The BBC has undone itself

Britain’s public broadcaster still has some fine journalists but has lost sight of its unique purpose

Some years ago an ambitious young BBC executive told me that I had been over indulged by the BBC. Too much of the British broadcaster’s output, this enthusiastic Blairite told me, was shaped by the preferences of the privileged. New Labour, I was waiting for him to add, was for the many not the few.

To justify the near-universal levy of the licence fee, he said, the BBC needed to broaden its appeal to a much wider demographic. That meant less metropolitan, more diverse, less money for Radio 4, and more for Rapping. Above all, the imperative was to woo the young away from the digital world of social networks and on demand streaming. In short, I was too old, too affluent, and too educated. This wider audience, it seemed, wanted action and immediacy above insight or reflection.

I could see the point. The BBC has always faced a tension between its Reithian missions to educate and to entertain, between high quality and audience reach. The intense competition from digital media added to the stresses. With the world on their telephones, the young are less inclined to sit around a shared screen watching linear, analogue television. 

For all that, I could see some snags. The corporation seemed to discount the worth of its aspirational pull. Businesses rarely succeed by eschewing excellence. The BBC thrived on originality. Joining the commercial gang would not the same as increasing so-called “reach”. It also seemed hopelessly naive to believe that to catch them young was to keep them for life. What may once have been true of the Jesuits, does not necessarily carry over to today’s broadcasting.

Never mind. The executive, who rose to some heights by trampling over the old shibboleths, got his way. Current affairs was sidelined to make way for more “popular” shows. Insight and analysis was sacrificed in favour of “impact”. Reality television - a day in the life of a police/ambulance/fire officer - and game shows replaced drama on the analogue television channels. 

Once jewels in the news crown, programmes such as BBC2’s Newsnight or Radio 4’s Today programme, lost the resources that set their journalism apart. Local reporting has been downgraded, and the 24-hour domestic and world news channels merged to the serious detriment of both.  

News programmes are now expected to be once loud and bland - loud to grab audience attention, but sufficiently bland to avoid offending the politicians holding the licence fee purse strings. Challenging journalism is eschewed on the pretext of failing the impartiality test. The mantra of Tim Davie, the modern BBC’s suitably bland director general, is Don’t Offend Downing Street.  

The corporation still has some fine journalists - witness superb on-the-ground reporting from the war in Gaza. From time to time, the remaining drama is interesting as well as entertaining. But these are the exceptions to the rule. And the BBC cannot forever rely on national treasure such as David Attenborough and Strictly Come Dancing to prop up its flagship BBC1.

Speaking personally, my interlocutor can claim success. I am no longer spoiled. I spend far less time watching or listening to the BBC. Not that I feel greatly aggrieved. Sky News fills the domestic news gap, while cutbacks in the BBC’s overseas coverage are counterbalanced by ready access to CNN, France 24 and the like. America’s PBS and Sky Arts show excellent documentaries and the best podcasts come from Global Player. As for entertainment, Netflix, Prime and other streaming services do a fair job.

Overall, however, the strategy has failed. The paradox is that in its desperation to be more popular - to extend its reach - the BBC has actually undercut the case for a universal levy to sustain it. If it’s simply imitating everyone else, why should it be privileged financially?  All this points towards the scrapping of the licence fee in favour of a subscription model for most services. Some form of public subsidy will be needed to underwrite the integrity of news programming. 

The shift to a digital world was always going to be bruising for a publicly-funded broadcaster. The sadness is that the BBC was really very good; and had it remained confident in its role of informing and entertaining, it could have held on to its unique position. And kept the licence fee.