Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-99)
BBC
11 JULY 2006
Q80 Chairman: Who will determine
that?
Mr Grade: The Trust.
Q81 Chairman: If a commercial operator
comes and says, "We think this represents a change or we
think this represents a new service," will you nine times
out of ten, 99% of the time accept that and conduct a public value
test?
Mr Grade: If the evidence is there,
absolutely. Every decision that the Trust makes will be transparent
and the judgments they make must be evidence based. That does
not rule out judgment but at the end of the day it must be evidence
based.
Q82 Chairman: But you will lean strongly
towards conducting tests when asked to do so?
Mr Grade: Certainly.
Q83 Chairman: How many tests do you
expect to be undertaking roughly in the next couple of years?
Mr Grade: It is absolutely impossible
to forecast.
Q84 Chairman: Tens?
Mr Grade: It is impossible to
forecast.
Mr Peat: I do hope, Chairman,
that when we come to implementing the public value test that there
will be scope, and this will be a matter to discuss with Ofcom,
for varying the degree of intensity of the market impact assessment
and the PVT that is undertaken, according to the circumstances.
I am an economist by trade and I am aware of how complicated and
time-consuming these tests can be. It is very important for the
major decisions where there are major market impacts that they
should be so intensive, but I think there may be instances where
the market impact is deemed to be relatively limited, and I think
one has to be able to vary the intensity of the examination to
take account of that. We do not want to be bogged down in unnecessary
work.
Mr Grade: But the check and balance
will obviously be the collaboration which I am sure will be very
fruitful with Ofcom.
Q85 Chairman: There is concern that
trials and pilots in themselves are going to distort the market.
The Director General has very recently announced the extension
of the podcasting trial. At what point do you conduct a market
impact assessment there?
Mr Grade: Every pilot is different.
Some are closed pilots; some are open pilots. Each one is of its
own kind and they have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.
The principle that will drive the decisions of the Trust—and
I would not rule out doing a public value test on a pilot.—the
overriding consideration for the Trust is that the BBC does nothing
in the way of new services (and that includes pilots) that could
potentially damage the choice that is available to consumers.
That will be the overriding principle that will guide the Trust
through its decisions in this area.
Q86 Alan Keen: The reason why the
BBC, although it is a public body, has been so successful and
one of the reasons why I like it so much is that it has acted
like the private sector. It has made decisions in private. It
has been cut-throat. Do you not think these changes are going
to alter the whole culture of it and make it like the Health Service
where you are hamstrung by democracy and it is going to be so
slow to take decisions that we are going to bury it like other
public bodies?
Mr Thompson: Can I have a go at
that. Clearly that is a risk in this mechanism that it is too
officious, it is too rigid, it is too slow, that it will impair
the BBC's ability to evolve and offer the best possible services
to the public. I have to say firstly I think that the interest
of other people, other commercial players in understanding what
the BBC is proposing, having a chance to be consulted, an objective
market impact assessment carried out by Ofcom, all of these things,
I understand why people want them, I understand why the Government
has gone for this system in the White Paper, and I think it will
build confidence. I hope there will be a point where the whole
process becomes rather more routine and it becomes one of the
things that happens. Just a couple of points on trials. Firstly,
a trial with terms of reference already agreed with the BBC Trust
is itself quite an important part of the evidence gathering you
need to do the public value test and indeed the market impact
assessment, so although one takes the point that one must look
quite closely at, as it were, prima facie evidence that
even the trial itself will have a very significant market impact,
one does not want to be in a position where you cannot do a trial
without a public value test which itself requires a trial as part
of its evidence gathering. What I want to say is that we now control
trials and pilots very closely. We have a meeting once a month
where we update where we are with trials. It is true that there
will be occasions where we believe we should extend a trial. The
Chairman mentioned podcasting. There are a number of things we
want to explore such as chapterisation in podcastng and we want
to look at some different technical formats and Codex in podcasting.
