Author: pixel2coding

'What Next for the BBC?'

While the more apocalyptic predictions may not have been realised, there’s still a need to remain vigilant about threats to the BBC’s independence, as well as its ability long term to operate as a universal public service broadcaster. The most pressing issue is that the proposals for appointments to the new unitary board mean government appointees will, for the first time, sit at the heart of the BBC’s operational and editorial decision-making structures.

I’m particularly troubled by this in the light of recent situations in which a number of European governments have been able to place undue pressure on public broadcasters specifically through the appointments process.

I’d like to see an appointments process that is not contaminated by the possibility of “political or personal patronage”, the phrase used by the former commissioner for public appointments, Sir David Normington, when setting out his own concerns.

It’s also vital that Ofcom has a remit explicitly recognising the BBC’s unique position as a universal public service broadcaster, one that prevents rivals from vexatiously calling for sanctions because the BBC is being insufficiently “distinctive” – a word that rather chillingly recurs throughout the white paper. The paper also rejects the proposal that the licence fee should be set by an independent body, but I remain unconvinced that limited parliamentary scrutiny will ever be sufficient to make the process fully transparent. Finally, I’m concerned by any diminution of the public purpose on “technological innovation”. The BBC has a strong record in this area, and it would be a huge loss to both licence payers and the industry if the BBC was not tasked with developing new technologies that could operate in the broad public interest.

Written by David Puttnam

Source: The Guardian 

Press Release: A Future For Public Service Television Inquiry – Response to BBC Charter White Paper

The Inquiry, chaired by Lord Puttnam, welcomes those commitments in today’s white paper that will provide the BBC with a degree of stability and confidence at a time of huge transformations in the media landscape. We remain, however, vigilant about the threats to its independence and its remit as a universal public service broadcaster.

We have a number of concerns:

We accept that a new system of governance is necessary and believe that, if properly constituted, a unitary board is likely to serve licence fee payers more adequately than the existing setup. We believe, however, that the involvement of DCMS in the appointment of up to half of a new and powerful unitary board – including the chair and deputy chair – will not inspire public confidence and is not a sufficient guarantee that the government, in the words of the culture secretary, will “ensure [that] the independence of the BBC is beyond doubt.”
Further to the above, we would like to see an appointments process that is meaningfully independent of government and that is not contaminated by the possibility of personal or political patronage. Licence fee payers need a Board that is both free of government intervention and one that is committed to holding the BBC to account where necessary.
Regarding the BBC’s commitment to innovation, we are especially concerned that the sixth public purpose – that of developing new technologies in the public interest – has been scrapped. We feel that the BBC has made a huge contribution in the field of innovation – from the development of colour TV to the iPlayer more recently – and we would strongly argue that this purpose should be retained.
While limited parliamentary scrutiny of the government’s funding plan is provided for, the white paper firmly rejects the proposal that the licence fee should be set by an independent body. We note that the 2015 settlement requiring the BBC to pay for over-75’s tv licences was not subject to any parliamentary oversight and it is far from clear in today’s white paper, how the new process for setting the licence fee will ensure that the 2015 settlement process is never repeated.
The white paper acknowledges the need to increase accountability to the nations of the UK but there is little detail about how representative voices from the devolved nations can more fully participate in the governance and the regulation of the BBC.

We welcome:

the eleven-year charter extension which will remove the decision-making process about the future of the BBC from the electoral cycle and will create a space in which to debate and discuss how the Corporation can best respond to ongoing changes in distribution and consumption.
We are particularly pleased to see that the government has chosen to enshrine diversity as a core purpose of the BBC and we look forward to the development of concrete measures, underpinned by dedicated funding, that will transform both the employment prospects and representation of all minority communities.
We are also pleased that a whole series of proposals that would have undermined the ability of the BBC to cater fully to the needs of licence fee payers have been scrapped. We are grateful that government listened to public opinion that showed little appetite for moves to curb the scope of BBC services, to top-slice the BBC’s budget or to prevent the BBC from running popular programmes at times of its own choice.

Our Initial Response to BBC White Paper

The Inquiry welcomes those commitments in today’s White Paper that will provide the BBC with a degree of stability and confidence at a time of huge transformations in the media landscape. We remain, however, vigilant about the threats to its independence and its remit as a universal public service broadcaster.

An eleven-year charter extension will remove the decision-making process about the future of the BBC from the electoral cycle and will create a space in which to debate and discuss how the Corporation can best respond to ongoing changes in distribution and consumption.

We accept that a new system of governance is necessary and believe that, if properly constituted, a unitary board is likely to serve licence fee payers more adequately than the existing setup.

We are particularly pleased to see that the government has chosen to enshrine diversity as a core purpose of the BBC and we look forward to the development of concrete measures, underpinned by dedicated funding, that will transform both the employment prospects and representation of all minority communities. While welcoming the commitments in the White Paper we would also underline that the issue of diversity extends to all those with “protected characteristics” and we would like to see this reflected in the revised Charter.

