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

A FUTURE FOR PUBLIC SERVICE TELEVISION
So it is felt that diversity, rather than niche
programming, is needed. Reasons given for
this include the concern that specialised
channels, catering to specific interests,
may lead to audiences missing out on
alternative programming that challenges
their views and broadens their information
horizons. Respondents also expressed
concern that if the BBC does not continue
to make a full range of programmes, it
would become a fringe channel. “This would
give rise to its value, and so become a selffulfilling
prophecy of its demise,” writes one
respondent. Another adds that: “It is vital
that the BBC make a broad and diverse range
of programmes as this reflects the diverse
audience of licence payers.”
4. Governance: “Don’t concentrate power in
fewer and fewer hands”
Many respondents express concern about
the internal and external governance of
public service broadcasting, and the impact
this has on content. There is a widely held
view amongst respondents, that multiple
layers of management within broadcasting
institutions can stifle creativity. Comments
include: “Get rid of consensus decision
making, get rid of a middle management that
strives for mediocrity”; “More development
and consultation with programme makers”;
“A quicker commissioning process and more
money and time invested in the development
of projects and scripts.” It is also suggested
that the power to green light projects is
currently in the hands of too few individuals
and needs to be more evenly spread. One
respondent articulates a view that is echoed
by a great deal of survey participants:
There seems to be a notion that finer and
finer filters will produce better and better
programmes. This is not the case, as creatives
become disillusioned and it fosters “look
alike” programming and “second guessing”
dominates submissions. A policy of “let a
thousand flowers bloom” would be better,
to see which unusual programmes would be
successful. The process has become far too
top down and driven by “channel profiles”
and “channel requirements” instead of
seeking out quality whatever form it takes.
The vast majority (77.6%) of respondents also
express unease about the current discussion
surrounding the privatisation of Channel 4.
Of specific concern is the possibility that
a change in ownership may lead to more
emphasis on generating profit, and decrease
the amount of revenue available for UK
originated content.
As for external governance, many
respondents highlight how vital it is to
safeguard the independence of the BBC
from Government and, as one respondent
puts it: “get rid of culture ministers who don’t
understand the industry they serve.” There
are also suggestions that the Government
engenders a climate of fear and uses, “the
licence fee as a stick to beat the BBC with”.
This, alongside financial constraints, is felt to
lead to the kind of timidity in commissioning
highlighted in the “Risk” section above. The
following point from one respondent captures
the view of many:
The BBC must be protected financially and
given sufficient money to compete in a
competitive market with less interference
from Government, as it seems to have to
spend so much of its time justifying itself and
cutting costs.
170