In an interview with Joel Suss, editor of the British Politics and Policy blog, Diane Coyle discusses the future of the BBC and the need for it to truly reflect Britain in all its diversity. She also discusses the impact of technology and globalisation. The transcript of her recent public lecture at the LSE, ‘A 21st Century BBC’, can be downloaded here.
You are now acting Chair of the BBC Trust. It is quite a critical moment in the public broadcaster’s history, with the charter renewal around the corner in 2016 and the way people consume media content undergoing tremendous transformation. How do you see the future of the BBC and its role in British society?
I hope the BBC’s role in its fundamentals doesn’t change, that it stays a universal public service broadcaster. The universality is important and essential for delivering its public purposes and its mission to inform, educate and entertain. The BBC needs to stay independent and accountable to the people who pay for it; the licence fee payers. But, as your question hints, sustaining that through a period of great change is going to be challenging. It’s partly the change in technology, the change in the media markets, and the change in the way people are looking at television, listening to radio and looking at stuff online. It also has to do with the changing nature of British society, which is becoming more diverse in all kinds of ways and whose political geography is changing as well.
The BBC needs to have true diversity in representation; in portrayal in programmes and in its workforce. I’m talking about diversity in lots of ways actually. It’s men and women, it’s people who are in ethnic minorities being properly represented in the BBC, both on and off screen. But it’s also what part of the country do you come from, what social class. We’ve become a much more kaleidoscopic country than we used to be and that’s quite a challenge for a national broadcaster who’s creating for us our shared cultural heritage.
Regarding the independence of the BBC, in a number of small ways it has been eroded over the years, including for example some things that sounds quite technical but also the fact that the BBC, both Trust and Executive, have been before parliamentary committees more than once a month in recent times and that’s much more than it used to be in the past. We need to have clear ground rules with the government in order to protect the BBC’s independence in the future.
In your view, what is the correct balance at the BBC between public service programming, such as David Attenborough documentaries, versus revenue sharing entertainment, like Strictly Come Dancing?
The BBC has to appeal to everybody in some way. It’s really important to have a range of programmes so that there’s something there for everybody – that includes the popular programmes. We would expect the BBC to try to be completely distinctive in anything that it does, and actually I think the examples you give shows the BBC pulling that off quite effectively. The natural history, which everybody thinks of as crunchy, whole-meal public service, is incredibly popular, and I think some of the very popular shows, like Sherlock or Happy Valley, but also Strictly, do have some quite distinctive public service values about them.
An individual in a house occupied by three other professionals has quite a small licence fee contribution compared with a single person household. Can a flat-fee contribution be justified in this day and age? Further to that, how do you see the future of the BBC with regards funding?
The first point is that even a single person household is paying less than 40 pence a day for all the BBC services; radio, television and online. It’s obviously important to keep it as efficient as possible and to ensure value for money, even for single person households that you refer to. The licence fee has evolved over time as technology has changed and no doubt it will continue to evolve in the future. But you have to find a way of delivering universality, which is partly what keeps the costs down as well as binding people together in a shared cultural heritage and experience. But also need to keep it simple and enforceable, and that’s a bit of a balancing act. The key thing is that support for the licence fee has actually been increasing and people much prefer that to any other option available.
Let’s shift focus away from the BBC and towards some of the issues you have been grappling with at Enlightenment Economics, the economic consultancy you head. Rapid technological advancements and increasing globalisation are having a deep impact on labour markets in Britain. How can the government insulate and protect British workers from these forces?
Golly, I think any government would wish it had the answer to that question and obviously we’re talking about global structural forces that are outside the capacity of any single government to do anything about. The question is really not how you can insulate people from change but how you equip them for change, and that is the responsibility of government. All economies go through these structural changes time and again – it happens constantly. The question this time around is about how quickly it’s going to happen and therefore how quickly people need to be equipped with the skills they need to adjust and find work. How does any individual economy fit into those new global supply chains? Businesses everywhere are trying to figure out what mix of workers, what skills, where they want to be, what capital equipment, what robots they want to use. The task it finding things that your people and your country are good at that will fit into all that structural change.
Looking at Britain, I think the two bits come together. One of things that Britain is very good at is the creative sector, which has been growing rapidly, to around 9 per cent of the economy I think, and is a good exporter. Singing and dancing are things that robots don’t do really well, so that’s a great sector for economic policy to focus on in this country.
