The Government's broadcasting White Paper: Golden Path or Muppet Show?

Opinion

This Curate’s Egg has several crowd-pleasing proposals, but the more problematic parts may ultimately show the Culture Secretary’s hand.

“Doing all right, but you gotta get smart.”
Golden Years (David Bowie)

At first glance, there appears to be a guiding intelligence behind the Government’s White Paper detailing a “vision for the broadcasting sector.”

This means that at least Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries has advisors onboard with a more than superficial knowledge of UK broadcasting.

Just as well, as only last week our Nads put her foot in it (yet) again with the claim that Channel 5 had been privatised since launch in 1997, then doubling down with a typically bone-headed defence, accusing those who pointed out her obvious error as “nit-picking”.

Never one for gracefully acknowledging her errors is the Cult Sec. Mirroring what David Niven once said of his chum: “You can count on Errol Flynn, he’ll always let you down.”

The White Paper, meanwhile, is a bit of a Curate’s Egg, with a number of proposals few would argue with, but with other more problematic parts which may show the hand of Dorries.

For example, the call for more distinctly British content that reflects “a vision of a modern UK” incredibly cites period soap Downton Abbey (pictured, main image) as an exemplar of this.

“You couldn’t make it up”, as the saying goes. But in Dorries’ case, you probably could.

The paper also cites research from Enders Analysis that: “UK original programmes from international streaming services such as Netflix have had fewer British terms, expressions, reference points or idioms than equivalent broadcast programmes.”

Cue UK production companies hastily cramming as many “Ee bah gums”, “Gorblimeys”, “Och ayes”, “Lechyd da!s”, “Stone the crows”, “beggorahs”’ “antwackys” into their scripts for the streamers.

The move for Ofcom to perform oversight into the streaming services seems prompted by the snit the Tories got into over the depiction of the Royals, rather than anything concrete.

The loosening of what constitutes Public Service Broadcasting (PSB) was unsurprisingly welcomed by ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5.

As was the commitment to keeping the ‘Crown Jewels’ of sports events on free-to-air TV and the proposal to update prominence of PSB channels on electronic programming guides.

Bad timing for C4

Turning to the proposed privatisation of C4.

To a large extent, the channel has been the author of its own misfortune, with management pursuing an ever more commercial direction since the 2000s, accelerated under the current Mahon/Katz regime.

Recent complaints over diversity and NDAs have not shown C4’s senior management in the best light, especially at a time which they claim is crucial for its survival as a PSB.

The channel’s reliably tin-eared approach to marketing was on full display once again last week, when new luxury DIY series Building Britain’s Superhomes was announced. Which I imagine is very nice for the likes of C4’s £1m-per-year CEO, but not so much for the millions enduring the current cost-of-living crisis, which has seen the exponential growth of food banks and other depressing evidence of rapidly increasing poverty,

The White Paper states that: “Channel 4 also spends less with the smallest independent producers than all other large PSBs – for example, only 16% of Channel 4’s average external commissioning spent between 2018 and 2020 was with producers with turnover of less than £10m, compared to 37 % of Channel 5’s.”

This (If true) may come as no surprise to those who have long suspected an overly cosy relationship between C4 and the Super-Indies (and their wholly owned smaller labels).

The recent sharp decline in Netflix stock undercuts the Government’s case somewhat, as ad-funding looks to still be a relatively reliable form of funding but guarantees of ring-fenced PSB commitments and regional/smaller indie quotas may provide a degree of comfort to the production community. Although this depends on whether you trust the Johnson regime to fulfil its promises – if privatisation goes ahead.

BBC: must something give?

After 2019’s ice sculpture (and other) incident, you don’t need a crystal ball to foresee a new bidder winning the Channel 4 News contract when the present one with ITN ends.

And with the NDA furore, ITN has given the Government a stick to beat them with.

As Richard Nixon once said: “I gave ’em a sword. And they stuck it in, and they twisted it with relish. And I guess if I had been in their position, I’d have done the same thing.”

And finally (inevitably), the BBC.

Dorries has committed a review of the BBC’s funding model, anticipated by the previously announced two-year licence fee freeze, softened slightly by allowing the Corporation to borrow more to plug funding gaps.

The White Paper says: “The government recently agreed to increase the BBC’s commercial borrowing limit from £350m to £750m, pending the agreement of appropriate oversight mechanisms, to support the BBC in accessing capital and investing in ambitious growth plans.”

As with C4, Auntie is hampered by an ineffectual senior team under director-general Tim Davie, who appears cowed by the Johnson government’s tactics, evidenced by his habitual “deer in the headlights” expression and perceived lack of backbone.

I suppose this demonstrates the perils of hiring a former PepsiCo marketer with zero editorial experience as head of the Nation’s foremost cultural institution.

Davie’s 10-Point Impartiality and Editorial Standards Action Plan (October 2021) typifies this pre-emptive cringe strategy.

For the BBC, there seems to be a general feeling that something must give – the argument that the licence fee is out of date and unfair has built up a head of steam over recent years. Fanned of course by the Murdoch media in cahoots with the Government and other (self) interested parties.

It may be that the best the Corporation can hope for is a pared down, basic licence fee of around £95 per annum (£7.92 per month), with the rest topped up by subscription fees for additional services – and the World Service returning to being funded by the Government, a critical point in these troubled times.

To older viewers, a model of BBC One, BBC Two, BBC News and Radios 3 and 4 retained as part of a reduced licence fee, with the rest left to earn their keep in the marketplace, does not sound that awful.

Or does it?

Stephen Arnell began his career at the BBC, moving to ITV where he launched and managed digital channels. He continues to consult for streamers and broadcasters on editorial strategy. He currently writes for The Spectator, The Independent, and The Guardian on film, TV and cultural issues. He is also a writer/producer (including Bob Fosse: It’s Showtime for Sky Arts) and has just completed his first novel.

Big Picture: The Media Leader‘s weekly bulletin with thought leadership and analysis by the industry’s best writers and analysts.
Sign up for free to ensure you stay up to date every Wednesday.