Homework

There's going to be a few gems buried in a forthcoming collection of essays under the title "Is the BBC in crisis ?"  Bits are coming out ahead of publication. David Liddiment, the man who commissioned "Who wants to be a millionaire?" for ITV and who joined the Trust in November 2006, makes the case that, crisis or not, the Trust at least has been doing a bang-up job. It starts as a dense, closely-argued piece, but gets a tad more passionate at the end...

The idea that a public body spending £4bn a year of other people’s money can be run entirely by its board of management – on-the-ball non-execs and a hawkish NAO and PAC notwithstanding - with no separate body to protect the public interest and public value, is frankly insane. The BBC matters too much, and the public investment in it is too great. Whether that body is the Trust, an evolution of the Trust, some form of OfBeeb, or something yet to be imagined, management and the public interest must be kept separate. In fair weather or foul, someone must do the checking and it can’t be the people who run the outfit.

The core of Liddiment's argument is that "checking" - via a rolling programme of "service licences", constructed by the Trust from straw-men occasionally re-shaped by public consultation - keeps those naughty programme makers doing what licence-fee payers really want. My concern is that the service licences reflect more of what the Trustees themselves think should happen, rather than licence-fee payers. I'd like to see the listeners' letters asking for 50% speech on daytime Radio 2 - I suspect that was entirely constructed by Trustees to get commercial radio lobbyists off their back. I suspect the nudging of The Asian Network to a "a music station" (Liddiment's description) was done, in conjunction with the Executive, to boost figures and reduce costs.

Staff in BBC News will be more interested in a critique of their work by David Lloyd, former Head of News and Current Affairs at Channel 4.  In part of this essay, Lloyd tries to put himself inside the head of James Harding, Director of News - here's my favourite bit from that "made-up" section, about newsgathering reporters and correspondents.

... yet he still has an instinct that, on more everyday, mundane assignments, BBC reporters tend to be less alert to the unexpected within their locations than their rivals at Sky, ITV or Channel 4; he puts this down to an over-oppressive newsgathering desk in London – fine as long as it retains a sense of strategy in the deployment of public funds, not so fine if it stifles reporters’ initiative, and the output with it. 

There is also the canard that he picked up when first enquiring about the job that some of the more senior figures are almost beyond the control of production, travelling and reporting pretty much where they choose.

News hacks will also like a look at political pressure by Phil Harding. The former Today editor/ed policy Controller takes us through history, is enlightening about the Campbell Era, and offers this current view of what the political machine does to BBC News staff.

These days a lot of the shouting and swearing has died down to be replaced by intensive texting. News editors at the BBC can expected to be bombarded two or three times a week by the new generations of spin doctors. Phrases such as ‘totally inaccurate’, ‘lazy journalism’, ‘that story is far too prominent’, ‘totally unfair tone of that interview’ will fly around. Conscious of the agenda-setting role of the Today programme, particular targets are the 6, 7 and 8 o’clock news bulletins.

There are important warnings, too, about the role of the NAO and the Public Accounts Committee. And a theory about Mark Easton.