BBC World Service Arabic television
66. In our first report, we stated that the case
for an Arabic language television service was particularly strong.
We also welcomed the announcement that in April 2007, the BBC
World Service will launch a free-to-air Arabic language television
channel, broadcasting across the Middle East. Nigel Chapman
told the Committee that the channel's output would be a mixture
of news, discussion, documentaries and current affairs programmes,
as well as some dubbed and sub-titled programming (Q 892).
While the BBC World Service is planning additional investment
in its Middle Eastern regional news bureaux, the majority of the
staff of the Arabic television service will be based in London
and its programmes will be produced mainly in the UK (QQ 856,
895). Nigel Chapman argued that the project was necessary because
television was the "medium of choice" in the Middle
East. He argued that "it was no longer going to be viable
for us to just to broadcast on radio and provide new media services"
(QQ 855, 841).
67. The BBC believes it can make a major impact
in the Middle East by providing trusted information to viewers
who consider the "current plethora of channels as neither
sufficiently independent nor international". In his evidence
to the Committee, Richard Sambrook stated that channels such as
Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya "are reporting the Middle East
to the Middle East". The BBC World Service envisages an international
perspective and agenda for its new channel "reporting the
world to the Middle East" (Q 855). Al-Jazeera believed
that the entrance of the BBC as a respected broadcaster into the
Middle East television market will generally be welcomed by its
competitors. Mostefa Souag commented that more objective reporting
and better quality programmes would benefit "freedom of expression
[and] the freedom of the media." (Q 968).
68. However, the BBC has previously experienced
considerable difficulties in producing a television channel in
the Middle East. In 1994, Orbit (a Saudi Arabian media company)
commissioned the BBC to produce an Arabic language news service
but in April 1996 Orbit suspended broadcasting of the channel.
Ian Richardson, former Managing-Editor of BBC Arabic Television, told us
there were "irreconcilable differences over editorial issues
with Saudi [Arabia] and with Orbit" (Q 924). However,
Nigel Chapman was confident that because the funding and editorial
policy of the new channel will be entirely the purview of the
BBC, the problems encountered in the mid-nineties will not re-occur
(Q 899). Al-Jazeera commented that damage was done to the
BBC's reputation by the closure of the joint BBC-Orbit venture
in 1996 and that "If the BBC is going to start this channel,
it has to be sure that… it will not stop within a year or
two" (Q 969).
69. The BBC World Service informed the Committee
that BBC Arabic TV will cost £19 million per year and there
will be additional costs of £5-6 million to set up new studios
and facilities, funded from the BBC World Service's capital expenditure
(Q 907). Of the £19 million annual cost, £12 million
is being provided by the closure in March 2006 of ten foreign
language radio services in: Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Greek,
Hungarian, Kazakh, Polish, Slovak, Slovene and Thai. We understand
that these services were not cut solely to fund the Arabic TV
service (although this was a factor) but partly because of their
diminishing strategic value (QQ 842, 843, 844). Due to financial
constraints the BBC will only be able to establish a 12 hour Arabic
TV service, although it is the BBC World Service's aspiration
that this will eventually increase to 24 hours. It estimates that
a 24 hour service would cost an additional £6 million a year,
increasing the total operating cost from £19 million
to £25 million (Q 859).
70. We accept that some witnesses strongly doubted
whether an annual operating budget of £19 million would be
sufficient to provide a quality product meeting the BBC's usual
standards. It is worth noting that BBC News 24's annual budget
for 2004/05 was £48.1 million and its allocation for newsgathering
alone (£18.4m) is almost as large as BBC Arabic's entire
budget.[24] Ian Richardson
described BBC Arabic's budget as "seriously under-funded"
and expressed scepticism about the BBC's cost estimates because
translation makes news "a third more expensive" (Q 931).
71. Although we recognise our witnesses' concerns,
we can only trust that the BBC has adequately and accurately costed
the new service. We also acknowledge Lord Triesman's assessment
that the BBC World Service is able to draw on considerable synergies
and resources in terms of newsgathering (Q 1008). However,
television will present a number of new and difficult challenges
to the BBC World Service and we welcome the acceptance by Nigel
Chapman that there are risks in moving to a medium with a higher
public profile than radio (Q 895). It is our view that the
costs for projects of this kind have a tendency to increase during
implementation and we are concerned that any further funding demands
should not be met at the expense of remaining radio services.
72. Nonetheless, our greater concern is that
despite the obvious benefits of extending the 12 hour service
to 24 hours, the small additional marginal cost of £6m has
not yet been found. The BBC takes the view that the licence fee
should not be used to fund services that are not directed at licence
fee payers. This means that the £6m must be found from the
grant-in-aid. Nigel Chapman stated that "to move from
the 12 hour to a full 24 hour service would require an infusion
of funds from the UK taxpayer" but this would not be considered
before the next spending review in 2007 (QQ 858, 860).We
cannot believe that the Government is unable or unwilling to find
£6 million somewhere in its annual budget of £435.8 billion[25].
73. Michael Grade expressed regret that additional
money had not been raised to launch a 24 hour service (Q 2012).
Lord Carter's Public Diplomacy Review reported that some
witnesses thought a 12 hour service was "too little too late"[26].
