BBC Charter Review

[french frank]

Public consultation 16 July - 8 October

There's an online survey with 19 questions. In case people want to give them some thought first, here they are:

These questions look at the BBC’s mission, purpose and values.

Q1: How can the BBC’s public purposes be improved so there is more clarity about what the BBC should achieve?

Q2: Which elements of universality are most important for the BBC?

Q3: Should Charter Review formally establish a set of values for the BBC?

These questions look at what the BBC does in terms of its scale and scope.

Q4: Is the expansion of the BBC’s services justified in the context of increased choice for audiences? Is the BBC crowding out commercial competition and, if so, is this justified?

Q5: Where does the evidence suggest the BBC has a positive or negative wider impact on the market?

Q6: What role should the BBC have in preparing for the future technological landscape including in future radio switchover?

Q7: How well is the BBC serving its national and international audiences?

Q8: Does the BBC have the right genre mix across its services?

Q9: Is the BBC’s content sufficiently high quality and distinctive from that of other broadcasters? What reforms could improve it?

Q10: How should the system of content production be improved through reform of quotas or more radical options?

These questions look at how the BBC is funded.

Q11: How should we pay for the BBC and how should the licence fee be modernised?

Q12: Should the level of funding for certain services or programmes be protected? Should some funding be made available to other providers to deliver public service content?

Q13: Has the BBC been doing enough to deliver value for money? How could it go further?

Q14: How should the BBC’s commercial operations, including BBC Worldwide, be reformed?

These questions look at BBC governance and regulation.

Q15: How should the current model of governance and regulation for the BBC be reformed?

Q16: How should Public Value Tests and Service Licences be reformed and who should have the responsibility for making these decisions?

Q17: How could the BBC improve engagement with licence fee payers and the industry through research, transparency and complaints handling?

Q18: How should the relationship between Parliament, Government, Ofcom, the National Audit Office and the BBC work? What accountability structures and expectations, including financial transparency and spending controls should apply?

Q19: Should the existing approach of a 10-year Royal Charter and Framework Agreement continue?

More to the point, what does anyone think about the questions (never mind answering them)?

[Serial_Apologist]

Many thanks for this, FF.

My temptation is to photocopy the list of questions and carry it around in my pocket in readiness for any ideas that may come spontaneously to mind.

In answer to your own concluding question, without prior experience of such exercises it does seem rather hard gauging what the terms are behind some of them. Is one expected to contribute answers to all of the questions, and ignored for just going for the easier ones?

[french frank]

In answer to your own concluding question, without prior experience of such exercises it does seem rather hard gauging what the terms are behind some of them. Is one expected to contribute answers to all of the questions, and ignored for just going for the easier ones?

Mmm, well, it is a consultation for the 'public' but I did wonder what people would make of such questions as : 'Which elements of universality are most important for the BBC?'

I'm imagining that the online survey is just a guideline of the general areas covered, and if one wanted to write a general response and post it to them instead, that would be all right - it will be the civil servants sifting through it all, I would think. I see areas which I have thoughts on and others where I don't know quite what they're getting at

I'm also trying to guess where the traps have been laid

[Quarky]

More to the point, what does anyone think about the questions (never mind answering them)?

The publicity given to this consultation has certainly made me think about, probably for the first time, issues arising in PSB. However this consultation appears to build upon a mountain of existing reviews, consultations and proposals. OFCOM review was published 2nd July, and would I assume be necessary reading for anyone knowledgeable enough to respond to this consultation:

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/psb-review-3/statement/PSB_Review_3_Statement.pdf

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

... what does anyone think about the questions (never mind answering them)?

Very Birtish (not a typo) - more time spent formulating the vocabulary and syntax of the questions than giving serious thought to what questions should be asked.

Cynically - the wording is calculated to put off many people who might wish to contribute to the discussion, and those who are not so deterred are face with a set of leading questions (in particular, two points each requiring individual attention spliced together so that neither can be adequately addressed) designed to sheepdog them into the general pen of supporting the Beeb's point of view.

Less cynically - the questions have been composed by a bunch of Siobhans whose thinking is so stuck in this mindset (Where does the evidence suggest the BBC has a positive or negative wider impact on the market? ) that they do not realize that there are other, more important, questions to be addressed, and other, more effective ways of getting the public involved.

The most useful/productive question to be addressed IMO is the first part of Q9 (the second "half" indicates that this question has already been answered in the negative) - all other points fall into place after this has been made the primary focus.

