According to a new report from the Centre for Policy Studies, the politically independent think tank, the BBC is trying to be too many things to too many people, resulting in spreading its resources across too many TV and radio channels.
The report, entitled “How to Save the BBC” was authored by Sir Anthony Jay, the co-writer of the popular “Yes Minister” and “Yes Prime Minister” television series.
In it, he argues that the BBC is wasting much of the £4bn it takes each year from licence payers by funding the production and broadcasting of programmes that people either don’t want to watch, can already watch elsewhere (eg on satellite, freeview or cable TV) or are simply very bad quality.
The inherent irony, he reminds us, is that anyone who refuses to pay their licence fee can currently be fined or even sent to prison. Given the pace of development of alternative channels - and especially of programming delivered via PCs - he also argues that the licence fee itself will probably become impossible to either justify or enforce within 10-20 years.
So what future path should the BBC follow? The report suggests that moving immediately to a subscription and advertising-based BBC would both fail to raise the current level of funding and also impact negatively on other commercial broadcasters.
The answer lies instead, he argues, in re-examining some of the fundamental assumptions that currently underpin what the BBC does. Specifically, does it need to provide as many TV and radio channels as at present? He suggests not. Local radio, digital TV channels, educational television and Radio 1, 2 and 3 are just some of the examples that he places under a microscope in respect of justifying their expense as an appropriate use of licence payers’ money in the light of similar services provided by other broadcasters.
The solution, he feels, is to turn the whole thing on its head and remodel the BBC from the ground up - a “zero-based reconstruction” - to redefine the role of a modern day public service broadcaster.
Perhaps more to underline the basis of his argument than with any realistic expectation of a literal implementation, he talks about starting with a single TV channel and a single radio channel, both broadcast nationally and using material sourced in the UK. Whilst self-acknowledged as simplistic, his illustrative figures show that massive cost savings could be achieved.
The BBC needs, he says, to make two main, basic changes.
The first is a “spiritual conversion”, through which the BBC needs to shed grandiose perceptions of itself as, for example, “the world’s greatest broadcasting service” and “a cultural beacon” and instead measure itself by the quality of programme production - including by focusing greater attention on viewer ratings.
The second is to reduce its scope of broadcasting activity to focus on, as a minimum, one television channel and one spoken radio channel. (As the BBC’s World Service is funded by the Government, this is excluded from the scope of his recommendations).
Jay is confident that a refocused BBC would be able to produce a reduced output of high quality programmes for a much lower annual cost if it followed his suggested strategy.
He also feels that any additional activities like BBC Online, Publications and so on should be axed unless they are able to generate profits to help fund programme production. He feels that much more can be achieved in that regard than the BBC currently manages.
His vision is of a self-funding public service broadcaster, based around one TV channel and one radio channel. One that produces the best quality programmes and that doesn’t compete with commercial broadcasters for sports and other events that people can watch elsewhere.
In closing, he stresses that his thoughts aren’t intended to attack the BBC, but to help ensure its future role in enriching the nation’s cultural life in the modern day world of broadcasting.
So what should we make of all this?
On the whole, I’m personally inclined to agree with the general cut and thrust of Jay’s arguments, although I certainly don’t feel well enough informed to know whether the full severity of his recommendations is merited. But surely I - and you - should be?
After all, everyone who owns a TV set is paying for this, year in and year out. Shareholders get more information about what their companies are doing than we receive about how our licence fees are being spent. Sure, we see the odd headline about many £million Jonathan Ross or Graham Norton might be getting paid, but that’s about it (although perhaps that’s informative in itself?)
Over recent years, we’ve all watched the BBC spread itself across more and more areas of broadcasting, much of which certainly seems to have been driven by some agenda other than a sensible use of public money.
On a micro-scale, I’ve long harboured a pet hate about how BBC news programmes waste money. They routinely send film crews out so reporters can be shown standing outside a “relevant location” when there’s no need for them to be there at all. Save the cash and report from the studio!
With the economy reportedly teetering on the brink of recession (or not, depending upon who you believe), there surely couldn’t be a better time for a proper debate on the BBC’s future and how it’s funded.
You can read Anthony Jay’s full report free of charge here. For a think tank report, it’s an easy read and very thought-provoking.
You’ll need Adobe Acrobat Reader. You can download that for free here if you don’t already have it (there’s no need to install the optional “eBay Desktop”, which is currently being offered alongside it).
Alternatively, you can order a paper copy of the report for £5.