mediawatch-uk's response to the DCMS Green Paper on the Renewal of the BBC's Royal Charter

mediawatch-uk response to the DCMS White Paper A public service for all

mediawatch-uk news release on the Green Paper and press coverage

THE FOREWORD

mediawatch-uk welcomes this opportunity to respond to the Government's Green Paper, the second phase of the public consultation, on the BBC's Royal Charter.

We note that the Labour Party, in its 2005 Election Manifesto committed a future Labour Government to renewing the BBC's Royal Charter for a further 10 years and to continuing the Licence Fee as the primary means of funding the corporation for the same period.  This commitment suggests that whatever may be said by respondents to the consultation the Labour Government has already reached conclusions that safeguard the BBC's position however well or badly it performs and whatever licence fee payers may say.

The Green Paper itself, in the Foreword by Tessa Jowell MP, the Secretary of State, and elsewhere, seems to us to raise more questions than answers.  There is a false assumption at the outset in the comparison with the National Health Service, namely, that the BBC is "free at the point of use".  This statement, made also in the House of Commons, surprisingly overlooks the obligatory and annually increasing Licence Fee.  We do not doubt that the NHS "strives for the highest standards" because the Government properly requires this at every level and sets targets.  However, the BBC has no such requirements specified by the Government especially with regard to programme content.  This, we have been told, is a matter for the broadcaster.  In this regard successive Governments have a long standing policy of non-intervention in such matters rather than to set targets.

There is also a remarkable assertion that the people who matter most "were the licence fee paying public".  We believe there is only one way that licence fee payers matter and that is when they part with their money to renew the TV licence under pain of imprisonment if they don't!  Despite elaborate and costly window dressing this, in the final analysis, is all that really matters.  The notion of licence fee payers "owning" the BBC and "calling the shots" is equally absurd and totally meaningless.  We would like to know what mechanism the Secretary of State envisages for achieving such a romantic scenario when any disagreement or challenge of the BBC's editorial judgement, traditionally, has been rejected or just ignored.  The BBC's response to the unprecedented number of public complaints about Jerry Springer The Opera is a case in point.  It may be true that the BBC is "liked and trusted" by millions but some programmes, the most important aspect of the BBC's activities, so far as licence fee payers are concerned, are failing to meet expectations as illustrated by the increasing number of complaints about offensive content, repeats and bias.

It is good that the Secretary of State recognises that "people are not uncritical" and that there are perceived shortcomings but little thought appears to have been given to how the criticisms and shortcomings can be overcome.  It is true that the BBC has itself - in the run-up to the renewal of the Charter - introduced a new complaints system but as previously this is an ‘in-house' scheme that usually upholds BBC editorial decisions.  We are reminded of the observations made by Marmaduke Hussey, a former Chairman of the Governors, in his autobiography Chance Governs All that letters of complaint were treated with "disdain" and "the attitude of arrogance was stupefying".

There should be some requirement to assess complaints in order to establish the "generally accepted standards" expected in the BBC's Licence and Agreement (Cm 6075) with the Government.
 
The proposal to replace the Board of Governors with a BBC Trust is not unreasonable.  However, it is not clear how this, of itself, would improve "accountability to licence fee payers".  The Principle functions of the Trust as set out in the Green Paper are helpful but do not say how programme standards are to be regulated.  It is not enough simply to state that this will be one of the Trust's functions.  Equally, it is not enough to expect the Trust to "set a framework for handling complaints".  There should be some requirement to assess complaints in order to establish the "generally accepted standards" expected in the BBC's Licence and Agreement (Cm 6075) with the Government.

We note that the Secretary of State acknowledges the assistance of Lord Burns and his panel of independent experts.  It would have been appropriate for the thousands of contributions made by the public and interested parties to be acknowledged too.

In some respects programme standards, notably on Channel 4 TV, have collapsed.

