Why the BBC’s Next President Needs to Prioritize Impartiality
The United Kingdom’s culture secretary recently spoke about the selection of the next president of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Lucy Frazer told the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee that she wanted to ensure a large pool of applicants were considered in order to recommend the best possible person for the position following the resignation of Richard Sharp. Sharp was forced to resign in April due to perceived potential conflicts of interest as a donor to the Tory Party, sparking calls for transparent nomination processes and less political involvement in the selection of future BBC presidents.
Frazer emphasized that political beliefs would not be taken into consideration one way or the other in making the decision. However, she also expressed concerns over the perceived bias of the broadcaster, urging it to pay more attention to its duties in relation to impartiality. She would not offer any examples, but noted there were often complaints about the issue, which would be covered in a mid-term review of BBC operations.
One of the reasons impartiality is so important for the BBC is its significance as a public broadcasting corporation which is given £157.50 per year from British households via the license fee. The BBC is expected to deliver unbiased news and quality programming to a British audience of over 27.7 million, which includes more than 60% of British adults across 71 services, such as television, radio, and digital media. However, growing concern about the impact of US technology companies’ expansive programming on public service broadcasters in the UK is also adding to the pressures on the BBC.
The BBC’s Existential Threat from Big Tech
To make its services more accessible and to compete with streaming services like Amazon Prime, the UK government drafted legislation that could see the promotion of public service broadcaster (PSB) services like ITVX on devices, through potentially mandatory apps, platforms and options, for easier discovery by viewers. However, Magnus Brooke, director of strategy, policy, and regulation at ITV, warned that the bill didn’t set out clear rules to enforce a fair trading relationship between PSBs and online TV platforms owned by big US tech companies. In a warning during a House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee meeting, Brooke called this an “existential threat to PSBs” due to the potentially high financial demands these companies could make.
According to Brooke, online TV platforms could apply commercial terms set globally, rather than just in the UK. As a result, some companies could demand more than 30% of revenues from broadcasters, along with crucial control over important customer data and advertiser relationships. These effects could endanger PSBs’ prospects when competing with the deep pockets of big tech giants, creating an uneven playing field for public broadcasters in the UK.
The Digital Impact of new media giants
What is interesting is that fang technology companies such as Amazon and Google, despite the market’s dominance, do not consider themselves to be traditional media companies. Even though they generate significant revenue through media, they position themselves more as digital intermediaries and marketplaces like Amazon’s brand-new Amazon Pharmacy, Google Translate, and Google Maps. These are features which leverage the vast amounts of data accrued by their other products. The website specifically says it is a “marketplace” for video content.
According to European Union (EU) law[1], a platform is:
“a business, organization or system that enables users to communicate, interact, and/or distribute content, goods or services.”
Both Google and Amazon fulfil these definitions because of their massive user bases and services that facilitate communication, distribution, and interaction.
Nevertheless, much of the programming that these platforms broadcast is professionally made, with considerable investment required of the producers compared to the costs of distribution. From a viewer’s perspective, a show is simply a show. But from a legislative perspective, public service broadcasters and new media giants represent very different types of businesses. While one of these aims to create shows that highlight the country’s culture, values, and beliefs, the other firms are more interested in using data-driven insights to generate new content that people will be interested in.
Guidance from Regulators
The British Broadcasting Corporation’s position is that if the legislation is going to compel PSBs and broadcasters who enable streaming platforms to include their content as mandatory for easy discovery, then it should also help to enforce clear terms to ensure that broadcasters aren’t overcharged for streaming their content. The media regulator Ofcom’s existing dispute resolution function could be a useful resource in these matters. However, the terms of the bill need to give it enough discretion to help PSBs prevail against the demands of these digital giants.
Final thoughts
The impartiality of the next BBC president is important in meeting the values that the public has come to expect of a public broadcasting corporation. Impartiality also extends to how the corporation competes with deep-pocketed streaming services. These services, despite their lack of traditional sponsorship and advertising, are still media giants that can negotiate licenses to air content that public service broadcasters cannot, making it difficult for the public broadcasters to compete on a level playing field. This new legislation and increased regulation is a sensible step to maintain the impartiality of public broadcasters whilst restoring some parity across the industry.
Summary:
Lucy Frazer, the UK’s Culture Secretary has stated that political beliefs will not be taken into consideration while selecting the new BBC President. However, she urged the BBC to pay more attention to impartiality rules as they are sometimes biased. The Public Service Broadcasters (PSBs) fear big US tech companies will not have clear rules about commercial terms with PSBs, and thus could pose an existential threat to their commercial prospects. The promotion of PSB’s services like ITVX on devices by the UK government could offer easier discovery to viewers. But according to Magnus Brooke, director of strategy, policy, and regulation at ITV, the bill must enforce clear rules to ensure a fair trading relationship between PSBs and Online TV platforms owned by big US tech companies. These companies can demand more than 30% of revenues from broadcasters, and control important customer data and advertiser relationships.
