Shadow Culture Secretary is giving a major speech this morning on the future of Conservative broadcasting policy. At the bottom of this post we publish key extracts relating to his support for more local TV and his concerns that the BBC might be crowding out alternative media suppliers. Most interesting to us, however, is his view that TV influences behaviour and broadcasters - particularly those in receipt of privileged funding - have a duty to behave responsibly. ConservativeHome wholeheartedly agrees (but we are 'nudgers' as you know).
First Mr Hunt addresses the influence that broadcasters do have on behaviour:
"The University of the West England recently found that 73% of all alcohol references on radio encouraged drinking. That matters, because for better or worse what Chris Moyles says has more impact on binge drinking than the glossiest advertising campaign from the Department of Health, or indeed an alcohol education campaign by Radio 1. It isn’t all bad news. The media can have an equally strong effect in a positive way. Eastenders’ Mark Fowler [pictured] was the first mainstream soap character to be HIV positive. A 1999 survey by the National AIDS Trust found that most young people learned everything they knew about the illness from watching him deal with his condition. Lisa Power at the Terrance Higgins Trust has said that ‘one decent soap episode is worth a thousand leaflets in schools’. HIV has returned to TV drama with Hollyoaks currently tackling the issue – I hope it is as successful as Eastenders was in the 90s."
Mr Hunt goes on to say that a few “worthy” programmes "should not be a fig leaf for a lack of social responsibility in other output.":
"It’s not good enough for Channel 4 to say they are doing their bit with a Dispatches programme on alcohol abuse like Drinking Yourself to Death when 18% of the screen time in Hollyoaks was accounted for by alcohol references. Nor can five claim to be doing their bit with Diet Doctors Inside Out when the gym instructor in Home and Away is seen with alcohol in 50% of his scenes."
OTHER KEY EXTRACTS FROM JEREMY HUNT'S SPEECH
The BBC must not crowd out competition: "It is also right to examine the BBC’s competitive impact on the broader commercial market. This includes not just its impact on other broadcasters, but on other media as well. Should travel guide publishers be forced to compete with a BBC Worldwide-owned Lonely Planet? Why should those with hobbies setting up websites have to compete with the BBC’s new “passion sites”? What is the impact of BBC online on newspaper groups fighting falling circulation by trying to reinvent their business model on the internet? Local newspapers are a vital part of the fabric of small communities throughout the country, and are currently trying to re-invent their business model having lost much of the revenue that used to come from classified sales. As they move online, why should they have to face the additional threat of subsidised competition from the BBC’s plans for local video on demand? I don’t think they should and I hope the BBC Trust takes a strong stance on this proposal."
> George Osborne has addressed this issue in the past.
The importance of local TV: "A Conservative government will encourage the creation of local TV stations by ensuring media ownership rules do not prevent local newspaper groups from investing in local television in their area. We will urge Ofcom to be proactive in ensuring that spectrum allocations do not unwittingly prevent the emergence of a local TV sector. And we will encourage local authorities to consider the community benefits of supporting local TV stations, as has happened so successfully in Kent."
The Conservatives' historical record on broadcasting: "it is Conservative governments that have been largely responsible for plurality of provision throughout broadcasting history. We licensed ITV in 1955, oversaw the launch of the new satellite channels and cable in the late 1980s, launched Channel 4 in 1982 and five in 1997. The BBC (also founded by a Conservative government, albeit in 1928) has remained the cornerstone of public service broadcasting provision. It has provided a quality benchmark that is respected the world over. Without the creative achievements of the BBC over very many years, British broadcasting would not be where it is today."
Competition is important for driving up standards: "Talk to anyone in the BBC, and they will tell you how bad it has been for children’s TV since ITV pulled out of daytime provision of it. And how important it is that there is at least some competition with Milkshake from five. When it comes to news, they will also say how positive it was when Sky launched 24 hour news for the first time in the UK. Few would dispute that competition from Sky and ITN/ITV has played a significant role in spurring on the BBC into becoming probably the most respected news gathering organisation in the world."
I am an optimist with a raincoat: "When talking about the changing nature of communications, people tend to fall into two camps. One is the “brave-new-worlders” who tend to look to changes in technology and communications with dewy-eyed optimism as the solution to many of the world’s problems. In the other camp are the doom and gloomsters. They focus on the evil purposes for which modern communications can be harnessed. Or the challenges facing families trying to bring up children when screen time is often more compelling than family time. If forced to choose between the two groups I have always been unashamedly on the side of the optimists. Harold Wilson said he was an optimist, but an optimist who brought his raincoat. That is perhaps how I feel about technology and modern communications. Optimism yes, but tempered by a proper understanding of the risks brought about by rapid change."
