Pollard Report .... BBC Management Beyond Parody?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

as Terry Thomas might have said "What a shower"

...the legacy of Thompson eh ... which shows exactly what quality of management the license payers got for his megabucks ...

also to be fair the legacy of Alastair Campbell and his attack dogs in the Hutton Inquisition et seq ...

so ths is the calibre of those more equal who seek to inform and educate us ... alas they entertain us but not from their intent

[handsomefortune]

i wonder what's in the broadsheets on the pollard report? beeb management are 'beyond parody' - mainly because they aren't very visible at all!

on today's 'the media show' on r4 i heard the phrase 'dismantling the beeb brick by brick', amongst other phrases that also made me shudder. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01pc3bt

of course, it's not the management that seek to 'educate and entertain' ...that's done by more normal people who have identifiable talents and objectives.

did i hear a mustardy old colonel barking about 'no one being in charge, to discipline beeb staff' ....? steve hewlett also seemed under pressure at one point to agree with the opinion that the beeb management are wonderful people!

the louis theroux documentary about the mad bbc dj seems extra eery in retrospect, haunting.

unsurprisingly, there are many unanswered questions, 'it's hard to know where to start' is often repeated lately. despite all the recent drama, the beeb discussing itself endlessly, none of steve hewlett's guests sounded convincing imo, as regards positive changes at the beeb..... though proven 'offenders' have apparently been shuffled off to distanced work locations, a resignation or two, but no redundancies...this far.

what's the bet that the 'dismantling' operation hinted at today might turf out all the wrong people?

not to mention, how to improve the image as a corporation? having sat on info for 11 months, and when the beeb's vicarious liability is called into question, management having 'failed to control' savile which seems to be 'coming up next folks'. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01p7bxr

imo good to hear someone in the legal profession stressing negative effects of litigation on communities, avoidance of liability for employees or volunteers having taken its toll on participation, and imv has always made 'the big society' idea totally unworkable. an academic specifically interested in the notion of legal integrity, named claire mc iver, made some interesting points too i thought.

[Lateralthinking1]

'dismantling the beeb brick by brick'

Really? Rippon, Gibbons and van Klaveran are all moving to new roles but not necessarily lesser roles; Stephen Mitchell becomes the first person ever to "agree to resign" and "retire next year" simultaneously; and Helen Boaden's "stepping back" on Thursday.

Meanwhile the police have made the "incredible" discovery that Gary Glitter is dodgy, identified John Peel as having had a young wife in the 1960s as mentioned in his autobiography and asked DLT if he was frequently obnoxious to adults. I'm not impressed.

[scottycelt]

Really? Rippon, Gibbons and van Klaveran are all moving to new roles but not necessarily lesser roles; Stephen Mitchell becomes the first person ever to "agree to resign" and "retire next year" simultaneously; and Helen Boaden's "stepping back" on Thursday.

'Stepping Back' into her previous 'role' despite Pollard's criticism? ... and Mitchell's resignation was 'accepted with great sadness' even though he is actually 'retiring' next year? That. frankly, is taking the **** and a clear attempt to make fools of the public which has to foot the bill. Not to mention the fact we are still in an actual (if not strictly technical) recession when many jobs in the public sector have been lost. Who do these publicly-funded, untouchable, self-preserving careerists think they are?

It's not merely 'banking culture' that needs changing it's MANAGEMENT culture, though that may be easier said than done, unfortunately

[Lateralthinking1]

The main hope is that this particular set of managers won't jeopardise the Corporation. Currently the Government appears to be of the opinion that it is for the BBC to sort out its own affairs. That is a better line from it than might have been expected. But if it doesn't, it will be the viewers and listeners who suffer yet again.

I think decisions must be taken as if the Government's line had been less sympathetic. It isn't adequate simply just to meet reasonable expectations or not even to go that far. I do agree that there are significant problems with management culture generally and would like the BBC now to lead the way on sensible reform.

[handsomefortune]

robin lustwig must know more than most about working at the beeb?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/19/at-bbc-deputy-heads-will-roll?INTCMP=SRCH

perhaps the bbc trust also has 'a dark side'?

the publication of the 185-page report by nick pollard, former head of sky news http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...=ILCNETTXT3487

the pollard review shows lord justice leveson 'how it's done'....apparently!! http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...bbc?intcmp=239

the effects on public trust, and the future of the license fee, (due to be reviewed 2017):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/dec/18/public-trust-bbc-jimmy-savile?intcmp=239

journalists who felt everyone should know about jimmy savile, regardless of everything else feel betrayed, having gathered convincing evidence http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...bbc?intcmp=239

lastly, the beeb's image abroad, as reflected by online discussion of this drama (which understandably would fill a few thousand cloth postal sacks, if posted offline) suggests that many believe that the beeb has always been anxious to conceal this news story. apparently, the last person to try to uncover it, for all the public to see, was jill dando, who promptly died. perhaps this theory needs investigating too? it is also a really negative image for the psb to have abroad, quite apart from the js case itself? but i suspect a fat chance of that ever happening, when journalists can't even broadcast their research once it's made, and a .....y tribute is broadcast instead! ! personally i don't blame rippon exactly. if there's a culture of concealing this story, why might rippon risk running in the opposite direction....? although presumably rippon could have retired a hero of journalism, and bought about justice... for the vulnerable victims of the 'madcap' dj.

