PART FOUR: THE NEED FOR CHANGE

The White paper published in 2006 on the future of the BBC promised to retain the licence fee as the Corporation’s primary source of funding for the next ten years.  The charter promises that no changes will be made to the BBC’s funding until after 2016.  Some critics of the BBC argue about the unfair licence fee imposed on every householder who owns a TV set and who don’t even watch the BBC channels.  They argue it would be better for the government to intervene and implement something sooner than later.  With the on-set of the digital age and digital channels with more choice then ever before it’s no surprise that the BBC has now come under scrutiny.

In reality, the BBC is surely losing its fight against privatisation.   The licence fee is as old as the dinosaur and must be scrapped say critics.  However broadcasting has such an impact on society that it cannot be entirely seen as just a commercial activity.   The BBC is needed for impartiality and to tell the truth.   Therefore the licence fee is needed to justify that mere act of righteousness.  The licence fee also guarantees that all BBC programmes are advert free and it allows the BBC to go where no other commercial channels have gone before. 

If we were to scrap the licence fee then what alternative would there be for the BBC?   There are roughly five basic sources of revenue that the BBC can adopt say the critics and all of these can generate income to keep the corporation going.   They are advertising, subscription, pay-per-view, public service broadcasting tax, and direct taxation.

The first one of these is simple to understand.  Advertising is the most widely used method of funding both television and radio programming.  In Britain ITV, Channel 4 and Channel Five are funded this way.  As are most of the other commercial networks like Sky and Virgin.   The advantages are that popular programming can pull in immense amounts of funding.  Popular programmes such has Eastenders and major sporting events could generate huge amounts of revenue from just sponsorships.  The money could be used to make new programmes and concentrate on developing other venues within the BBC.  The disadvantages with this sort of method is that the total amount of revenue available to business and industry to spend on advertising in finite.  Arguably the amount of various digital channels available makes it even harder for companies to invest in one corporation instead the revenues are being thinly spread across all channels.  Minority or periodic dramas would attract little interest from advertisers so would be difficult to finance.  The other drawbacks are that most adverts are not suitable for family viewing due to their sexual content so the BBC supporters would argue that it was not worth even considering this line of revenue to self finance the BBC.

The second method of generating finance is through Subscription.  The different channels would be available to subscribe on payment of a periodical fee.  It can be enforced by legislation, more often today by encryption/decryption technology.  Viewers subscribe either directly with the broadcaster or the services are included as part of package included in Sky subscription.  The advantages are that only those people wanting to watch the BBC channels would subscribe and pay for them.  This seems a more justifiable way of funding the BBC as silencing those critics, which argue that they deem the licence as an unfair tax on the masses. The drawback of this sort of this scheme would be that it would result in a drop of the amount of BBC funding needed to fund excellent programme making and the BBC would become just another Sky.  The BBC’s identity would also be under threat it would no longer be seen as a bastion of the nation.   

The Pay-As-Per-View would work like most one-day special events work at the moment on private channels such as Sky.  Sporting events like cricket and boxing offer customers to pay for that one particular show so payers pay as on a per programme basis.  The advantage of this time of service is that you only pay for what you want, unfortunately the consequences for minority programming are pretty much the same as under the advertising model.  Only popular programmes will be shown.

The Public Service Broadcasting Tax (PSB) would mean removing the licence fee from the BBC and instead using it to fund all TV channels in Britain.   The advantages would be that the BBC could use advertising as their main source of income to produce populist programmes such as reality shows whilst depending on the PSB to fund dramas and specialist programmes that they are so well noted for.  It would also remove the resentful views felt by millions who pay the TV licence but don’t watch the BBC channels. ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5, would all benefit from this form of taxation and would be able to provide the same sort as specialist programming as the BBC.  It would seem as a more just and fair taxation and it would remove the exclusivity of the TV licence from the BBC. The disadvantage of PSB would be the same as advertising if the BBC used the latter as their second source of income.  On the other hand one would argue that advert breaks would be a small price to pay if say minority and specialist programmes survived due to the PSB being adopted alongside it.  The specialist programmes could be shown without an interval break and this would remove the stigma of unsuitable adverts being shown whilst family viewing is going on. 

The last method is Direct Taxation a method already deployed in the US.  Instead of paying a licence fee the government would allocate the funding direct from the public purse.  The advantages are that the general public wouldn’t need to dig deep into their pockets to pay for it annually, instead it would be collected from the usual taxes. So the saying ‘out of mind and out of sight’ would agree much better with the general masses and would also silence the critics that state they are forced to fund a system with which they disagree with.    The major disadvantage with this sort of system is that it would also make the government the ‘big boss’ the BBC would be reduced to nothing more than a puppet on a string.  Imagine the Hutton Inquiry taking place whilst this form of taxation was in place, the trembles would be felt more widely throughout the cooperation.  The strings would be cut and you could say goodbye to the present day BBC.

