Memorandum submitted by The Campaign For
Press and Broadcasting Freedom (CPBF)
The CPBF was established in 1979. It is the
leading independent membership organisation dealing with questions
of freedom, diversity and accountability in the UK media. It is
membership based, drawing its support from individuals, trade
unions and community based organisations. It has consistently
developed policies designed to encourage a more pluralistic media
in the UK and has regularly intervened in the public and political
debate over the future of broadcasting in the United Kingdom since
it was established.
THE PROSPECTS
FOR MAINTAINING
PLURALITY IN
PUBLIC SERVICE
BROADCASTING IN
THE DIGITAL
AGE
The backbone of broadcasting in the UK BBC (TV
and Radio) ITV1, Channel 4, SC4 and Channel 5, are services that
are required to provide a range, at different levels of intensity,
of public service programmes. The BBC is funded by a licence fee
and the commercial sector depends on advertising and sponsorship.
Since 1954 commercial TV in the UK, unlike its counterpart in
the USA, has had significant public service obligations. Since
1990 ITV has become less and less of a public service broadcaster,
but it and the other public service commercial channels still
retain obligations to provide programming that is designed to
do something more than just make profits.
The prospects for maintaining plurality in public
service broadcasting in this digital age are good but they depend
on political will to support major public intervention through
effective pursuance of public service obligations on commercial
broadcasters and continued support for the BBC via the licence
fee. This is contrary to Ofcom's view, whose record of defending
public service provision on ITV leaves much to be desired; whose
support the concept of a Public Service Provider to compensate
for some lost public service programming is inadequate, and whose
belief in greater dependency on market forces for programme provision
i.e. providing what is profitable, puts the future of public service
broadcasting at risk.
It's worth reminding ourselves that public service
broadcasting means producing programmes which address the widest
possible range of audiences, serving the public at large, not
just certain sections of the public, or the interests of producers
and broadcasters, or the dictates of the market. Sometimes it
is about experimentation and risk-taking, but its core aim is
the production of programmes designed to cover the widest range
of output. It means news and current affairs, educational and
arts programmes, comedy and soaps, drama, sport, films, quiz shows
and light entertainment. For the BBC it also means providing music
and speech radio of quality and variety and delivering the most
successful ranges of interactive programming and Internet web
pages and other internet related services in the world.
It is also worth noting that there are other
commercial broadcasters, notably Sky television, which do not
have public service broadcasting obligations, and only produce
programming that maximises their profits. In order not just to
maintain but improve the plurality of public service broadcasting,
consideration should be given to placing some public service broadcasting
obligations on these broadcasters perhaps based on them reaching
a certain percentage of viewing share.
The idea that the new digital age means you
cannot have significant public service channels because there
are too many channels for it to work distorts the truth. Regulation
can be put in place to ensure that major services in the UK are
required to adhere to key public service values. The BBC has already
pioneered a model of how psb can have a strong presence in the
digital universe that is emerging. The model, which the Committee
should, we would argue support, is one of BBC plus. By this we
mean sustaining a strong UK production base by supporting the
BBC so it can grow into the new areas, and examining ways in which
existing public service commercial providers can make a similar
contribution.
THE PRACTICALLY
OF CONTINUING
TO IMPOSE
PUBLIC SERVICE
OBLIGATIONS ON
COMMERCIAL BROADCASTERS
Public service broadcasting has been sustained
and financed over many years by a mutually reinforcing mix of
institutions, funding and regulation. Leaving aside the BBC, historically
this was provided by commercial broadcasters in return for privileges
and discounted access to the analogue spectrum. The issue is not
that commercial broadcasters will cease to be viable, or even
strong, businesses. It is that the set of incentives which have
impelled the shareholder-funded businesses to provide public service
broadcasting will disappear. There is no compelling reason why
the existing public service system cannot be strengthened and
extended into the emerging digital age. It is a matter of public
policy whether or not this should be allowed to happen through
government policy and the intervention of Ofcom. If it is deemed
desirable the means can be willed. Any reduction or decline will
only take place if the government and the regulator fail to intervene
in a positive way to prevent it (as Ofcom has done in allowing
the run down by ITV of its public service broadcasting obligations).
This is based on the false assumption that public service on UK
TV will have to be reduced because the market is better at providing
broadcasting. This has shaped and continues to shape the regulator's
policy framework and unless reversed, will become a self-filling
prophecy.
Methods for doing this could include:
(a) reduced cost of spectrum access in return
for public service programme provision.
(b) tax allowances linked to a commitment
on the part of commercial broadcasters to produce public service
programming.
(c) a levy on advertising, sponsorship and
other commercial revenues which would be used to fund public service
broadcasting provision in the commercial sector.
(d) taking public control of the ITV, C4
and S4C archives of material that were produced under the system
of public service broadcasting and using the income from these
sources to help fund new productions.
