Written evidence submitted by Professor David Hutchison

WRITTEN EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO DCMS COMMITTEE INQUIRY INTO THE FUTURE OF PUBLIC SERVICE BROADCASTING FROM PROFESSOR DAVID HUTCHISON IN A PERSONAL CAPACITY.

Bullet point summary

Personal description and background.

The elements of PSB.

Current viewing and listening figures.

The financial pressures on PSB.

Ofcom and over-regulation.

Representing nations and regions - a new dispensation?

The internet and accessibility.

The national and global impacts of PSB.

Securing the future.

Broadcasting and other media.

Who am I?

Currently I am Honorary Professor in Media Policy at Glasgow Caledonian University. I spent most of my full time career at that institution and for many years ran a Communication and Media degree. I was also very involved with the development of a post-graduate diploma and an undergraduate degree in Journalism.

Among my publications are Media Policy (Blackwell, 1999), Centres and Peripheries:Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Journalism in the Twenty-First Century {co-edited with Hugh O’Donnell} (Cambridge Scholars, 2011); The Media in Scotland (Edinburgh University Press, 2008), and Scotland’s Referendum and the Media: National and International Perspectives (Edinburgh University Press, 2016). Both of the latter titles were co-edited with Neil Blain.

My public appointments have included -

Member, Media Education Committee of Scottish Film Council, 1979-90. (Chair of

Committee 1985-90.); Member of Executive Committee, Scottish Film Council

1987-95. (appointee of Secretary of State for Scotland 1990-95.); Member of General

Advisory Council, BBC, and Scottish Selection Panel 1988-96 (Chair of

Selection Panel 1991-96); Board member, Regional Screen Scotland 2008 –14 (Chair

2010 -14).

I was invited to give oral and written evidence to the Scottish Broadcasting

Commission, 2008; to the Scottish Parliament’s inquiry into the local press in

Scotland, 2010; and to the Welsh Assembly’s Culture, Welsh Language and

Communications Committee on the possible devolution of power over broadcasting

in 2020  (postponed because of the Corona virus outbreak).

I contributed to BBC World Service courses for Eastern European journalists,

1990-97, a project funded by the UK government’s ‘Know How’ fund.

Why I am making this submission

1.As should be obvious from the foregoing, I have a longstanding academic interest

in media policy and have also been fortunate enough to have been able to offer such

expertise as I possess to a number of relevant public bodies.

Public service broadcasting

2.On the first page of its Annual Research Report in 2017 Ofcom had this to say about television services in the UK.

‘The public service broadcasters are those providing Channel 3 services, Channel 4, Channel 5, S4C and the BBC. While all BBC public service television channels are PSB channels, only the main channels of each of the other PSBs have this status.’[i]

As far as radio is concerned, it is reasonable to assume that the BBC’s services constitute PSB, and that may be said too of a number of the commercially funded radio services, though not of them all.

The basic elements of PSB as they have been understood in the UK, which is one of the countries where it has been most firmly established, might be summed up by the oft quoted phrase from successive BBC Charters - ‘information, education, and entertainment’. Observers today would wish to amplify this formulation and draw attention to the need in PSB to reflect the diversity within the country in question, including ethnic diversity and national diversity.

Where we currently are

3.Viewing and listening statistics tell us about the continuing success of the PSBs with audiences in the UK. According to a report from BARB in 2019, the television PSBs - as defined above by Ofcom - attracted 57% of viewing in total, with the BBC figure being 30.9% and the main ITV channel’s 16.9%.[ii]

BBC radio services continue to attract 50% of listening.[iii]

4.What these figures do not tell us is that our PSBs are currently facing very difficult financial challenges.

Ofcom’s recent report, Small Screen: Big Debate [iv] presents us with some stark facts -

Net advertising revenue has declined for the PSB channels in the period  2014-18  by 3.8% per year.

Net BBC revenue over the same period has declined by 4% per year.

5.In the case of ITV, Channel 4, and Channel 5, the decline is due to the competition for advertising revenue from other commercial operators and from the online world. In the case of the BBC, the driving factor has been the imposition on the Corporation by George Osborne, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, of responsibilities for various broadcast undertakings, such as S4C and the World Service, previously financed in other ways, and the decision to ask the Corporation to fund free television licences for over 75s, or those members of that group which the BBC feels it can afford to exempt from the licence fee (the truth is that it cannot afford to exempt any of them).

6.Costs, particularly for high-end drama, continue to rise, not least because of the competition in this area from companies such as Netflix. There has been cost inflation too in respect of sports rights because of the deep pockets of companies like Sky. Netflix, Sky and other such organisations are under no obligation to provide the wide range of programming expected of public service broadcasters, and are able to draw on the resources of their parent organisations to entice creative personnel to work for them, often at inflated levels of remuneration.

It is not an easy environment in which to sustain public service broadcasting.

Your specified areas of interest.

In response to what is laid out in that section of your call for evidence I would make the following points.

7.There is logic in having Ofcom regulate broadcasting across the board but there are problems. Can an organisation which has such wide responsibilities - about to be increased by its proposed role in regulating cyberspace - give enough and appropriate attention to PSB?

8.Admittedly, Ofcom, having been given responsibility for regulating the BBC in 2017, has to date shown a willingness to lay down remarkably detailed specifications as far as the Corporation’s output is concerned. And it is pleasing to note the emphasis, for example, on increasing first run content on television, the requirements for more arts and children’s programming, more productions emanating from the nations and regions, a broader range of music on Radio 2, ‘content and music of particular relevance to Wales’ on Radio Wales, and so on. But one starts to become anxious that Ofcom is running the risk of becoming the BBC’s programmer in chief. The relevant schedule in the BBC’s Operating Licence runs to 21 closely packed pages.[v] Therefore, might some way be found of distinguishing between a limited number of regulatory ‘conditions’ and a wider range of ‘programming expectations’?