There are no real solutions to privatising the BBC.  Each method has its own drawbacks.  But still one must be adopted! Better to choose then, one with less severe complications and disadvantages.  For those critics who complain that times are changing and we can’t hold onto something that the public doesn’t want there is another answer, the BBC needs to address the licence payers and deliver what they want.  At the moment the BBC is failing to cater for everyone, minorities have suffered and have opted to watch other Channels.  There are too many critics to avoid and time is running out, the BBC needs to solve this problem by 2016, and the clock is already ticking.      

PART THREE: IS THE BBC LICENCE FEE JUSTIFIED?

The stated mission of the BBC is “to inform, educate and entertain”. The BBC does this by making programmes paid for by the licence payer. The BBC licence payer finances the BBC and its operations through the Licence Fee, which can be described as a regressive tax. Unfair because everyone has to pays the same amount no matter how well off or they are. Or whether they have one or several TV sets. As a result of this tax the BBC does not have to serve the interests of advertisers or shareholders. The BBC also aims to provide a wide range of televised broadcasts that suit everyone, free of adverts and independent of commercial or political interests or so they say!

PART THREE: IS THE BBC LICENCE FEE JUSTIFIED?

Currently the TV licence fee stands at £139.50 for a coloured set and £47 for a black and white set. It’s free if you are over 75, and half-price if you’re registered blind. So that means basically if you’re past your prime, you still need a TV Licence!

The TV licence pays for 8 interactive TV channels, 10 radio networks, more than 50 local TV and radio services, the BBC’s websites and the on demand TV and the radio service, BBC iPlayer. On the other hand, the familiar BBC World Service is funded by a government grant and not the TV licence fee. Profits from separate BBC commercial services help to keep the licence fee low.

The BBC became the licensing Authority with responsibility for the administration of the television licensing system in 1991. The first licence fee for radio was issued in November 1922. The first combined Radio/TV licence for £2 was issued in June 1946 and later radio only licences were abolished in February 1971. The first supplementary licence fee for colour TV was introduced in January 1968. More recently in January 2007 the Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell announced that the TV licence fee would rise by 3% every year until 2012. Interesting, then what? Is it going to be privatised?

Is the TV licence then value for money? David Elstein former Executive of ITV, BSkyB and Channel 5 believes that the BBC is spending too much time fighting for the audience share to justify their licence fee. He suggests that the BBC should abandon the licence fee and become a subscription service like BSkyB, offering their customers the choice of whether they want to watch their channels or not.

Last year nearly over 150,000 people were prosecuted for failing to buy a TV licence. Elstein says the BBC has no real idea of what its audience wants because it’s not an ‘accountable institution’. He adds that by having a monthly subscription the BBC has more choice to give the viewers what they want to see and will also have the income to produce and make better programmes rather then rely on income from the licence fee which will restrict them on how much they can spend and on what.

More than 50% of British homes now have multi-channel TV with a choice of 428 channels to choose from. Mark Byford Deputy Director General, and head of all its BBC journalism has defended the licence by saying that the TV licence is vital for the development of the BBC. He added that the TV licence allowed the BBC to make distinctive and specialist programmes then any of the other channels; there is no interruption with commercials half-way through the programmes; the range of programmes is broader and most importantly he says the key for the BBC is ‘REACH’. The BBC is reaching and giving the licence fee payers something unique and better than anything offered anywhere else. I doubt that very much as the BBC is now closing down BBC Asian Network, so what’s available for Asians living in the UK?

Mark Byford is also the Chair of the BBC’s journalism Board, he has overall responsibility for the world’s largest and most trusted news organisation and extensive news and current affairs services across the radio, TV and interactive media for the UK and the world. His is also Chair of the BBC’s Editorial Standards Board responsible for promoting the highest standards in ethics and programme-making across the BBC. Chair of the BBC Complaints Management Board responsible for the efficient and effective handling of complaints across the corporation. Chair of the Learning Board responsible for developing training and staff development across the BBC; and the Chair of the BBC’s London 2012 Olympic Games Coordinating Group. Byford believes that the BBC does reach out to everyone and caters for everyone’s taste. The real truth is that only a select few members of the audience are catered for and you only have to watch the BBC channels to find out who they are. It’s no surprise BBC television caters for the White-British population. That it offers every licence fee payer something back for his or her money is simply not true and this is one of the reasons they are losing the battle of the ratings against Sky.

Once in a while when the BBC does show programmes for the Asian and black minority audience, it airs them at times that are not convenient to them. South Asian films from Bollywood are shown after midnight and past the watershed, when most South Asian families would prefer to watch them during the day.

On the otherhand Channel 4 airs similar Bollywood films during the day. The Bollywood film Lagaan was aired on Channel 4 on a Sunday and at midday therefore giving a large percentage of minority viewers the chance to see the film. More recently Channel 4 is currently showing two South Asian related programmes during the early evenings.