We also welcome the commitment to investment in the future of the industry through the emphasis on the BBC supporting the development of skills training.

We believe, however, that the white paper represents a missed opportunity to develop a robust framework for ensuring the BBC’s independence. In the light of recent experience in other European countries where governments have put undue pressure on public broadcasters, it is vital that both editorial and operational decision-making are totally insulated from the interests of the government of the day. We believe that the involvement of government in the appointment of up to half of a new and powerful unitary board – including the chair and deputy chair – will not inspire public confidence and is not a sufficient guarantee that the government, in the words of the culture secretary, will “ensure [that] the independence of the BBC is beyond doubt.”

We would like to see an appointments process that is meaningfully independent of government and that is not contaminated by the possibility of political or personal patronage. Licence fee payers need a Board that is both free of government intervention and one that is committed to holding the BBC to account where necessary.

We are also concerned that Ofcom has been tasked with assuming overall regulatory functions. Given its existing duties which include competition issues, it is very well placed to assess the impact of BBC services on the wider media market and it has huge experience in arbitrating complaints. It is vital, however, that Ofcom is now provided with a regulatory remit that protects the BBC’s unique position as a universal public service broadcaster and prevents its rivals from vexatiously calling for sanctions on the basis that the BBC is not ‘distinctive’ enough – a phrase that runs throughout the white paper – or that it is treading on their ‘turf’.

One area in which this may become apparent relates to the BBC’s commitment to innovation and we are especially concerned that this commitment would appear to be under threat with the removal of the sixth public purpose: that of developing new technologies in the public interest. We feel that the BBC has made a huge contribution in the field of innovation – from the development of colour TV to the iPlayer more recently – and we would strongly argue that this purpose should be retained. As framed, the sixth purpose clearly extends beyond Digital Switchover (DSO) and it is therefore somewhat disingenuous to claim that the reason for the removal of this purpose is that DSO has now been “successfully completed.”

The White Paper acknowledges the need to increase accountability to the nations of the UK but there is little detail about how representative voices from across the nations and regions of the UK can more fully participate in the governance and the regulation of the BBC.

Above all, we remain mindful that the BBC still faces serious challenges. Despite the agreement to link the licence fee to inflation, the BBC will still be required to make huge savings over the next few years – savings that will inevitably have a negative impact on its ability to provide high quality content to all its audiences. Let us not forget that these cuts are largely the result of a licence fee settlement in 2015 that required it to pay for over-75s’ TV licences. This settlement was far from transparent – and was not subject to any parliamentary oversight – and it is far from clear how the new process for setting the licence fee will ensure that this is never repeated. The White Paper firmly rejects the proposal that the licence fee should be set by an independent body although it does now provide, at least, for limited parliamentary scrutiny of the government’s funding plans.

We intend to raise many of these points in the discussion of the white paper that will now take place and will produce a full analysis of how best to secure a thriving public service media landscape in the UK when we report on June 29th.

To the barricades to back BBC, says peer

The chair of an inquiry into public service broadcasting says people should take to the streets if the government attempts to limit BBC independence.

Film producer and Labour peer Lord Puttnam says public service broadcasting is vital in a healthy democracy – and a robust and independent BBC is key to this.

He warns the public to be vigilant as the BBC charter discussions get underway over the coming year. Even an attempt by the government to install its own hand-picked board of directors to the corporation would seriously weaken its independence, added Puttnam, perhaps best known as the producer of Chariots of Fire.

He said: “If our public service broadcasting comes under threat, we should hold the biggest march that has ever occurred in London – to show the government we won’t tolerate this kind of interference.

“I’m serious about this. We have to get the general public to understand how vital it is that our broadcast media remain independent in this country. The government wouldn’t even have to dismantle the BBC altogether – even imposing its own directors should bring people out onto the streets. We must fight to protect what we have.” The peer is heading a probe set up to consider the nature, purpose and future of public service broadcasting, due to report in June. On 4 May a public discussion event will take place in Liverpool as part of this process. Film director Ken Loach and TV producer Phil Redmond are among the speakers who will debate whether television serves people living across all regions of the UK.

'Democratic future’

Puttnam believes independent broadcasting is vital at a time when newspapers are dominated by proprietors whose agendas are often reflected in their reporting.

He warned that countries where broadcasters are controlled and leaned on by governments – Hungary and Poland, for example – also see a weakening of politics.

He said: “Public service broadcasting and parliamentary plural democracy are completely intertwined. It is so vital that we can trust what we are hearing and reading. If all our media was in private hands then I honestly believe we wouldn’t have a secure democractic future.”

The inquiry is timely, since the government will soon begin discussions over the BBC’s charter renewal.

Meanwhile, culture secretary John Whittingdale told a parliamentary committee last week that he believes Channel 4 – a state-owned but commercially-funded station with a public service remit – could be better off in private hands.