In her concluding remarks the Secretary of State asserts that the BBC is a "broadcaster of quality, driving up standards across the whole industry."  It would have been helpful if Ms Jowell had stated what "standards" she had in mind and exactly how anyone can determine how standards are driven up or down.  In some respects programme standards, notably on Channel 4 TV, have collapsed.  This year alone Channel 4 has included in its schedules hours of sleazy and pornographic programming, such as Pornography: The Musical, Porn: A Family Business, X Rated - the programmes they tried to ban, Cathouse 2: Back in the Saddle and other programmes like Animal Passions, Beijing Swings and Fetishes, that indicate a serious intent to overthrow all regulatory constraints.  We mention also sleazy programming on ITV, such as Footballers Wives and Celebrity Love Island as well as programmes on Five, such as X-Rated: the films that shocked Britain and X-Rated: - Sex films in your living room.  The latter are little more that regurgitated extracts of pornographic films strung together for the sake of providing cheap titillating programmes.   Quite how the BBC has driven up standards in the commercial sector is a mystery.

We recall the observations made By Roy Hattersley in an article published by the Daily Mail in May 2004:  "I had no doubt that the new age of intellectual and moral freedom would last for ever ... (It) has not had the effect for which I hoped.  Foolishly, I believed that broadcasters, acting with little or no restraint, would produce an ever-improving quality of programme.  The reverse has happened ... Television in particular has plunged so far downmarket that, week after week, I assume we have reached the nadir.  Then a programme plumbs ever greater depths.  It seems that television can continue to degenerate indefinitely ... One of the hard facts of television's decline - a painful fact for unapologetic libertarians - is that liberty, far from producing an improvement in quality, has produced a continual deterioration in standards ... Notoriety increasingly takes the place of quality and forces the quality of broadcasting down, down, down."

Finally, the Secretary of State calls for a BBC that is "responsive" to the public.  It is good that Ms Jowell introduces a note of humour in her foreword!  Could she be thinking that complaints from the public about content that has caused offence might be taken seriously and result in programme policy changes aimed at improvements?

THE SUMMARY

It is stated that "we have listened very carefully and ... have ensured that the licence fee payer has had a real voice in the journey towards renewing the BBC Charter".

For news and information about the Charter visit: www.bbccharterreview.org.uk

mediawatch-uk news release on the Green Paper

We acknowledge, with enthusiasm, the Government's attempts to involve the public by distributing YOUR BBC, YOUR SAY leaflets.  Along with a number of other organisations we were pleased to assist with this task.  This encouraged thousands of people to send in their thoughts and ideas on the future of the BBC.  It is not clear, however, what suggestions were actually adopted as a result of this listening exercise.

Here we find that the BBC is expected to be "setting world-class standards".  It would have been helpful to have had some clarification of what these standards are.  Undoubtedly, BBC output, taken as a whole, is considerably better than that in other countries and the fact that BBC programmes sell very well around the world bears this out.  How is the BBC to achieve undefined requirements to be "distinctive and of high quality" with a "clearer, tighter remit".  What is "distinctive", "high quality" and a "tighter remit"?  Who is to determine these concepts?

We note that the BBC is also expected to "set a benchmark for its commercial rivals".  What is the benchmark and who is to set it?  And what happens if the commercial rivals fail to meet it?  If experience at Channel 4, for example, and the host of cable and satellite channels - some of which are devoted entirely to glorifying pornography - is anything to go by this is meaningless.

We note that the BBC is also expected to "bring real cultural and educational benefits" but there is no definition of what these are or how they are to be judged or assessed.  Are we to assume that the attention paid to all manner of dysfunctional people and lifestyles is culturally and educationally beneficial?   And that the present level of "strong" language, violent and "disturbing" as well as pornographic and indecent material is culturally and educationally beneficial?

The assertion that "everyone trusts" the BBC is not demonstrated.  Following publication of the Hutton Inquiry report, that was critical of BBC journalism and management, that trust is certainly no longer shared by "everyone".  Indeed there is emerging evidence of "institutionalised Leftism" at the BBC when it is supposed to be impartial.

We welcome the proposal to write the next Charter in language that everyone can understand.  What steps are proposed to make the Charter available to all licence fee payers?  We suggest that a summary be included with all licence fee renewal letters, that it be published on the BBC's website and published by Ceefax.  It would also be helpful if leaflets were made available through public libraries and distributed through consumer organisations.