The BBC is also responsible for placing Asian and Black people under scrutiny in their programmes and projecting them in a negative way. The BBC’s Multicultural Departments for example, has demonstrated an overriding interest in emotive issues such as sex, crime, violence and abuse. Take for example, All Black (BBC2, 1993) and East (BBC2, 1990).

The sensational choice of topics (prostitution, pornography, polygamy, abortion of female foetuses/suicide rates, self-mutilation). The hypothesis journalism (presenting resent findings in a report, then setting out to prove them), and the voyeurism way in which the analysis was often conducted in these series (awkward dramatic reconstructions, darkened rooms, anonymous case studies) routinely veered towards a sordid picture of Black-British life.

The myth of static, politically naïve, Asian community, particularly in relation to the traditional iconography of the passive female condition in Asian cultures, was also a common subject, feeding into racialized fears and stereotypes of cultural difference.

Channel 4’s policy is somewhat different from BBC’s. ‘Channel 4 is unique: a channel run on commercial grounds not for profit but for distinctive public purposes. It was set up specifically to do things differently from other channels. It exists to be different. There are also differences of approach between the BBC, ITV and Channel 4; in how they deploy their production staff. Within the BBC there is a tension that is different: the one occasioned by size; the creative professional may feel he or she is at odds with a sprawling bureaucracy. As BBC broadcasting has grown it has divided into many parts.

First, it-begun life with engineers then there was a nascent bureaucracy, followed by programme-makers. The key to programme making lies with the producer. The producer is the programme in its early stages, the sole repository, in many cases of what a programme may become.

The tricky issue then is to how to present investigative journalism about and addressed to Black and Asian audiences, without alienating a mainstream audience, and which has the BBC bosses coming back for more. This balancing act involved in holding onto cultural aims, while competing equally in the mainstream marketplace inevitably puts further pressures on minority perceived programme-makers.

The BBC’s answer was East the only Asian current affairs programme which originally went out on air on BBC2. The trouble with this was, because it’s screened only for a few months a year and in predetermined slots, it did not pick up on events as they unfolded. Leaving the coverage of big community issues such as the troubles in Kashmir (1995), Bradford riots (2001) and the more recent Pakistani floods in the hands of mainstream news and the occasional odd documentary. Today the only South Asian programme on air is DESI DNA which has more or less the same makeup as the East programme of the 1990’s.

Channel 4 on the otherhand has capitalised on the notion that somehow its programmes are not made in the same way as the BBC’s. Channel 4 uses a number of independent producers, and filmmakers and nearly all are fully trained professionals from different backgrounds. There is also a greater scope of freedom. This could explain why it could offer a wider range of programmes that are more attractive to a wider range of audience then the BBC’s. Channel 4 has a wider range of diverse producers and unlike the BBC, Channel 4 also has a policy, which allows its entire staff to come up with ideas for programmes. If the ideas are accepted then a Channel 4 employee could find himself or herself in the producer’s chair making that programme.

Tim Madge in 1989 commented in a documentary entitled “Beyond the BBC” that it was also possible to see Channel 4 as a giant Community Programme Unit, committed to letting minorities have more airtime proportionately than their numbers would ordinarily permit. Channel 4 is instructed in the Broadcasting Act, but vaguely as to ‘ensure that the programmes contain a suitable proportion of matter calculated to appeal to tastes and interests not generally catered for by ITV and to encourage innovation and experiment in the form and content of programmes.’

The BBC is also ratings driven. Whilst Channel 4 isn’t. It does not cater for all licence fee payers. Instead its needs for an increase share in the ratings figures drives it to show its Trust that it is providing a better service then the other commercial channels. It does this is by comparing the BBC viewing figures with ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5. The company that carries out this audience research is called ‘Broadcasters Audience Research Board Ltd’ (BARB). The BBC will not show something (even if it’s for the ethnic minorities) at watershed times when there is a chance that it will bring down the viewing figures. The BBC needs to show a big share in the audience figures for a renewal of the TV licence. Recent viewing figures by BARB show that 25.6% of the audience watches BBC1 followed closely by 23.7% of the audience watching ITV. The rest watch BBC2 (11%), Channel 4 (9.6%) and Channel 5 (6%) etc.

Although with the large number of digital channels on offer many South Asian people are now switching to digital South Asian channels like Zee, Sony and B4U. Sir David Attenborough a veteran of BBC1 has recently said, “The BBC should judge its success by the width of the spectrum of interest it covers. The greater the width of spectrum the better it’s doing.” In a poll conducted on a Panorama programme titled “What’s the point of the BBC? In 2004, more than 1,000 people around the UK were asked “compared to other broadcasters are the BBC’s programmes’ distinctive or similar? 37% said yes they were distinctive, 58% no they were similar, whilst 4% said they were not sure. Recent findings by the corporation also show a huge drop in the number of people tuning into the BBC’s flagship channels. The findings also suggest programmes have become less memorable and that fewer people are making the effort to watch them.

