boringfuckingessay

How have ‘Reithian values’ shaped the model of public broadcasting adopted by the BBC? In view of the current debate around the institutions future, to what extent do these values remain relevant? (2913 words - some of them spelt correctly!)

‘Inform, educate and entertain’ are the three pillars on which the elaborate BBC high-rise arose from; it’s architect John Reith. These are the key foundations of ‘Reithism’, the principles of it’s founding father. His shadowing presence ruled the organisation between 1922 and 1938 and has left it’s imprint to this very day.

But from it’s towering, lone presence at birth the BBC’s dominance has been gradually eroded to play a smaller, yet significant part in a cut throat, competitive market. The explosion of digital media poses difficult challenges for the organisation, which, despite the efforts of Margaret Thatcher is among the few national institutions at the dawn of the 21st century. But is it’s life limited? Will it limp into the media wasteground leaving the market to be ruled by other television overlords? And will the values of it’s creator survive deep into the new age or be descended into the vault of history?

Lord Reith had a vision. The vision was public service broadcasting, a model that carved through the models of strict propaganda machines employed by eastern Europe and steered well clear of the commercial lassies-faire of the American media jungle. Reith saw a ‘third way’. A broadcast philosophy that was independent of government and free from commercial pressures. It’s purpose to enhance public standards and shine a torch of knowledge and upon the minds of it’s listeners, furnishing and enhancing their lives. Improving moral and social standards and spreading enlightenment and entertainment through the population. Public service broadcasting was born in Britain.

‘To exploit so good a scientific invention for the purpose and pursuit of entertainment alone would be a prostitution of it’s powers and an insult to the character and intelligence of the people’ (John Reith).

The BBC was a centralised body, dictating what the public should listen to and providing them with a service on their principles, their terms. The popularity of the output depended on the Beeb being in touch with public mood otherwise it would not be a reflection of the tastes of the mass audience it was serving. This centralised mainly around the entertainment field of the institution’s mandate. Although entertainment consisted of a huge slice of the output ‘what Reith saw as entertainment was not in keeping with popular attitudes of the period (yellow book. 48).’ Reith was also famously quoted as saying ‘It is occasionally represented to us that we are apparently setting out to give the public what we think they need, and not what they want, but few know what they want and very few know what they need.’ (John Keane 57). This marks an ethos paternal arrogance which is evident throughout the organisation’s infancy, the time when John Reith executed ultimate power.

The classic impression of this breech is when the new mediums opened up to be economically viable for the working classes who were dissatisfied by the pompous, middle class programmes. Reithian sombre Sunday was deserted in favour of foreign broadcasters who were more tuned in to the mood of the public and catering for their demands. Today the arrogance has subsided, engulfed by a market of competition.

It was after the passing of Reith’s reign that BBC started showing signs of hesitantly moving towards the public opinion. The tightly ordered, well mannered, programme output that typified Reithism radio was gradually invaded by streaks of barrack room humour, inspired by the upheaval of war and an intake of new blood. The BBC had started to develop from a organisation that blindly preach it’s principles to the people, but showed signs of listening to what they wanted to hear. This took the form of audience research.

But the ‘progress’ was slow. The form of arrogance continued in the BBC’s audience much further into it’s life. There’s clear evidence of the BBC’s lack of contact with the cultural revolution of the sixties, playing a restricted amount of new musical forms. It was only with the popularity of radio Caroline and Luxembourg that shocked the Beeb into reaching the new generation and setting up Radio One. Much of the basis of the haughtiness lay in the cushy platform of complete monopoly.

Monopoly was position ruthlessly defended by Reith. The advent of a more advanced choice than on or off forced the Beeb to considering adapting their entertainment output to cater for the cravings of the public. This has dissolved into a free flowing market of commercially driven competitors and the BBC evolved as a result of these pressures to be more in touch with it’s people.

But where do the core Reithian concepts stand in this multitude of free choice. The BBC can’t afford to be dragged down the road to glorious ratings too far, else it will loose it’s identity. There is no point in paying for another ‘commercial’ style station obsessed with viewing numbers and letting the quantity of viewers eclipse the quality of the output. On the other hand if the organisation is consistently battered in the ratings war, it cannot justify it’s existence. The result BBC has to stand by it’s commitment to deliver the core concepts of public service broadcasting but balance that out with ratings craving entertainment.