Puttnam is also keen to maintain plurality within the media. He said: “If I asked someone in the north how they would feel if Rupert Murdoch, for example, controlled all their media, the likelihood is they probably wouldn’t feel too comfortable.

“Plurality of ownership is so important – we need to know our news is not coming from someone with their own agenda.”

Written by CIARA LEEMING

Source: Big Issue North 

Lord Puttnam and Phil Redmond to discuss future of TV at Liverpool event 

Speakers including Phil Redmond CBE will discuss the future of television in an event hosted by film producer Lord David Puttnam in Liverpool tomorrow.

The Oscar-winning film producer and Labour peer is spearheading an inquiry into the future of UK broadcasting, and tomorrow’s event, co-hosted by Liverpool’s Writing on the Wall festival, will discuss whether TV reflects the lifestyles and opinions of people across the UK, or if it just a mouthpiece for the ‘London bubble’.

Speakers in the panel discussion will also include Ruth Fox, chair of the Hansard Society, and Nine Lives Media CEO Cat Lewis.

The event also wants to hear from producers and writers committed to making TV more relevant to people wherever they live, as well as from viewers themselves. It is one of seven events across the UK that will inform the Future for Public Service Television Inquiry, which plans to report next month.

Lord Puttnam said: “It is extremely important that voices from all over the UK, especially from vibrant cities like Liverpool, should be heard and reflected in this wide-ranging review of public service television. 

“This event, with its distinguished panel of speakers and participation from the audience, will make a significant contribution to our research and findings. We are keen to hear from people in Liverpool, either at this debate or more generally in submissions to the Inquiry.”

The event starts at 7pm and will be held at the The Black-E, 1 Great George Street, Liverpool. Tickets can be bought here.

Source: Prolific North 

Written by: David Prior 

Ken Loach and David Puttnam in Writing on the Wall Festival

Film director Ken Loach and producer Lord (David) Puttnam are in Liverpool this week to talk about the future of TV.

The public event at the Black-E on Wednesday is part of this year’s Writing on the Wall Festival which runs throughout May.

Does Television Represent Us? – chaired by Labour peer Lord Puttnam – is expected to be a lively panel discussion event, and will also include early findings from a new study looking into at how TV has contributed to political debate in Liverpool.

Ken Loach, Phil Redmond, Hansard Society chairman Ruth Fox and Cat Lewis (Nine Lives Media and nations and regions rep for indie producers’ association Pact) will discuss whether TV reflects the lifestyles and opinions of people across the UK, or if it just a mouthpiece for the ‘London bubble’?

To what extent does TV offer a space to talk politics or express the different lifestyles of people across all the regions of the UK?

Lord Puttman is currently heading a Future for Public Service Television Inquiry.

The Liverpool event is one of seven across the UK that will inform the inquiry, which plans to report in June.

Lord Puttnam said: “It’s extremely important that voices from all over the UK, especially from vibrant cities like Liverpool, should be heard and reflected in this wide-ranging review of public service television.

“This event, with its distinguished panel of speakers and participation from the audience, will make a significant contribution to our research and findings.

“We’re keen to hear from people in Liverpool, either at this debate or more generally in submissions to the Inquiry’

Source: Liverpool Echo 

Puttnam inquiry: government wants a diminished BBC

Film-maker David Puttnam has raised concerns that the government is bowing to pressure from vested interests to significantly diminish the BBC.

Following newspaper reports over the weekend that the government is preparing to stop the corporation scheduling popular shows such as Strictly Come Dancing against direct competition from other broadcasters, the Puttnam inquiry into public service broadcasting expressed in a statement its concerns about the handling of charter renewal by the culture secretary, John Whittingdale.

“We have been continuously assured by the culture secretary that he wants the BBC to ‘thrive in the years to come’, but the drip, drip of these leaks suggest the opposite, that the government wants a significantly diminished corporation,” it said.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport denied the suggestion that it aimed to “determine either the content or scheduling of programmes”.

The reports over the weekend prompted Labour’s shadow culture secretary, Maria Eagle, to accuse Whittingdale of unacceptable interference in the BBC before the publication of a white paper later this month. 

“The government needs to resist, and to be seen to resist, any undue pressure from vested interests, whether in the press or in broadcasting,” said a statement from the inquiry. “We urge the government to drop these and any other punitive and ill-considered proposals, and focus instead on drafting the serious and comprehensive framework for the BBC’s future that the corporation needs, and licence fee payers deserve. 

“If there is any truth that the government plans to interfere in the scheduling of popular programmes such as Strictly Come Dancing and Silent Witness, this would represent a unique, unnecessary and wholly inappropriate intervention.”

The inquiry welcomed rumoured measures such as the extension of the BBC charter from 10 to 11 years.

In response to the weekend reports, a DCMS spokesman said: “The government will be setting out its plan on the BBC charter in a white paper in May. The secretary of state has made it clear on a number of occasions that the government cannot, and indeed should not, determine either the content or scheduling of programmes.”

Source: The Guardian

Written by Jane Martinson