Channel 4, ITV and channel 5 are funded commercially by advertisements. They are not answerable to the licence fee payer as the BBC is. Whereas the BBC may receive complaints about some of its programmes, the other channels will not, unless of course it’s because of indecency in which case these complaints will go to the Complaint’s Commission, rather then to the board of ITV governors.

The former BBC chairman, Sir Christopher Bland, has voiced his concerns for the corporation to establish an independent appeals body to give politicians, individuals and companies the right to challenge the BBC’s fairness policy. He has said that during his time at the BBC he had suggested the setting up of an independent appeals system on matters of fairness, in the same way as taste and decency, which an independent body outside the BBC such as Ofcom would regulate. But this had been blocked the then Board of Governors.

Changes in the BBC are also being made as a result of the Hutton enquiry. There has been a radical change in leadership of the BBC with Greg Dyke and Gavin Davies having resigned and a new BBC structure having replaced the old Board of Governors. Furthermore advertisers have also joined the growing clamour for reform of the BBC.

There as also been talks about what the Conservatives may do to the BBC now that they’ve won the next general election. ‘The core recommendation is the phasing out of the statutory licence fee in three years’ time, as BBC television moves to a voluntary subscription system; and that public funds for pure public service broadcasting – those programmes on topics that neither advertising nor subscription will support – must be spread around a variety of channels, in the interests of plurality.’

Political pressure for the government to introduce a more transparent system for renewing the BBC’s charter is also growing. The BBC’s current Royal Charter runs till December 31st 2016 and it remains to be seen what BBC new Trust can do before then. Improving the relationship between the viewer and the corporation will not be easy. Just as the findings of The future of Multi-Ethnic Britain: The Parekh Report (Runnymede Trust, 2000) found the word ‘British’ was taken by a large section of the public as belonging to the White English and deemed as racist. The BBC is also viewed by many Black and Asian people as being for the White people.

BBC’s legacy stems from its early days when it was accused of being White, middle-class and mainly made up of men. This was reflected in the programmes that were made during that period as can be seen in some of the earlier shows. Today programmes still have that ‘White British’ outlook seeping through them although the BBC’s make-up is slowly changing and people are being encouraged to apply from different backgrounds, thanks to BBC Talent.

Applicants from ethnic minorities are also encouraged. But the process is slow and the already few people working in the BBC from these backgrounds are finding that their work is being dictated from above.

The BBC has to make changes if it is to survive. It has to change from a bureaucratic dinosaur to more approachable and accessible organisation. This will also depend on at what speed it will make that change. The quicker the better. The transitional change will also have to meet the public’s favour after all we want an improved service not another mandatory tax.

Beirut Bradford or Beautiful Bradford?

Speaking as a concerned resident of 'this Northern Mill Town', once famous for its velvets and high quality materials, I find that a voice must speak out against the slow and painful decline of this once grand and hard working city, but let us temper it with hope and creative solutions.

Like so many UK cities Bradford has faced a decline and extinction in manufacturing through world market imports. The brave new world of sixties development should now be seen as a failure and discredited; the concrete collar ring road and nasty boxed shopping malls have all contributed to the decline and impoverishment of the city. Bradford now finds itself at a crossroads again of either development and investment or of renewed decay and abandonment.

There are so many concerns and issues. The scandal of the Westgate development, whereby a large hole now sits in the centre of the city, the construction site abandoned indefinitely (so read 10 years) by a private corporation under no obligation to fulfil its remit and the council powerless through its agreements to enforce its completion. It has however opened up a new vista of beautiful and hidden buildings, including the cities Cathedral, previously hidden by sixties development ..... . Perhaps this hole should be the lake and 'Park at the Heart' and not up to the kerbstone of the cities' Venetian Town Hall. Should not the councillors march down with hammers, tearing down the hoardings and reclaim the land they gave away? Surely a vote winner.

And of the Alsop Masterplan? What of it? Considering the diverse people living in the region; and as Bradford's marketing team correctly point out, 'One landscape, many views', Alsop's own 'Vision a City' seems in reality to have ignored and sidestepped local people. Instead we have an all encompassing futuristic vision from outer space, without connection to place, culture or heritage, with rubbed out high rise buildings replaced with more Corbusian high rise. This though has been accepted by the city council due to their own inferiority complex over the technical totalitarianism of an architectural maverick wanting to make his mark, where ever that may be. Where is the sagacity of our previous city elders, the Salts and Lister's?

