Axing ‘HardTalk’ only weakens the BBC’s reason to exist

Opinion

As the BBC heads into life-and-death discussions with the government about its future, decisions like axing HardTalk weaken the case for the licence fee.

There are many BBCs.

There is the BBC of the peerless Brian Cox and his spectacular Solar System. And the BBC of Radio 4, the World Service overnight — a service unmatched anywhere in the world.

There are dramas such as Sherwood and the enduring entertainment of Strictly, once it sorts out the bullying and groping, and the unrivalled Proms.

And then there is BBC News and Current affairs, which in the current state of human development with wars, existential threats to humanity and the rise of populism and falsehoods almost everywhere, should be the most important thing the Corporation does.

Instead it’s critical mission is being undermined from within by cuts, increasingly false directions, the retreat from long form journalism in favour of the superficial flow of “breaking news” and, with it, the forced exit of many of its most experienced journalists.

Going soft on soft power

The retreat has been relentless, beginning with the undermining of local radio news, the merging of the BBC World News channel with BBC News and the evisceration of Newsnight. 

The latter has survived but exists as a remnant and has become yet another, near pointless talk show.

Compare that to the planned closure of HardTalk, Stephen Sackur’s interview programme that he has broadcast since 2005.

As Sackur noted with dignified understatement, the closure was “depressing news” for the BBC  and those who believe in deeply researched long form journalism.

His remarks went viral.

“At a time when disinformation and media manipulation are poisoning public discourse HardTalk is unique — a long-form interview show with only one mission: to hold to account those who all too often avoid accountability in their own countries,” Sackur added.

As many have noted, there was also the ultimate irony that just before the closure was being announced BBC director-general Tim Davie was emphasising the importance of soft power through institutions such as the World Service.

Davie warned that the shrinkage of the World Service through funding cuts left the UK struggling to counter the rise in “pure propaganda”broadcast by Russia and China.

And then the BBC announces it is shutting down HardTalk which is carried to international audiences by the World Service.

While they are at it, why not also close down Click, the BBC’s long-standing technology programme?

Or a bespoke news service for the Asian Network? Just replace it with Newsbeat from Radio 1?

Click bate

BBC News and Current Affairs is the ultimate frog being boiled alive. It goes almost unnoticed, but this time around 130 posts are being lost and the proposals are designed to save £24m a year.

It’s time to pause and ask a series of fundamental questions.

The BBC is being required to save something like £700m between now and 2026. But is the right balance being struck between News and Current Affairs and the other divisions and the cost of the “talent”?

For instance, the departure of one highly paid presenter on Match of the Day and his replacement with one costing half as much (a perfectly respectable salary) would pay for HardTalk for six months.

But there is something much more serious, and sinister going on than costs alone. And it is set out clearly in the words of Deborah Turness, chief executive of BBC News and Current affairs.

Evidently, Turness does not believe in serious, properly researched long-form journalism.

HardTalk, broadcast nightly from Monday to Thursday on the BBC News Channel is being replaced with yet more “continuing and breaking news”. The stated rationale is: “as we focus on continuous live and breaking output on our News Channel, and we do more to use and promote the high impact interviews and important conversations that are happening ever day across our platforms.”

This is the last thing anyone needs.

Particularly as definition of “breaking and continuing news” risks becoming more and more infantile. Such as continuous news about Sir Keir Starmer’s encounters with Taylor Swift. Or the fact that the departed Sue Gray earned £3,000 a year more than the Prime Minister.

That way madness lies.

Savagery driven by fatalism

What is desperately needed are more moments to pause for thought, explanation, and, above all, to fact-check the endless misleading statements of politicians and the famous.

Non-stop news is a hostile environment for getting at the truth and in setting such a priority Turness, who has spent all of her previous career in commercial television, is taking BBC News down an arid rabbit hole, the latest iteration of John Birt’s Bias Against Understanding.

And, as is the usual way with the BBC, savage cuts are dressed up as a crude form of technological determinism: ‘Continuous News good. Carefully well researched programmes bad’.

They tried the same approach taking BBC 3 off the air making it online only, the only broadcaster in the world at the time to have done such a thing, before the enforced retreat back to the future.

Another arm of the Turness approach is avoiding duplication.

Although it is difficult to imagine anything more prone to duplication than continuous News on a quiet day and anything that smacks less of duplication than a well researched long interview with a world leader.

The rest of the Turness approach is the better promotion of “high-impact interviews and conversations” that happen all the time.

Good luck with that — without a programme brand behind them or established slots.

Turness has got it wrong but the really guilty people are those allowing this to happen — Davie the marketing man and the BBC Board which demonstrates little of knowing what they are doing.

The murder of Newsnight was a disgrace. It’s gone in all but name and a rebirth is unlikely.

It is not too late to save HardTalk and the BBC Board should reverse the wretched decision to close it and require Davie to find the necessary savings elsewhere.

Close to boiling point

If they do not, there is one final more serious consequence to consider.

As the BBC heads into its life-and-death discussions with the government about its future as a universal public service broadcaster, decisions like the ending of HardTalk mean there are fewer and fewer reasons for its supporters to try to save the BBC from itself.

The potential loss would be tragic — but for the frog the temperature is getting close to boiling point.

In the meantime could Tim Davie or the chairman of the BBC Samir Shah, whose background is in news and current affairs, care to appear on HardTalk to explain what they have done and why?