Neil Arun didn’t want to miss a rare but risky opportunity to embed with an Iraqi police unit, hunting members of al Qaeda. But his employers -- responsible for Neil’s security -- weren’t happy. This film by Richard Pendry nvestigates how a frontline journalist balances risk and reward.
James Murdoch's stinging attack on what he views as a paternalistic, monopolistic BBC during the recent MacTaggart Lecture brought a terse and predictable response from the BBC.
The arguments re-ignited by Murdoch are old ones. They have been repeated regularly since 1922. If you're interested in knowing how we got here and where we're going next, read on!
Murdoch (son of Rupert, the owner of Sky, The Times, News International etc) accused the BBC of being a bloated, state funded colossus that seeks to expand into, dominate and control every possible area of broadcasting. In the process the BBC, and the philosophy that drives it, "threatens significant damage to.. innovation and growth of the creative industries".
The BBC, he warns, is using the rapidly changing digital media landscape and the unstoppable rise of internet video to extend its control over our media lives, "The land grab is spear-headed by the BBC. The scale and scope of its current activities and future ambitions is chilling".
For me, this is the key phrase in his speech; "Being funded by a universal hypothecated tax, the BBC feels empowered and obliged to try to offer something for everyone, even in areas well served by the market". (A hypothecated tax is a flat fee levied by the government to meet a specific spending objective - in case you were wondering!)
To sum up, Murdoch's view is that massive, state funded domination of the media industry stifles competition and creativity and is ultimately not a good thing.
So what was the BBC's response to this 5,000 word assault?
It came in five short paragraphs from Sir Michael Lyons, the Chairman of the BBC Trust; it's very brevity an indication of its author's disdain. You can almost see him looking down his nose as you read his words.
"The BBC has no choice but to serve all audiences" says Lyons in the manner of someone having been disturbed at his Riviera villa over the Bank Holiday weekend and forced to reply to Murdoch's tedious criticism.
To me Lyons' response sums up the entire BBC and the debate over its future. And it's not only because his tone reeks of privilege and arrogance, but also because those ten words highlight the central argument about what the BBC was created for and what its role should be in the future.
So why does Lyons assert that the BBC has "no choice but to serve all audiences"?
It's an old BBC argument and a circular, self justifying one at that.
Writing in the Listener in 1965 the journalist Peter Black talked about virtually the same issues outlined by Murdoch in 2009. Of the BBC's "duty" to compete Black said, "Of course many observers question the BBC's duty to compete at all. The answer is that if it did not, government would be under increased pressure to cut down its licence revenue".
And that, in a nutshell, perfectly describes the BBC's situation and its dilemma.
We are all forced to pay £142.50 a year to fund the BBC. If we don't watch or listen to the BBC's output, then we would have a strong case for wanting some or all of our money back. So what would the BBC look like if the licence fee were halved or quartered? The result would be a slimmed down, smaller BBC. The BBC perhaps as a niche, public service broadcaster.
And this is what terrifies the BBC (and its legions of managers) most; the thought that it might be cut down to size and lose its (and their) revenue, status, prestige and power. So the BBC argues that it "has no choice but to serve all audiences", driven by, in Murdoch's words, "The Corporation's inability to distinguish between what is good for it and what is good for the country".
As I say it's a circular argument.
Sir Michael Lyons would no doubt argue that the BBC's charter justifies this monopolistic view. He would perhaps read some lines from it, much as a Bishop might read one of the Ten Commandments; God given, ancient and set in stone.
So what is the historical background and justification for the BBC's self-aggrandising role, as outlined by Lyons? It dates from 1904 when the Wireless Telegraphy Act gave the Post Office the power to control all radio broadcasting in the UK. The aim was to prevent interference to important communications by strictly licensing transmitters.
The early 1920's saw a rapid boom in the ownership of home radio receivers and the companies that manufactured them, such as the Marconi company, wanted to create and broadcast content so people had something to listen to.
In 1922, the Post Office decided unilaterally that a single broadcasting organisation was a better idea than a number of different ones, so the British Broadcasting Company, which represented the various radio manufacturers of the day, came into being. The BBC was funded at first by private share capital, royalties on the sale of radio sets and from a half share of the Post Office's 10 shilling radio licence fee.
Two significant events followed; In 1923 the Sykes Committee, which looked at how the BBC should be funded, ruled out advertising "mainly on the ground that it would seriously affect the interests of newspapers which rely largely on advertising revenue".
In 2009 this has become, of course, a delicious irony. As national and local newspapers flounder around in the desperate search for revenue, their chief problem is how to compete with free online content from the BBC. Or as Murdoch put it, "dumping free, state-sponsored news on the market makes it incredibly difficult for journalism to flourish on the internet".
The Sykes Committee was followed in 1925 by the Crawford Committee of Enquiry which transformed the BBC into a Corporation (originally a "Commission") and confirmed its monopoly status. The paternalistic attitude of the Committee is clear: "We feel that the prestige and status of the Commission [i.e. the BBC] should be freely acknowledged.. We have framed our report with this object constantly in our minds, and we have done so with the knowledge that the State, through Parliament, must retain the right of ultimate control".
The rest, as they say, is history.
To me, this historical context and Sir Michael Lyons' terse response to Murdoch, illustrates how the BBC's role has failed to move with the times. For the BBC fundamentally nothing has changed. The corporation still believes the world is pretty much the same as it was all those years ago when it was created. The publicly funded BBC still believes it should be a monopoly, or at least the next best thing available in 2009; dominant in every walk of media life.
Whether that's a situation the BBC can defend and maintain for much longer is less clear.
Graham Majin is a former BBC Assistant Editor. He is currently Head of Video Marketing & Video Production at Kent Video Production Company www.kershmedia.co.uk www.kwikvid.com
