10th November 2025
The BBC needs to be a robust, independent institution
The British (or Bullied) Broadcasting Corporation is suffering another kicking.
Of course, the BBC is not perfect, and nor is its ultimate legal method of funding, which relies on the criminal law and a prohibition on using television sets without a licence (ie, permission) from the state.
That the criminal law is involved at all in this area is a wrong and something to which this blog may return. There are other ways of funding a public service broadcaster and the sanction for non-payment of the licence fee should be a civil debt and not anything to do with the criminal law.
But there is also a great deal of good about the BBC and its special legal structure.
(Personal tastes will differ in respect of content. I will give a shout for radio channels 3, 4 and 5, the world service, local news, and for Match of the Day. I loathe the Today programme and Question Time, now parodies of what were once-interesting news formats. And many current news priorities of the online BBC news do seem rather odd, though not in the way the commercial media aver.)
*
The primary benefit of the BBC is that there is a large-scale broadcaster and online publisher structurally outwith the commercial pressures of the other forms of news media. And this is a valuable benefit.
Legal frameworks and nominal autonomy, however, are of less importance than a sense of institutional integrity.
Just as this blog emphasises that constitutionalism is more important than the form of any constitution, institutions such as the BBC require an independent robustness more than anything written in a charter.
And once that spirit goes, then the institution itself is undermined.
There will be those who will clap and cheer at the senior BBC resignations over the last couple of days, but such elation is misconceived. For the BBC to be this weak as an institution when faced with outside (and politically motivated) criticism is not a sign of a healthy mixed polity.
One of the many bad things done by the Blair governments was the kicking of the BBC over the Iraq WMD issue. The political benefit gained by the administration of the day was more than outweighed by the collapse of institutional confidence within the BBC.
And the current kicking seems similar in its nature – and will no doubt have similar effects.
Something precious in our polity is again being trashed, just because some with political motives want to give the BBC a good kicking, and the BBC will not (or cannot) defend itself.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
More on the comments policy is here.
There has been research in the recent past that provided evidence that the BBC might be more than adequately funded through providing subscription services to viewers and listeners outside the United Kingdom.
The BBC, whatever Team Trump and GB Opinion, sorry, GB News, believe, is still held in high regard for the depth and breadth of its programming and news coverage.
But, as with local government, Westminster politicians are, whatever they say publicly, not in favour of bodies currently within their control, courtesy of their funding arrangements, becoming much less reliant on funding provided or authorised by central government.
And, of course, Rupert Murdoch has routinely objected to any measures that would make the BBC less reliant on the licence fee, so any time the BBC comes up with a moneyspinner, it is accused of exploiting its monopoly position and licence fee subsidy to undercut private enterprise.
The BBC is on the rack for being funded through the licence fee and in the stocks when it seeks to develop alternative revenue streams.
Quite often, the torturer is also someone who knows how to accurately throw rotting vegetables.
“And many current news priorities of the online BBC news do seem rather odd”
My take on this – and I don’t think I am by any means unique – is that news has become a branch of entertainment rather than reporting.
The priority seems to be to ‘wow’ the listeners rather than inform them – hence an oddball is more likely to get coverage than a sane person.
I start with the Today programme but end up turning to Radio 3 when the annoyance becomes too much – normally within 15 minutes.
A strength of not being funded by advertising is that the BBC does not need to provide clickbait, because it is not in desperate need of page impressions to attract advertisers.
And yet, as you say, the BBC does seem to feel it needs to provide clickbait.
But, then, another stick with which to beat the BBC is low viewing, listening and/or reading figures.
Whilst the BBC should be more commercial, it should not go the whole hog.
Imagine the media landscape (and the howls of outrage) if the BBC ever ran paid advertising across all its media.
For example, nine million people watch BBC Breakfast.
I’m going to push back a little on my clapping and cheering being misconceived, but perhaps I’m not clapping with the masses?
My reason for clapping and cheering is that I think the appointment of Tim Davie, an ex-Tory activist, by Boris Johnson was utter bunkum.
