Memorandum by Channel 4

Channel 4 is a publicly owned, commercially funded public service broadcaster, with a statutory remit to be innovative, experimental and distinctive. Unlike the other commercially funded public service broadcasters, Channel 4 is not shareholder owned: commercial revenues are the means by which Channel 4 fulfils its public service remit. In addition, Channel 4’s not for profit status ensures that the maximum amount of its revenues are reinvested in the delivery of its public service remit.

Channel 4 welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Lords Communications Committee’s inquiry into the broadcasting of General Election debates, which it believes is a timely and important inquiry. In particular we welcome the Committee’s focus on ensuring that the primary objective of the debates is to best serve the public interest. Channel 4 believes that the Leaders Debates played a significant role in the 2010 General Election. However, given the enormous potential television debates have to connect with voters and address broader trends around political disengagement and disenchantment, Channel 4 believes there is scope for improvements to future debates. In particular, Channel 4 strongly believes it would be in the public interest for the process surrounding the agreement, allocation and production of the General Election debates to be more transparent than is currently the case, and that any agreement should prioritise reaching the widest possible proportion of the electorate, including groups that have traditionally been less engaged with the democratic process. In this submission we therefore recommend that a set of key principles on the key aims of the debates is established which includes such considerations, which would be published at the outset of the process and used to guide the administration of the debates. We also argue that the programmes themselves should be subject to fewer rules and restrictions, preserving the editorial impartiality of the broadcasters and providing viewers with a more engaging and less ‘stage-managed’ format that may further bolster trust and participation in British politics.

Role of television

Television has significant power to engage and inform viewers about the wider world.  This remains true even in an increasingly fragmented media environment – recent Ofcom research concluded that television remains the most popular, most important and most trusted news platforms amongst adults in the UK. In a 2012 study by Kantar Media for Ofcom, 89% of respondents said that they use television as a platform for news - substantially higher than the corresponding figures for radio and newspapers (both 55%).

This responsibility is embedded into Channel 4’s own statutory remit – which requires it to, amongst other components, cater to a culturally diverse society, to support and stimulate well-informed debate on a wide range of issues, to promote alternative views and to ensure that people are well informed and motivated to participate in society. We deliver this remit across a wide range of genres, from documentaries to comedy, arts and drama, as well as through a strong commitment to high-quality and distinctive news and current affairs. Our highly-regarded flagship news programme – Channel 4 News – is widely perceived as playing a unique role in broadcast news. It is the only hour-long news programme in peak-time, and places particular emphasis on investigative reporting and foreign coverage. The programme also seeks to service groups others find hard to reach, and is disproportionately popular among younger and Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) viewers. Channel 4 News also has a strong digital presence across websites, apps and social media, enabling it to extend its reach to groups such as young people who are increasingly consuming news online. Channel 4 News presenters are among the most digitally engaged correspondents in the UK; for example Jon Snow has a higher reach on Twitter than any other British political journalist with more than 370,000 followers, and has been named as one of Britain’s most influential Tweeters.

Given the continued power of television to engage audiences and shape their perceptions of the world, Channel 4 believes that televised debates between UK party leaders are an extremely positive development. They are able to reach large audiences and facilitate public awareness of, and interest in, British politics at a time of continued low voter turnout. A report on the 2010 election debates from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism found that a majority of viewers said they knew more about the party leaders and the policies they represented as a result of watching the debates. Crucially, the same report found that the debates energised young and first-time voters: young people were shown to have valued the debates more highly than older voters, with a higher proportion of 18-24 year olds saying that they learned something new from the debates than any other age group.

While these are welcome developments, Channel 4 believes that there is scope for the leaders debates to have an even greater impact, particularly amongst groups who are traditionally less likely to engage with the electoral process.  However, given the critical role that they can play in informing and influencing the electorate, Channel 4 believes that there should be greater scrutiny and accountability of the processes that lie behind the administration and allocation of the debates to ensure that they are as effective as possible in serving the public interest.

Transparency

The process of establishing the 2010 General Election debates - including the specific rules relating to themes, audience selection and participation, as well as which broadcasters would be involved in their transmission - was conducted largely through private negotiations that took place behind closed doors and away from public scrutiny.