perhaps it might be more sensible to assume that an org running for as long as the beeb has, would be very odd in deed, if it didn't have some dark secrets, that it prefers to 'forget', (though all is revealed sometimes 20 odd years on). but it's important to remember that exactly the same applies to sky of course, or any other longstanding news vendor. which i think puts 'recession when many jobs in the public sector have been lost' into proper context, as it is not the central issue, not by a long chalk. though this comparatively petty gripe might be very tempting for those struggling in the pitch black dark of the current economic recession, (certain news vendors may hope).

[handsomefortune]

Meanwhile the police have made the "incredible" discovery that Gary Glitter is dodgy, identified John Peel as having had a young wife in the 1960s as mentioned in his autobiography and asked DLT if he was frequently obnoxious to adults. I'm not impressed.

agreed!

around the globe many must be wondering what the hell our detectives are playing at lateralthinking1!? it's as if they are 'going through the motions', perhaps hoping it'll all blow over!

[VodkaDilc]

Really? Rippon, Gibbons and van Klaveran are all moving to new roles but not necessarily lesser roles; Stephen Mitchell becomes the first person ever to "agree to resign" and "retire next year" simultaneously; and Helen Boaden's "stepping back" on Thursday.

I have not seen a convincing explanation of where these 'new but not lesser roles' are being found. Will people be pushed out to make vacancies? Or will still more roles be created?

(Is this a suitable place to remark that the member who writes at length without capital letters makes his/her postings very difficult to read. All too often, I give up when I see a stretch of such uniform prose. If capitals did not serve a purpose they would have fallen out of use. Sorry to moan - and I was not even an English teacher.)

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Now as someone working in the public sector, if I were to be made redundant, I would receive 1 week's salary for each year worked during the last 20 years.
If Mr Enwhistle worked for 2 months (slightly less, but why split hairs?), then it would seem reasonable for him to be paid O.166666666 of a week's salary as his final settlement.
Or have I missed something?

[Ferretfancy]

I think that there were two events in the late 1980s which set the BBC slowly on the path towards this disaster.

The first was Mrs Thatcher's decree that a substantial proportion of the Corporation's output should be made by independent companies, starting at 25% and required to increase over several years. The second was the arrival of John Birt.

It has been said that the BBC was a club, but a club with strict rules and good administration. The advantage of this internally was that any programme maker worked within a structured department, This meant that if he or she had any doubts or needed advice it was always possible to ask more experienced people further up the ladder. No doubt this could be bureaucratic and tiresome at times, but it meant that a certain house style and attitude existed, whether in Current Affairs, News, Drama, or any other stream, and serious mistakes were rare.
With the commissioning of programmes from outside the BBC, and I suspect a rather lax attitude to the need to demand quality, the rot began to set in, and this got worse under the rule of Birt with his inability to encourage creativity,. In the last ten years departments like the old Music and Arts have virtually disappeared and programme quality of all kinds seems to subject to a sort of lottery, If it's any good that may be by a happy accident.

I remember attending a meeting at which the plans for Birt's internal market were outlined by a young high flyer who had, as it was once said, rose without trace. When a very committed film editor asked what this meant for public service broadcasting, he was told not to be sentimental.

[scottycelt]

Now as someone working in the public sector, if I were to be made redundant, I would receive 1 week's salary for each year worked during the last 20 years.
If Mr Enwhistle worked for 2 months (slightly less, but why split hairs?), then it would seem reasonable for him to be paid O.166666666 of a week's salary as his final settlement.
Or have I missed something?

These senior managers all seem to be on guaranteed contracts like star football players so they can never lose (indeed gain) if the contract is terminated early. I would have thought there would be a 'get-out clause' for a company in those cases where performance were deemed unsatisfactory, but obviously Entwistle had hardly got his feet under the desk.

Patten is at pains to point out it could have cost the BBC more in legal fees etc in the case of challenge if the sum had not been granted. In today's corporate world, this does ring true, and, imo, is virtually akin to blackmail. Surely highly-paid executives should be prepared to take the rough with the smooth and recognise that while they can rake it in during 'normal' times they can also expect to carry the can when things turn sour, and therefore lose financially as a result.

The problem is how to stop these absurd public-sector contracts when they are the norm in private industry? It doesn't take an Einstein to work out that most people, quite naturally, will opt for companies that provide the best financial offer for their services.