Since Tim’s appointment, the BBC lurched to the (far) right. QT, as you pointed out, has become a weekly Party Political Broadcast by Reform, and even the website frames nominal “news” from RW talking points. The pearl-clutching of immigrant prisoners accidentally released, compared to the metaphorical shrug for the white British guy, is remarkable. Even the reporting of the problems in the DoJ is slanted toward it being a ‘today’ issue rather than something designed and orchestrated by the previous governments.
I very much agree that the Iraq affair was a turning point; after that, the BBC has seemed to be very much cowed by the government of the day. It’s constant desire to self-flagellate at the slightest provocation has led us to the ridiculous and all-too-frequent sight of one BBC reporter talking to another, standing outside BH, about the organisations failings.
But in the larger picture, this feels to me like a concerted attack on the very idea of public service broadcasting. We’ve seen Trump attack PBS and NPR, and Voice of America.
We’re seeing now a concerted attempt to shift the viewpoint of the BBC ever more rightwards; it feels a bit like Orbanisation, frankly.
And, given the way in which some in the US have tried to stir up things in Ireland, such as during the recent Presidential election, I seriously worry that, having taken down the biggest beast in the world of public service, some will then turn their sights on organisations like RTE.
Whatever the merits of the BBC as an institution, the approach taken by those enforcing the licence has been and continues to be unacceptable. There is no presumption in law that everyone watches television. Yet every property in the country is identified by postcode and if there is no licence in force the “legal occupier” is required to account for this to the licensing authority. The principle of the presumption of innocence is ignored: prove to us that you do not need a licence or we will hound you. It must be almost 40 years since I gave up watching television and I refuse to engage with “TV Licensing” and its increasingly pathetic attempts at intimidation. A polite enquiry in writing would receive a polite explanation but bullying demands do not. A different funding model is urgently required.
“He who pays the piper calls the tune.”
I agree with previous comments that suggest that the BBC was undermined during the Blair years and as a direct result of an intent on the part of Blair to deceive the British public over the need for military intervention in Iraq.
And whilst I lack DAG’s far greater understanding of the legal niceties, I do believe that we need the BBC – or at least a significant portion of it [particularly the news content] to remain completely independent and publicly-funded. (One only has to cast a glance across the Atlantic, to the intensely partisan coverage and outright lies being broadcast under the cover of being “news” to realise what perils await us if we’re incautious).
So what to do?
Well, perhaps we could reduce the cost to the license-payer by reducing the scope of the BBC. For example, there is more than adequate competition in the “light entertainment” realm, so how about taking those parts of the BBC and spinning them off to a private, competitive enterprise? But the critical thing would be to retain the core part of the BBC the public *service* broadcasting part – under independent, non-commercial funding.
That’s potentially half the problem solved.
However, just addressing the source of funding doesn’t address the control of those funds. It doesn’t address the potential problem caused if a party in government ousts sitting senior executives and replaces them with, pardon the term, “party hacks”.
So perhaps the second half of the question might be something that could be addressed by having a completely independent “board of governors” – no, please don’t suggest that is what we have today – and set up rules around composition and appointments and make absolutely darned sure that the process does not allow political parties to thumb the scales. Then clear out the current lot [perhaps phased over time, to avoid discontinuity] and start over.
It just doesn’t seem like the current approach remains fit for purpose in the 21st century.
I think there are also financial and commercial motives for some who want to give the BBC a good kicking and they have made those motives have been clear for many years. Sadly, these days, one must always ‘cherchez l’argent’.
It is unfortunate that those who want to kick the BBC, for political or commercial reasons, have been able to do so. But it was also unfortunate that the BBC, because of crass editing in Panorama and frankly racist reporting by BBC Arabic, gave the opportunity to those who wanted to kick it.
A classic case of the BBC cannot win. Their mainstream pro Israel reporting has been criticised by many. On the other hand who really cares what Hamas ‘thinks’?
It’s a balancing act that the more powerful voice, Israel, needs counter balancing, but not by extremists on the other side
As the article states constitutionalism is more important than the form of any constitution.
And whilst it is also true that institutions such as the BBC require both independent robustness and a robust charter that ensures its independence against external interference, be it from government or media lobbying, the elephant in the room for so many of the UK’s problems is the failure of its political system to contain polarisation and extremism, at least in the past 10 years or so since Brexit, if not for longer.