We do not agree with the Government's rejection of the suggestion that the BBC should be established by Act of Parliament.  Other broadcasting enterprises are established in this way and we can see no good reason why the BBC should not be established in the same way.  Other broadcasters are not brought closer to Government as a consequence.  Why should the BBC?  If the aspirations towards greater accountability are to be achieved there must be much greater public scrutiny of the BBC's affairs, for example, by the Culture Select Committee where the questioning is necessarily robust.  The BBC should be subject to Parliament not the reverse and establishing the corporation by Act of Parliament would enable accountability to be exercised through the Courts if necessary.

It may be true that the Licence Fee is the most widely supported funding model but if alternatives were not offered for consideration it is not surprising that this conclusion has been reached.  Along with others mediawatch-uk opposes the so-called "top slicing" of the licence fee so that commercial rivals and competitors benefit from revenue expected by those who pay it to fund the BBC exclusively.

We note the assertion that the "BBC has a high overall satisfaction rating of 75 per cent" and we wonder how this rating is determined.  We welcome the recognition that 33 per cent of people believe the BBC offers poor value for money and think that TV programmes are getting worse.  It is a serious shortcoming of the Green Paper that no remedial action is envisaged or recommended, least of all, making the renewal of the Royal Charter and the increasing licence fee conditional on improvements.

We do wonder how the present level of violence, aggression, obscene language, sexual conduct and general coarseness in some programmes sustains "citizenship and civil society".

We welcome the restatement of the BBC's "mission" to inform, educate and entertain and we welcome, in particular, the five distinctive purposes that all BBC services should aim to fulfil.  However, we do wonder how the present level of violence, aggression, obscene language, sexual conduct and general coarseness in some programmes sustains "citizenship and civil society".  Such programme content surely works against this noble purpose.  We believe it is not enough for the BBC, in its response to the Green Paper to limit this purpose to the coverage of General Elections.  Citizenship and civil society are much broader concepts.

In 2004 mediawatch-uk analysed 177 films for violent content and published the findings in a report entitled Promoting a Culture of Violence 4.  Of these films 62 were shown by the BBC.   In these films monitors identified portrayals of 333 incidents involving firearms, 215 violent assaults and 84 incidents involving knives and other offensive weapons.  The fact that many of these films are repeated so frequently suggests that the BBC has no intention of reducing violent content.  The figures above are typical and follow similar patterns for the last eleven years.

Since its beginning in 1965 this organisation has recognised the power, particularly of television, to influence public attitudes and behaviour.  By introducing five distinctive purposes, one of which is to sustain "citizenship and civil society" establishes, once and for all, that broadcasters have a positive role to play in this regard.  It indicates, also, that the Government understands the power of broadcasting to affect these things.  Accordingly, we wonder, in the face of considerable evidence, why the Government cannot bring itself to state publicly and unequivocally that the continual screening of violence and obscene language in film and drama is doing the very opposite of the first stated "distinctive purpose".  It cannot be sensible, surely, that the wide ranging and costly punitive measures, such as Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, Tagging and so on, proceed while these measures are being constantly undermined by the culture of violence and incivility promoted by the film and television industries.

We very much welcome Clause 2.4 in the Office of Communications Broadcasting Code, published 25/5/2005, which introduces anti-social behaviour as something which programmes must not condone and we hope that all broadcasters, including the BBC, will respond positively to this.

The five distinctive purposes, welcome though they are, would be enhanced if there were some way of judging if they have been fulfilled with sanctions applying if they have not.

Accordingly, we wonder, in the face of considerable evidence, why the Government cannot bring itself to state publicly and unequivocally that the continual screening of violence and obscene language in film and drama is doing the very opposite of the first stated "distinctive purpose".

We note the Government states that it is "vital that the BBC is subjected to rigorous scrutiny" but there is no mention of how this is to be achieved.  It is not clear either how the BBC Trust will, of itself, be "directly accountable to licence fee payers".  How will this be achieved and who is going to mount an "open debate" about the BBC Trust and what mechanism will be established so that the BBC's performance is "grounded in viewer and listener opinion"?  We acknowledge with enthusiasm the BBC's Newswatch feature on News 24.  We believe, and have suggested to the BBC, that the feature be made into a proper programme, shown at prime time on BBC2 and have its remit extended to include comment and opinion about all BBC output.  We note that the producer of Streets of Vice, which caused dismay because of the offensive content and inappropriate scheduling, was interviewed in Newswatch and used the opportunity to justify everything about the series even though it was not a News or Current Affairs programme.

