CBA General Conference - 2004
NEWS AND SPEECHES
 |
|
Government and the Broadcaster
BARRY LANGRIDGE, REGIONAL HEAD, ASIA AND THE PACIFIC REGION, BBC WORLD SERVICE
Introduction:
Chair, Honoured Guests, Fellow Broadcasters….First of all I bring greetings from Mark Byford, who was due to lead our delegation to this meeting of the CBA. These have been turbulent days at the BEEB. When he accepted the invitation, Mark was Head of the BBC’s Global News Division, which includes the World Service. Three weeks ago he was promoted to Deputy Director-General of the BBC, and then, after the dramatic events post-Hutton, he was made Acting D-G. He has apologised for not, in the circumstances, being able to get to the CBA, and has asked me to represent him, which I am delighted to do.
I know a lot of you from my previous jobs with the World Service - Head of Africa and Middle East, and Head of South Asia. So I feel among friends – and professionals who share many of the recurring challenges we at the BBC have faced for 80 years and the new ones which crop up almost every day in this era of such rapid media change.
Hutton.
Our Chair, Elizabeth has told me that there was intense interest in the Hutton enquiry and its aftermath; saying that colleagues would expect me to talk about it. I’ll answer by using Mark’s own words to staff and to the public over the past couple of weeks, on what his priorities were now that he is the Acting man at the top. His message has been threefold. Firstly, it is business as usual. The BBC will now move ahead as the largest multi-media broadcaster in the world – the world’s largest public service broadcaster. Secondly, the BBC does this calmly but ensuring that we learn by any mistakes we have made editorially or in our editorial process. Thirdly, that we will continue to be independent and not susceptible to influence from special interests, commercial pressure groups, or political groups. As part of that we will continue our submission for the review/renewal of the licence fee by which the domestic non-commercial part of our many activities are funded. That process is gathering momentum and reaches its climax over the next two years. Mark has also been asked whether the BBC’s edge has been blunted by our recent experiences. His reply has been unequivocal, and perhaps I could put it this way: Tim Sebastian will be no less sharp on Hardtalk on BBC World TV; Robin White’s successors no less sharp on Network Africa and Focus on Africa; Robin Lustig no less sharp on Newshour; Panorama (Domestic TV and BBC World) will keep their edge too. And our world-famous online sites will be not one whit less sharp on every story from Bird Flu to AIDS. Again, in all our news programmes and investigative programmes, it is business as usual.
On Hutton, we accept the report has been published and that it has identified some mistakes by the BBC. Mark has launched an internal review to ensure that we learn from the mistakes made. In an organisation on the scale of the BBC, broadcasting hundreds of hours every day it is unrealistic to think mistakes won’t be made. No one makes them deliberately but we can try and minimise them.
The review will also tighten up our procedures into looking into mistakes, handling those complaints quickly, putting things right and apologies when we do get this wrong.
Meanwhile, a process has started to find a new Chair of the BBC Board of Governors, the governors who act as trustees of the public interest and regulate the BBC – they safeguard its independence, set its objectives and monitor its performance. You will recall that the previous Chair, Gavyn Davies, resigned soon after the Hutton report was published. The new Chair will be appointed – as Gavyn Davies was - under a process known as the Nolan rules. Nolan is aimed at ensuring a hands-off process for choosing top public service appointments – ensuring independence. The present British government has announced, post Hutton, that an eminent Civil Servant will oversee the process – her previous work has included overseeing public appointments in Northern Ireland. I and my colleagues here are available to take you through how this works, if you wish to seek us out after the session. So a new Chair of the Board of Governors will be chosen probably before Easter. That person and the rest of the Board of Governors will then choose a new Director- General of the BBC. (Mark is, as I’ve said, Acting D-G for now). So by the English summer, we will have those two posts filled. We then anticipate the Director of World Service will be advertised.