This can result in certain areas of the programming output in being more market driven rather than ideas led. If I see another ‘Docu-soap’ I might burst into tears. Formulaic programmes are scattered through the schedules. Fluffy features about vets and animals are assured a reasonable rating. But still despite the inevitable competition in the market, the positioning of the broadcaster deems that it is able to provide in way that the market alone can not. It has the potential to cater for a more diverse range of people and let performers take more risks. It’s also more poised to deal with minority issues than it’s competitors who’s commercial aim doesn’t extend beyond delivering the greatest number of people to the messages of it’s advertisers every fifteen minutes.

However the BBC does engage in commercial activity. BBC World-wide limited is the body responsible for the full scope of the commercial ventures into the marketplace. The main basis is the vast back catalogue that has evolved through it’s privileged position at the top of the broadcasting. These fuel the vibrant mass of licence fee funded products that are sold to foreign broadcasters, income that is returned to the organisation. The BBC brand has also been exploited on related products, utilising the brandname of quality and diversity. It is different from the other commercial led need for advertising as it doesn’t engage in profit isn’t the main aim.

These compliment rather than destroy the thrust of Reithian ethos. Since the birth of the radio times in 1923 the BBC has wielded a modest commercial face, and the core public service aims remain paramount. Reithism still is the pounding heart of the institution. It’s just the edges that are being massaged to maximise it’s effectiveness in modern times, where lassie faire liberalism has taken a grasping hold on the media. The BBC’s commercial shadow is more of a complementary being than a threat to attraction of the licence fed creature. They compliment rather than distort the old Reithian values and are secondary to the main public service aims.

Although the programmes that typify the time of Reith are reduced to a flickering memory of a by gone era, the first Director-general has left much more than a fading imprint on the model of broadcasting adopted by the Beeb today. The first director-general’s influence still runs through the corporation despite the change of times ‘by the time Reith left in 1938 it’s genetic structure was in place’(John Birt 1998). There may have been an evolution to adapt to the new times and forever changing context of the broadcast world, but the basis of the creature has remained the same.

Putting it crudely today’s BBC is still a quality source of information, a healthy mix between the three defined key public broadcasting concepts. It is not comparable with a channel such as Sky One, which soups up an eternal loop of Simpsons, Star Trek, Friends and chatshows. The nearest to documentary output witnessed here are sensationalist and tabloid items like ‘when police chases go bad’ or ‘America’s dumbest criminals’. The main output of ‘quality’ television from my extensive research into the contents of cable TV are funded by the licence fee and you pay the cable bill to watch them again! Documentaries seem destined to run on a slightly longer perceptual loop on UK Horizons. The discovery channel is a welcome exception, although a lot of the programmes are jointly produced with the BBC.

Perhaps the unique position of the Beeb, between the government and big business and the public serve objectives is Reith’s legacy and the foundations of the BBC as we know it today. Reith ‘would define the character, ethos and ambition of the institution more than any other person in it’s history’ (John Birt, 75 years of beeb website).The key ‘Reithian’ principles of public service broadcasting do more than just survive in a battered wilderness, they are cherished by the institution up to this day. His mark on history is undisputed.

But from history, to the future. The future is here, the future is digital. ‘To confine the BBC to it’s traditional analogue services in the next five years would be to sign it’s death warrant’ (Gavyn Davies 1998).

The future of Reithism lies in the future of the BBC. The BBC cannot exist without funding. The licence fee constitutes a tax on television - it has to be paid by everyone no matter if they use the service provided. If the BBC’s audience share declines to a pathetic squib in the market place then such a tax cannot be justified, or defended by vote craving politicians.

If the basis of public service broadcasting is monopoly it should be very worried. Hundreds of new channels are opening up, the constant stream of ones and noughts able to carry. The BBC’s audience share will become diluted further in this new frontier of wide ranging choice. ‘With a large increase in the number of television channels available a decline of the BBC’s share seems inevitable’ (Gavyn Davies report - page 43).

But ultimately the survival of the BBC is tied to the public demand for the service. In a survey conducted by Mori for the Gavyn Davies report 54% were fairly satisfied and 16% were very satisfied (5% very dissatisfied, 10% fairly dissatisfied, 14% Neither 1% didn’t know, what the BBC was probably). If this level of public satisfaction is maintained then the future looks relatively secure with 85% of the sample showing no real dissatisfaction.