With the call from Central Government for individual and collective voice and the strengthening of local government, (The Sustainable Communities Act 2007) what in fact do the people of Bradford want? It surely is a time and opportunity for local people to take a positive role in their place and mend the fractured society of now Cameron's 'Broken Britain'. Perhaps this should mean city as city state, in the Venetian ideal as implied by our Victorian fathers. Local governance means local directive with local enterprise and trade, even a loosening of central government taxation! A step too far...!

Bradford is used as a litmus test for minorities and especially for a measure of Muslim sensibility and reaction but what of this particular and itself diverse community? It's not just curry and bhangra. These stereotypes should also be overcome, with a recognition of intercultural values as opposed to the awful and largely multicultural philosophy which has reinforced a segregation and ghettoisation of society. It must be of self expressed identity but with the opening of exchange and meeting. This could best be met through local trade initiatives and open air markets. The heritage of Muslim trade has been retained somewhat with the traders from a South East Asian background bringing vitality to our streets in an otherwise mundane and somnambulistic cut and paste shopping mall. Meeting and exchange always helps with a good deal and money in ones pocket!

And of the Muslim community themselves? They have to stand up and be counted. As the popularity and success of the Mela showed, people can meet and exchange, share and benefit. Utopias can be had. They represent a dynamic force for good within the city, despite crime, arson, fraud, extortion et al!! It's all in the mix. However there are people of quality and conscientiousness, who can be leaders of benefit to the whole of Bradford's diverse community. It remains for these keys of governance to be handed on in trust to the very capable younger generation who in fact need and have earnt this capability. This also applies to the Grandees of Mosque committees who should recognize the excellence of their sons and daughters as well as to the local councilors who remain wary to this latent energy and optimism.

Utopias can be had, but they also must be grasped. Better Bradford Beautiful than Beirut Bradford don't you think?

Written by M. Manning

PART TWO – THE POLITICS BEHIND THE RUNNING OF THE BBC

The BBC’s Royal Charter and Agreement constitutionally established the BBC. It makes sure that the BBC are there to provide a ‘sound and television broadcasting service’ to its viewers. It will also be up for renewal on 31st December 2016. This has caused a lot of criticism from commercial channels who demand that it should now be privatised.


PART TWO – THE POLITICS BEHIND THE RUNNING OF THE BBC


In January 2007, faced with ongoing criticism at that time, The Royal Charter established the BBC Trust, a body that oversaw how the BBC programme making was run. This was an Independent body created to replace the existing Board of Governors. The original Board of Governors had consisted of twelve people appointed by the Queen who together had regulated the BBC and had represented the interests of the public, in particular those of viewers and listeners. They had existed since 1927 and were independent of the Director General and the rest of the BBC’s Executive Team. Unlike the present day Trustees they had no direct say in Programme making, but were nevertheless accountable to Parliament (and the Public) for the BBC’s performance and compliance each year. The role of Chairman of the Board of Governors had been one of the most important positions in British media.



The present Trust has twelve Trustees including a chair, Vice-chair and a member for each of the nations (England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland) of the UK. They are expected to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of public broadcasting issues in the relevant country. They also serve once appointed, a four-year term. The original Trustees, three former governors and eight new members were announced by Tessa Jowell, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in October 2006. At the time Michael Grade, then Chairman of the Governors had been appointed Chairman of the Trust but he resigned to take on a new role as Executive Chairman of ITV in November 2006. Many believed at the time that he had done all he could for the BBC under its present position and so left for a commercial channel where there was more scope for development.



The present Trustees either hold down a present job of authority or have arrived from leadership roles. They also have some previous media experience direct or indirect. The job specification states that “Candidates may also bring knowledge or experience of: broadcasting, communications and new media: competition, legal, corporate or regulatory aspects of running large organisations: expertise in areas covered by the BBC's public purposes delivering accountability to stakeholders”. There is no where in the job specifications that state that they must have knowledge of programme making, and innovative content producing although this is a major factor of their job roles as Trustees.


In October 2007, the Trust approved the BBC’s strategic direction for the next six year’s, demanding a high quality and a more distinct BBC. Under the previous governors the BBC had been quite innovative with the introduction and implementation of Interactive TV and the IPlayer. They also planned to crossover from analogue TV to the digital TV by 2012. The present day Trustees have yet to prove themselves with the smooth passover of digital TV and later considerations which they are making such as moving most of the present day programme making from London and Birmingham to northern areas like Manchester.


In 2008 The Trust was heavily criticised in the popular press for its review of the amount the BBC pays for its “TopTalent” for failing to answer whether stars like Jonathan Ross and Graham Norton were worth their large licence fee funded salaries. Ross is thought to earn £6 million each year.


Whilst the Trust is seen as being Independent from the both the government and the BBC it has yet to prove itself in the face of controversy. In the past the government of Margaret Thatcher appointed a succession of governors with the apparent intent of bringing the BBC “into line” with government policy. Marmaduke Hussey was appointed Chairman of the Board of Governors apperently with the specific agenda of bringing down the then Director General Alasdair Milne. The government also broke the tradition of always having a trade union leader on the Board of Governors.


