Not another broadcasting crisis?
Wales Business — By Alun Davies AM on September 4, 2010 7:00 am
S4C has captured the headlines this summer, but is ITV Wales faring any better?
EVEN before the S4C Authority’s moment of madness in July, Welsh broadcasting and the wider media industry seemed to be in a perpetual state of crisis. And – ironically – until quite recently, S4C was widely seen as the one institution which appeared to be in reasonably good health.
The decline of HTV/ITV Wales and the place of regional broadcasting on the ITV network as a whole have been well documented and described. At the same time the past indifference of the BBC’s UK management to Welsh needs and the associated decline in investment and broadcast hours was also something which had already been the focus of some considerable concern. In fact, when the Assembly’s Broadcasting Committee was established in March 2008, English language TV broadcasting was the focus of our deliberations.
The refusal of the new UK Government to implement the Independently Funded News Consortia policy left many people in Welsh broadcasting shaking their heads in disbelief. The plurality that has been so very essential in the provision of news would be left to regulation and would receive no additional support. In fact, declared the newly-appointed Archie Norman, none is wanted or needed. Given his background as a grocer, this was not very reassuring.
And then S4C decided to implode. Fresh from its calamitous decision to sack the chief executive, plunging the institution into the most serious crisis in its history, the S4C Authority is simply not in a position to take the channel forward. By its own actions, it has lost the confidence and the support of the people on whose behalf they are supposed to hold the channel in trust.
I would bring in some fresh faces on the Authority. I would also bring back the channel’s former chief executive, Huw Jones, to provide some stability and to win back the confidence that was lost not only by the decisions taken, but by the attitudes of some of the figures now in senior positions in the broadcaster. There is a world of difference between supporting S4C and supporting the palace coup which took place over the summer. And S4C would be stronger if the Authority recognised that.
This stability is essentially if the channel is to rebuild its relationship with its viewers. What’s been forgotten in all of this is that the programmes are great. There is some great content being developed by producers in Wales and an audience that wants to access that content.
S4C’s continued success must a priority for everyone. It must retain its independence and must retain its funding. Otherwise as a broadcaster it will be emasculated and we will all be the poorer. It would be better if S4C were to be funded out of the licence fee rather than being directly funded by government. But on the basis that such a funding mechanism must in no way affect its independence as a broadcaster. The BBC will hate this. It will see it as not only an attack on its own independence but will no doubt describe it as the greatest attack on our Western civilisation since the fall of Rome. I think that the BBC should just live with it and get on with it. The licence fee provides a pool of funding for public service broadcasting and as well as giving money to the Beeb it can also help sustain public service broadcasting more widely throughout these islands.
In this context the news that Jeremy Hunt is now considering removing ITV’s regional news obligation is a body-blow to the essential plurality in Welsh broadcast news. Now we know and understand why Archie Norman didn’t want the IFNCs to go ahead. This was an area where there has been total agreement amongst the political parties in Cardiff Bay. While the Conservatives opposed the creation of the Independently Funded News Consortia approach, they have consistently supported the concept of plurality in news provision. This announcement will test that commitment.
But the wider approach to broadcasting that Hunt’s Edinburgh speech describes was truly terrifying. He repeated his mantra that “local TV” and “city TV” can take the role of regional TV. For Wales this is a disaster. It is southern England-centric. It had no relevance to us and the speech reflects a dismissal of Welsh interests which is quite spectacular. For Wales, a regional (or national in our case) news service supported by intelligent and in-depth current affairs is essential. If people are to understand the governance of Wales and the way in which decisions are taken which will impact their lives then a national news service and plurality of provision are bedrocks of our national lives. Clearly this is something that the new government has not even considered.
The response of the Liberal-Tory coalition partners has been an unhappy and sullen silence, embarrassment and a terror of disagreeing with their Westminster colleagues. But this is a real test that they cannot duck. It is also a test for the new Welsh Secretary.
To date she gives the appearance of being both detached from, and uninterested in, Welsh matters. She speaks of her visits to Wales in almost regal terms. And certainly her first intervention in the framing of the referendum question was a pretty humiliating experience. While Jeremy Hunt makes poor speeches outlining his poverty of ambition and his determination to climb the greasy pole, it is not at all clear that the Welsh Secretary has been standing up for Wales and Welsh interests.
