For the BBC’s supporters, the much anticipated green paper on its future must have seemed like an early Christmas present.
Ignore the headlines in some newspapers which aren’t friends of the corporation. This was a vote of confidence in the BBC.
The BBC is simply much too important to weaken and undermine. The green paper recognises this.
The debate on what happens next should be a positive one – not an existential battle.
The points for discussion include governance arrangements, political appointees to the board and whether the corporation should have an actual requirement to counter misinformation elsewhere.
Supporters of the BBC should have no difficulty entering into this discussion.
Any organisation which is to survive needs to be self critical.
What can the BBC do better? Are there things it does too little or too much of?
How can major errors – like the notorious Donald Trump edit – be dealt with more effectively?
What the green paper is not suggesting is a smaller BBC or one which retreats from popular programmes.
It should be no surprise that a green paper from a Labour government is not pandering to philosophical or ideological critics on the right – those who would want the BBC privatised, abolished or significantly smaller in scale.
One area for debate is funding. Are there realistic alternatives to the licence fee?
Nothing is off the table at this stage other than direct funding from general taxation.
Arguments about commercial funding and subscription are being revisited. But few within the industry think there is the slightest chance of any existing TV or radio services carrying ads or going behind a paywall.
The realistic question is about whether there is a way to address the genuine problems with the current system.
Instead of a flat fee, is there a way to create some link with the ability of someone to pay? What about people who don’t have a TV (or access to iPlayer) but who listen to BBC Radio or use the rest of the website?
The idea of a household charge – linked, perhaps, to council tax bands – has attractions. But there needs to be a proper debate on pros and cons.
I actually would not be completely surprised if the licence fee survives again, perhaps with minor modifications or discounts for the poorest.
In a way, it has only become a flat rate fee over the past 30 years.
Until the early 60s, those on the lowest incomes may well not have had a TV – just a radio.
Colour TVs were aspirational items for much of the 70s. Those on low incomes or with other priorities would have been likely to watch in black and white.
Even today, the daily cost of the TV licence is a fraction of the cost of any major newspaper or a decent takeaway coffee.
Those who care about the corporation – including critical friends and supporters who see real failings – should join the debate about the BBC’s future.
But those who are fundamentally opposed to its existence or compulsory funding by the public are unlikely to have the ear of ministers.
Acknowledgements
FEATURE IMAGE:
PICTURED: BBC logo at the front of BBC Broadcasting House (London). COPYRIGHT: BBC.
Acknowledgements