We also want to explore downloading in podcasting at different
bit rates. There are a number of particular things we want to
try and do but in the case of podcasting we will continue to restrict
the content available to podcast to 50 hours, a fairly small selection
of programmes, and we will restrict it to programme areas where
we believe market impact from a trial is likely to be low—speech
and unsigned music being the categories. Other trials, and I mentioned
local TV, will come to an end. We have already brought the IPlayer
trial to an end. Once there is nothing more we can learn from
a trial we will stop the trial and then wait for the verdict of
the public value test to come through.
Mr Grade: There is some helpful
direction in the White Paper at 53.13 if I may quote an extract:
The ability to pilot new services has the potential to generate
useful data to assist a public value test. However, the Trust
will need to be satisfied that any pilot proposed by the Executive
Board is of the smallest possible scale and duration to deliver
the required information and there should be a general presumption
that, where practical, a pilot will come to an end before any
decision on a public value test is taken." That is the clear
guidance for the Trust. To which I would add what I said earlier
which is if the Trust at any time believe that even a pilot—and
one cannot foresee all the changes that are going on at this stage
in the media—if there is any potential that a pilot could
interfere with the choice available to consumers, we would not
allow it.
Q87 Alan Keen: But overall are we
not betraying licence fee payers by going soft? Do they not deserve
ruthless managers to look after their money instead of having
to go and consult people about it? That is one way of looking
at it, is it not?
Mr Grade: There is no question
that the BBC's impact on the sector must be harnessed to be beneficial
to the licence fee payers overall. That is our role and we have
to manage that relationship with the private sector better than
it has been managed hitherto.
Q88 Alan Keen: You are helping Channel
4 or talking to Channel 4 I presume over releasing some of the
spectrum? Are those talks going along fruitfully?
Mr Grade: There is goodwill on
our side to be as helpful as we possibly can to Channel Four and
those talks are continuing, so far as I know, with real goodwill
on our side.
Q89 Janet Anderson: Could I just
take you on in terms of the Governors' objections to the independent
study by Sir Quentin Thomas on the impartiality of news coverage
of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. This prompted Philip Stephens,
who was a member of that independent review panel, to write an
article in the FT where he referred to the BBC's coverage
of domestic political affairs. He said: "I do not believe
there is deliberate political bias, even if some well-known BBC
figures will never forgive the prime minister for the Hutton Report
on Iraq. Rather, quality, depth and judgment are sacrificed to
showbiz trivia and hyperbole. Labour, Conservatives and Liberal
Democrats are equal victims of this shallowness. Partly it is
a question of lazy journalism. It is much easier to retail Westminster
gossip than to seek to report complex policy debates, or to shout
at politicians rather than subject them to forensically robust
cross-examination." I just wondered if would like to comment
on that.
Mr Grade: Before I pass to the
Editor in Chief who is responsible for news on the BBC, I would
have to say as a viewer—forget my role as Chairman of the
BBC—that I would not recognise that rather crude caricature
of the BBC's journalism. Certainly the BBC in different kinds
of bulletins and different services serving different audiences
does cover what one might call the populist agenda from time to
time. There is nothing wrong with that. Everyone pays their licence
fee and if you are interested in Wayne Rooney's metatarsal, I
do not think the BBC should avoid covering it. However, I would
not recognise as a viewer, as a news junkie that very crude caricature
of the BBC's journalism.
Q90 Janet Anderson: How many complaints,
for example, do you get about the line of questioning on occasion
by John Humphrys on the Today programme?