Note: This article gives the views of the interviewee, and not the position of the British Politics and Policy blog, nor of the London School of Economics. Please read our comments policy before posting.
Diane Coyle is acting Chair of the BBC Trust. She also heads the economic consultancy, Enlightenment Economics, and is a visiting Professor of Economics at the University of Manchester. She received a PhD in economics from Harvard and was previously the economics editor of The Independent. You can read her blog at Enlightenment Economics or find her on twitter @diane1859.
The BBC has demoted itself from a true global media to an ‘agenda based’ news house. Look at the one-sided coverage of Gaza conflict for instance. It even seems reluctant to report hospital under attack. Why does BBC have to do this? I can see BBC being surpassed by Aljazeera, which the international community increasingly regards as more of an independent global media.
Is the BBC simply influenced into harnessing government line by government itself – including the rhetoric that stems from this source – instead of projecting a meaningful focus on harnessing the voices of real people – real challenges and real failings that may well have been incurred by government policies – and holding government to account on such issues?
If we take tax-payer funds away from the BBC, don’t we simply get Sky News? Surely we don’t want this business influenced agenda brought upon us throughout the media. Thus, isn’t the BBC meant to be ‘different’ – projecting the quality of journalism rather protecting cultures and powerful entities?
We desperately need change, and a balance of information from the BBC source in order that solutions can be enhanced to achieve legitimate goals for less fortunate.
Aditi,
I totally agree with your sentiments.
The BBC truly needs to be hold to account by the tax payer. But, sadly, this is seemingly not being achieved.
You are correct about the global approach to its new – thus, I feel, failing to captivate a localised agenda… and in the process failing to harness the voices of ‘ordinary’ hard working folk!
Influenced by the political language of government? Failings to engage and interview with those mostly in need of having their voices heard? Both are areas for real debate. However, it seems like the BBC has its own agenda to pursue.
With regards to Gaza, I totally agree. Surely, the real question here is “whose land is it anyway?” Then, maybe we can start to address the crux of why the friction remains bloody and continuous.
What also gets me frustrated even more is the seeming lack of quality journalism being allowed to flow through the veins of the BBC – thus, not delivering sufficiently balanced and challenging questions to those being interviewed. Thus, I can’t help but think that those presenters on BBC News 24 are become so set in this BBC culture that we feel is in desperate need for change that it feels outdated with the type of journalistic explosion that is needed to inflame good debate. Surely, we can’t just leave such debates to the likes of a watered down Question Time?
I concur with the preceding post. The British ‘Balderdash’ Corporation has a long history of information warfare (I.W.) and disinformation on behalf of the corporative garrision state, which George Orwell (Eric Blair) illuminated in his novel 1984. Having signed the Official Secrets Act whilst employed with the BBC, Orwell fictionalised much of what he observed as a participant. Yes, Orwell too was speaking from personal experience.
dear Diane,
If the BBC is, in your view, is independent and reflects this in its news and programme coverage, then I don’t share you analysis. Even recently, the BBC took on board an ex- Sky News senior to help them to develop a more objective approach to news coverage. The result, the BBC looking everyway the same as Sky News.
I suggest, if the BBC is in fact independent, though funded by government – and is willing to show the values of this independence – why does it resemble everything that Sky News does? Also, why doesn’t the BBC aim to be ‘different’ in how it localises news coverage – even its local news coverage at 6.30 on daily coverage seems to include national news. Why does it do this when there is so much local news that needs to be covered? Is the BBC resisting – like the politicians that no doubt pile pressure on and influence the BBCs coverage – a full engagement with REAL people and real views and real failings to harness… then hold politicians to account? It seems so.
Finally, I, and many like me, do not believe that the BBC is independent. Many would argue that if it were independent it would be BOLD and Diverse in what it covers in its news, and address people’s real life ‘stories’ and those failed by government policies… etc. Instead, the BBC is extremely careful in what is highlights as its boundaries are certainly influenced by government, establishment views and this hinders the type of ‘difference’ that the BBC needs to harness in order that REAL stories, Real failings and Real people concerns are highlighted for ALL to see.
Yes, I am speaking from personal experience.