We would also like to know who is to judge whether the BBC "broadcasts the best, most innovative programmes".

We are mindful of claims made upon licence fee money by the commercial broadcasting sector, which, by its nature involves a degree of risk.  We note that there has never been any mention of reciprocal assistance for the BBC when there is an abundance of advertising revenue and sponsorship!

QUESTIONS

·         Do you think it is helpful to define the BBC's purposes in this way?

It is helpful to define the BBC's purposes but some way of independently verifying that they have been fulfilled is essential if they are to be taken seriously and not just fine words written on paper.

·         Are these the right purposes?

The purposes as set out in the Green Paper are right but the public interest would be served if something could be said about what might conflict with them.  What is "high quality" and "challenging"? Are we simply to accept what the BBC says is "high quality" or "challenging"?  In the past this has meant "strong" language and "disturbing" images "from the outset" of a programme.  It is a serious shortcoming of the Green Paper that the BBC's Producers' Guidelines are not mentioned in connection with "standards" "quality" and accountability.  Are we to assume that Jerry Springer The Opera on BBC2, Streets of Vice at 9.15am on BBC1 or explicit lesbianism in Tipping the Velvet, a costume drama on BBC2 or merciless violence and drug abuse in Pulp Fiction on BBC2 is "challenging" and therefore acceptable?  Compliance with the Producers' Guidelines ought to be the primary and overriding concern and where these are ambiguous they should be clarified.

·         Are these the right characteristics?

The characteristics set out are fine but who is to judge them and on what basis?  How much weight is to be given, for example, to the provisions set out in the Licence and Agreement requiring that the public is protected from "offensive and harmful material"?

·         Do you agree that the BBC should be at the forefront of developments in technology, including digital television?

Of course the BBC should and does play a significant role in developing technology but it should be clear that switching to digital television is a Government objective, driven by the Information Technology industry that has been determined by policy directives from the European Union such as those issued in 1998. (The Digital Age European Audiovisual Policy)

The case for not establishing the BBC by Act of Parliament is not made.  The Government has rarely made any intervention with any commercial broadcaster except by revising from time to time the legislative framework within which they operate.  We cannot see that an Act of Parliament, of itself, would lead to any intervention with the BBC - certainly so far as programmes are concerned.

·         Do you support the proposal for a further review of alternative funding methods, before the end of the next charter period?

mediawatch-uk supports the continuing review of alternative funding methods before the end of next Charter period.  Indeed, we believe that this process should start now.  Licence Fee payers would welcome relief from the annually increasing cost if alternative streams of reliable income could be secured.  We believe that revenue from the abundant proceeds of the National Lottery could be granted to the BBC to help stabilise or reduce the Licence Fee.  This would have the advantage of benefiting every household in the country.

·         Do you have a view on any aspect of the operation of the licence fee: concessions, its collection or enforcement?

Concessions for some licence fee payers mean increased payments, direct or indirect, for others.  Concessions are not available from other broadcasters who expect their subscriptions to be paid in full each month with a withdrawal of the services if not paid.  Technology now available makes possible the suspension of services to those who do not pay.  The phasing in of smart cards would largely overcome the problems associated with non-payment once digital has been taken up by everyone.  We hope the Government will pursue these developments which would give rise to significant savings with regard to collection and enforcement.

·         Have we defined the roles of the BBC Trust and the Executive Board sufficiently clearly?

We note again the emphasis placed upon the BBC Trust to represent the views of licence fee payers but no mechanism is envisaged neither is it stated how such views are to be represented nor to whom.

We welcome the requirement that "every BBC service would be held to a detailed service licence" but this must be scrutinised independently.  Since Ofcom is already tasked with securing such details from commercial broadcasters we can see no good reason why they should not do this for BBC services too.  It is not good enough to suggest "changes to a service" must be subject to a "public value test" if this abstract concept is not defined.  The BBC may propose it but it should be not simply be accepted in the Green Paper as though everyone knows what it is.