(e) imposing a statutory obligation on digital
commercial broadcasters whose market share exceeds a specified
limit to spend a proportion of their income on public service
broadcasting.
(f) reconsidering OFCOM's remit to enhance
its obligations to promote public service broadcasting across
the developing media, and to limit its powers of interference
with the BBC.
THE VIABILITY
OF EXISTING
FUNDING MODELS
FOR ITV, CHANNEL
FOUR AND
FIVE AND
THE CASE
FOR PUBLIC
FUNDING OF
BROADCASTERS IN
ADDITION TO
THE BBC
We have no objections to the government using
a range of powers (some of which we outline elsewhere in this
submission) to help provide wide- ranging public service content
in addition to the BBC. We do not, however, think it is, in the
long term, wise to use money from the licence fee to do this.
The BBC needs to be sustained as a major provider of non-commerical
public service broadcasting first and foremost. In addition
the government should develop ways to ensure that psb is supplemented
and extended into the existing and emerging commercial sectors.
The case for this rests upon the wider sets of reasons we have
discussed about the social, political and economic desirability
of sustaining psb across the emerging platforms.
This means that ITV, C4, C5 and S4C need to
remain as key elements in the mix, and measures, such as the ones
described in this submission, should be immediately considered
to bolster their position and obligations as public service broadcasters.
THE FUTURE
OF KEY
AREAS OF
PUBLIC SERVICE
MEDIA CONTENT
SUCH AS
NEWS PROVISION
AND CHILDREN'S
PROGRAMMING
These areas should not be seen as separate from
other areas of psb provision. Hiving them off as if they were
the only, or the most important areas, will help weaken political
commitment to the whole range of output.
In a system which is organised to support psb
provision across the whole range of output, news and children's
TV should have central places. Recent, (post 1990 Broadcasting
Act) reductions in these areas have been associated primarily
with changes at ITV. These have been due, in essence, to the lack
of an imaginative and robust regulatory regime, and could, were
that rectified, be halted and reversed.
It is important to note that we prefer the long-standing,
broad interpretation of "public service": to "inform,
educate and entertain". This should remain the basis of the
approach in the digital era. In other words the attempt to separate
out "public service" programmes from "entertainment"
ones, and "public service" channels from the rest, could
remove from the BBC the challenge of making quality programmes
for the broadest audience, and destroy the healthy competition
which has existed between commercially funded broadcasters and
the BBC.
Historically, the ITV companies supported genres
such as current affairs and children's programmes, partly because
they were required to do so by the regulator of the day, but also
because the climate of opinion, shared by the managements of companies
such as Thames and Granada, valued a diverse mix.
The current legislation has encouraged a more
commercial climate of opinion, and Ofcom has abandoned the challenge
of regulating the commercial channels in the multi-channel digital
environment. The results can be seen in ITV's abandoning of any
programmes beyond the most popular.
Yet the public service aim of a universality
of provision and appeal, includes serving groups of citizens who
have little market power, and so are likely to be overlooked by
a market based system, in particular children and the poorer members
of society.
Research on current affairs programming—which
has long provided an essential back-up to news reporting, requiring
long term commitment to in depth investigation and persistent
reporting—has shown that the numbers of these programmes
has shrunk, on the BBC as well as the commercial channels. They
have all but disappeared on ITV. In a democracy the maintenance
of mainstream, serious current affairs is the core of any commitment
to an informed citizenship.
Children should be at the centre of public service
across the channels. Without competition the BBC may be tempted
to broadcast children's programmes only on the dedicated channels.
Many of the global media companies who are buying into UK commercial
television have a backlog of programmes with "international"
appeal to dump.
Without a strong, independent, commercially
funded channel committed to diverse programming and a respect
for its audience, the BBC faces no competitor, and public service
television is the weaker.
Sharing out the licence fee is not the answer,
since the strength of the system has come from the different sources
of funding. Channel Four was able to adopt its completely original
remit, because, at first, it too, was differently funded. But
Ofcom needs to find ways of retaining "positive regulation"
of commercial channels in the digital era—and should consider
extending regulatory requirements to non-terrestrial channels.
THE VALUE
OF THE
PSP CONCEPT AS
ADVANCED BY
OFCOM
Ofcom has proposed setting up of a new non-commercial
Public Service Publisher (PSP). This would compete with the BBC
by providing what it described as public service broadcasting
on a new digital channel. At first glance this seems to be a good
idea. It is right to look to new ways of delivering public service
content across new digital platforms. But a closer examination
reveals a number of flaws.
When the idea of a PSP was first floated, Ofcom
pointed out that total TV broadcasting revenues, including the
licence fee amounted to £9.534 billion in 2003 (Ofcom, The
Communications Market 2004—Overview (London, Ofcom 2004).
Yet it suggests that in 2012, £300 million, less than 3%
of the revenues in UK TV should be spent on the PSP (Ofcom, Phase
2—Meeting the Digital Challenge: Ofcom review of public
service broadcasting (London, Ofcom, 2004).