While we recognise that the closed nature of the negotiations in 2010 can be attributed in part to a lack of precedent – with no previous televised General Election debates in the UK’s history – Channel 4 believes strongly that an open and transparent process should be favoured in the future. Transparency would enable scrutiny as to whether the decisions being made in relation to the debates are truly in the public interest. This in turn would encourage greater public trust in the debates, and because the debates are likely to play a central part of the election campaign, in the political process more broadly.

Channel 4 believes that there are a number of changes that could be introduced to give greater transparency to the process underpinning the election debates. Most significantly, we would welcome a published set of principles, outlining the core objectives and considerations for the debates, which would then form the framework for their subsequent allocation and production. Minutes of any meetings held between relevant parties in relation to the debates could also be published online and made available to members of the public.

Channel 4 notes that a list of seventeen ‘key principles’ was agreed between involved broadcasters and political parties ahead of the first General Election debates in 2010. However, the vast majority of these related to the mechanics of the broadcast content rather than setting out more broadly the central aims and purpose of the debates. We also note that several of the “key principles”, such as the length of the programme and the topics to be covered, related to editorial issues which we believe should be a consideration solely for the broadcaster rather than a matter for political negotiation.

Ahead of future debates, Channel 4 believes that the process should follow two stages:   before allocation of the debates to specific broadcasters, a list of key principles should be developed that sets out the guiding purposes and principles of the debates. These can then be used to determine any initial administrative matters that need to be addressed – such as who should be involved in the decision-making process, how that process is conducted, the number of debates held and which broadcasters should take part. More detailed points about the implementation, production and content of the debate programmes, such as the right format and the appropriate level of audience interaction, should be a matter of consideration later in the process.

Key principles

Channel 4 believes that to ensure the debates are most effective in serving the public interest, they should seek to engage with the widest range of voices – including those groups that traditionally are less engaged with the democratic process. While not exhaustive, we believe that the following key principles should be considered as important factors in guiding any decisions on the 2015 and future General Election debates, including which broadcasters are involved in their production:

• Ensuring sufficient diversity in its coverage. Channel 4 believes that it is important that no one broadcaster should have the monopoly on the election debates – audiences benefit from having a plurality of broadcasters involved in their transmission and production, each with a distinctive tone and audience.

• Ensuring the debates reach as large a number of voters as possible. The 2010 General Election debates reached more voters that any other single aspect of coverage of the election campaign, providing viewers with four-and-a-half hours of informative discussions between the three party leaders. The impact of this coverage should not be understated – independent research has revealed that up to 70% of viewers felt they knew more about the policies of each party after watching the debates. Greater knowledge of the policies of each political party fosters a more informed electorate; it is therefore clearly desirable that any future debates are established with the aim of engaging as wide a number of voters as possible. We would note that free-to-air broadcasters are undoubtedly best placed to achieve this.

• Encourage engagement with younger voters. It is widely accepted that voter turnout amongst young people is a particular matter of concern. Electoral turnout for younger voters at the 2010 General Election remained lower than the national average (65%), with those aged 18-24 (44%) and 25-34 (55%) significantly less likely to vote than those in the older age groups. General Election debates are well placed to address this democratic shortfall – as noted, Reuters found that 55% of 18-24 year olds said that the 2010 debates made them ‘more interested’ in the campaign, higher than that for older voters. While this trend is welcome, given the particular issues around engaging young people in the electoral process, Channel 4 believes that even greater focus should be placed on attracting these younger age groups to the debates. This is supported by other expert commentators – for example Ric Bailey noted in his recent analysis of the 2010 debates, “younger voters…should remain prominent in any discussion of future debates and their objectives”.

• Encourage engagement with ethnic minority voters. BAME voters similarly recorded lower levels of electoral engagement at the 2010 General Election, with the ‘non-white’ turnout level remaining lower than the national average at 51%. Given television’s ability to reach the UK population as a whole, the General Election debates provide an opportunity to reach out to such groups directly. Decisions relating to which broadcasters are involved in the debates should, in part, take into account their reach amongst these harder-to-reach audiences.

We believe that these principles would be effective in ensuring that decisions taken around the debates were focused on delivering the public interest.