The deleting of the BBC from the public landscape could have wider connotations, shuddering through society and ramifications that threaten to shock the ‘public sphere’.
Jurgan Habermas’ vision of a free debating ground for active citizens, where information is exchanged and political opinion can be formed.

The role of knowledge and enlightenment in this process should not be underestimated. The public sphere relies on streams of quality information to operate, as uninformed people lay dormant and unmotivated about the issues. It’s rise coincides with the invention of capitalism, in the 17th century and aided by the creation of the press. Printed media uncloaking aspects of life and society and bringing power and enrichment to formally separate clusters of a locally fragmented society.

The BBC is uniquely placed, it has a platform free from the government and doesn’t have to bow to the needs of it’s advertisers, chiefly because it doesn’t have any. If the Reithian values of the BBC were to be destroyed a wealth of information would be removed from this public arena. It’s impact to the knowledge would have a draining effect and flatten the awareness of the active group. Replacing current affairs documentaries on issues with output more comparable with Sky One would deflate the public sphere and turn everyone into jelly. In the wider picture the tabloidisation of television and erosion of Reithian values due to the dwindling of the Beeb would have ramifications, for the public sphere and democracy itself.
The BBC stands for the British Broadcasting Corporation but also for enrichment and enlightenment, qualities that would seem to dwindle along with the Beeb. The absence of these Reithian would shudder through the globe of public consciousness, defined by Mr Habermas.

But to counter this imagined demise of public service broadcasting is the new quality of information called the internet. In the future when analogue transmissions are a flickering memory that moderately grumpy people remeniss about in old people’s homes, current trends predict that the ever-present television mulling in the corner will have access to the internet. The Gavyn Davies report suggests that in fifteen years time approximately half of the population will have ‘fully converged digital TV and web devices. Fully portability and mobility. Full interactively and archive access.’

Will public service broadcasting adapted to survive in this fragmented virtual world. Will there indeed be any broadcasting? Broadcasting meaning that messages are received and decoded moments after they leave the form transmission. Our entertainment and information will be more flexible, where you can subscribe to particular shows and view them any time. The structure of cookery programmes in the middle of the day, children’s programmes around four and drama at night. We will enter a state when every web page is a potential TV station and the audience will be able to watch what they want, when they want, much as they can read whatever they choose to today. So the moderately web literate citizen of the public sphere could rely on information from this source, instead of or in conjunction with an active BBC.

Will the BBC descend from it’s current form into a series of menus thrown up by search engines, the new medium of the internet swallowing up TV, similar to how TV ate chunks out of radio and that manmade the age old medium of print. There will always be a market for a constant broadcasting network, the internet may dissolve and not destroy, adapt and force the BBC to react. The BBC may be seen as an impartial voice in this new age, a reliable source of information in a jungle of weak web TV. If this is the case then the public sphere will not be that greatly disbalenced and it’s members will be able to access an even wider range of information from this rich cyber fountain. In the future broadcasters would focus on the distribution of new programmes, programmes with current affairs values and new episodes. The vast library of archive footage may be enough to justify the licence fee alone.

It’s difficult to predict whether the licence fee will be replaced by subscription in this globalisation of the media through the internet. It seems unfair for the British public to pay their television tax and subsidising half of the people in America, who are pretty much in need of some healthy Reithism. The increasingly shrinking size of the world will throw up new challenges for the child of John Reith.

The ethos of Reithism is much in evidence in the BBC today., the main principles of quality and the famous three pillared foundation have provided a rock of purpose in these shady times. But not all aspects of Reithism should be as glorious bleached images that are embraced by the modern Beeb, or even society. Firing people because they are homosexual and preventing divorcees playing the violin on air are not values not wholly endorsed by John Birt. There’s the stuffy arrogance bred by monopoly, that is buried in the past as elements have been adapted to and grown and shifted along with society.

To see the three key principles of Reithism values truly evaporated would be to have an unelightened, uneducated , bored public. A chilling view of the future and one that would not be shared by active members of the public sphere and people outside Barnsley (boredom reference). Whether this information is reached through TV, radio, print or from the internet, the BBCs independent position provides a flow of reliable material and I’ll never forget to pay the licence fee again! Without the core Reithian values the world the vibrant public sphere of debate would be a hollow shell with democracy lying wounded and suffering nearby. The future awaits. Let’s hope it’s OK.