I and many others have made the blindingly obvious case that management culture is at the root of the problem here. That's the easy part. Alas, I haven't a clue as to how all this can now be changed in a free society.

Any ideas?

[Lateralthinking1]

robin lustwig must know more than most about working at the beeb?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/19/at-bbc-deputy-heads-will-roll?INTCMP=SRCH

perhaps the bbc trust also has 'a dark side'?

the publication of the 185-page report by nick pollard, former head of sky news http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...=ILCNETTXT3487

the pollard review shows lord justice leveson 'how it's done'....apparently!! http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...bbc?intcmp=239

the effects on public trust, and the future of the license fee, (due to be reviewed 2017):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/dec/18/public-trust-bbc-jimmy-savile?intcmp=239

journalists who felt everyone should know about jimmy savile, regardless of everything else feel betrayed, having gathered convincing evidence http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...bbc?intcmp=239

lastly, the beeb's image abroad, as reflected by online discussion of this drama (which understandably would fill a few thousand cloth postal sacks, if posted offline) suggests that many believe that the beeb has always been anxious to conceal this news story. apparently, the last person to try to uncover it, for all the public to see, was jill dando, who promptly died. perhaps this theory needs investigating too? it is also a really negative image for the psb to have abroad, quite apart from the js case itself? but i suspect a fat chance of that ever happening, when journalists can't even broadcast their research once it's made, and a .....y tribute is broadcast instead! ! personally i don't blame rippon exactly. if there's a culture of concealing this story, why might rippon risk running in the opposite direction....? although presumably rippon could have retired a hero of journalism, and bought about justice... for the vulnerable victims of the 'madcap' dj.

perhaps it might be more sensible to assume that an org running for as long as the beeb has, would be very odd in deed, if it didn't have some dark secrets, that it prefers to 'forget', (though all is revealed sometimes 20 odd years on). but it's important to remember that exactly the same applies to sky of course, or any other longstanding news vendor. which i think puts 'recession when many jobs in the public sector have been lost' into proper context, as it is not the central issue, not by a long chalk. though this comparatively petty gripe might be very tempting for those struggling in the pitch black dark of the current economic recession, (certain news vendors may hope).

Interesting hf. What a thoroughly dire article from Mr Sabbagh in The Guardian. I don't think Nick Pollard's report "hit the mark" or that it was "insightful, well-written, and at 185 pages, just the right length". At most, it was produced quickly. I suppose the other thing to be said for it is a modicum of neutrality. It was very foolhardy to appoint an ex Sky/ITV person to undertake it but, by good fortune or because media management types may ultimately club together, he proved less biased than some expected.

Frankly, 185 pages is far too long for many members of the public to feel that any conclusions are transparent. Even I as someone interested in such things can't comprehend precisely what has been decided. Sabbagh's eulogy continues "his key conclusion was not so much that any particular individidual had failed or lied". Not so much than what? He doesn't say clearly. The phrase just hovers in the air and in any case that is precisely what is wrong with all management culture. What of differential pay scales?

With the kinds of salaries DGs etc are paid, the key conclusion should always be that a particular individual has failed. That individual should always be at the top for that is where the buck should stop. The alternative is to reduce the salaries of these people to 10% of current levels and to stop pretending that they are being paid for having huge responsibility. I am not overly bothered whether they can fairly be expected to know everything. They are paid as if they are expected to know everything.

And the wording is so weasel like. "Not so much that". So there is in fact an implication there that there is or should have been some individual responsibility but it is being sidestepped, airbrushed, etc. No one is supposed to notice it. And the article is actually downright contradictory because he then lays into Entwistle as if he were to blame while admittedly other individuals are presented as having made errors in an organisation with a "silo mentality", not that any should carry the can apparently.

So much for The Guardian. Going back to Pollard, he reports "leadership and organisation seemed to be in short supply". Seemed to be? Do these people never say things unequivocally? Actually they do. For example, who really gets off scot free? The guy now in America. The one who presided over the organisational nightmare for year upon year and who did not disagree with the choice of a successor who was clearly not a good candidate. He's not in any way to blame or so we are told. That is extraordinary.

And of course there is clarity too about the need for more private sector involvement in the future. Why of course. It was all of that insularity that led to the problems wasn't it? Well, no. It was partially the muddle around work that was contracted out that turned the day-to-day chaos into mayhem but never let facts get in the way of dogma. The BBC is insular or it can be but not principally in the way implied. Most of its insularity is saved for any interface with the public who pay for it. That will continue.

[Byas'd Opinion]

The problem is how to stop these absurd public-sector contracts when they are the norm in private industry?

The public sector's been told for years that it needs to be more like the private sector. Unfortunately it seems to be the worst aspect of private industry it's emulating: senior management stuffing their pockets while conditions get worse and worse for the ordinary worker. (I speak as someone who's worked in both public and private sectors).