9. How much time, energy and money will have to be expended by Ofcom, the BBC Board, senior executives and station managers to ensure all current specifications are adhered to? Even if Ofcom’s approach is indeed ‘flexible’ as well as ‘rigorous’, and aspires to be ‘manageable and proportionate’, there is a very real danger of operational overload, which, within the Corporation, could lead to far too much energy being devoted to ensuring the conditions are met to the letter (this at the same time as the National Audit Office will also be scrutinising the Corporation’s performance). As far as the other PSBs are concerned, even allowing for the much larger number of BBC services, there appear to be much less detailed series of requirements.[vi] In regulation it is surely desirable that a balance is struck between ensuring that legitimate targets are specified, and ensuring that PSBs are able to pursue excellence, innovation - and risk taking. An excessively prescriptive approach is unlikely to secure that outcome.

10.The issue of nations and regions, and whether they are properly represented on pan-UK broadcasting is not a new one - indeed it is a wearisomely old one - and the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 have often found themselves under pressure on this issue. ITV used to be a federally structured organisation, with strong regional companies based in, for example, Manchester and Leeds.  In recent years consolidation has produced one ITV covering all of the UK, with the exception of Scotland, where STV continues its separate existence, though in a very close relationship with the UK ITV company. This consolidation has compounded the nations/regions problem.  It might be argued that devolution of broadcasting responsibility, or a willingness to share accountability between Westminster and the devolved governments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, would help, as far as these nations are concerned. But the problem of England would remain, and the grievances of the citizens of, for example, Newcastle and Exeter, about how visible their lives and concerns are in news, and in drama and other genres, would still have to be addressed. It might well be the case that the issue cannot be effectively dealt with unless in the context of a renewed discussion about regional devolution in England. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that in the future broadcasting accountability in the UK would be shared between the Westminster parliament and devolved governments.

11. As far as accessibility is concerned, moving services to the internet would seem to run the risk of creating a two tier system in which those members of society who cannot afford to be, or choose not to be, online would lose access to PSB. This is neither desirable nor politically astute.

12. As far as the impact of PSB is concerned, it is clear that in the kind of economy which we now have in the UK, where services have come to dominate, the media and the arts not only enrich the life of the citizenry but also provide employment and opportunities for cultural exports. These exports enhance both the balance of payments and the standing of the UK, and its constituent nations, in the world.

13. If we look ahead, the starting point should be an acknowledgement that PSB is one of the great historical contributions of the UK to the world. The aim therefore should be to ensure that it is properly financed and regulated in order to bring out the best that can be achieved. If that means revisiting, for example, the serious revenue disadvantages which have been imposed on the BBC in the last ten years through the interventions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and finding new ways to ensure that the advertising financed PSB services are able to continue to fulfil their responsibilities, so be it.

14.There may well be useful models being developed elsewhere in the world, particularly in Western Europe, from which we might learn. In some of the Scandinavian countries changes to the licence fee system are already in train. Not in order to advance any particular political or social agenda but to succour and sustain broadcasting systems which contribute to social cohesion, mutual understanding and the vibrancy of national cultures.

15. One issue not raised in your call for evidence is the inter-relatedness of broadcasting and other media. As far as cinema is concerned, Channel 4 when it began operations in 1982, launched Film on Four (now Film4 Productions), which financed and co-financed feature films which could be exhibited in cinemas and shown on television. Since that time the BBC has also become an important source of finance for feature films. It therefore follows that weakening of either or both of these organisations would have a damaging effect on the British cinema industry, particularly that part of it which seeks to make challenging, relatively low budget, films.

16. As far as newspapers are concerned, we are now in a situation where the press has become much weaker than was the case twenty years ago. Not only has the internet offered alternative sources of news, but the flight of advertising to the likes of Facebook has adversely affected advertising spend in the press at national, regional and local levels. A similar point can be made about the magazine sector. Newspaper companies committed a serious error in initially offering their content free online, and some continue on that path, though most have sought to impose paywalls for unfettered access to content. But only a few titles, such as the the more specialist ones like the Financial Times in the UK and the Wall Street Journal in the USA, have been able to secure enough online revenue to compensate for the loss of print sales and advertising. The year on year sales figures for most newspapers in the UK - and in many other countries - present a depressing picture.

17.During the current Coronavirus crisis, people are still turning to the press for information and analysis but, as Ofcom has reported, it is the BBC which is regarded by most people as their most important source of news.[vii] While this represents a vote of confidence in the reliability of the Corporation’s news operation   - and probably also tells us that a number of press titles are being penalised for their partisanship, even hyper partisanship, when it comes to political reporting - it does highlight a serious problem. Newspaper companies can legitimately argue that, with the BBC’s  news website, as opposed to its broadcast operations, they are facing a competitor which draws its income from the licence fee and does not have to secure customers in the market place, nor seek advertising revenue. If we believe that a vibrant press is just as important as vibrant broadcasting, some serious and urgent  discussion will have to take place as to how newspapers can be sustained in the future. This is not a problem peculiar to the UK and there is much to be said for examining how other liberal democracies are responding to it. The status quo is not an option.

April 2020

ENDNOTES