However, Lord Triesman said "we believe it is right
to start with the 12 hour programme and see how it looks…
If you look at the time zones of the Arabic-speaking world, you
can get 80-90 per cent of most of the hours that people are awake
with the 12 hour service". We concur with the Minister's
assessment that 12 hours is "a very narrow time zone band"
but we can find no basis for his calculation that a twelve hour
service will cover 80-90 per cent of the hours people across the
Middle East are awake (Q 999).
74. We believe that the BBC World Service's plan
to establish an Arabic language news channel is both ambitious
and worthwhile. It will strengthen the BBC's position as
one of the most important broadcasters in the Middle East.
However, a 12 hour limit on the Arabic language channel's
broadcasting time will mean the BBC competing for audiences with
one hand tied behind its back. We recommend that the Government
should immediately provide the BBC World Service with the required
£6 million to establish a 24 hour Arabic channel.
75. In comparison to the BBC World Service we
also considered the performance of the BBC's other international
services. BBC World is a 24 hour commercial television English
language news service. The BBC states that its aim is to "influence
opinion-formers and decision-makers across the globe" (p
206). Since its establishment in 1994, BBC World has never made
a profit. In 2004/05 it made losses of £15.8m and since 1999
it has lost £79.9 million (p 208). While these losses are
covered by BBC Worldwide's commercial revenue, it is money that
could be invested elsewhere in the BBC. Despite the BBC's assurances
that BBC World will break even by 2010 it remains a considerable
financial drain. We fully support the aims and objectives of the
BBC World Service but are less clear about the value of BBC World.
We therefore recommend that the BBC should comprehensively
review its international activities and that a strategy outlining
the future of its public and commercial television, radio and
online services used overseas should be published.
BBC World Service television
76. A full review would also provide the perfect
opportunity to consider whether further BBC World Service television
services should follow the Arabic channel. The Green Paper states
that in the future the BBC World Service may consider providing
"niche foreign language TV services in countries where the
switch in consumption from radio to television is very marked".[27]
Our first report stated "We believe that the opportunities
and benefits of BBC World Service Television in a range of languages
outweigh the financial costs…".[28]The
BBC believes that as a "tri-media operator" (TV, radio
and online) the BBC World Service cannot be "out of date
and out of touch" and that "operating just with radio…
will not do the job" (Q 841). Nigel Chapman stated
that in addition to the Middle East, "there are other parts
of the world… where I believe that, over time, the BBC will
be broadcasting in the relevant languages on television"
(Q 841). He concluded this was especially important in the
developing world, because television would allow "access
to markets where FM distribution is extremely difficult"
(Q 917).
77. Lord Carter of Coles' review recognised "the
increasing importance of television in reaching large numbers
of people". It stated that despite the potential complexities
and cost issues "the FCO should explore options for developing
a television arm of the BBC World Service". Lord Carter also
concluded that further work was required to exploit new technologies
worldwide, because development of additional foreign language
TV services may be "unsustainable on the current economic
model".[29] The
BBC's strategic review of services, which led to the recommendation
for an Arabic language channel, also stated that the BBC World
Service should increase its impact by being on relevant platforms,
including television, in priority media markets. The Green Paper
concluded however that any new television services would have
to be funded by the BBC World Service, either through greater
efficiency or further reductions in radio services.[30]
78. The Committee supports the aspirations of
the BBC World Service to establish television services and believes
the Arabic language channel is an important first step in this
process. However, the arguments that led to its establishment
are valid when applied to some other parts of the world. Any decision
by the BBC World Service to expand beyond the Middle East will
obviously have significant cost implications. We accept the growing
necessity and demand for television services, but also recognise
the importance of radio services, which remain the foundation
of the BBC World Service's success. We recommend that as part
of the comprehensive review of the BBC's international services
the BBC World Service should continue to consider the need to
provide television services beyond the Arabic language service.
Further expansion may prove to be important but should not be
dependent on cuts to existing radio services.
15 Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Review
of the BBC's Royal Charter: A strong BBC, independent of government,
March 2005, p. 8. Back
16
www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4374130.stm Back
17
Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Review of the BBC's Royal
Charter: A strong BBC, independent of government, March 2005,
p. 43. Back
18
Lord Carter of Coles, Public Diplomacy Review, December 2005,
para. 2.5, p. 8. Back
19
Ibid. Back
20
Letter from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
Affairs to Mr Michael Gapes MP. Back
21
First Report of Session 2005-06, para. 189. Back
22
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Public Diplomacy Strategy Board,
Terms of Reference, para. 1, p. 1. Back
23
Lord Carter of Coles, Public Diplomacy Review, December 2005,
para. 4.9, p. 16. Back
24
BBC Annual Report and Accounts, 2004/2005, Table 12, p. 143. Back
25
Central Government Supply Estimates 2005-06, Main Supply Estimates,
HM Treasury, May 2005,
para. 3, p. 3. Back
26
Lord Carter of Coles, Public Diplomacy Review, December 2005,
para. 5.3.6, p. 26. Back
27
Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Review of the BBC's Royal
Charter: A strong BBC, independent of government, March 2005,
p. 46. Back
28
First Report of Session 2005-06, para. 193. Back
29
Lord Carter of Coles, Public Diplomacy Review, December 2005,
para. 5.3.12, p. 28. Back
30
Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Review of the BBC's Royal
Charter: A strong BBC, independent of government, March 2005,
p. 46. Back