Experience gained so far of the new "Governance Unit", welcome though it is, suggests that its role in practice may be to shield the Governors from access from the public.  With this arrangement it is too easy for the Governors simply to delegate their responsibilities to others and we can envisage that the Trust would do the same and remain inaccessible to licence fee payers.

If the BBC Trust would have a "somewhat different" legal nature it would be helpful if this could be clarified especially as it is thought that the BBC should not be established by Act of Parliament.  Moreover, we wonder why responsibility for protecting the public from offensive and harmful material has been omitted from the Principal functions when it is included in the Licence and Agreement (Cm 6075) and rival broadcasters are subject to this through the Communications Act 2003.

·         Is this the right way to define the public interest remit of the BBC Trust?

The public interest remit of the BBC Trust should be known to all licence fee payers so that all can judge whether the Trust is performing as it should.  All aspects of the remit set out in the Green Paper should include sanctions if the Trust fails to fulfil its public purposes, fails to set benchmarks, fails to provide value for money and fails to communicate properly with or take into account the opinions of licence fee payers.

·         How many of these options would you like to see adopted in the Trust's statement of promises?  Are there any other options that you would like to see considered?

In recent years the BBC has published elaborate and expensively produced Statements of Promises as well as brochures highlighting programmes that the BBC believes are successful.  Of course these are welcome because they do provide the public with some way of judging performance.  What is not obvious is the "rigorous system of performance measurement" that is envisaged.  Who is to judge rigour and make sure if is not rigor mortis!  What is the mechanism envisaged to take account of "thoughts and opinions" ... "in every household"?

And, what is the "contract" with licence fee payers?  It would be helpful if this contract had been included in the Green Paper.

The requirement for a "rolling programme" of research is also a fine aspiration but who is to conduct the research and according to what criteria?  These appointments should be made independently of the BBC as should the nature of the research.  For far too long research has been commissioned and conducted by a narrow range of academics and experts who seem to have commitments to broadcasting that cloud their objectivity.  We believe that "rigour" should be applied not only to the research but also to the researchers!

In the past the BBC's Broadcasting Councils have conducted their affairs in relative secrecy and we have been critical of this way of working.  The onus has been on the general public to find out about them rather than their existence being regularly advertised.  It is essential that they be afforded a much higher public profile across all BBC TV and radio services and the public regularly invited to participate.  Details of meetings should be published in advance and made known by BBC local radio stations.

We acknowledge that the BBC has given an undertaking in its response to the Green Paper to explain how local licence fee payers can get involved and contribute to the working of the Broadcasting Councils.

We welcome the recognition of the role to be played by representative groups of viewers and listeners and we welcome proposals for the BBC Trust to meet in public.  We believe it is right for them to do so and for the minutes of meetings to be published, at least, on the BBC's website.  Indeed it would be helpful if the BBC Trust had its own independent website as, for example, does the Consumer Panel of Ofcom.  The Content Board of Ofcom publish notes of their meetings and the BBC Governors and BBC Trust should do likewise especially where their deliberations affect licence fee payers.  We recommend that the minutes of management meetings be published as well and all should be the subject of scrutiny in television and radio programmes, such as, Feedback, Broadcasting House and The Message.  We can see no good reason why Biteback or Its Your BBC should not return, say, once-a-month and assume a status similar to Crimewatch.  We welcome programmes such as The Culture Show on BBC2.

We are delighted to note, from the BBC's response to the Green Paper, that a Governors' website has gone on-line on which will be published information about the Governors, the new Code of Practice for handling complaints and minutes of meetings.  We are delighted also by the Governors' intention to develop compelling ways of using the BBC's own airwaves for accountability programmes.  We acknowledge that these, long overdue plans, are great leaps forward in providing proper accountability to licence fee payers although we believe the latter should start now in order to examine everything related to Charter Renewal.

·         Have you any views about how the BBC Trust should handle complaints?

We believe that the whole complaints handling process should be contracted out to an independent body specifically set up for the sole purpose.  We acknowledge that Ofcom already handles complaints from the public about offensive and harmful material on all TV and radio channels.  As such there is a danger of duplication of effort.  Licence fee payers are entitled to communicate directly with the BBC if they so wish - and certainly bearing in mind their status assumed in the Green Paper - whenever programmes are due for praise or criticism.