Mr Thompson: The answer is that
we do not tend to get many complaints. More than that I have to
say our research and impact from the contacts we have in the public
suggest, to be honest, that the robust approach taken on the Today
programme with politicians and other public figures, and occasionally
senior members of the BBC are on the receiving end of this, is
welcomed by the public as a legitimate way of holding public figures
to account. I have to say audience research on that would suggest
that it is all the other way and that people say that quite robust
questioning of politicians is something, if anything, they would
like to see more of, not less of. If I could address more broadly
the point, and the point that Philip made in his piece, I think
if you look at the year in question, it is a very big year for
news. There was a UK general election. It was also a year when
the BBC did some very large-scale projects to try and increase
public understanding and public engagement with key issues. Our
recent Climate season across the BBC (but with a lot of
attention on BBC1) would be an example. The season last summer
Africa Lives on the BBC was an attempt, again using some
of our most popular programmes, to engage the public in some really
big issues. I would say that in recent years, with Andrew Marr
and now with Nick Robinson, that the calibre of political reporting
across our news programmes has gone up not down. We have also
tried to find to a point key specialist editors. I think of Evan
Davies in economics; I think of Mark Mardell, whom we have made
Europe editor; I think of Jeremy Bowen, the new Middle East editor,
to try and make sure that when we do cover a major, topical political
event we do not just tell the story of that day but we have a
seasoned journalist who can give some sense of the context and
the background to the story. I would say across our current affairs
programmes that we are trying harder to do two things. One is
we want to try and bring news and current affairs alive for our
audiences. If we do not engage our audiences there is a danger
that fundamental democratic engagement will break down. It is
important that we find ways of actively interesting and engaging
audiences. We are trying to do it in a way that does focus on
significant issues. I think it is fair to say that it has been
quite a busy year and a complex year in British politics. It is
also true that individual political personalities and the stories
around individual ministers and other senior politicians, leadership
elections and so forth, means that that is part of the way we
report what is going on. I would say that my own view as Editor
in Chief of the BBC is that our news division has had a very good
year indeed in terms of covering events in the world, and our
coverage of Westminster politics, I think, is growing in depth.
With due respect to Philip and the FT, I would say we would
compare well with any newspaper you can buy in this country.
Mr Grade: I can understand why
a serious journalist of Philip Stephens's standing and reputation
writing for a journal as specialist as the FT would not
be terribly interested to switch on the 6 o'clock News
on BBC1 and find out that Sir Paul and Lady McCartney were getting
divorced. I am sure that is not particularly on his radar screen.
However, a great number of people who pay their licence fee are
interested and that is a news item of the day, and we have to
serve the readers of all newspapers with all their demographic
backgrounds and interests, which I think is the point that he
has not quite grasped.
Mr Thompson: Our output on programme
analysis on the Westminster Hour, if you look at the depth
of political coverage we have now on our website, is unrivalled.
Nobody else is covering British politics. BBC Parliament and other
partners; no-one is covering our democratic institutions or British
politics, not just, by the way, at UK level but at national level
in terms of the devolved institutions in the nations, at regional
level, at local level. No-one is investing as much or spending
as much time on UK politics as we are.
Q91 Janet Anderson: What you are
saying by your response is you think that persistent questions
of senior politicians about their private lives fits in with that
strategy. You are public figures, you work for a publicly funded
body; how would you feel if you were subjected to that kind of
questioning?
Mr Thompson: The answer is it
seems to me the approach I take when this happens to me is it
depends whether it is a matter of legitimate public interest.
Of course, I do not suggest that uninhibited questioning of anyone
about their private life is reasonable, but there are occasions
where an aspect of a politician's personal behaviour becomes a
matter of legitimate, as it were, not interest by the public but
public interest, and where not only is it permissible for the
BBC to explore questions but, frankly, it is our duty to explore
what is going on. Do we need to be careful? Of course we do. Of
course we need to be careful about not straying beyond the boundaries,
but there are moments where questions about an aspect of someone's
personal behaviour are of political relevance and we would be
remiss if we did not ask those questions when that happens. If
we overstep the mark, we should not, and we should correct it.
I would say again my view in recent months in what has been sometimes
a very difficult and intense political environment is that we
have not overstepped the mark, but perhaps you have examples where
we have.
Janet Anderson: I think you perhaps
have on occasions but we will leave it at that.
Q92 Mr Hall: I listened with great
interest to your exposition of the BBC's coverage of politics.
I have established anecdotally that the coverage of politics during
election time has got to be balanced and yet there was absolutely
no balance in the coverage of politics in the run-up to the local
elections in May. What have you got to say about that?
Mr Thompson: We always make sure
not just in UK general elections but also in local elections that
we abide by all of the relevant legislation, but more broadly
than that we think very carefully about the nature of balance
in the context of those local elections. At the same time we take
the view that beyond of course our statutory obligations, which
we must and do uphold, that it is important that we continue to
cover the broad run of political stories that are continuing.
