Philip Stevens, an FT columnist, offered this perspective on the BBC, post-Hutton:

Wisely, the BBC has not waited to deploy its defences. Its distinguished
presenters have been told they can no longer pontificate in print on
anything more controversial than gerbil husbandry. One of the
corporation's best executives has been charged with rebuilding editorial
standards and confidence. Rumour has it that a cobwebbed bust of John
Reith has been restored to pride of place at Broadcasting House.

These are prudent precautions ahead of publication of the Hutton report.
Whatever else Lord Hutton's inquiry into the death of David Kelly, the
weapons scientist, may conclude, the BBC should expect serious rebuke.
The shoddy journalism that saw it accuse Downing Street of knowingly
falsifying intelligence about Iraq was compounded by an arrogant
dismissal of subsequent complaints. Lord Hutton's interrogation of Greg
Dyke revealed a director-general seemingly gripped by indifference.

That, we are now told, has changed. I think the BBC means it. The entire
organisation, from the governors down, has been badly shaken. Serious
people, including Mark Byford, the new standards commissar and deputy
director-general, are thinking carefully about how to ensure that BBC
journalism is both challenging and accurate. Whatever his own
preferences, Mr Dyke should have learnt that the BBC's mission to inform
as well as entertain cannot be sacrificed to the chase for ratings.

Even before Lord Hutton issues his verdict, the game has moved on. The
government has launched a public consultation ahead of the expiry of the
BBC's charter in 2006. Ofcom, the new telecommunications regulator, has
begun its own inquiry into the purpose and worth of public service
broadcasting. And the pace of change in the industry is still
accelerating as the switchover from analogue to digital broadcasting
beckons.

In his interview today with FT Creative Business, Gavyn Davies, the
chairman of the governors, disavows any connection between the Kelly
furore and the future remit and funding of the BBC. Others will not be so
generous. Lord Hutton's conclusions will inevitably form the backdrop to
the charter review. Friends have joined enemies in wondering whether the
BBC is the only public service model in a multi-channel digital age.

The political perils for the corporation are obvious. There have always
been critics on the political right who believe that the marketplace can
do most of the BBC's job. The risk is that their doubts will be echoed
elsewhere on the political spectrum among those who are committed to the
principle of public service broadcasting, but have been dismayed by the
BBC's strategy of chasing ratings with soaps and reality TV.

I have heard senior BBC figures dismiss this as the preoccupation of the
"white middle classes" - Hampstead liberals who want the airwaves filled
with high culture and classical drama and who find it faintly odd that
BBC2, once an impressive television channel, now clears its prime-time
schedule for the world darts championship. Don't we realise that the BBC
has to appeal right across social and ethnic spectrums? How long would
the licence fee last if audiences for BBC1 continued to decline? Ordinary
people cannot be asked to pay for the cultural preferences of the elite.

Another response says that the corporation faces an impossible task. When
the BBC held a monopoly, even when it was part of the duopoly with ITV,
it was easy enough to balance the highbrow with the popular. Now it must
compete with scores, hundreds, of digital channels to win audiences large
enough to justify its funding - all the while catering for the minority
tastes that risk losing those same audiences.

The truth is that the balancing act is difficult but not impossible. If
it were impossible, the case for an extension of the BBC's charter in its
present, expansive form would simply crumble. No one is suggesting that
the corporation should eschew popular programming - and indeed, at its
best, the BBC proves that quality and broad appeal are two sides of the
same coin. Much of the time the corporation does provide the creative and
diverse programming at the heart of a public service remit. Much of the
time, though, is not enough to earn £2.6bn a year in licence fees.

If it wants to hang on to its friends, and its money, the corporation has
to do more than tighten quality. It has to give public policy and current
affairs a proper place in its schedules, even if that occasionally costs
viewers. First-rate news and analysis is certainly not a sufficient
condition for the licence fee; but it is a necessary one. I count myself
among those who believe that the BBC provides a vital and vibrant space
in the public life of the nation. It would be a pity to surrender it to
the cheap lure of television game shows.