This is a tiny amount, compared to the ITV total
revenues in 2003 of £2.6 billion, let alone the size of the
total market. A non-commercial publisher might provide a useful
future addition to the public service mix, but must not be a substitute
for what ITV, C4, S4C and C5 should be providing. There are also
serious questions of accountability—how would the funding
be monitored and against what criteria?
Over the past few years Ofcom has allowed ITV
to withdraw from its major public service commitments and sees
the PSP as an alternative public service programme provider in
the absence of such commitments. This is clearly not the case,
the impact of PSP would be negligible and would not deal with
the overall problem of ensuring sufficient funding for ITV, C4
S4C, and C5 so that they can continue to act as serious commercially
funded public service broadcasters to compete with the BBC in
the future.
The PSP model has been devised by Ofcom therefore
to overcome a problem of its own creation. Instead of thinking
about bolstering public service provision across all commercial
media, its assumption has been that this is not worthwhile nor
economically possible. These views stem from the partiality of
Ofcom as a body, which has a clear, non-neutral, position, in
that it explicitly supports market solutions to regulatory problems.
This is due, not to any empirical evidence which favours its view,
but to the ideological hue the institution acquired through the
passage of the Communications Act and the associated limitations
of outlook amongst senior Ofcom employees. Supporting a PSP model
is therefore not a case of supporting a careful, empirically grounded
solution to emerging problems, but would involve supporting an
ill thought out device whose only merit is that it is consistent
with Ofcom's overall political orientation.
Given a different policy context in which the
BBC's role as a provider of public service broadcasting is enhanced
and ITV, Channel 4, S4C and Channel 5's roles as commercial public
service broadcasting providers is defended and developed, a mechanism
such as a public service publisher might provide a way of developing
public service broadcasting content across other providers.
THE CASE
FOR PROVISION
OF PUBLIC
SERVICE MATERIAL
ON NEW
MEDIA
There is no doubt that the future organisation
of public service media in the UK has to respond to the rapidly
changing economic and technological context of communications.
The question of whether there should be a major
provision of public service media is a political question. If
politicians consider that the market can provide a diverse range
of materials accessible to all citizens for a minimum cost, including
drama, current affairs, news, documentary, high quality comedy,
science programming etc, then logically there is no need for public
service media. This is not, however, what is believed by even
the more ardent believers in the market, including Professor Alan
Peacock and Ofcom.
Their argument acknowledges that there needs
to be public intervention because the market cannot and will not
provide for certain minorities. Hence they support concepts such
as an Arts Council of the Airwaves (stemming from the Report
on the Financing of the BBC (1986) or the Public Service Publisher
(Ofcom).
But this is an argument based on the idea that
it is desirable to leave the bulk of provision to the market,
so that those who are most economically and culturally skilled
already can get what the market provides by using their resources
to seek out and enjoy the publicly funded minority programming.
This is a form of policy which will end up excluding the majority
of the population from regular contact with a wide range of different
cultural experiences.
The case for sustaining a major, free to view
or listen public service provision across all major new platforms
rests of the view that it is morally proper not to exclude people
from educative benefits of contact with a wide range of public
service provision on the grounds of their acquired educational
or economic disadvantages. It is a similar case to the ones used
to justify the provision of health or educational services free
at the point of delivery and without discrimination based on education
or economics. It assumes that the outcome of such policies will
be a more varied social, political and cultural environment available
to the whole of society than that which will emerge from a system
based on the market alone.
There is also an industrial case. This is that
if you open production solely to the forces of the market you
are likely to see the development in the UK of a TV industry mirroring
the film industry. In the latter, despite the continuance of high
quality production, the economics of scale have allowed the larger
US market to drive production and consumption. The UK is particularly
vulnerable to this because of its linguistic and cultural affinity
to the United States. Historically the major investment in public
service broadcasting in the UK has prevented the development of
a similar scenario in TV to that in film in the UK. In addition
it has fostered a set of technical and artistic skills that are
internationally admired. The case for major provision of public
service content in the future rests also on this important economic
case.
The lowering of entry costs to the new media
also helps obviate the need to be worried about the impact of
a strong psb sector on emerging markets. As well as providing
economic stimuli to the industry as a whole, a strong psb sector
can provide a spur to those companies who want to outdo psb in
the market place and develop distinctive provision.
One of the successes of the BBC in recent times
has been its ability to innovate and move successfully into new
media. For example its web site is one of the best in the world,
from which you can down load podcasts, `listen again' broadcasts,
interrogate video and audio news—and is known as a benchmark
for quality. Its two new digital channels, interactive TV, digital
radio and the decision by the government to ask the BBC to lead
on the switchover from analogue to digital broadcasting reinforces
the case that there is already a significant presence of public
service material on new media. It could be said that the BBC is
the successful model for others to follow.
January 2007
| 