All through this time the BBC had stood the test of time and remained impartial right through from the 1950’s and even through Thatcher’s regime, it was unfortuante that it would be broken by Tony Blair’s propoganda present day government. One of most damaging and the most unethical if not illegal acts of terrorism were about to take place which would not only leave the BBC weak but also open to a lot of unfair criticism. The bastion of trust and impartiality of the BBC was about to undergo severe scrutiny in order to reveal one source. This would later lead to the Hutton Inquiry and the resignation of two of the most senior people at the realm of the BBC.


On May 22, 2003 Dr David Kelly an employee of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and an expert in biological warfare and a former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, met with a BBC journalist, Andrew Gilligan at the Charing Cross hotel in London. Mr Gilligan had been invistigating the war in Bagdad for the ‘Today’ programme and wanted to know if Dr Kelly had in the light of the government dossier found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq during his visits there. They agreed to talk on an unattributable basis, which allowed the BBC to report what was said, but not to identify the source. Dr Kelly told Gilligan of his concerns over the 45-minute claim and ascribed its inclusion in the dossier to Alaister Campbell, the Director of Communications for Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair.


Andrew Gilligan went onto broadcast his findings on the Today programme on May 29, 2003. In the report he stated that the 45-minute claim had been placed in the dossier by the government and not attributed to any findings. Gilligan then went onto identify Alastair Campbell as the person responsible for placing the 45-minute claim fraudently within the dossier. This in effect was an act of unprecendented terrorism, the result which led to the subsequent war on Iraq. It also meant Blair’s government falsified government documents to justify their reasoning to go to war.


The story caused a political storm, with the government denying any involvement in the content of the dossier. Blair’s government pushed the BBC to reveal the name of their source, because it knew that any source who was not a member of the Joint Intelligence Committee would not have known who had a role in the preparation of the dossier. As the political fight ensued, Dr Kelly on June 30, 2003 informed his line manager at the Ministry of Defence to report his contact with Gilligan, though he believed and spoke “I am convinced that I am not his primary source of information”.


Dr Kelly was interviewed twice by his employees, who concluded that they could not be sure if he was Gilligan’s only source. Eventually they took the decision to publicise the fact that someone had come forward who might be the source. The announcement contained sufficient clues to alert journalists to guess Dr Kelly’s identity and the MoD confirmed his name when it was put to them, something which was not normal practice to do so. Normally the MoD refuses to comment on such matters, although it has been suggested that at this time the MoD was implementing a government decision to reveal Dr Kelly’s name as part of a strategy to discredit Gilligan.


Visibly disturbed with the turnout of events and how Blair’s government was turning on him, Dr Kelly was asked to appear as a witness before two committees of the House of Commons who were investigating the matter. He had already been given a warning by the MoD who had again informed him that if they found out that he had been Gilligan’s only source then they would take further appropriate action against him. When Dr Kelly appeared before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on July 15, 2003, he appeared to be under severe stress. It emerged that he had also reported his findings to another journalist, Susan Watts who worked on BBC’s Newsnight programme.


On the following day, July 16, 2003 Dr Kelly was called into give evidence to the Intelligence and security Committee. He told them that he had liased with Operation Rockingham within the Defence Intelligence Staff. The following morning Dr Kelly was working from home when he emailed his friend Judith Miller who worked at the New York Times, stating there were “many dark actors playing games “. Dr Kelly also receieved another call from MoD requesting him to state all his media contacts that he had spoken to about the “45-minute claim”.


At 3pm mid-afternoon Dr Kelly left to go for a walk around his home in Oxfordshire. He did not return. Later his wife reported him missing and his body was found in Harrowdown Hill, an area of woodlands about a mile from his home. There he was supposedly to have taken 29 Co-proxamol tablets, a drug used as a painkiller, before cutting his left wrist with a knife that he had owned since his youth. Although suicide was officially the coroner’s verdict as the cause of death, some medical experts have raised doubts. The first two paramedics on the scene Dave Bartlett and Vanessa Hunt have stated that the there was not enough blood at the location to justify the belief that he died from blood loss. A small amount of blood was found on plants near Dr Kelly’s body and a patch of blood the size of a coin on his trousers. They said they would expect to find several pints of blood at the scene of a suicide involving an arterial cut.


After his death the BBC confirmed that Dr Kelly had indeed been the source of the ‘Today’ programme report, claiming the Government had “sexed” up its dosier on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The Hutton enquiry followed surrounding the mysterious death of Dr Kelly, where discrepencies made by the two paramedics were backed up by two expert physicians. Martin Birnstingl had been the president of the Vascular Surgical Society of Great Britain. He was also a former consultant at St Bartholomews Hospital in London and one of the country’s most respected vascular surgeons. He had stated in the the Guardian that he believed it was unlikely for Dr Kelly to have died by simply severing the ulner artery. He explained that arteries have muscles around them that will contruct when severed to prevent life-threatening loss of blood. “It would spray blood around and make a mess. But after the blood pressure starts to fall, the artery would contract and stop bleeding” he said.