[1]https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32015R2120
Additional Piece:
Digital intermediaries – The Enigma that is Online Media
Technology companies such as Amazon and Google, despite being market leaders, still position themselves not as traditional media companies but as digital intermediaries that leverage vast amounts of customer data accrued by their other products to create expansive programming. A viewer may not see these shows’ difference, even though they require considerable investment to produce and distribute professional content compared to traditional broadcasters. Regardless, public service broadcasters and new media giants represent different types of businesses from a legislative viewpoint.
The need for impartiality can be extended to online media, as more people consume news and entertainment through the internet. The Media regulator Ofcom’s existing dispute resolution function could be a helpful resource in resolving issues between PSBs and streaming services, but it may lack the flexibility required in the digital world. The regulator must ensure there are clear terms enforced to ensure that broadcasters are not overcharged for streaming their content. The introduction of this new legislation could be a logical step in keeping impartiality across the public broadcasting corporation while restoring some parity across the industry.
Additionally, The public’s identification of Google and Amazon as tech intermediaries rather than traditional media companies, despite the large sums of revenue generated through media, could shift the regulatory dynamics as well. European Union law generally defines a platform as a business, organization or system that enables users to communicate, interact and/or distribute content, goods or services.”
Digital intermediaries such as Amazon fulfill these definitions because of their massive user bases and services that facilitate communication, distribution, and interaction. According to Google’s own website, they are a ‘marketplace’ for video content, giving only a bland account of their media activities. Whilst the perception of Amazon, and Google as digital intermediaries delivers a useful regulatory mechanism, such a definition fails to take into account the potential challenges that this new, data-driven content system poses to traditional broadcasting’s impartiality.
Therefore, clearer regulatory definitions and better-designed regulations are required to reflect the fact that digital platforms like Amazon and Google monopolize the market while avoiding the encumbrances attached to media companies. Maintaining media impartiality and minimum involvement in the content creation of digital intermediaries would protect the public, who are easily swayed by biased content.
—————————————————-
| Article | Link |
|---|---|
| UK Artful Impressions | Premiere Etsy Store |
| Sponsored Content | View |
| 90’s Rock Band Review | View |
| Ted Lasso’s MacBook Guide | View |
| Nature’s Secret to More Energy | View |
| Ancient Recipe for Weight Loss | View |
| MacBook Air i3 vs i5 | View |
| You Need a VPN in 2023 – Liberty Shield | View |
The UK culture secretary vowed not to be swayed by “political beliefs” in selecting the next BBC president, but urged the broadcaster to pay attention to impartiality rules as “it was sometimes biased”.
Lucy Frazer told the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee on Tuesday she wanted to ensure ‘the widest possible field’ of applicants for the job in order to ‘recommend the best possible person’ following Richard’s resignation Sharp.
Ministers have been urged to ensure the nomination process is transparent and to stop picking candidates with clear political allegiances, after Sharp, a Tory Party donor, was forced to resign in April over perceived potential conflicts of interest.
“I will not take their political beliefs into consideration one way or the other,” Frazer said, adding that no decision has been made on the license fee, which funds the BBC, before a review on the matter.
However, he urged the company “to understand its duties also in relation to impartiality,” noting that a mid-term review of its operations would cover the issue.
“I think the BBC is biased at times,” Frazer said, declining to give examples. “There are often complaints about the BBC.”
His remarks to the Commons Committee followed a warning from a senior media executive that public service broadcasters, such as ITV, were facing a “existential threat” by commercial requests made by US technology groups to bring their programs to the Internet.
PSBs fear the government’s draft media law doesn’t set clear enough rules to enforce a fair trading relationship between them and online TV platforms owned by big US tech companies.
The legislation, now before parliament, is in part designed to help them better compete with major streaming services like Amazon Prime. One of its goals, for example, is to ensure viewers can easily discover PSB services like BBC iPlayer and ITVX on smart TVs and make them ‘prominent’ on streaming platform systems.
But providing evidence, Magnus Brooke, director of strategy, policy and regulation at ITV, warned that online TV platforms could apply commercial terms set globally, rather than in the UK.
He said such a move could lead companies to demand more than 30% of revenues from broadcasters, as well as control over important customer data and advertiser relationships.
“This is an existential threat to PSBs,” Brooke said, arguing that the bill’s provisions to ensure broadcasters could cover their costs were not the right approach due to the need for commercially funded networks to make money. .
The legislation gives Ofcom a dispute resolution function, allowing it to intervene if PSBs and streamers fail to reach mutually beneficial commercial agreements.
Brooke said the bill needed to give the watchdog “enough strength and discretion. . . to take us to a place of victory, to win the way we have with a Virgin or a Heaven.”
https://www.ft.com/content/d5f503c1-a53e-4b17-821a-459c718ad1b6
—————————————————-