BBC Savage book shows gov used licence fee threat over NI Troubles

The link is to a lengthy article - a great overview of what is a very useful case study to get into how media regulation works, both through formal regulators and media laws and informal power: private meetings, threats, controlling appointments and budgets.

It's a point I've made repeatedly in this blog: the notion of the BBC's independence is undermined by the government setting the license fee. Robert Savage's new book, and Greenslade's piece on this, highlights the very direct, explicit use of this threat by multiple governments to try and muzzle the Beeb's coverage of 'The Troubles'*.

(*That's a propaganda label which has achieved hegemonic status, successfully branding the violent conflict with aspects of a civil war as a mild outbreak of civil unrest.)

The wider parallel with the apparent assault on the BBC by the current incumbents is clear enough.

Greenslade's article is a great summary by the way of a complex but key case study in how media regulation works - including the informal, non-codified/statutory system of political pressure and influence.

Intriguing enough for me to order the book straight away! 

[3am but did just that ... only to see its £70, one of these cynically priced books designed to milk library budgets. What a shame, sounds like a great read.]

How the BBC's journalists fought to cover the Northern Ireland conflict.

Put me in mind of that great Day Today (Chris Morris) satire of the Broadcasting Ban an enraged Thatcher brought in when both ITV and the BBC defied her over coverage of the so-called Troubles:

CENSORSHIP Should terror videos be banned?

This is a question which ultimately leaches into many areas of the debate around media regulation:

• does it matter if effects cannot be proven? The BBFC explicitly justify their work by arguing that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
• given that publicity is what such terror organisations as Isis are seeking, should the media self-censor ...
• ... or be forced to censor the graphic videos that are causing worldwide headlines and making this organisation a global brand?
• Should OfCom have the power to block (or censure/fine) non-UK media that enable this content over here? Fox News (USA) has caused ripples by re-posting a full, unedited video of a murder ... and this link has been widely passed around and promoted by Isis supporters
• UK newspapers have embedded extreme
• Mrs Thatcher memorably used the phrase "oxygen of publicity" to describe what terrorists desired - her solution, when TV regulators (both the IBA, soon scrapped, and the BBC: Death on the Rock and Real Lives rows) refused to bow to enormous pressure (a typical moral panic whipped up by her press supporters), was to ban 'extremists' from being heard on TV/radio
• media resistance to this led to John Major quietly repealing the law ... will we see a similar approach in 2015 and beyond as clamour grows now for similar action to banish Islamic extermists from the 'airwaves'?

I'll post further links; for now: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/04/fox-news-shows-isis-video-jordan-pilot.

Chris Morris: Brass Eye, Day Today, Four Lions

I'll come back to this, but just wanted to make sure there are easy to find links/materials on various Morris creations which are useful for showing up issues with both broadcast regulation (and the moral panic concept/process with the press) and film regulation.

Here's the controversial Brass Eye Special, "Paedogeddon", that got labelled filth and sick ("the sickest show ever") by a frothingly furious press, who of course demand freedom of the press from any government interference, but equally insist on government interference for the content (not the ownership!) of other media, in full so you can judge for yourselves.

REMEMBER, any celebrities or politicians seen pontificating in these shows aren't in on the joke; they consider their contribution to be worthy. Morris is deconstructing how the news media lazily rely on cliches and sensationalism to report on important issues, relegating accuracy, reflection or context to a lesser consideration.


TBC

THE CAKE EPISODE

...

FUTURE: no PSB, BBC, C4?

IN THIS POST:

1. Link to a series of in-depth Guardian reports on BBC/PSB, history and future
2. List of other posts on this blog on PSB/BBC
3. Link to a helpful Word doc which in simple, plain language sets out the BBC/PSB issues, including commercial TV and its regulators over the years
4. Define several key terms
5. My take on PSB/BBC issues in several sub-sections, with further links, vids (Steve Coogan/Chris Morris), pics within each:

• EARLY HISTORY + PASSIVE AUDIENCE ASSUMPTIONS 
• REITHIAN VALUES: EDUCATE, ENTERTAIN, INFORM
• STRICT REGULATION OF OWNERSHIP AND CONTENT
• TROUBLES WITH NORTHERN IRELAND
• OFF WITH THEIR HEAD: DODGY DOSSIERS + DEREGULATION 
• A PATTEN EMERGES: COE IS ME
• BYE BYE AUNTIE BEEB? FAREWELL PSB?
• ANOTHER FUTURE: BBC WORLDWIDE + FREEVIEW CONNECT
  

NB: The Guardian has recently published in-depth reports on the BBC and PSB, including on the future of both.

Very useful! Access here.

I've blogged several times on PSB issues; see:

• Greek PSB shutdown; comparison with Italy/Berlusconi
• OfCom 2012 complaints overview: issues of child protection and watershed featured prominently - many detailed case studies you can use in this post, + wider analysis
• Free market ideology/broadcast industry: a brief(ish) explanation of what we mean by 'free market', a key term/ideology used to argue for deregulation
• OfCom research task: many useful links/bullet points within this
• OfCom: some fundamentals. A detailed post which tells you much of what you need to know about the regulation of commercial TV, alongside some comparison with BBC regulation - and how the two overlap.
• OfCom future: can't sanction ITV/C5? A new term entered the lexicon after ITV threatened to walk away from its PSB commitments entirely, arguing they cost too much while in a digital age the PSB benefits were gone: (license) handback. This post looks at the possibility of ITV/C5 simply ceasing to follow OfCom's PSB requirements.
• Arguments against 'impartial' news/current affairs. Robert Fisk argues that the legal requirement for UK broadcast news/current affairs to be 'impartial' (similar to the 'fair and balanced' US doctrine ... though Fox News, with a blatant pro-Republican bias, faces no issues there [and OfCom granted it a license here, so long as it remains a US news station]) actually creates bias

There have been several important stories/events recently tied to PSB issues, so here's a summary of PSB, and how current events suggest a possible future direction.


You can also find a plain English Word doc which sums up PSB and gives a history of how this has changed with both the BBC and the commercial broadcasters (ITV etc) over the years at http://adamrobbins.edublogs.org/files/2007/06/what-is-public-service-broadcastin1.doc.

It dates back to 2007, but Adam Robbins' guide is helpful.

FIRST, SOME KEY TERMS:

PSB: Public Service Broadcasting. Sky, and the vast bulk of digital/cable channels are not legally considered as PSBs, it is only the BBC/ITV/C4/C5 that are PSB. These have a legal duty to reflect public needs for news and information; regional programming; and to ensure certain programme categories are included in their schedules (eg religious, children's). This reflects their privileged status: in the analogue era when you bought a TV these channels were automatically accessible, while in the digital era they are all free through Freeview and are still required to be listed at the top of EPGs (Electronic Programme Guide).