I fear that nothing will ever change if the issues arising from the UK’s archaic voting system are not addressed.
The stakes are very high with money and influence pouring in from all sides, be it from the US right, Russia, or China.
Other countries with very different voting systems also cannot currently contain polarisation and extremism. Indeed there is even an argument that our voting system has kept UKIP/Reform at bay.
The BBC is our licenced fool, only allowed to go so far. Distorting the detail of Trump’s words was foolish – a thousand professional screamers are watching every move every day. Any slip is gold to the anti-BBC mill. The loss of Tim Davie is thankfully no real loss. A pyrric victory for the whiners.
As for the licence – what else is there, does not seem too onerous or officiously applied to me.
The problem goes beyond the licence fee.
Just imagine what might happen if President Putin were now to complain about a news report !
All media outlets are part and parcel of the political discourse whether either they or we like it or not.
Political and business careers have been destroyed by the media in the past and this will happen in the future.
Perhaps the new BBC head should be a non political appointment approved in a secret ballot by the entire electorate ? This might though be too much of a counsel of perfection and could lead to a Pandora’s box of other problems and I choose my words here very carefully.
British sovereignty might not be what people have been led to believe it is.
Exactly, hence why it’s being commented on here. When a foreign head of state is able to leverage the removal (the ‘surprise’ resignations smack of jumping before pushed) of senior officials in a state broadcasting corporation that he deems to be critical of him, our sovereignty is under threat.
What’s funny is the right wingers, who claim to be ‘patriotic’, and a large number of which voted for Brexit, are quite happy for a foreign leader to dictate what should happen to our state media.
In other words, their flag waving (and painting), patriotic ‘defiance’ is determined by the political stripe of those trying to dictate to us.
For years, a section of the Conservative party has persistently tried to undermine the BBC, helped occasionally by the “smack-of-firm-government” wing of Labour. They have recently been joined by Tacky Trump and his UK unctuous underling, Farage. All of them resent attempts to put impartial checks on abuse of government power.
This abuse issue reaches beyond the UK – which contributes to the considerable global respect for the BBC.
The BBC is an organisation of humans so expecting it to 100% on metric is unrealistic. Unfortunately it is the prime supplier of perhaps 99.5% accurate news to UK voters either directly by TV , by radio or as passed on by other media or by person to person. That is bad news for those who wish facts were hidden or ‘reformatted’ to support a different political view. The internet’s social media have failed to provide accurate reporting and found their financial value in reporting trivia, propaganda, or in the distribution of fictional stories and conspiracies. So, if a nation believes some independence and accuracy of news is important to a democracy, how should it be financed and monitored for value for money? If I remember from Brexit ideology, the value of Freedom was beyond measure, is the freedom to have truth in reporting also beyond measure?
I don’t think Trump could have happened in an America which had a BBC.
But the constitution-guaranteed right to say anything did not include a right to have one’s words heard. Only one – corrupt – point of view is heard, and you get a Trump saying black is white with no pushback.
We can see the same people trying the same thing here.
And I despair that Starmer will have no idea how to protect the BBC.
One legal aspect that might prove worthy of Mr Green’s attention is the nature of the BBC Charter. The text of the charter (available here https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/charter) makes it clear that the charter is distinctly time-limited – it is typically renewed for ten years at a time. That means that the BBC sits on a legal timebomb: if the charter is not renewed, the organisation’s legal basis collapses. Quoting the latest one – “When this Charter expires at the end of 31st December 2027, the undertaking of the BBC shall cease, so far as it may depend upon this Charter unless We, Our Heirs or Successors, shall by writing under Our or Their Sign Manual declare to the contrary”.
As a former BBC employee (though a very junior one) it was very obvious that the organisation’s leadership would become anxious in the runup to charter renewal (once a decade) but also to the mid-charter review (five years into the charter), which often set the price of the licence fee. This legal structure had the effect of keeping the management concerned about keeping the government of the day onside. I wonder whether an alternative legal structure that did not contain such a timebomb, but instead provided scope for the Government to wind-up the BBC only by definite action rather than inaction might actually improve the Corproration’s independence.