The axing of Hardtalk in the latest round of BBC cuts has caused controversy.
It is hard to pretend that the loss of this in-depth interview programme is anything but a disappointing response to financial necessity.
It often features people of international note and interviews which probe their subjects properly.
But is it really such a blow to UK viewers?
Hardtalk is usually shown in the UK overnight or at the weekends.
Its principal slot is on BBC World.
Just how much of its budget came from the licence fee and how much came from the commercial budget of BBC World?
I say this not to defend the decision to axe Hardtalk but to try to ensure the controversy it has generated in certain quarters does not distract from the bigger question of BBC funding and ensuring the corporation has the resources it needs.
The licence fee is paid by the British public to fund high quality British content for British audiences – on TV, radio and online.
In recent years the BBC has also had to absorb costs associated with international broadcasting – traditionally paid by the Foreign Office. Ideally, of course, international TV services run at a profit and generate revenue for domestic services.
The risk of domestic BBC News and Current Affairs simply suffering a death by a thousand cuts is much more serious than the axing of a programme with a low UK audience.
Newsnight in its traditional form, local radio, a dedicated domestic news channel – what next?
Rightly, money follows the audience – online services are hugely important and the first choice for some. They need maintained and enhanced.
But a lack of money has also meant cutting traditional services further and faster than anyone would want.
It should be noted too that genuine efficiencies are possible – technology has improved working practices and is it really so bad for national radio stations to share news summaries.
But maybe there needs to be a renewed focus on maintaining the quality of the core TV output? Especially when it comes to deeper content rather than straight news.
I would suggest:
- Re-emphasising the role of the BBC News at Ten in providing analysis and coverage of economics, business, foreign affairs and culture.
- Reviewing TV current affairs output. Panorama’s profile needs to be boosted – it needs a fixed slot, without so many “specials” popping up at 9pm or 10.40pm. It should be at 8pm on Mondays every working week of the year and extended to an hour regularly. The nations should not timeshift it.
- Considering running Question Time earlier consistently.
- Reviewing whether other current affairs strands on BBC One/BBC Two are needed. Should there be a consistent place for popular current affairs on The One Show, just as Watchdog has a regular slot? Is there a place for specialist strands on BBC Two, successors to The Money Programme and Public Eye?
At the risk of making this sound like W1A, it’s about doing less but doing it better. High profile output of impact which audiences can find.
Ultimately though, it’s time to campaign for a restorative rise in BBC funding.
The new government is not ideologically hostile to the BBC or publicly funded broadcasting.
More money is needed.
But in return the BBC needs to give clear undertakings – which can be enforced – to restore and enhance the kind of services commercial broadcasters cannot or will not provide.
Acknowledgements
PICTURED: BBC News set in Salford. COPYRIGHT: BBC.