role in the 'PSB Pantheon', as this contributes to a wider picture of choice and plurality.  There will be an agreement with each PSB that the SFR Authority will monitor output annually in partnership with the PSB Operators themselves, collectively and individually.  As part of this, the SFA Authority will give evaluation and feedback on the thematic scope of each Operator's offering in a published report that the relevant government minister will also make available to Parliament.  The report will conclude with comments on what, if any, remedial action both the PSB Operator and the SFR Authority have agreed to take to improve compliance with the thematic remit of that Operator and the 'PSB Pantheon' as a whole.

In the case of 3.4.2, Operating Licences would include restrictions on:

- cross-media ownership and diversification;
- expansion of channels;
- foreign ownership; and,
- audience share.

These will be designed and intended to prevent any one PSB gaining a dominant or super-dominant position in the media environment as a whole, the requirements obviously depending on the particular operator.  There would be scope for condonable breaches of market-related restrictions, either because they are minor, inconsequential or trivial; even when a breach is serious or non-trivial, this may be treated as condonable if legitimate business factors affect the observance of the restriction: the test must always be whether a breach harms plurality, competition and choice.  Parliament would decide whether a significant breach should be treated as actionable by the SFA Authority.

In the case of 3.4.3, Operating Licenses will include a requirement that the PSB Operator should allow a prominent Right of Reply to any person (individual or body corporate) criticised or mentioned adversely in broadcasts or other output.

We have already mentioned Channel 2 in an earlier section.

3.5. Powers of the SFA Authority

The SFA Authority would have the power to:

- grant and renew Operating Licences, to be signed-off by a government minister;
- issue PSB operators with compliance notices and stop notices, as appropriate;
- act as an anti-monopoly authority in requiring overly-dominant regulated operators to sell or lease or otherwise dispose of facilities, businesses or other assets in order to conform with Operating Licence terms;
- withdraw any Operating Licence on notice, subject to approval by Parliament;
- terminate any Operating Licence without notice under specific circumstances, subject to authorisation by a government minister;
- vary any Operating Licence, subject to approval by Parliament;
- intervene in any licensed operator and exercise directorial, editorial or other operational control, but only under specified circumstances relating to civil contingencies, only temporarily, and only with the prior approval of Parliament;
- suspend an Operating Licence on any terms it decides, subject to approval by Parliament; and,
- call-in a decision of any public authority (other than a judicial authority) that concerns a regulated operator.

The SFA Authority would not be able to require that a non-regulated operator becomes licensed and regulated without a special Act of Parliament.

3.6. Isn't this statism?

No, for the following reasons;

-this regulation would only apply to PSBs and therefore never apply to the vast majority of media. Among those excluded would be digital and satellite broadcasters (including the output of PSBs through these means), bloggers and social media platforms, independent content creators, etc.;

-each PSB would be a privately-owned and commercially-operated entity, standing or falling on its own efforts;

-Channel 2's PSB funding could be commercialised by PSBs at any time, and PSBs underwrite the channel operator;

-the regulator would not intervene in content or exercise control over PSBs or other media outlets (other than in obvious emergency situations such as nuclear attack, etc.);

-the regulator would act, and if necessary intervene, to prevent over-dominance or inappropriate diversification by any one PSB, ensuring that no PSB can develop into a super-dominant state-like entity as some large private media corporations in other countries do;

-the state would not own any broadcaster or other media operation;

-most of the everyday regulation would be administered by one or more self-regulatory bodies run by the PSBs themselves.

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.

Non-Payment Is A Tactic, Not A Strategy

The clip is valuable for the information and perspective it offers, and we must credit the BBC with allowing such a debate on its own airtime.  Nick Ross is quite knowledgeable and articulate on the subject.  He argues against the TV licence, calling it "anachronistic", "increasingly archaic" and heading for redundancy, and assumes that the BBC want to keep it.

Ross is right on the first point (with the caveat that the TV licence is already redundant), but we think he is wrong on the latter point – the BBC’s senior management want to get rid of the TV licence, if anything more than the non-payers and protesters/campaigners do.  They are not afraid of competition.  Why would they be?  They have eight decades of public investment in a world-class brand behind them and (generally-speaking) world-class journalistic and broadcasting talent at their immediate disposal.  Really, the idea that the BBC is afraid to lose the TV licence is completely ridiculous.  Commercialisation?  Subscriptions? Privatisation?  These don't scare the top people at the BBC, whatever they may say in their press releases.  There is no lack of vision and no "risk aversion".

The real reason we still have the TV licence is, oddly enough, down to politics: it gives the government political control over the BBC, without the downside of accountability and answerability for its output that there would be if the BBC were funded out of general taxation.  That, in one sentence, is what this is all about.  The BBC is, properly-understood, a state broadcaster, and the TV licence is the perfect arrangement for politicians. 

The solution is abolition and closure of the BBC for good.  Anything less plays into their hands and will just leave us stuck with a hybrid Channel Four/LBC-style left-wing media conglomerate with a super-dominant market position.  In that scenario, the BBC will go on forever. 

Bring down the BBC by not paying for your licence?  We can almost hear the laughter at Broadcasting House.  “Go ahead!” will be the response.  Myoptic personal tactics like non-payment are fine as far as they go, but not enough.  On its own, that will drag us into a scenario similar to Australia, which ended its TV licence, only to continue with state broadcasting but funded out of general taxation - a much worse system.  Or it will lead to commercialisation, which will put the BBC in an unassailable position, free to continue with its campaign to undermine and destroy Britain under the guise of a prestigious brand with a "public service remit".