The Guardian newspaper said It was a statement shared by Dr Bill McQuillan a former consultant at Edinburgh’s Royal Infirmary who for 20 years has dealt with hundreds of wrist accidents. Hutton’s findings were based on the coroner’s verdict and the evidence given to the inquiry that there was more blood around Kelly’s body, of which the paramedics doubt. As Vanessa Hunt said “I am sure I would not have missed that amount of blood”. The Hutton report also said Dr Kelly’s body was found with his head and shoulders slumped against a tree. One of the first people to have found Dr Kelly, Louise Holmes agreed that he was resting against a tree. But by the time Dave Bartlett and Vanessa Hunt arrived, Dr Kelly was lying flat, some feet from the tree. Had someone moved him? Had his body been searched? Why the discrepancy? None of the police officers at the scene said that they had touched the body.


A full independent inquest might have offered answers to some of the issues raised by the paramedics. The Hutton Inquiry prevented a full inquest from taking place and although witnesses were surrounded, they were not cross-examined under Oath.


The Oxfordfordshire coroner, Nicholas Gardiner decided there was no public interest and the family of the deceased had accepted the notion of suicide. The Hutton Inquiry agreed with this verdict. In his summing up Hutton put the entire blame for Dr Kelly’s death at the door of the BBC. Not suprising really considering he had been selected by the Blair government to lead the Inquiry he also despite evidence to the otherwise he cleared the Government of any wrongdoing. Lord Hutton said the validity of Government’s claim that Iraq had WMD ready for use was outside his remit. He said he was not in a position to judge the accuracy of key claims in the Government’s dossiers on Iraq’s WMD.


There was speculation in the media that the report had been delibrately written to clear the government, and many people believed suggestions that it was a whitewash because of the way Hutton’s report was carefully written for example he argued that the use of the word “sexed up” by Gilligan would have been taken up by the general public to mean a direct lie rather than an exaggeration.


It was a bleak day for the BBC and a major turning point. Gavyn Davies who was the BBC Chairman resigned on the day the report was published. He had solely defended Andrew Gilligan and his report and was devasted to learn the Hutton report made a shambles of the BBC trust and reporting of the “45-minute claim”. The BBC had been shaken badly and it would never be the same again.


Two days later the Director General Greg Dyke who had transformed the BBC since he joined the corporation in 2000 also resigned. His famous line “cut the crap” at the BBC had been to make swift changes in adminstration where he reduced the overall costs from 24% of total income to 15%. He was also favoured by BBC staff for his humbleness and his ability to restore staff morale. Greg Dyke had also introduced Freeview terrestrial digital transmission platform with six additional BBC channels and persuaded Sky TV to join the consortium. In 2001 he had also made huge changes in the makeup of the BBC where he had gone down on record as stating that the BBC was “hideously white”, he soon set changes in place at recruitment level to make statt more representative of the licence paying British multi-cultural population. In his resignation speech Dyke stated “I do not necessarily accept the findings of Lord Hutton”. What was more supprising was that he was forced to resign by the Board of Governors where it was reported he only retained the support of one third of the board. Ironically his counterpart then at the BBC Alan Yentob, today claims more than £27,000 in expenses not suprising that he has been under investigation. He obviously doesn’t adhere to Greg Dyke policy of “cut the crap”.


Soon after Dyke’s resignation Andrew Gilligan also resigned over his part in the Kelly affair. Making it three BBC resignations. He also questioned the value of the Hutton report by saying “The report casts a chill over all Journalism, not just the BBC’s. It seeks to hold reporters, with all the difficulties they face, to a standard that it does not appear to demand of, for instance, Government dossiers.”


Several newspapers judged the report to be so uncritical of the Government that they accused Hutton in an “establishment whitewash”. The Daily mail wrote in its editorial “were faced with the wretched spectacle of the BBC Chairman resigning while Alastair Campbell crows from the summit of his dunghill. Does this verdict, my lord, serve the real interest of truth?” The Independent included a large, mostly empty white space above the fold on its front page containing just the word ‘Whitewash’ in small red type. The Sunday Times depicted Lord Hutton as ‘Three wise monkeys’ who would ‘see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil”. Thousands of BBC workers paid for a full page advertisment in The Daily Telegraph on 31 January in order to publish a message of support for Dyke followed by a list of their names. The message read: 'The following statement is from BBC employees, presenters, reporters and contributors. It was paid for by them personally, not the BBC itself. Greg Dyke stood for brave, Independent BBC journalism that was fearless in its search for the truth; we are resolute that BBC should not step back from its determination to investigate the facts in pursuit of the truth. Through his passion and integrity Greg Dyke inspired us to make programmes of the highest quality and creativity. We are dismayed by Greg’s departure but we are determined to maintain his achievements and his vision for an Independent organisation that serves the Public above all else.”