[french frank]

ferney - there's nothing to stop us devising our own questions, and giving our individual answers. But is it worth bothering, if the mass of the general public sticks to the questions asked and is ushered towards the answers wanted? Or don't reply at all?

The online replies to the BBC Trust's last review on the music radio stations were, if I remember, a tiny fraction of those who replied in 2010. Survey fatigue ?

[antongould]

Just done it 19 mostly stupid questions in 30 minutes - answers mildly superb ....forgot to mention Breakfast ....

[Russ]

The OFCOM review makes fairly bleak reading in respect of drama, arts and culture programmes, even with what OFCOM perceive as a reasonably healthy overall PSB sector under the current licensing regime.

Russ

[french frank]

The OFCOM review makes fairly bleak reading in respect of drama, arts and culture programmes, even with what OFCOM perceive as a reasonably healthy overall PSB sector under the current licensing regime.

Just ploughing through the Green Paper (at least the Executive Summary). It raises whether specific content should be 'directly referenced' - eg drama, natural history, news. Which gives an idea of the direction of government thinking

It also mentions how 'universality' is variously interpreted: 'to others, this has been interpreted
as providing due emphasis on covering single unifying events such as the Proms, Royal weddings, and election coverage'. Goodness me - who put the Proms in there, and why? :-O

[french frank]

And again, on the mission to 'inform, educate and entertain' - which it broadly supports: 'it is a very broad mission, and one that risks the BBC competing for ratings not quality, or distinctiveness, under the ‘entertainment’
banner.

I'm afraid I can't disagree with that. And popular entertainment, above all. Whoever says the arts, classical music, even education, aren't also entertaining?

[Russ]

I am beginning to wonder, in attempting to differentiate between 'inform' and 'educate', whether the BBC should have a formal mission to 'educate'. In the public purposes, this is amplified as 'Promoting education and learning', and the first two specific remits of 'stimulate informal learning across a full range of subjects' and 'engage audiences in activities targeted to achieve specific outputs'. There is a third remit relating specifically to CBBC, which I don't have a problem with, but nevertheless it seems to me that promoting education and stimulating informal learning aren't quite the same thing and don't quite add up to a formal 'educate' function.

Or put the question another way - if in the future the BBC does have to stand alone on a purely subscription model, why would it feel it needs to keep a formal education role in the absence of a large slice of government grant from the Department of Education?

Russ

[french frank]

The way the BBC 'amplifies' some of its commitments often means that it interprets them slightly questionably.

That said, it has had a policy of straightforward education in the past - especially on the Third, as it happens, with Network Three.

[As for a government grant … ]

[Quarky]

I can't see at present anything in this Public Consultation and the new Minister for Culture's public comments, that would move him away from the full analysis and conclusions in the Trust's recent review of Music on BBC Radio stations:
: Radio 3 should maximise its maximise its distinctiveness. While individual programme and scheduling decisions are for BBC Radio , not the Trust, we think that the priority for Radio 3 should be to be to be to increase choice for radio listeners by maximising its distinctiveness and minimising similarities with other stations
timing; We will take an update in 12 months.

This seems to be work in progress.

A danger in this consultation may be that Radio 3 gets lost in the debate, which mainly concerns the high value mass viewer TV channels. However I am sure that R3 fans are going to shout loud enough to be heard in the melee.

[Gordon]

People might find these transcripts of a couple of HoL hearings on July 7th and 14th a good read: because they are verbatim and unredacted you'll have to put up with the colloquial nature of the reports:

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/communications-committee/bbc-charter-renewal-public-purposes-and-licence-fee/oral/18707.pdf

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/communications-committee/bbc-charter-renewal-public-purposes-and-licence-fee/oral/18731.pdf

Note that the inquiry is not just taking input from invited attendees but also open for written input from anyone who takes the trouble - closing date 21st August. Details of the background to this inquiry and how to respond here:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/communications-committee/news-parliament-2015/bbc-inquiry-launch/

BTW there is another Trust consultation due out tomorrow!!

[Frances_iom]

Thanks Gordon for those links - must admit I was totally surprised at the hours even the young spent in front of a TV - however the much more worrying point was that made by Lord Birt re the total destruction of any concept that the BBC was independent of Government by the removal, without any public discussion, of £650M from its income and the effect this political act will have in the future on the public's view of the BBC's independence