It is essential in any scheme of complaints handling that a well defined Programme Code is formulated and available so that complaints can be properly assessed.  This Code should be a requirement of the Royal Charter and should be of a high status so that it takes precedence over other considerations.  The recently published finding concerning the unprecedented number of complaints about the content of Jerry Springer The Opera did not refer to the BBC's Producers' Guidelines or to the Licence and Agreement (Cm 6075).  Instead the finding relied for justification on grounds that were not supported by either official document despite letters of protest to the BBC drawing attention to precisely these constitutional and official instruments of programme regulation.

For news and information about complaints visit: www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

·         How many members do you think the BBC Trust needs?

Because of the complexity of the BBC we believe that the appropriate number of Trustees is fifteen.  We believe that all candidates who apply for the posts should be interviewed on TV or radio so that the public can vote for the people who seem to be best qualified to represent them.  Their term of appointment, once the Trust is established, should be no more than three years.

·         What skills or expertise do you think they need?

Trustees should come from all walks of life and all religious and ethnic backgrounds.  They should have a range of skills and expertise including the right use of broadcasting in the fields of education, information and entertainment, business and commerce as well as art, sport and politics.  However, the most important qualification is to have knowledge and understanding of the issues that concern viewers and listeners rather than just the artistic whims of film and programme makers.

·         Are there particular communities or interest groups that you think the Trust members ought to represent?

We believe that the Trust members should represent the licence fee payers as a whole.  Since all pay all should be represented without fear or favour.

·         Do you think a ‘window of creative competition' can be made to work?  If not, would you support a raised quota for independent production in BBC television?

Technology has opened up great opportunities for many people to produce programmes - including home made pornography!  Provided such programme material complies with all relevant requirements, particularly on offence and harm and general acceptability, we can see no good reason why the BBC should not open the window of creative competition.  However, there must be a rigorous system of judging what the "best ideas" are.

It is not demonstrated that "quotas" are necessarily the best way of nurturing independent production, on television or radio, because such programming could work against the overriding quest for quality, excellence, innovation, distinctiveness and "best ideas".  One need look no further that Channel 4 to see that independent production can have the damaging effect of driving standards down.

·         Do you agree that the BBC should be able to propose changes to its range of services over the course of the next ten years?

The BBC has stated that it has no plans to change its range of services.  The new BBC television and radio channels made available by digital technology are said to be sufficient.  If by "change" it is meant that BBC3 TV and BBC4 TV should transmit for more hours then, of course, the BBC must be free to do this because the licence fee payers benefit.

We agree with proposals to make archive material available.  This has worked successfully, for example, on BBC Radio 7.  Licence fee payers have paid for it and it should be accessible.  Indeed, we can see no good reason why BBC3 TV and BBC4 TV cannot operate for longer so that archive material can be shown again.  This should automatically mean that less programming is repeated on BBC1 and BBC2 making room for more original material that everyone can access whether digital or analogue.

·         How strictly should the BBC's commercial services be restricted to those businesses that are linked to public purposes and public services?

We believe the BBC's commercial services should continue as they are.  Income from these wide ranging activities supplements the licence fee and helps stabilise it.

We believe that the Licence Fee, for as long as it remains in existence, should be paid exclusively to the BBC.  This is what the public expects.  However much the corporation fulfils or fails in its duties and obligations there is little or no support outside the industry for wider distribution of licence fee revenue.  It seems to us that wider distribution raises very real problems of accountability that are at variance with much of what the Green Paper aspires to.  We acknowledge that there is a sense of grievance about the licence fee and a feeling that it should be abolished.  However, we believe that the Government, by making it a General Election Manifesto commitment, should state unequivocally that the Licence Fee should fund the BBC exclusively.  We do not agree with proposals to award part of the fee to other broadcasters.  We note the preposterous argument advanced last year by the Chief Executive of ITV plc that programmes such as I'm a Celebrity - Get Me out of Here! is "public service" programming merely because its ratings were on some occasions relatively high.  Without some official definition of "public service" programming anything can be, and is, conveniently shoe-horned in to this description so that claims for revenue can be justified.  Commercial broadcasters are what they are and are subject to market and other pressures.  That is the risk investors and others voluntarily undertake.  It is certainly not appropriate in any circumstances for licence fee revenue to be frittered away arbitrarily on dubious programming.