The BBC was never to be the same again. As the phrase goes “Once bitten twice shy” it was never again going to take the same level of risks has it had taken with Andrew Gilligan. New guidelines were set in and emails sent to all the staff at the BBC in how to deal with controversial issues and stories. Everything had to be handled with care and no more high risks would be taken. In the end it was Blair’s Government who had brought the BBC ‘into line’ something which the Conservatives had failed to do. This would later lead to the dismantling of the Board of Governors and the establishment of the The Trust and later much later the proposal of privatising the BBC.

PART ONE - THE BIRTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE BBC

It is regarded as being second to none. It reaches more than 200 countries and is available to more than 274 million households. Its radio service is in the short wavelength, which makes it available to many regions of the world. It also broadcasts news - by radio or over the Internet - in some 30 languages. The BBC, a mighty giant in the land of the Lilliput, is now facing criticisms of its entirety and pushing off claims for privatisation.


So what will become of this great institution free from both political and commercial influence and which only adheres and answers to viewers and listeners? To find out we must first rewind time to when it all first began in 1922 and then step by step retrace its steps to the present day. Then and only then, will we truly know what can be done.


PART ONE - THE BIRTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE BBC



The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) a first of its kind was born on 18 October 1922 following demands from the general public for a radio station. Successful trials in radio, first in Writtle, Chelmsford and later on in London led to the creation of the BBC and John Reith becoming the first General Manager. In 1927, at the Crawford Committee’s suggestion, the BBC was issued a Royal Charter to become a public corporation. This meant that the BBC could expand its coverage and reach a wider remit. From radio and then onto television broadcasting, the BBC in 1934 was reaching world-wide audiences especially with its Royal wedding between the Duke of Kent and Princess Marina.

Sealed with this Royal approval it was no surprise that on June 2 1953, an estimated 22 million TV viewers – many of them crowded into neighbours’ living rooms – saw the young Queen Elizabeth II crowned. The television age had arrived. The event prompted many to buy their own sets, and it was evident that television would soon be as important as radio to UK audiences.


As the television licence income grew, more ambitious programmes were made possible and a new crop of stars emerged, including David Attenborough (Zoo Quest 1954), Eamon Andrews (This is Your Life 1955) and Jack Warner (Dixon of Dock Green 1955). Drama successes like The Quatermass Experiment and the controversial adaptation of Nineteen Eighty-Four became talking points all over the country.’


During the 1950s the BBC started to build a reputation for impartiality when it became embroiled in a conflict with the present day government over its reporting of the Suez Crisis. The then Prime Minister Anthony Eden, told the BBC that if they continued to take an unpatriotic stance in the war then the government would take over the BBC and run it themselves. Fortunately the BBC won the battle and it never came to the government taking it over. Following on from this triumph, the BBC continued to grow and during the 1960s a new era in television programming was born with more and more programmes being shown that reflected the up-to-date content at that time.


Documentary, drama and comedy continued to flourish in the 1970s in what became to be known as the ‘golden age’ of television. It was also during this period that many households’ switched to colour sets. The BBC also earned the description of ‘The Theatre in the Living Room’ when the televising of all of Shakespeare’s plays began in 1978 with Romeo and Juliet. This was a vintage period for outstanding new comedy such as Are You being served? (1973), The Good Life and Fawlty Towers (1975). As well as entertaining and informing, the BBC also addressed its educational remit. The decade saw the launch of ‘the University of the Airwaves’ with collaboration from The Open University.’

It wasn’t until 1977 that it began to go horribly wrong for the BBC. The Annan Committee Report criticised the BBC for ‘loss of nerve’ and ‘organisational fog’ over its programme making. As a result the way was paved for the establishment of Channel 4, in 1982. During the 1990s in the face of growing competition from Channel 4 and ITV, the BBC started to offer a wider-range of diverse programmes that commercially funded broadcasters would not provide. These included The Human Body and Walking with Dinosaurs as well as recreating old literature classics such as Pride and Prejudice and introducing News 24.


By 2000 the BBC had made a promise to enrich our lives with new and upcoming digital channels when faced with competition from both Sky and Cable TV. The result was BBC’s digital box ‘Freeview’, which offered a variety of free TV channels, and interactive TV. More recently the BBC has offered the digital iPlayer to the nation on the premise of ‘making the unmissable, unmissable’ when it comes to watching your favourite TV programme. There is also a BBC shift that by 2010 everyone will be switched onto Digital TV and that analogue TV signals will be switched off. Without doubt the future of the BBC was now in the Digital age.