Forum for former BBC staff

Forum for former BBC staff
http://www.ex-bbc.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl >> News and Comment >> The FT's view http://www.ex-bbc.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1463079481 Message started by Administrator on May 12^th, 2016, 6:59pm

Title: The FT's view
Post by Administrator on May 12^th, 2016, 6:59pm

Cameron pulls back from war with the BBC
While there is pain for the broadcaster, its independence is assured

One year after being returned to power at the general election, David Cameron finds himself besieged on numerous fronts. The prime minister faces strike action from junior doctors, a public backlash over his school reforms and turmoil in his party as Conservative MPs take rival sides ahead of the EU referendum.

Until the publication on Thursday of the white paper on the future of the BBC, it seemed likely that the broadcaster would soon be added to the list of the government’s adversaries. John Whittingdale, the culture secretary, had made no secret of his wish to overhaul it from top to bottom — from its governance arrangements to whether it could schedule Strictly Come Dancing on a Saturday night.

Yesterday Mr Cameron’s political pragmatism got the better of Mr Whittingdale’s wilder flights of fancy. Many aspects of the white paper will demand scrutiny as the government and the broadcaster complete the task of renewing the BBC’s Royal Charter. But the document sets a realistic path for the discussions to come.

The most important ministerial climbdown is over BBC governance. For some time there has been a consensus that the corporation should be run by a unitary board, replacing the two-tier structure that separated the executive management from the BBC Trust, an unwieldy body that was at once the regulator and tribune of the licence fee paying public.

What stoked concern was a proposal from Mr Whittingdale that the government should appoint a majority of this new board’s members. That would have given the state a powerful voice in the corporation’s counsels, potentially eroding its editorial independence. Sensibly, this idea has been ditched.

Even so, simply appointing a minority of the new board will expand the government’s influence over the BBC’s affairs. The necessity for this has not been demonstrated. There are also question marks over the prime minister’s insistence that Rona Fairhead, the Trust chairman, should head the new body. Her leadership of the Trust was tarnished by her inability to stand up to the Treasury last year, when it demanded that the BBC fund free licences for people over 75. Ms Fairhead’s failure means that, in spite of the index-linked increases to the licence fee confirmed in the white paper, the corporation faces real cuts to its budget of some 10 per cent.

In many other respects the document reflects the hard-nosed bargaining between the corporation and ministers. Mr Whittingdale has pulled back from demands that would have restricted the BBC’s size and scope. It will not be required to sell off parts of its commercial arm, BBC Worldwide. The new board should take an early look at the propriety of owning a stake in the growing commercial rival UKTV. But the government’s task is to set the mission and budget of the corporation, not to tell it what it can broadcast or own.

The BBC may chafe at the requirement that it reveals the salaries of those top stars earning more than £450,000. But this is not unreasonable. Not only does the broadcaster enjoy unparalleled freedom to experiment with new talent; its past excesses on remuneration leave it with limited scope to object.

This is not an easy moment for the BBC. At a time of rising competition and costs, it will have to make do with less. That said, after the many threats to both its funding and independence, its future is assured. And if there is one extra crumb of comfort, it is that the corporation has emerged from the white paper process in better shape than Mr Whittingdale.