Here's an interesting article on why the BBC's present problems are as much down to beliefs about how to run an organisation as to individual failings: http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad....eadership.html

[Lateralthinking1]

Meanwhile the police have made the "incredible" discovery that Gary Glitter is dodgy, identified John Peel as having had a young wife in the 1960s as mentioned in his autobiography and asked DLT if he was frequently obnoxious to adults. I'm not impressed.

agreed!

around the globe many must be wondering what the hell our detectives are playing at lateralthinking1!? it's as if they are 'going through the motions', perhaps hoping it'll all blow over!

There are of course several investigations still taking place including a number with reference to the BBC. Some are intended to establish more clearly what was taking place there in the 1970s and the 1980s. You have mentioned Jill Dando. That remains a very odd case but I am not commenting now on the forum about what a few might describe as conspiracy theories, whether in West London or in the French mountains. It has led to difficulties before and, in any case, this is not the time as frenchfrank is in hospital. I simply note that many events disappear for months or even many years from "the news agenda" and then reappear as, say, news story seven when everyone has supposedly forgotten. Compensation paid by the Government in connection with war campaigns, for example, on the same day that there is a good news story about Gary McKinnon. Well, what a coincidence!

Similarly, it is not right at this time to speculate on the half a dozen or so other people who have been mentioned in connection with the Savile investigation. There are legal processes and it is essential that they are respected. Suffice it to say that, in fairness, it isn't three who have been named but nearer ten, it is an oddball bunch who are by no means all closely connected to the BBC, and in several instances the implication appears to be that allegations are about behaviour with adults. While there seems to be little doubt that Savile was unusually peculiar and vile, what is not known is the extent of his interaction with other so-called celebrities or any culpability on the part of the BBC. And even some of the allegations against him - corpses etc - do not seem to be based on evidence. That is not to say they didn't happen but that hearsay, while inevitable, is both unhelpful and unwise.

I am not sure to what extent the investigations are likely to be successful, given that social history will inevitably be a significant factor. A second woman who had an affair at the age of 15 with a 30 year old John Peel has been on BBC television to clarify comments she made to the press a few years ago. She says that she feels awkward that he has been dragged into the mire, she wasn't forced into anything by him, she was all for the encounter, he didn't know her age and he was a gentleman. That helps and it doesn't. It shows what actually occurred but inadvertently promotes the idea that the one he married wasn't a one off. I am not sure what we are intended to conclude from it, if anything at all. In the same item, a woman journalist, now in her 60s, describes with regret a culture in which many willingly slept with almost anyone. Innocence was often lost in the name of freedom. That, I think, is a very significant point. With the advent of modern contraception, what was then perceived as female emancipation, and so on, not to mention a backlash against Victorian mores, there is a wider cultural context for any investigation to consider. To be believable, it will need to make distinctions between that common culture and the obscenely abnormal. That is a very difficult task.

At the end of the item, a youngish male journalist holds up an autobiography of Savile. He turns to the last page on which Savile says something about his attraction to young females and how he should be locked up. How on earth, he asks, did no one pick up on those comments at the time? Well, I can recall situation comedy series in which such comments were made all the time. It is the classic stuff of the Sid James characters in the Carry On films so I am not sure that anyone at the BBC can be blamed for not doing so. Clearly Savile and a few others were able to talk in those terms without huge suspicions although some time later more significant evidence may well have been ignored. Certainly it was the case that the average 20-something pop DJ or singer was more like a teenager in those times than ever before. That is not to excuse the behaviour at all but to note that the era was the beginning of society's ludicrous obsession with eternal youth. One simply has to look at the emotional outlook of many politicians or the celebrity botox brigade to recognise that the situation there hasn't been reversed. It is alarmingly commonplace in 2012.

The plus point is that society is now addressing the emotional impacts of behaviour. A key part of it is that women have found a new idea of liberation. It involves an ability to say "no". "New man" is more responsible and even mature enough to feel protective. What should be of concern, though, is that while this applies in many cases, in others it is little more than conceptual. To depict earlier eras as being where the ignorance occurred is almost to say that everything in the present day is wonderful. It isn't. For example, this country has a particularly poor record of teenage pregnancies. And I do wonder when many of us can wallow in the nostalgia of enjoying Top of the Pops as kids and think of music then as better; when we never had Google to find out what the glib were really like as people and were never so interested in them to ask questions, if there isn't something more to the current news. Is it not that society needs to feel better about the present economic climate and is fed up with glowing references to the past? Surely one way that current times can be made to feel more palatable is by destroying the innocent myths of the middle aged. Savile was a monster and there were no doubt others who were similar. But the BBC was - and is - a much bigger place.

[Serial_Apologist]

Many excellent and insightful points, Lat