On the BBC remaining independent, Mark has said and I will repeat for him – this is not in any doubt. Firstly because our Royal Charter and accompanying Agreements ensure and enjoins us to be independent; secondly because the British people and audiences round the world want it that way; thirdly because if the BBC were not independent, the journalists would walk out – a direct quote from Mark last week. To me, it is inconceivable that the BBC could be anything less than proudly independent. But as Mark has stressed, that means building trust which means, if you do make a mistake, own up to it, fix it and move on.
So that’s almost it for Hutton and one of the most eventful months in the history of our corporation. One more thing. We are often asked now about the ‘fall-out’ from Hutton - questions about Weapons of Mass Destruction, what the government knew, what the intelligence services knew and did and thought…The BBC is not entering into that debate. It does not have a view. It will report, and is reporting on any such debate, fairly, accurately and comprehensively as appropriate. Government and Broadcaster.
So, Chair, colleagues, I will now move to the subject at the heading of our papers today – Government and the Broadcaster. What does the BBC make of such a broad question? I speak mostly from the point of view of the public service broadcaster.
It seems to me that the role of legislative bodies – not particularly the governments of the day – is to set up systems and frameworks whereby public and private broadcasters can operate in a free and fair atmosphere, free especially from political influence or lop-sided commercial or special interests. Those systems should include independent panels to ensure that all broadcasters observe ethical and legal requirements concerning libel, profanity, reflecting views in a balanced way, and not offending public decency. They should ensure no one group dominates commercially, and that such systems allow minorities to be heard. But above all, to repeat, these should be set up and run well away from influence from the government of the day, or they are of not much use – no one will respect them if they are not free and peopled by members of distinction and independent mind. The government of the day should not interfere in those systems, unless some new and significant change needs to be made for the public or broadcasting good – but broadcasters and the public will always want to know why a government is suggesting any change, and holding any suggestion up to a very cold light of government scrutiny.
The price of broadcasting freedom is eternal vigilance. To help us with this vigilance, here are a few ‘danger’ words which I would suggest should set red light flashing if a government or politician starts using them:
National interest – often this means no more or less than the interest of the government or politician using the phrase.
National security – even more lights flashing when this is used. Too often, it is the security of the sitting government or president which is in question here…watch out for this phrase just before elections. Sensitivities – a more difficult word because it can appear so sensible. Religious, ethnic, gender sensitivities, are indeed important, and a careless or vindictive broadcaster can do untold harm. In each of our countries, and in this beautiful country of our hosts, we have had ethnic conflicts and civil disturbances. Examples of broadcasters making things worse are in fact, very rare. The hideous activities of the Milles Collines radio station ten years ago in Rwanda, with its enjoining of massacre, is the most notorious of these. And, of course, when local interest groups, or ethnic groups might own a radio or television station, much harm could in theory be done. However, there are two points to bear in mind here. The first is that very, very few broadcasters fall into this group – of local or religious propagandists who wish to make trouble. The second point is that an independent board or authority, which is trusted and respected and is not, repeat, not politically motivated itself – is the best place for these things to be handled either through the tender process when licences are given, or in hauling in a station with a view to holding them up to the rules. Governments who set up non-independent bodies will always be suspected of looking after their own interests rather than those of the people who elected them, and such bodies are of little or no real use.
A last danger word:
Patriotism - Traitors and related words: When a country is at war – civil war or cross-border war – these phrases are so often used. It can be deemed unpatriotic to report on a disaster, mistake, or defeat. Yet I would claim that this is the time when responsible public service broadcasting is at its most important. When everyone else is losing their heads, the public service broadcaster must keep cool, not least because there can be a temporary blindness among listeners to what is expected from the broadcaster. It can never be the job or a public service broadcaster mindlessly to wave the flag – or mindlessly to burn it. The job remains the same as in time of peace, but of course it is much more difficult. From the BBC experience I could cite numerous examples when the government of the day has accused the corporation of ‘helping/cheering up’ the enemy.