CONCLUSIONS

mediawatch-uk agrees entirely with the statement that the BBC "should be harnessed for society's good".  This was the original purpose of the BBC as set out by Lord Reith and others.  We believe that much of the BBC's output fulfils this but some does not.  We recall remarks made by Marmaduke Hussey to the Home Secretary when he was appointed Chairman of the Governors in 1988.  He said he would "take firm steps to eradicate unnecessary and gratuitous violence, sex and bad language from our programmes".  This undertaking has yet to be fulfilled.  It is our hope that the "leaner, fitter" and more "responsive" BBC Trust will succeed where the Governors, thus far, have not entirely succeeded.

Recent BBC programmes for special commendation include: Junior Mastermind; Gardeners' World; Wren: The Man Who Built Britain; 20th Century Roadshow; Wild Scotland; Wildlife on One; Imagine; The Monastery; Fred Dibnah's Made in Britain; Britain Best Buildings; University Challenge; Real Story; Small Town Gardens; We'll Meet Again; The Politics Show; The Nazis: A Warning From History and the exemplary coverage afforded to the passing of His Holiness Pope John Paul II and the election of his successor Pope Benedict XVI.  We mention also national and local News and Current Affairs programmes which provide an essential public service.

APPENDIX

We reproduce below some opinions from mediawatch-uk members:

From Keith Wilks

1 - Technical Development - Yes I do think that the BBC should be at the forefront of technical development. Their track record in the past has been very good and it could be a good way of revenue in licensing such developments.

2 - Review of Funding Methods - No I do not support a further review. We go round and round the same thing year in year out - you either get funds from licence, advertising or subscription.

3 - Licence Fee - I think that it could be perhaps better if the broadcasts were coded and the licence fee became a subscription fee. That way we get rid of the complaints from people who have no desire to view BBC programmes. It should also prevent licence dodging and eliminate the cost of tracking them down and putting them through the courts.

4 - Board of Governors - What difference would it make? I don't know unless one body is a paid body and the other is unpaid.

5 - Views about BBC Trust - No.

6 - Propose Changes to the Service - Yes.

My wife and I have one objection to the BBC in particular and that is the amount of strong language now being introduced into programming from the so called 9 o'clock watershed. I do not use strong language myself and I object to having it brought into my home. There are many good programmes produced (Hustle, Dr. Who and such) that could contain strong language very easily but they don't and yet they are still an excellent watch.

From J W Hield

I really don't feel competent to answer these questions but here are a few thoughts
So many people seem to avoid paying the fee that I think direct payment from government funds should be considered.
Party political influence should be eliminated as far as is possible.
The stonewall "I don't have any opinions" attitude should be abolished.   It is ridiculous when one complains and encounters a BBC representative who says that they have no opinion at all about something that is obviously offensive.

From Brenda Bell
Regarding:
a) Licence fee - probably best current option
b) Board of governors should be replaced with independent body including people who are not in media
c) Complaints should be considered by people who are not "in house" and independent of management of BBC

Distinctive Purposes
They are good if they did them!
Sustaining citizenship etc. - I believe that the television in particular has contributed greatly to the lowering of standards of sexual morality and the break up of family life. I do not think that they have merely reflected but have set the agenda. I also think that the violence and lack of respect for authority depicted in many programmes has contributed to lawlessness.
Stimulating creativity etc.- Not at all!
Representing UK etc.-Yes
Bringing UK to world etc. - Yes. However I thought the BBC showed a strong anti war bias which was not their place to do.

Good programmes: news, current affairs, documentaries, nature programmes, travel programmes, Antiques Roadshow, debating programmes, children's programs, Songs of Praise
Bad programmes: Most light entertainment, drama, chat shows, soaps.

From Mrs J Hancock

My opinion of the BBC is on the whole good - when you look at TV worldwide BUT I object to strong language sex and violence and programmes which do not promote healthy family life. I confess we now have Sky and tend to watch other channels but my husband does like the soaps. I watch Songs of Praise, Last of the Summer Wine and Heartbeat all of which are good wholesome fun with no strong language.