In Cardiff our coalition partners, Plaid Cymru, responded differently but its response has been equally as disappointing. The predictable “devolve to Wales and all our problems will be solved” approach is as pedestrian and inadequate as it is short-sighted. And I’m not even sure that they really believe it. Certainly the approach of the Plaid Culture Minister in Cardiff hasn’t been to push the devolution settlement and to take a proactive approach to media policy – was there ever a Welsh Government response to Digital Britain? And no-one from Plaid ever seriously argued for devolution during the work of the Broadcasting Committee.
We should devolve all those powers and responsibilities that are best delivered and held in Wales and not devolve simply in response to political disagreements. As tempting as that may occasionally be. And I certainly concede that Jeremy Hunt is probably the best argument for the devolution of broadcasting that I have ever come across.
My response would be very different. The 2003 Communications Act provided for a regulatory environment that has failed to protect and deliver a plurality of public service broadcast providers for the whole of the UK. I remain unconvinced that the devolution of responsibility for broadcast policy to Cardiff Bay would be able to regulate the market in a way which would strengthen and enhance the quality of broadcasting in and for Wales.
This Act was born of a time when regulation was out of fashion. Pointy-heads and bright young things breathlessly described how light-touch and agile regulation would allow the market to deliver great riches – not only high quality public service broadcasting for all, but high speed broadband delivering new and undreamed of converged services at a fraction of the cost of the old networks and monolithic providers.
It hasn’t happened. The market didn’t deliver. A thousand winks and nudges have delivered not a communications-based nirvana but an unequal and multi-speed UK media economy. And all too often Wales has been on the wrong side of the equation.
However I hope that the financial crisis has now changed the political culture that saw regulation as a social ill. I hope that we can take advantage of this new outlook and use regulation positively to provide social goods and to shape a market that will serve the interests of the citizens of all parts of the Kingdom.
But better and more focussed regulation at a UK level does not mean that we do not desperately need far greater accountability for and to Wales.
The Broadcasting Committee that I chaired some years ago made a series of recommendations on this matter. I will not rehearse those arguments here, but I will say that the structures proposed by the Committee would provide the clarity and accountability that is missing today. With such accountability we would be able in Wales to debate and discuss a broadcast and media policy that will serve us – and not simply a policy that serves shareholders first and people second. I will dust down the report and send it to some people.
Most of this article has discussed the challenges facing commercial and Welsh language TV. None of this means that the BBC is in tip top shape. The debate over the licence fee starts next year. Before that debate starts we in Wales need to be very clear about what sort of BBC we want to see emerge from it. My guess is that it would be very different to the Hunt-Murdoch vision. But that’s for another day.
Tags: Assembly, broadcasting, ITV Wales, S4/C
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
14 Comments
So the suggestion, once again, appears to be to top-slice in order to save Welsh broadcasting.
Allowing politicians to use the BBC licence fee as a slush fund to support other media projects, as and when they feel it is appropriate, risks opening up the BBC to potential future micro-management by said politicians (most of whom, sadly, haven’t got a clue about Welsh broadcasting – regardless of how many committees they’ve chaired).
Top-slicing would undermine the independence of the BBC and thus play neatly into the hands of the Hunt-Murdoch lobby who, both for different reasons, would love to see the BBC carved up.
Top-slicing would not be good for PSB in Wales – just ask the journalists. The NUJ have campaigned consistently against any move to re-allocate licence fee funds. Instead they argue for fixed levies on hardware manufacturers or telecom and pay TV companies (like Sky or Virgin) who make money out of quality public service content without paying for it. This is a model used to great success in France.
See the Bectu report ‘Mind The Funding Gap’ for some ideas…
The insulting and mocking tone you adopt when referring to those who oppose top slicing – ‘The BBC will hate this. It will see it as not only an attack on its own independence but will no doubt describe it as the greatest attack on our Western civilisation since the fall of Rome’, and ‘I think that the BBC should just live with it and get on with it’, really degrades your argument unfortunately and is totally unneccesary. It’s not just the BBC who hate this. Lots of people who really care about broadcasting do as well – as an elected representative you shouldn’t just disregard their views.
BTW – your suggestions for how to solve the problem seem rather thin on the ground, and the reference to Broadcasting Committee Report from a few years ago seems to imply we ought to go off and read that.