When we reported during the Suez crisis that Colonel Nasser was being cheered in the streets of every Arab Nation, and that the British and French governments were isolated in terms of international opinion, we were vilified by the government of the day and indeed by much of the British press. During the Faulklands Islands War, when BBC reports suggested that the Admiral Belgrano (which was bombed and sunk with loss of 400 people) was actually steaming away from the area of conflict when it was hit, we were again vilified in parliament and press. In the Gulf war a report that a bombed cellar thought to be full of Iraqi intelligence activities was in fact full of women and children, also brought down wrath….and so it goes on – I recall when Kate Adie reported in Tripoli, where she happened to be – that an American air-raid which used British bases had not killed Colonel Gaddafi, but had killed his young daughter…again we had a rough time – you might call it a handbagging. The BBC believes that it is there to ask questions, and this includes asking them at a time of conflict. This is not to ignore the dangers of mis-information or whipping up feelings in one group or another. But history shows that the job in war is the same as it is in peace. It is just more difficult.
The Burdens of Public Broadcasting. I would say that the government, or legislators in successive governments, have another duty, and that is to be honest and open about the problem that public broadcasters have in funding themselves when they are enjoined or required to fill the broadcasting gaps which commercial stations can avoid. I am not talking about politics now. I am thinking of formerly ‘state’ broadcasters who are told that their subsidy is now to be cut, and that they are now in the open choppy waters of commercial competition. But all too often those bodies are told to set sail – but still carry excess baggage. They are asked to reach many small language or interest groups even though that may be wildly uncompetitive; they are asked to broadcast at a wide range of hours; they are asked to carry ‘information’ and ‘education’ programmes – which are worthy in their aim but again are seldom going to attract much commercial or NGO finances. And as a result sometimes have to carry such programmes made by UN bodies or NGOs, programmes which are dull, worthy…sometimes instant switch-offs. How the commercial sector loves it when a public broadcaster has to carry those programmes!
Then again, so often we see that ‘state’ broadcasters moving – or being made to move into the new age of commercial competition, find that they have inherited hundreds of staff, some untrainable, who cannot be got rid of – because the government backed by the trade unions will not allow the former state broadcaster to become trim and fit. In my travels round the Commonwealth I have found this again and again, and have sympathised with the energetic but sometimes thwarted CEOs faced with these problems. Often, because they simply cannot push change through, their best staff leave for the commercial sector and their perhaps less able staff stay behind. The playing field is therefore not level. My submission is that governments have to be more subtle and honest about these complexities – otherwise they will have nothing but commercial broadcasters, and in my view, and I think in the view of many others, that is not a healthy situation to be in, for a whole range of reasons which include programme quality and the need to reach wide groups of audiences.
The Broadcaster.
What about the broadcaster – what is our role. We demand so much from the government, so what about us? Chair, the obligations of the broadcaster, it seems to me, is to withstand outside pressures which might affect their output, truth or honesty, (as well as the technical rules of the spectrum and so on) while at the same time honouring fair rules on ethics and so forth as I’ve mentioned. Our role is to be independent, but also to be right and fair – not only because that is ethically right, but because we do not want to give any ammunition which can be used against us by pressure groups or interests who do not really, at heart, understand the ethic of public broadcasting.
So we have to regulate ourselves hard, from the cutting-room floor to the newsroom – or someone will try to regulate us even harder than they do now. We have to be firm with government on the questions I have set above on the cost of doing a broad band of activities. We should demand that if we make a profit in one area, that should be used in the non-profit-making or loss-making areas which public broadcasters have to enter.
We should be robust with commercial rivals who would love to keep us in our loss- making boxes so that they can roam the profitable sectors unchallenged. We must fight, in terms of sports rights, so that the public – the widest public – can see their favourites on the field of play, rather than relegate key matches to those channels which can make most money out of subscription fees or sponsorship and advertising. But above all, I think we have to be brave and insist on independence even though it may cost some of us our pensions or flashy offices. After all, if the public broadcaster is not telling the truth, even when it hurts, who will work for us? Who will listen to our radio programmes, watch our TV programmes or log into our internet sites? Non- commercial broadcasters who do not insist and fight for independence will, in my view, sink and die in the modern environment. The good news is that the public understand this and should never be underestimated in their ability to work this out, and help us deliver.