Don't meddle with the BBC!

Once again MPs are united against the BBC. A cross-party committee of MPs has demanded the BBC be accountable to Parliament. Surely public eyebrows will rise in unison at MPs criticising 'spending public money without fully analysing costs and benefits'. But behind the pot-kettle-black, do they have a point?

The BBC has undeniably made a few foolhardy decisions of late. In trying to maintain public interest the corporation has felt pressured to bid for popular names (infamously Jonathan Ross). But there have also been some fantastic decisions. The corporation persevered with their decision to base BBC Scotland in Glasgow despite severe recruitment difficulties early on. They have invested heavily in new talent, there as elsewhere (the majority of people that work in UK private media were trained at the BBC), and in the process fulfilled their mandate of being a truly UK-wide broadcaster.

The BBC is not beyond criticism, and it is right to question excessive spending, especially on pay at the top. But we are in murky water when MPs start demanding that the BBC is accountable to them, and must justify every pound spent, every decision made. The BBC plays a vital role democratic politics (a point we have made here before), and must maintain independence from Parliament.

So is there a way to balance accountability with independence? There is. And – who knew?! – it already exists. Every 10 years the Charter review scrutinises the BBC’s role, activities and budget. When next up for review – in 2016 – this process should be rigorous and ensure value for money from the Beeb. But once the financial settlement is complete, like it or not, the BBC must be left to do its job. That is what independence means.

If criticisms that the BBC has too many, overpaid managers ring true, it may well be that the unrelenting attacks are a driving force. Organisations that lack the freedom to take risks and make mistakes see middle management multiply in a bid to disperse accountability for ill-fated decisions. Meddling MPs may well end up with a cowed corporation of risk-averse managers, with fewer funds to support the talent and creativity it thrives on. That, surely, would be a waste of tax-payers money.

Tess Lanning and Laura Chappell

Beware attacks on the BBC

Popular outrage over the BBC’s pre-emptive cuts has revealed some curious fans of 6 Music and the Asian Network. Followers now include Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw and his Shadow counterparts Jeremy Hunt and Don Foster. But these three have all recently called for the BBC to be pruned, its ‘expansionist’ tendencies reined in.

This echoes the claim the public broadcaster drowns out commercial rivals. Allegations that the BBC is ‘dumbing down’ fuel catcalls demanding it stops ‘chasing ratings’. In a country where 30 per cent of people now have cable TV, critics claim the licence fee is no longer justified.

But the BBC provides immense value for money. For a fraction of the cost of satellite - up to £50 a month - we have an extensive network of high quality TV channels, radio stations and online services. The licence fee allows the BBC to provide unrivalled global news coverage and a wide range of programming for all sectors of society.

It is true that BBC One has become more populist in recent years. But the BBC should court mainstream audiences, who also pay the licence fee. The diversity of programming has not been sacrificed. Older audiences are still catered for on BBC Two and arts and politics covered on BBC Four.

The 88-year-old broadcaster has also experimented to bring science and politics to wider audiences with programmes such as Jimmy’s Food Factory. But the high end documentaries remain. What commercial broadcaster would have commissioned the recent Horizon on the concept of ‘infinity’?

Ratings are all that matters in the commercial sector. The BBC is the only broadcaster mandated to provide national coverage, and without it local TV would disappear. Every radio station would play commercial music. Documentaries, arts coverage and serious talk would be shelved.

Be particularly wary of calls for commercialised broadcasting in the run up to an election. With the news that financial clout may hold sway in marginal seats, the mandate to provide equal coverage to all political parties means no billionaire backers are able to buy airtime on the BBC. Cuts to curb the innovation, creativity and inclusiveness of this national treasure are not in the public interest, and the role the BBC plays to keep money out of politics is critical to democracy.

Tess Lanning, researcher, ippr