We need a political strategy for complete abolition, and it needs to start now, not 10 or 15 years down the line – otherwise the end of the BBC will be like Brexit: another stitch-up.  As Ross says in the clip, the private sector providers, ITV and Channel Four, are quite able to fulfil the necessary public service obligations, so far as they are commercially practicable.  We have no need for the BBC.  It has completed its mission and should now be dismantled.

It's Public, Until It's Not

The good thing about a campaign for abolition is that it figuratively separates the men from the boys on both sides of the debate about the BBC.  It’s odd that nobody has ever before campaigned explicitly for abolition and closure of the BBC.  We are the very first, and while we have received strong support from some, and equally strong opposition from others, there are large numbers on both sides who have been left confused by the concept of abolition.  Some anti-TV licence campaigners actually are in the BBC’s corner and, unable to support us, they will be exposed as wolves in sheep’s clothing.  Conversely, many defenders of the BBC will be faced with a difficult choice. 

If the BBC really is a public body and a public service broadcaster, then surely we, the public, should be able to decide to abolish it when we have no further need for it.  Yes?  From that perspective, abolition of the BBC would be the culmination of its mission.  Having fulfilled what it set out to do, and having no further useful function in society, it can be abolished.  As such, its assets must be realised and returned to we, the public.  Rather than allow the private sector to take over and benefit from 90 years (and counting) of public investment, we should have it placed into receivership and its assets (equipment, film archives, buildings, vehicles, etc.) broken-up and sold.  Its buildings can be sold or leased on the commercial market or to residential developers.  Its vehicles can be flogged to fleet owners.  Its back catalogue of ‘excellent programming’ can be sold to one or more other broadcasting companies, many of whom should be delighted to have rights to the archive.  And so on.

At this point, the BBC’s stooges protest that the BBC must go on!  Instead of returning the BBC’s assets to the public - where they belong, assuming the BBC is what they claim it is - they proceed paradoxically to say that the BBC can be commercialised or privatised, despite its functional redundancy.  Thus, the meaningless of all the ‘public service broadcaster’ fig-leaf hogwash is exposed, and the consistency that would require these people to side with us and call for abolition is abandoned.  As long as it suits them, they tell us the BBC is in the public service, and when it doesn’t suit them, it’s suddenly not a public service broadcaster after all.  The attachment is not to values and principles, but to an organisation that provides employment and support in a cultural struggle by the Left against the rest of the country.  This explains why the BBC, itself an anomaly in an era of digital technology, still stumbles on.  There are too many vested interests in it to face up to reality.  Instead, they will happily allow the BBC to transmogrify into the even deeper sham form of a private sector 'public service broadcaster' - despite the fact we already have a plethora of them already: mainly the ITV network.

The inexorable logic is for abolition, and a successful campaign for abolition is an essential chess move by those of us who genuinely oppose the BBC.  The BBC is the enemy and must be closed down for good.  Anything less plays into their hands.

Weasel Words of the BBC's defenders

The Left have gone through seventy-three years (and counting) of selective pressures that have brought them to the top of Britain's Establishment.  That means they are clever.  Many of them have high verbal intelligence especially.

Among the weasel formulations they use to give the BBC sentimental and emotional pull with the public are the following, all of which have been put to us:

"The BBC is the national broadcaster"

The BBC is a state broadcaster.  The difference is crucial.  The BBC is not this fluffy, harmless broadcasting organisation loved by the nation.  The BBC is owned by the state.  Furthermore, many of its directing Board are government appointees, its senior management appointments are approved by government ministers, the government sets its terms and the government settles the TV licence fee and awards it grant aid out of general taxation.  It is conceded that the BBC operates largely autonomously and has editorial independence, but political control of the BBC is undeniable and ineluctably leads to the government setting the political tone at the BBC and influencing its institutional culture and values.  Furthermore, there is a long and disreputable record of editorial interference and meddling from governments at key moments in history.

The BBC is a state body that is imposed on us and those who resist are bullied.  The funding of the BBC is ultimately enforced by the state - with the threat of court summonses and prison as the final sanctions.  No other broadcaster imposes itself on the public in this way.  If we decide we don't like Sky, we simply don't watch it, settle up our bill and we need have nothing further to do with that broadcaster.  If we decide we don't like the BBC, we must still fund it anyway, or ultimately face imprisonment.  That is outrageous.

"The BBC has nothing to do with the state.  It's a public service broadcaster"

This is the weasel formulation used by the BBC themselves.  Notice the fluffy, nice-sounding phrase, 'public service broadcaster'.  It's intended to trick you into not examining the true reality of the BBC, which we have already outlined.  These dishonest people want you to think that the state's ownership and control of the BBC are only notional, when the reality is a little bit more complex.  It is also intended to deter you from thinking any further about the matter.  For instance, you may wish to consider exactly what this phrase 'public service broadcasting' really means.

As we have explained elsewhere, if public service broadcasting means being impartial, balanced, diverse and upholding the highest production standards, etc., we have seen nothing to tell us that only the BBC can do those things, if it can do them at all, or that any decent commercial broadcaster cannot uphold such values to the extent that they are practicable.  In short, public service broadcasting is not the exclusive province of the public sector and the BBC is hardly doing a good job in what is supposedly its own specialist field.

The truth is that the BBC is flawed.  We think it should be abolished.

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.