For example, international events in which Britain has a role
need to continue to be covered, but our Controller of Editorial
Policy, David Jordan, has a specific duty to ensure that there
is constant monitoring of the general political coverage to make
sure that we do not think there is an inappropriate impact on
the way in which the local elections are covered and also the
context of people thinking about how to vote in local elections.
Q93 Mr Hall: Were there any good
news stories in the run-up to the local elections in May that
the BBC published about what the Government had done? I can tell
you that every night in the broadcasts there were anti-Government
stories leading the news on the BBC.
Mr Thompson: We would need together—and
I am very happy to do this—to go through the running order
for all of our news programmes for the weeks in question to be
sure about this but what I would say to you is this: firstly,
UK general elections affect the entire country, they affect every
household in the country; local elections do not affect every
household.
Q94 Mr Hall: That just excuses it,
does it?
Mr Thompson: No, it does not,
but what it means is that you need to strike a balance—
Q95 Mr Hall: I agree, you need to
strike a balance; that is the point I am trying to make.
Mr Thompson: If you are saying
that you believe that the BBC's coverage of general politics in
the run-up to local elections was biased, I have to say I simply
do not believe that is the case. What we try and do is we cover
what is going on in this country and also we try and cover the
stories which are of interest to UK audiences and which may or
may not involve UK government and other UK interests around the
world. We try to do them objectively and not from one slant. I
have to say I do not believe there is any systematic evidence
that in this period or in any other period we failed to do that.
We look quite closely and track surveys of people of different
political persuasions and ask them whether or not they believe
that the BBC is biased against their party. Over this period and
over the year in the Annual Report the numbers of people amongst
both supporters of the Conservative and Labour parties who believe
we are biased went down in both cases. They stayed the same for
the Liberal Democrats, but went down for both Tory supporters
and Labour.
Q96 Mr Hall: Is there any programme
on Radio Five Live that does not carry a gratuitous attack against
the Government?
Mr Thompson: Again, I have to
say I do not recognise the picture you paint of Radio Five Live,
any more than I recognise the picture you paint of BBC journalism
as a whole. I do not believe there is any programme that I am
aware of in recent weeks on Radio Five Live that has included
a gratuitous attack on the Government. To state the obvious but
I will say it again, it is not the job of BBC news, or BBC journalism
more broadly, to launch gratuitous attacks on anyone. We try and
report what is going on objectively and fair-mindedly. That is
what we are there to do.
Q97 Adam Price: I would like to turn
briefly to the issue of questions about private conduct of politicians
and other public figures. Just so we are all clear where we stand
on the Today programme what we are likely to be subjected
to, do you think John Humphrys was right to ask about the Deputy
Prime Minister having other affairs?
Mr Thompson: I believe that the
interview with the Deputy Prime Minister by John on the Today
programme a few days ago was legitimate, yes I do.
Q98 Adam Price: That was a fair question,
even though it was open-ended and it had no clear bearing whatsoever,
as far as I could see, because no context was given on the conduct
of his public responsibilities?
Mr Thompson: The context, which
I believe would have been entirely understood by people listening
to the interview, was obviously of a news story which has emerged
over recent weeks and months in which it was felt by many—and
again it is for people to draw their own conclusions—in
the media, and I think the evidence would suggest many voters,
that the affair which the Deputy Prime Minister is said to have
had with his diary secretary did raise matters of legitimate political
interest, and it was right for the BBC and the rest of the media
to report that and to explore any political ramifications of that.
Q99 Adam Price: But the question
was about other affairs, was it not?
Mr Thompson: Well, when the Today
programme did its interview, there was an environment where very
widely on the Internet and elsewhere there were questions being
raised, indeed allegations being made about other affairs. Given
the particular circumstances, the extent to which the affair which
the Deputy Prime Minister accepted had taken place and the impact
that had had on his political standing and the broad debate that
it raised, I thought it was legitimate for John Humphrys to press
him on this issue in that interview. I think it was done with
courtesy. I do not think it was hectoring or impolite.
| 