How about spelling out some real alternatives here? As opposed to just pointing us to a policy document or dredging up the licence fee argument again in order to have another pop at the BBC?
Alun Davies failed in his deliberations to consider whether “any” broadcasting company should be funded through taxation and or government controlled licence fee system.
Consider …
… the output from any broadcasting company should be subject to market forces, this without exception. Since the advent of digital / satellite broadcasting, television and radio channels have become mature commodities, we use the remote control much as a shopping list, and currently, our non-public service broadcasting is paid for by subscription, programme sponsorship, direct advertising, and the pay to view for sporting events and recent film releases. The BBC, if it were a subscription broadcaster, would need to charge a monthly fee of approximately £13, naturally the direct government subsidy of £300 million should cease. What about S4C, it can be left to its own funding devices as do other minority interest digital channels, if the product is good enough “the viewers will come”, if it is not good enough C’est la vie.
A television programme is no different to a packet of cornflakes on the shelves of Tesco, you put it into your basket or walk on by. When Mr Davies writes in his penultimate paragraph …
… the clarity and accountability that is missing today …
… he can be assured that market forces would provide all the clarity and accountability needed, and ensure that only those who wish to indulge need pay for the privilege.
@John – What a ridiculous argument.
Being a publicly funded broadcasting service, the BBC is capable of providing important public service broadcasting that in a free market model often struggles to survive. See ITV as a case in point.
If you left it to market forces a lot of valuable and important PSB would slip through the net as it simply isn’t profitable. Should that happen in Wales we’d end up in even more of a mess than we are now. In a modern democractic system a free and unfettered news service is central. It’s not a case of c’est la vie – it’s a requirement.
Still, it’s always entertaining to see this sort of nonsensical, Thatcherite, free-market thinking still being touted for broadcasting when the rest of the world has moved on.
As much as I dislike Alun’s article at least he isn’t up for throwing quality news programming to the wolves. Who in the open market is going to provide good quality PSB in Wales? ITV is really struggling to make it work. There is no money in it – that is why the BBC is important (because it isn’t hindered by commercial concerns).
This is also why broadcasting is not like a packet of cornflakes, it’s a bit more complicated than that.
Your argument seems to be that if it isn’t popular it shouldn’t exist – this is a limited and narrow-minded view of what broadcasting should be. If you want 85 channels of the X-Factor, be my guest.
“In a modern democractic system a free and unfettered news service is central. It’s not a case of c’est la vie – it’s a requirement.”
That argument only applies to the news though, doesn’t it? What percentage of the licence fee is earmarked for the news?
Not surprised with John Tyler’s ‘free-market’ response – it’s what’s expected.
However, as he is also a unionist, he should consider what effect politically & culturally losing the British Broadcasting Corporation could have.
Should the BBC vanish, it’s debatable whether there’s much else left that could be called ‘British’ in a way which has meaning & relevance to the peoples of this island.
John Tyler is consistent, he opposes most government expenditure on a whole range of items though has modified his original blog statement (he is Stonemason) where he stated that he supported the idea that the state should be confined to providing a minimum set of services, the police, the military and the courts – everything else being either private enterprise or charities.
In this context his statement on broadcasting is perfectly in tune with his underlying philosophy. I for one welcome his candour and its a refreshing, if minority belief.
I would agree that top slicing is not the answer, the BBC will be chipped away by top slicing until its a relic. What is needed is a beefing up of the PSB requirement, particularly in regards to Wales and innovative funding. I like the idea of a levy on the cable/satellite broadcasters, who are now making massive profits. There was a time when ITV was seen as a licence to print money, that is no longer the case. As long as we accept the need for public service broadcasting, and not every one does, then we have to provide a mechanism.
One of the steps I’d take is when the licensing round is next considered I would re create a separate Welsh franchise with a separate Welsh company to run it. Only then can we have a focus on the needs of Wales. Financing it will be difficult, but a way has to be found. It would be bad for democracy if we lost Welsh current affairs and news programming from ITV. Market forces are incapable of providing that.
