19/01/2007

The licence fee dispute highlighted the flawed political status of the BBC and, regardless of how the  Corporation is funded in the future, the relationship between Government and the broadcaster should be fundamentally reformed.

The other evening, director-general, Mark Thompson, hosted a drinks party for broadcast hacks at which he sought to spin a positive line about future funding. Thompson may not have won all the money he wanted, to take the BBC into the new digital age, but the licence fee survives for another decade. It might not be the victory he wanted, but it’s a significant result, nonetheless.

The BBC licence is already outdated; it is a quaint concept in an age when BT has launched its Video on Demand (VoD) service, using broadband to deliver TV shows down the phone line. Consumers get their entertainment by watching shows on DVD, by getting programmes over broadband or by trading TV time for on-line entertainment. The link between owning a TV and using the BBC is long broken.

What link is there between owning a TV and listening to BBC 7 on digital radio, or using www.bbc.co.uk, or tuning in to a commercial cable channel which depends on BBC repeats? The BBC’s expansion into new media undermines the case for a TV licence.

There might be an argument for a ‘screen licence’ or a ‘connection licence’, which would charge either for ownership of any receiving communication equipment, or for signing up to a content supplier, but a TV one alone is too arbitrary, and likely to penalise older TV watchers who don’t benefit from the range of new media.

However, this is not the only problem facing the BBC. As an election looms, we are about to be reminded of the huge importance attached to how the Corporation covers politics. Arguably, as newspaper readership declines and impartial news sources become fewer, this importance has increased. Ask any political party HQ, and getting a good line on the BBC’s news is
of massive value to electoral fortunes.

Yet we have just had a year in which the BBC has been engaged in an intense campaign with the Westminster government. To fight this, the Corporation is staffed up with a large political team, part of which is dedicated to influencing Downing Street. I cannot establish exact figures, so I can only guess, but almost certainly the BBC’s team of spin doctors and strategists is larger than anything the Lib Dems or SNP have, and quite likely out numbers the wonks at Labour and the Tories.

These suits have been behaving just like party political operatives, looking for advantage and influence through a close reading of policy and an intense charm offensive. Is this an organisation which can then be trusted to operate impartial political coverage? I don’t doubt the honest endeavours of BBC hacks on the ground, but scepticism seems the only proper response when a billion pound corporation with a political agenda pretends it’s got no side.

This should be the last licence fee squabble. The future of media funding should be decided within parliament. The legions of political operatives within the BBC should be fired and the Corporation should leave political manoeuvring to others. Mark Thompson should make programmes, not government policy, if he and his organisation is to be trusted.

Alex Bell