A FUTURE FOR PUBLIC SERVICE TELEVISION CONTENT AND PLATFORMS IN A DIGITAL WORLD

Recommendations

Info

A FUTURE FOR PUBLIC SERVICE TELEVISION MONTHLY VIEWING BY GENRE Source: BARB 20% 15% 10% 5% 0 ART CHILDRENS TV CURRENT AFFAIRS DOCUMENTARIES DRAMA EDUCATION ENTERTAINMENT FILMS HOBBIES/ LEISURE MUSIC NEWS/ WEATHER OTHER SPORT austerity where, as one researcher concluded, its bulletins were “almost completely dominated by stockbrokers, investment bankers, hedge fund managers and other City voices.” 408 Impartiality is a worthwhile objective as long as it is not used to police the divisions that burst to the surface at times of major political conflict. Indeed, public service news media must meet especially demanding standards of impartiality when dealing with topics where there are significant differences of opinion (although, of course, they should not seek to avoid topics that are deemed to be ‘controversial’). Impartiality is not secured merely by allocating similar amounts of time to ‘pro’ and ‘anti’ voices. Many issues that matter for the public, or for specific sections of the public, are complex and there should be no expectation either that there are only two positions to be covered or that the ‘Westminster consensus’ is necessarily the most appropriate starting place. On the other hand, neither does impartiality refer to the affordance of equal airtime to ‘sense’ and ‘nonsense’. According to Professor Steve Jones, the BBC’s coverage of climate change, for example, has at times given unwarranted attention to a small number of climate change ‘deniers’: “Attempts to give a place to anyone, however unqualified, who claims interest can make for false balance: to free publicity to marginal opinions and not to impartiality but its opposite.” 409 Impartial coverage requires both an engagement 408 Mike Berry, ‘Hard Evidence: How biased is the BBC?’ New Statesman, August 23, 2013. 409 Steve Jones, BBC Trust review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC’s coverage of science, July 2011. 132
CONTENT AND PLATFORMS IN A DIGITAL WORLD with a range of informed positions and a commitment to drawing on credible evidence as opposed to unsubstantiated claims. The nature of the ‘crisis’ in current affairs is rather different. There was a steep decline in current affairs provision in the 1980s and 1990s 410 followed by a 35% fall in output between 1992 and 2002. 411 Yet, in recent years, far from falling off a cliff, the average consumption of current affairs appears to be increasing with a 52% rise in viewing time since 2003 across all channels (albeit with a slightly smaller rise of 23% on the main PSB channels). 412 Ofcom figures also show a 10% rise in hours produced across the schedule between 2009-2014 with BBC Two and Channel 5 showing increases of nearly 60%. The situation is not quite so rosy when it comes to peak-time current affairs where a majority of the overall increase is accounted for by the BBC’s digital news channel and where both BBC One and ITV show less than one hour a week of current affairs. 413 The problem, therefore, is not about the total number of hours transmitted but with the very delicate position that current affairs occupies in a ratings-driven environment. Despite the public’s appetite for high quality investigations and analysis, current affairs programmes remain expensive to produce and do not attract the largest audiences. That they still continue to feature in prime-time schedules is largely to do with the obligations placed on public service broadcasters by regulators. According to one anonymous producer quoted in a 2013 report on the future of current affairs, “if there were no regulation, current affairs would disappear overnight. It would legitimise the race for ratings”; another argued that “broadcasters’ commitment to current affairs is dubious and is slipping fast. They are doing our stuff, but grudgingly, because they have to. There is relentless pressure to soften what we do.” 414 There appears to be a quite different atmosphere – and of course a very different financial landscape – from the 1970s when programmes such as ITV’s World in Action, This Week and Weekend World reached collectively 20 million viewers a week and had huge resources thrown at them. 415 The small increase in peak-time current affairs output since 2009 has been matched by a 14% fall in spending and there is anecdotal evidence, according to Steven Barnett, “that there is now more emphasis on the personal, the human interest and on celebrity issues than in the late 1990s.” 416 ‘Infotainment’ is gradually replacing output that used to focus on international stories and costly investigations. Channel 4’s Dispatches and the BBC’s Panorama remain the cornerstones of this latter genre but they are becoming increasingly reliant on ‘safer’ topics such as consumer or lifestyle stories. 417 In the light of these shifts, we want to reiterate our commitment to in the democratic importance of “accountability journalism” 418 . We believe that not only should the quotas remain (and in the case of ITV, as we have already argued, increased) but that there needs to be a revival, monitored by Ofcom, of the ‘hard-hitting’ investigative strands that have 410 Steven Barnett, The Rise and Fall of Television Journalism, London: Bloomsbury, 2011. 411 David Bergg, ‘Taking a horse to water? Delivering public service broadcasting in a digital universe’, in J. Cowling and D. Tambini (eds.), From Public Service Broadcasting to Public Service Communications, London: IPPR, 2002, p. 12. 412 Thinkbox, TV Viewing in the UK, 2016. 413 Ofcom, PSB Annual Report 2015: Output and spend index, July 2015, pp. 30-31. 414 Quoted in Jacquie Hughes, An Uncertain Future: The Threat to Current Affairs, International Broadcasting Trust, 2013, p. 11. 415 Jeremy Tunstall, submission to the Inquiry. 416 Quoted in Hughes, An Uncertain Future, p. 12. 417 Tunstall, 2015, p. 184. 418 Hughes, An Uncertain Future, p. 4. 133
Page 1 and 2:
A FUTURE FOR PUBLIC SERVICE TELEVIS
Page 3 and 4:
Contents Foreword by David Puttnam
Page 5 and 6:
To instruct democracy, if possible
Page 7 and 8:
Welcome Television is leading a cha
Page 9 and 10:
CONTENT AND PLATFORMS IN A DIGITAL
Page 11 and 12:
PSB channels 71.9% All other channe
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Why television matters Television i
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
1982 1990s 2012 The BBC-ITV duopoly
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Time for action Today’s policymak
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Basic principles At the core of pre
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
The multichannel revolution Perhaps
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
The BBC For most people, the BBC is
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Channel 4 If the BBC is the most im
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Only 8% of Channel 4’s total spen
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
ITV and Channel 5 The focus of atte
Page 81 and 82: CONTENT AND PLATFORMS IN A DIGITAL
Page 85 and 86: The changing face of ITV 1993-2002
Page 91 and 92: New sources of public service conte
Page 103 and 104: Television and diversity We have ea
Page 107 and 108: THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE TELEVISED If t
Page 115 and 116: Nations and Regions Public service
Page 129 and 130: Content diversity One of the key wa
Page 131: CONTENT AND PLATFORMS IN A DIGITAL
Page 135 and 136: Sports content now accounts for som
Page 145 and 146: Talent development and training In
Page 153 and 154: Conclusion Television is changing.
Page 155 and 156: Recommendations General The UK’s
Page 161 and 162: Appointing the BBC board Sir David
Page 163 and 164: APPLICATION OF THE NOLAN PRINCIPLES
Page 165 and 166: BAFTA members’ survey delivered i
Page 173 and 174: Public service broadcasting, public
Page 177 and 178: Inquiry events Do we still need pub
Page 179 and 180: Acknowledgements Inquiry Report Con
show all

A FUTURE FOR PUBLIC SERVICE TELEVISION CONTENT AND PLATFORMS IN A DIGITAL WORLD

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?