BBC 1 takes approximately 35% of the license fee, the news service with the ITV network costs £50 million, if a PSB news current (political) affairs company was established as a directly funded broadcaster with guaranteed broadcast slots what would it cost, a couple of hundred million per year, chicken feed and simple to justify. I concede the PSB portion of the BBC probably needs a level of protection in the interest of democracy, otherwise it would be relegated to the “Bran Flake” portion of the cereal isle, the balance of programming can be treated as supermarket products.
Not being a fan of the Murdoch media tribe (The Times apart), it galls me to use their Sky operation as an example of why I see no need for State supported media, if you present the programming that people want you can make a success in broadcasting as does Sky. Our home grown S4C is not successful in its current state, though it has elements that are successful, in business the unsuccessful is cut out of the equation as soon as possible lest it brings down the whole, has this happened with the S4C operation? When I read of politicians edging towards the ships rudder I am horrified, Mr Alun Davies proposals are of a political dimension, there is little concern for the viewers or funding public, this politician needs to convince his Assembly colleagues that they are not best qualified to run a television station hand it over to people who know how to create success.
Mr Williams, I am no fan of reality television, but listening to young people (the next generation) I concede defeat to the X-factor creators and presenters, I believe the only area that government should be involved with in this particular sector is with regulation including broadcaster licensing, though I concede Symon Dyda’s point.
Lyn, it is small government that I write about and would prefer, I really do not want politicians telling me exactly how I should sit as part of society; with regard to my views about broadcasting in the UK, you might be surprised at the level of support that exists for spinning off the BBC into the broadcasting jungle, mine is not such a minority view.
@Simon – I don’t know what proportion of funding is allocated for news. It’s a good question.
I do think, however, that I address your point later on in my comment. It could be argued that the BBC provides a wider range of general programming than other channels because its remit is to inform and educate as well as entertain. Rather than, say, just produce what is popular. Surely that’s worth the licence fee alone given the drek knocking about, unchallenged, on other channels. I am convinced that without a publicly funded broadcasting service a range of important programming would dissapear.
Quality drama, documentaries and educational programming, as well also have a role to play – if not in our political life then certainly in our cultural one, don’t they? BTW – I’m not saying the BBC always get the balance right (and they need to buck their ideas up when it comes to Wales) – but at least they attempt a balance.
Besides which, there is no need to change the way the BBC is funded, or indeed top-slice to support other PSB providers. There are alternative models of funding that would be equally effective and they wouldn’t mess with what is arguably the finest public service broadcaster in the world.
An alternative viewpoint and promoting a little humour is to do away with them all. Get your jack hammer and put it through the screen of your TV and do without the bloody thing and see how much your mind will expand laterally.
Play some Scrabble with your friends, get the dominoes out and frustrate yourself or lose at draughts to somebody you have just taught how to play, sing Danny Boy with your friends or play the didgeridoo and make a complete idiot of oneself or get out your old cow horn and see if you can wake the whole village up. Or have some play wrestling matches on the floor or even listen to BBC Radio – it’s not bad at all, some programmes that come on.
Anything but all that mind control that’s going on with the TV.
@Senn I see your point Senn, and it’s very well made. Trouble is I haven’t got a cow-horn (is it something dirty – it certainly sounds dirty). I am, however, famous for my didgeridoo, draughts and wrestling parties.
They’re all the rage in North West London.
@Rob Williams, fantastic …
Yes, i have an old cow horn (prob. 1900 or so) and I have used over the years for waking sleepy guests up
and even calling cows over. Works like a gem. Nothing dirty, its just a horn shaped bugle, I even tried a bit of Jean Michel Jarre on it (without much success). We will have to have a wrestle sometime – great fun.
An interesting if one-dimensional approach to the problems facing S4/C. As I argued in my piece on Click on Wales (http://www.clickonwales.org/2010/08/time-for-s4c-to-spread-its-wings/), all of this tinkering around the edges – whether it is adjusting the funding formula for broadcasters in Wales, advocating English language content, or even calling for S4/C’s closure – ignores the real issue facing the channel in this age of austerity and scrutiny: engagement.
S4/C’s critics use its viewing figures as a stick with which to beat it, somewhat unfairly, given the vagaries of those figures. But what few people involved in this debate so far have considered is how times have moved on, and how we should be considering a range of multi-media platforms as a potential solution to the channel’s problems. In short, we should be plundering the IFNC proposals for ideas applicable to S4/C.
