Was James Murdoch right?
In a word, no.
However, I do think the BBC needs some competition. I don’t think any of the Murdoch family interests are in any position—nor, through choice, will ever be—to be that competitor.
While some might consider Sky a competitor to the BBC, it’s only in the loosest sense that it’s true: in order for somebody to choose whether to watch, say, a programme on BBC 1 or a programme on Sky One, they have to be a Sky subscriber in the first place. Even then, they’d probably use Sky+ to record the one they were leaning towards not watching.
People don’t decide whether to be a Sky subscriber or or a BBC subscriber (thanks to the unique way the BBC is funded). People weigh up whether the not inconsiderable cost of a Sky subscription is a worthwhile expense on its own merits. While it’s true that News Corporation would surely love it if people could opt-out of the Television License (and so those services carried via Freeview) without opting out of Sky’s television channels, that’s not something which is likely to happen soon.
And while it’s true that the news.bbc.co.uk competes with various other online news outlets, this too is a genie well and truly out of its bottle. BBC News Online is one of, if not the most popular UK-based website overall: there would be uproar if it were closed down. Generic current affairs online isn’t something which is worth competing with the BBC on—that battle was lost an awfully long time ago. That’s not to say, either, that there isn’t plenty of room for newspapers and magazines to have a profitable online presence, but the Sun’s news stories are unlikely to be effective at achieving this—be it through advertising, subscriptions, or something else.
Where the BBC desperately needs some healthy competition is in its traditional stomping-ground: free-to-air television.
Let’s look at the big picture. Five is a minority player, despite its apparent proliferation of channels. Channel 4 has some interesting programming, but tends to follow the BBC’s lead more than the other way around of late—and also seems to prefer to dumb down its schedules in the quest for higher viewer stats. ITV (and, in Scotland, STV) have just gone from strength to strength… in terms of comparatively mindless (but popular) reality TV. In the case of the STV, it’s actively reducing the amount of ITV’s output that it carries which could possibly be considered something approaching high-brow.
On the other hand, the BBC has a good mix of programming, from its common fare—the likes of Eastenders, Top Gear and Strictly, through its comedy output (the best of this appearing on the radio, where it has absolutely no real competition), to current affairs and documentaries, which Channel 4 comes close to from time to time. Behind the scenes, the BBC is second-to-none. When was the last time you heard about Channel 4 R&D coming up with anything clever? Does Channel 4 even have an R&D department?
As the BBC’s raw popularity amongst viewers has risen, so have the pressures to carry increasing amounts of “premium” content: primarily major sporting series and imported TV shows. Such things rarely come with no strings attached.
While one could debate the finer points of why other broadcasters aren’t picking up these shows, but the reality is that they either go to the BBC—where anybody can watch them—or they go to Sky—where only subscribers can. Channel 4, Five and ITV don’t really have the budgets for competing bids on the big stuff these days.
Thus, we hit the real problem: the BBC has become almost too good in some respects. People have this expectation that it’ll bid against Sky for the major events and imports, and so it does.
Once it has these programmes, it then has to figure out how to deliver them to the public in a free-to-air environment. The rights-holders are increasingly making demands that content be “protected”, which runs inherently counter to the FTA mandate.
Historically, the BBC would have told content creators to lump it. Despite her many faults and sprawling empires (as you find any large corporation), Auntie is still a force to be reckoned with. Partially because of the lack of understanding of the causes and means to fight piracy on the part of decision-makers, and partially because the BBC believes it is obligated to carry these programmes no matter what, it’s rolling over without a fight—through not without muted grumbling from technical people who know perfectly well what the score is beneath the rhetoric. In short, the BBC finds itself in a catch-22 situation: do a disservice to the public by forcing them to go to Sky to get the good stuff, or do a disservice to the public by allowing ultimately worthless but inconveniencing conditions to be imposed upon them.
What the BBC lacks is an effective free-to-air competitor. This would serve two purposes: first, it would remove that pressure the BBC has found it saddled with which results in it being viewed as having an obligation to do whatever it takes to get big-name programming carried on its channels.
Secondly, and even more importantly, it would keep the the corporation on its toes; a continual reminder that it isn’t the only PSB worth paying serious attention to, and that it’s the obligation to the public which is the overriding concern, not the demands of the rights-holders. The core principles of the BBC would be maintained: to be a world leader in broadcasting technology R&D, and to inform, educate and entertain the public. No strings attached.
[Full disclosure: my ultimate aim is to operate an (Internet-based) free-to-air broadcaster, though (a) I don’t know precisely how this will pan out, and (b) it’s unlikely that it’ll ever be a major competitor to the BBC the like of which I’m talking here]
