Before the 1990 Broadcasting Act changed things for ever, we had hoped reform could be for the better.
There are some options we can be sure will not be considered by Mrs Thatcher’s inter-departmental working party on the future of British broadcasting.
In its Media Manifesto the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom outlines reforms aimed at injecting a sense of representative democracy into the management and structure of broadcasting. It proposes devolution of control – not to the private sector or government-appointed quangos, but to committees of consumers and media workers.
Before everyone throws their hands up in anguish at the effrontery of the idea, think about the bureaucracies that currently control what is pumped into the homes of millions every day. Do they guarantee the democratic rights of consumers or are the more of a buttress for what to the outsider appears as a monolithic industry.
Neither Barry Took (BBCs Points of View) nor Gus MacDonald (Channel 4’s Right to Reply) would suggest that they can provide an adequate mouthpiece for discontented viewers. Letter-writing, phone-ins and public meetings are no more effective a means of airing legitimate grievances or positive suggestions about programming.
Market research and audience ratings may be of value to commercial advertisers, but precisely what influence they have over programme content is unclear. When, of example, did a poll show that audiences demand the plethora of American material screened on all channels, or the constant repeats on both radio and TV?
Complaints to the IBA or the Broadcasting Complaints Commission give only a semblance of redress to some, and none at all to those made invisible by lack of coverage of their lives and views.
[The Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA) and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission (BCC) were distant antecedents to the current regulator OfCom. Back then the BCC even arranged for some complainants to come face to face with the producers of programmes.]
The fundamental flaw in our broadcasting system is its unrepresentative structure and its lack of accountability. It does not reflect the class, cultural or sexual diversity of society, from the boardroom through the editorial suite to the studio floor,
Yet conventional wisdom tells us we have the best broadcasting in the world, informed by a wealth of experience and governed by ‘the great and the good’. Yet even they were incapable of withstanding government pressure over the Carrickmore incident or last summer’s Real Lives debacle. How will the defend our interests if the guiding hands Broadcasters are quick to protest that their work must never be subordinated solely to commercial goals, but what is their objection to drawing ‘the great British public’ into closer contact with its own broadcasting system?
[In 1979 a BBC Panorama crew were tipped off about an IRA roadblock in Carrickmore in Co, Tyrone. They filmed but did not broadcast it. The Sun ran headlines about the event and Mrs Thatcher demanded that heads roll. When Thatcher, learned in 1985, that a Republican paramilitary leader had been interviewed for a BBC documentary Real Lives: At the Edge the Union, she had her Home Secretary demand its banning. The BBC complied but staff went on strike for a day in protest. And edited version was eventually broadcast but the BBC strengthened the requirement to ‘refer upwards’ for approval to film or broadcast material about ‘the Troubles’ in Northern Ireland.]
Perhaps it stems from the same prickly, defensive action that sets in whenever broadcasters are accused of bias. It is easier to dismiss those who constantly complain as tiresome busy-bodies who don’t understand the budgetary, technical and political constraints than to listen, learn, and change.
Is there no significance in †he fact that all political parties complain about the coverage of news and current affairs, for instance? And that many different interest groups have similar complaints.
The school of thought espoused by the current director-general of the BBC, Alasdair Milne, is that if you are criticised from all sides you must be getting things about right. Others might draw a rather different conclusion.
Some pressure groups are treated more sympathetically that others, wines there backing given to Mary Whitehouse’s efforts to ambush Channel Four’s eventual acknowledgement of the demand for gay and lesbian coverage – one of the minorities the new channel was to have catered for.
[Mary Whitehouse, founder of the National Viewers’ and Listeners’ Associations (now MediaWatch) ran a ‘clean up TV’ campaign and was virulently opposed to ‘the permissive society’.]
There is some real sense in which broadcasters and their audiences are out of touch with each other. The punters are expected to rely on faceless bureaucrats and a partisan Government for representation. The elderly, people with disabilities, and young people must depend upon the good will of mainstream programme-makers for access.
Yet a smile and direct means of enfranchising miylionssof listeners and viewers already exists. The licensing system is an ideal model for precisely the type of democratisation that Mrs Thatcher and Norman Tebbit insist will put the trades union movement back in the hands of its members.
[Norman (later Lord) Tebbit held various Cabinet posts under Thatcher. He had been an official with British Airline Pilots Association, but was notoriously anti-union and against the closed shop.]
There is no reason why licence applications should not be similar to electoral registration forms – identifying adult members of each household and offering them the opportunity to nominate and vote for representatives of regional Broadcasting Authorities by postal ballot.
Each regional authority could nominate representatives onto the BBC Board of Governors and the IBA, if indeed separate bodies were then necessary. The licence fee could be our guarantee that broadcasting would remain a public service rather than simply a means of making money.
Under a unified system it should be easier to ensure common high standards of diversity and efficiency, without interfering with editorial independence. And in return for their access to our airwaves, the independent companies could contribute towards the cost of enfranchising audiences.
More rigorous non-executive advisory panels that exists at present could ensure that minority groups get a fair hearing with an appeal system should their advice be ignored. Thus the controversial decision to axe ethnic minority programmes Black on Black and Eastern Eye might have been challenged by viewer and argued out instead of being left to the executive in charge of black programming.
[These were ground-breaking and popular programmes on Channel 4, with Black and Asian presenters covering social, political and cultural issues of general interest.]
Failure to provide suitable programmes by or for people with disabilities, or indeed to improve the proportion of women, black and disabled people employed within broadcasting could also be debated in public.
These watchdog systems would need more teeth and financial resources than are available to similar bodies already operating in passenger transport, the health service, and other public bodies.
Each Regional Broadcasting Authority would have considerable autonomy and two-way access to the national network, with its own budget for programme-making and news coverage, part of which could be used to sponsor independent and ‘broadcast quality’ community programmes in response to consumer demand. That would have the dual effect of expanding the diversity of material on air and increasing earning power from sales and networking.
Making TV and radio studios more accessible to viewers and listener should increase job opportunities, especially if community radio is given its head and all commercial stations are required to give more airtime to independent, minority interest and community productions.
The CPBF’s manifesto acknowledges that broadcasters, from technicians to new reporters, deserve a greater say in management and programming. But they are not the only experts and one important step forwards in democratising the airwaves would be for them to welcome greater involvement from listeners and viewers who bring their own expertise as consumers.
Bringing broadcasting managers, journalists and technicians into closer working contact with their licence holders would help to strip away much of the mystique that surrounds broadcasting and improve ‘media literacy’ all round.
Then broadcasters might begin to understand why their efforts are so frequently misunderstood by audiences unaware of the way in which television especially has to construct its presentation of the world.
It is not helpful to deride unsophisticated suggestions for change simply because they are incomplete or idealistic. What is needed, now more than ever, is a constructive debate about how to restructure broadcasting to make it more relevant, appreciated and representative of the diversity of society.
Otherwise Mrs Thatcher will continue to take the high ground and translate public dissatisfaction with the complacency of broadcasters into a recipe for free market broadcasting with a consequent reduction in standards, jobs, and public accountability.
UK Press Gazette, 10 November 1986