Content of broadcast

Once allocated, we believe that the broadcasters should have the primary role in assessing the appropriate format and content of the programme, in line with the central principles of editorial independence. Broadcasters have a strong track record in providing fair and balanced political coverage that is also engaging and informative to viewers, within the context of an overarching regulatory framework set by Ofcom. Channel 4 believes that the same approach – of a broad regulatory framework which then allows broadcasters to make their own editorial choices - would be appropriate for agreeing the content of future election debates. This would ensure that the debates are as compelling, engaging and as relevant to viewers as possible, rather than being restricted by the highly detailed set of provisions of the kind that characterised the 2010 Election Debates.

In existing cases such as party election broadcasts or election reporting, broadcasters must abide by the overarching regulations outlined by Ofcom. Broadcasters are required at all times to adhere to Section 5 of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code,  which includes requirements to be duly impartial across all programmes when dealing with major matters of political or industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy. In addition, Section 6 of the Broadcasting Code sets out that during the election period broadcasters must provide ‘due weight’ to the parties considered by Ofcom to be ‘major parties’ and ‘appropriate coverage’ to other political parties. Within this regulatory framework, broadcasters then retain discretion on editorial matters.

Channel 4 believes that this approach is suitable for the Election Debates. For example, Channel 4 does not believe that it should be a matter for political negotiation as to which particular political parties take part in the Debates. Within the parameters of the existing regulatory framework, which, as set out above ensures that all political parties receive fair and appropriate coverage, Channel 4 believes that deciding the participants of the debate should be a matter for a broadcaster’s editorial discretion and not subject to influence or discussion with political parties.

Similarly, Channel 4 believes that broadcasters should retain ownership over the more detailed production issues such as the format and style of the programme. The specific programme format of the 2010 General Election debates was agreed following negotiations with the parties and broadcasters involved, and included a detailed list of seventy-six rules, covering a wide range of issues including audience selection, the role of audience members, discussion topics and audience cutaways. While we recognise that there was an understandable level of caution around the 2010 General Election debates, given their unprecedented nature, we believe there is scope to now evolve their format to provide viewers with a more engaging experience. We believe that agreeing such a prescriptive list of format rules with political parties prior to broadcast risked the quality and diversity of the programme and its ability to engage viewers. For example, the rules agreed for the 2010 debates meant that leaders were restricted to an identical format across the three debates. All three programmes were also required to have limited audience participation.  Channel 4 believes that it would be desirable for voters to be active participants in the debates rather than passive observers - the debates should involve ordinary voters as well as inform them. However, the agreed rules prevented broadcasters from introducing more interactive elements to the debates. 

The Reuters report on the election debates concluded that many viewers found the format of the 3 debates in 2010 ‘scripted’.  Channel 4 believes that enabling greater diversity both within each programme, and across the series of debates, would provide a more engaging, authentic and informative experience to viewers.

We would note that Channel 4’s own Ask the Chancellors debate at the 2010 General Election – which featured a three-way debate between the would-be Chancellors Alastair Darling, George Osborne, and Vince Cable – was subject to far fewer rules than the 2010 General Election leaders’ debates. This allowed Channel 4 to innovate with the programme format, with greater audience interaction and an interactive online poll running alongside the debate itself. The programme was critically acclaimed, watched by 1.8 million viewers and was considered by many to have provided a more engaging format than the Leaders Debates.

Conclusion

With the next General Election taking place in less than eighteen months, we believe that it is important that arrangements for establishing future debates are agreed in a timely, and most of all, transparent manner, in order to ensure that they best serve the interests of the British electorate.

Channel 4 would recommend that the Committee’s work leads to a set of key principles being established and used to determine a number of administrative matters. These principles should aim to set out the key aims of the debates which, in an age of historically low voter turnout, we believe should be focused on ensuring the debates maximise their democratic potential by reaching as wide an audience as possible, including those parts of the audience who are traditionally less engaged with the democratic process.

Once selected, broadcasters must be able to maintain their editorial independence and have greater freedom to make their own decisions in relation to format and style, while continuing to comply with the wider regulations relating to election coverage and due impartiality. This would provide viewers with a more engaging experience.

Channel 4 hopes that this submission is of assistance to the Lords Communications Committee, and would be happy to discuss further any elements of this response if helpful.

January 2014 

1