Why? Because all the bidders had the same aim, to build audience through engagement. Instead of sitting around lamenting the failure of the IFNC bids and the dust gathering upon them, we should be seeing how they can be used to transform S4/C into a hub for Welsh language media and associated creativity. If ‘ownership’ is handed to the audience in much the way as sites like this allow its contributors and comment leavers to shape the debate, engagement more naturally follows, because it is more rewarding this way.
There is an additional benefit to this approach. Provide content that engages, and it could encourage non-Welsh speakers to participate by learning the language. S4/C should have a moral duty to contribute to the protection and propagation of the language – and, at a time when the DCMS will no doubt cast an uncomfortable light upon the return on investment it delivers, diversifying into online content and playing a greater role in the language could proof it against subsequent cuts.
I don’t usually respond to my own articles. But this time I will.
Bethan Jenkins probably needs to spend a bit more time online to understand what S4C actually offers and how that can be used to drive forward enagement which goes beyond simply passive watching.
I’m not sure that I’d agree with the description given but I do agree that S4C does need to seriously examine the purpose of its online presence and how a better appreciation of this can drive both its content production strategy and also contribute to its wider public service role and enhance the whole “programme experience” in terms of adding value for the viewer/user. But that in many ways is a whole debate on its own. For today I believe the task is more immediate. We need to make significant changes to secure the future of S4C as an independent and publicly-funded broadcaster. Many of those immediate changes need to be made at a structural and governance level. Not very sexy but essential.
On other matters, it’s too often the case that any discussion of public service broadcasting turns into a discussion about the BBC. To some extent this is probably as inevitable as it is disappointing. However it does ignore the wider contribution of other broadcasters and the structures and markets within which they operate.
Public service broadcasting has to be more than simply what the BBC does. The contribution of Channel Four is to provide an exciting and creative alternative; S4C provides an essential service in the Welsh language; and the contribution of ITV over the years has been absolutely central in shaping the UK broadcasting environment. Certainly for most of its history its regional companies provided a far more focussed regional PSB contribution than the BBC.
Mark Thompson used his 2002 McTaggart lecture as a very thinly-veiled call for a slice of the licence fee when he was chief exec at C4. And in the post-McTaggart discussions I well remember both him and others in both C4 and ITV talking about the sort of financial model for commercial PSB where we would secure both creativity and the public service remit in a broadcasting climate where structural changes in the advertising market as a result of digital switchover and the growth of online ventures had made the existing financial models redundant. In all these discussion the place and the future role of the licence fee were central.
And since then we have had both a recession and enormous consolidation within the industry. Both of which have demonstrated the weakness of the regulatory regime and the inability of the financial models to secure alternative PSB provision. This is not a discussion that we can duck.
Which brings us back to the Beeb. I wholly disagree with the thesis that has been promoted here – that because the BBC is potentially under threat from the Hunt-Murdoch right wing that we must support it – warts and all. That we must simply mouth support for the Beeb and ignore its failings. I believe that we need a more mature debate which questions the BBC and which proactively seeks to explore its role and place in British (and perhaps especially Welsh) society in the future. By shutting down such a debate we only weaken the institution in the long term.
For instance, there is a very good case to be made that the BBC is already too strong and influential in Wales. This is not to fall into the Hunt-Murdoch trap but to recognise, for example, that if you speak Welsh then the ONLY broadcast news service available to you is from the BBC. That is not healthy. At the same time the points made by the Three Controllers in today’s Western Mail are strong points and deserve widespread support. And are another reason not to give the Beeb an unthinking blank cheque.
The proposals that have been made (by Bectu, the NUJ and others) to widen the means by which funding can be sought to support PSB are good. Unfortunately I assume that they are looking forward to a post-licence fee world. Next year we will start to debate again the licence fee, its shape and size. My feeling is that the licence fee, whilst enjoying widespread public support, is probably not going to be collectable in the long-term future. And that is at least one good reason why strategically for the BBC it may not be a bad thing for the licence fee to be seen to be supporting public broadcasting in a more comprehensive and wide-ranging way than simply supporting the BBC itself. That’s what Mark Thompson was proposing in 2002 and those arguments are probably more important today than they were then.
I don’t entirely trust the S4C viewing figures reported by the press.
(I wrote a blog post in January 2010 examining them, if you’re interested.)