In a word, well, two: nudge off. Precisely the problem with giving the BBC sanctified status is exactly that it can and does so comprehensively lead public opinion. And while God knows, Hunt's opinions, inasmuch as we know them, are doubtless bland, worthwhile and inoffensive, were John Birt's? Why exactly do we want to keep giving people like Birt such undeniable societal influence? Because occasionally - how hollow is the laughter at the back? - we might replace one or two of the inexhaustible legion of Birts with our own placemen? Honestly, you should repeat this fantasy, because if I hear it again I probably will laugh myself to death
If society wants moral uplift and nudging leadership, it already has a church to do just that. The tragedy here is that 'conservatives' think that the arch-secular broadcast clerisy deserve more influence, not markedly less. Madness, total madness and easily the single stupidest idea I have ever read on this site, support for the Iraq war not excluded.
Posted by: ACT | October 29, 2008 at 11:08
Absolutely. I agree 100pc with Jeremy Hunt. The BBC needs to be socially responsible to the people who pay its bills.
Posted by: Jennifer Wells | October 29, 2008 at 11:10
Our country needs a Conservative government to introduce a new criteria for standards in broadcasting. I'm particularly concerned by the number of 'freak show' documentaries which seem to take a voyeuristic pleasure in people's disabilities or weight problems.
Another area that needs cleaning up is the 'humiliation culture', so called shows of endurance in which the principle objective is to degrade the participant in numerous ways for viewer entertainment. This type of show originated in Japan around 25 years ago and is now mainstream in the UK. Basically we need new standards if television is to fullfil its role as entertainer and educator of our nation.
Posted by: Tony Makara | October 29, 2008 at 11:15
Did you wilfully misunderstand Jeremy Hunt's speech ACT? He hardly 'sanctifies' the BBC ,quite the opposite.
His call for socially responsible broadcasting is one I would support as I expect would mould most ordinary Conservatives.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | October 29, 2008 at 11:17
What does 'socially responsible broadcasting' mean? It means, 'broadcasters should say what I feel agreeable'. Leaving to one side the very basic problems inherent in the state telling private sector media outlets what they should say and how they should say it, it's exactly the state-sanctioned BBC that is the problem, and it's one that Hunt fundamentally misconstrues. The BBC *is* immensely influential - every example cited above speaks to its colossal cultural import. So if the 'I' is, you, me or Hunt, up to a point, well there we are, but if the 'I', who's defining what 'socially responsible broadcasting' is, is Birt, Harman or, oh, Douggie Smith, well what then? And if actual, real-world experience tells us anything, the people defining 'socially responsible broadcasting' are exactly *not* going to be people you or I find congenial. Which brings me back to the problem Hunt has 100% wrong: it's the fact of the BBC existing at all, and being such a powerful bully pulpit for transmission of received, approved or otherwise nudging opinions that is so profoundly wrong and dangerous. 'Right' opinions, if they have merit and genuine popular appeal, will work themselves out in the end: BBC opinions, for as long as there is a BBC telling us what's kosher to think, are entirely the opposite. They're the opinions of the smug imposed upon the plebs, at the plebs' expense. I cannot begin to understand why anyone who calls them self a 'Tory' wishes in any shape or form to see the evangelising work of the BBC continue. It's precisely that it already discharges that function that is so wrong and harmful.
Posted by: ACT | October 29, 2008 at 11:34
What nonsense. People don't want "socially uplifting" media thrust in their faces - that's a guaranteed turn-off in these multi-channel multi-platform days.
The Conservatives no more need a "media policy" than they need a "tuesdays policy"; in government we should aim to get out of the way, not to fiddle round the edges with this sort of stuff.
Posted by: Tanuki | October 29, 2008 at 13:27
Socially responsible broadcasting does not mean broadcasting that I agree with. It merely means adhering to acceptable standards of truth, taste and decency. Not difficult is it? The rest of your premise (the BBC tells us what's kosher to think etc) is rubbish too.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | October 29, 2008 at 14:34
Read the very first quote from Hunt: nowhere does he mention truth, taste or decency. What he explicitly does do is to commend the ability of television, and in particular, the state-funded BBC, to lead public opinion. But then if you seriously believe that the BBC *isn't* in the business of telling us what's kosher to think and what's not, I now begin to appreciate why I'm having some difficulty in getting through to you.
Posted by: ACT | October 29, 2008 at 14:42
Oh Google, is there nothing you cannae do?
This universe's Malcolm Dunn (well, this thread's): "The rest of your premise (the BBC tells us what's kosher to think etc) is rubbish".
Someone else entirely in your Earth year 2005: "I used to think that the Tory party were paranoid about the BBC,now I think they have a very legitimate case.