In answer to your request for opinions on various BBC programmes:
East Enders:  Most weekday evenings

Story lines are very sensational and extreme. Whilst it is true that many families, from time to time, have to cope with the sort of situations that arise in the programme, they are portrayed to be the norm of every day family life. There are next to no believable good role models - those with seemingly good moral standards are shown to be generally hypocritical or laughable. Character's personalities change dramatically to suit either the latest plot content or the desire of an actor to leave the series.   In my view much of the subject matter and behaviour of the characters is totally unsuitable to be shown at what must be a peak family viewing time. At this time of day many impressionable young children are watching and will absorb the images of often violent and abuse behaviour portrayed as being both normal and acceptable - indeed to be emulated since their favourite stars may well be acting out these roles.

From Mike Slade

I feel the BBC is placed rather too highly with regard to its 'excellence'.  What this has fostered within the BBC is an attitude where it believes it cannot be challenged and rejects any criticism of its output or modus operandi.  Most recently the area surrounding equipping hecklers with megaphones and a very defensive rejection that it had done any 'wrongdoing' (a favourite phrase of the BBC) is but one of many.  They may be innocent on this occasion, but their response was, I'm afraid, typical and not a surprise.

There are many good areas.  Our own Regional News Programme, Points West, is excellent.  Their coverage of state occasion is usually good, although not the recent Royal Wedding, which seemed 'down market' with dress consultants being wheeled out, rather like OK magazine rather than Country Life!

After the Jerry Springer affair, where I still have not had a proper considered response from the BBC, and neither from Tessa Jowell who persisted in taking the 'line' rather than actually reading what I had sent, I think the complaints procedure needs thoroughly overhauling.  With so many complaints surrounding that show the BBC continue to be unrepentant as the recent article in the Church Times illustrated.  There must be some form of authoritative redress and 'bringing to book' of the whole of the BBC including its most senior people.

I have o choice whether to pay the licence fee.  I wanted to withdraw from paying it after Springer, but have no choice but to pay if I want to have a television legally.  Surely this cannot be fair.

A further review of funding should be undertaken, or else they will think that they are safe for decades to come.

The digital race is a farce.  We cannot receive digital TV here (and radio only very poorly.  Our TV engineer says it will never come.  Maybe he is right but the constant barrage of trailers inviting me to get it (satellite only I'm afraid here) pressurises me from my children constantly.

Good luck with your efforts.  Much appreciated.  I happened upon the C4 season my mistake last night when I hopped from the snooker and I'm afraid C4 is the absolute pits.

From Mr & Mrs Hearn

The BBC has its own agenda - impervious to complaints; the latest Jerry Springer "Opera" serves as an example.  They make up their minds and then disregard viewers' submissions.  The resignation of BBC's Antony Pitts says it all.

That we are forced to pay a licence fee which is nothing more than a stealth tax is scandalous.  The licence fee empowers the BBC to serve up an ever increasing number of unpleasant programmes that we cannot possibly watch because when they get the chance they mockingly promote an anti-Christian agenda.

The BBC has far too much power and rides roughshod over viewers.  Their answer to complaints is to send out standardised replies.

They lack a moral agenda.  They are protected by Human Rights legislation that tolerates evil and hates righteousness.
The BBC should be sold/privatised.
The BBC has lost our trust and respect.
Their distinctive purposes are woolly words, like elastic; they make them mean what they want them to mean.  How could they possibly sustain a civil society based on their track record where they resort to a constant barrage of foul language, blasphemy and verbal abuse, even in cookery programmes - disgusting!

From Dr Ruth Roseveare

I do not know enough about high tech and its relationship to BBC to give an opinion.

I like the idea of a BBC Trust replacing the Board of Governors.  To handle complaints there should a panel of independent cross-section of the viewers.

Who owns the BBC?  To whom should the BBC "propose" to make changes?  Why can't it make changes on its own initiative provided such changes fit the conditions listed in the next questions?

I agree with the 5 purposes set out for the BBC.

Who owns and controls Channel 4.  Should there not be similar purposes for them as for the BBC?

mediawatch-uk response to the DCMS White Paper A public service for all
The Future of the BBC
Funding the BBC