Malcolm Dunn, London". [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/blog/4470499.stm]
It's amazing the transformations a mere three years of David Cameron's leadership can wreak?
Posted by: ACT | October 29, 2008 at 14:55
Eh? Where does Jeremy Hunt say that the BBC has indulge in 'broadcasting that I agree with'.
Not sure what the political coverage problems that the Conservative Party has with the BBC has to do with this subject.
I always thought you were a left wing troll ACT whose mission in life was to criticise anything and everything done by the Conservative party.Now I'm not so sure. Obtuse and rather weird certainly but perhaps not left wing.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | October 29, 2008 at 15:50
Never apologise, never explain, eh Malcolm? No tension whatsoever between 2008 Dunn and that loon from 2005?
Posted by: ACT | October 29, 2008 at 15:54
None
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | October 29, 2008 at 16:33
Vintage Malcolm:
'[T]he 'damning evidence' [for BBC bias] comes from watching or listening to the BBC itself!'
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | October 26, 2007 at 12:07 [http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2007/10/there-are-ten-t.html#comment-87711714]
'I loathe the political stance of the BBC'.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | 16 September 2008 at 13:10 [http://conservativehome.blogs.com/frontpage/2008/09/tuesday-16th-se.html#comment-130864538]
Modern Malcolm: the BBC doesn't tell us what to think. I dunno, they certainly seem to have fairly successfully told Malcolm what to think.
Posted by: ACT | October 29, 2008 at 16:55
I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.If anything the fact that I disagree with so much of the BBC's political coverage seems to negate your argument. If you have an argument.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | October 29, 2008 at 17:19
'The rest of your premise (the BBC tells us what's kosher to think etc) is rubbish too'. Yeah, 'if I have an argument'.
Posted by: ACT | October 29, 2008 at 17:32
Government has no place in the media, apart from ensuring open competition, free access and full disclosure (of any bias etc - no control over it, just disclosure.).
TV is just another medium - albeit a ubiquitious one.
Delivery and content/production need to be decoupled.
People should be able to choose what they want to see (if anything) and choose what they don't want to see.
The BBC needs to be chopped into small pieces and privatised.
If someone thinks using TV for social engineering is a good idea, they can producte the programms with their own money - and I'll chose for myself whether to watch it or not...
Posted by: pp | October 29, 2008 at 17:36
Reading through the other extracts from the rest of Jeremy’s speech, I am amazed that anyone in the Conservative Party can consider the BBC to be the most respected news-gathering organisation in the world. In fact, I sent Jeremy an email at the weekend on this very subject following the disgraceful partisanship displayed by the BBC in its reporting of Mandelson’s and Osborne’s dealings with Deripaska.
I understand that American broadcasters are staggered by the size of the BBC entourage assigned to cover the US presidential elections. Of course, the BBC can only do this because of its unique funding arrangements. The licence fee is often defended because it allegedly allows the BBC to maintain the quality of output that would not be possible if it were reliant on advertising or subscription income. Anyone who believed that particular fallacy would certainly have been disabused of it following the Ross/Brand controversy this week.
In my email to Jeremy, I recommended the outsourcing of the BBC’s news and current affairs programming to Sky, ITN or other independent companies. It would be very cost-effective to rebrand, say, ITN’s output as BBC News, in exactly the same way that ITN currently does for Channel Four.
Jeremy is right to highlight the contribution that previous Conservative governments have made to British broadcasting in this country. A future Conservative government must recognise that further progress can only take place by reining in the BBC and allowing the private sector broadcasters to flourish without having the burden of unfair competition from the BBC.
Posted by: Paul, Southampton | October 29, 2008 at 18:55
I’m loving the press whirlwind against the BBC.
The champagne socialist scumbags deserve it.
They spent all of last week trying to undermine George Osborne, now the media (and their viewers) are turning on them, they’re throwing their toys out of the pram via Newsnight.
Three BBC people attacking the issue as a “Daily Mail-backed campaign.”
The Independent and the Guardian have been just as vocal in their reporting of the Ross/Brand saga.
Is the picking on the Daily Mail because it is read by mostly middle class, Tory-voting white people - the last minority/majority of people it’s still perfectly acceptable (even encouraged) to abuse??????
The BBC positively hates these people, but is perfectly happy to dine out on the TV tax these hard-working people are forced to cough up.
The economy is going down the tubes, markets are screwed and our government is all at sea. And what does the BBC, as a public service broadcaster, concentrate on as the main item on Newsnight?? Themselves!
Essentially, the Newsnight programme spent 20 minutes slagging off its license-paying viewers for having the audacity to criticise some of their simply disgusting, puerile output.
Privatise the whole stinking lot.
Posted by: Edison Smith | October 29, 2008 at 23:36