One group significantly missing from discussion about the BBC, the Hutton report, and the de facto sacking of director-general Greg Dyke has been the licence payers who fund the whole show. Everyone in the UK with a colour TV pays £116 a year - so we could claim to be the equivalent of shareholders, or members of a nonprofit organisation. The problem is we don't have a vote, yet have to pay up - or face a big fine if caught.
However, I happen to know that the possible 'governance' role of the punters is a point not lost on Greg Dyke. We talked about it last year. Well, me, him and half a dozen others. And he is down-to-earth, friendly and all the other nice things people are saying. I found out like this.
Through a chance meeting with a BBC employee I was invited to attend one of a series of consultation seminars run by the BBC governors. The topic was the quality, role and funding of BBC online services. About a hundreds of us were gathered, fed, and grouped around sets of screens with a governor or BBC member of staff. The then chairman of governors Gavin Davies presided with a light touch, and familiar faces from news programmes facilitated the discussion. It was great fun - though not uncritical. The consensus was that the BBCi online services were worth the £5 or so of the licence fee spent on them.
I was sitting next to Greg Dyke, who had joined our group with great good humour and a very open attitude to discussion. Towards the end of the meeting we were asked to come up with a statement that summed up the unique value of the BBC, and what could be developed from that.
Our group (and others) reckoned that the great strength of the BBC - besides the range and depth of its output - was that people trusted it. I made the point that trust is strengthen by a relationship that goes beyond producer-consumer. We came up with a statement to the effect that the BBC should build on its unique position serving the public interest by fostering its relationship with licence payers. As funders of the BBC they were more than media consumers, and the BBC was more than a broadcaster. It was an important institution of civil society.
This went down so well with Greg, he asked for the statement to be revised, with the bit about the BBC's role in civil society up front, and strong emphasis on building relationships with licence payers.
The attendant BBC customer researchers and marketeers made notes, and we all went our ways. I couldn't think of a way of following through on the contact, but was left with a residual warm glow about Greg Dyke and reflection about how different his style was from most senior people in public agencies. I can understand Tom Coates report on what BBC staff feel about his departure.
Since that seminar we have had the Hutton report casting doubts on the competence of the BBC, and a statement of resignation from Gavin Davies reflecting concerns about relationship with licence payers.
Gavin Davies said: "Because the BBC is so widely trusted, it is crucial that its chairman should take personal responsibility for ensuring that the highest standards of accuracy and impartiality are maintained in its news output. Licence payers cannot maintain their trust in the output of the BBC unless they can have confidence in its leadership."
Greg Dyke in an email to staff said: "It might sound pompous but I believe the BBC really matters.
"Throughout this affair my sole aim as director general of the BBC has been to defend our editorial independence and to act in the public interest."
He added in a TV interview: "The moment the BBC starts kowtowing to government, you might as well close it down. It's as simple as that."
An opinion poll showed people trusting the BBC more than the government. As licence payers we do have a limited chance to input to the charter review of the BBC, conducted by the Government. Is that enough? Could be time that the punters pressed for a bit more say on who runs their BBC.
The Daily Telegraph raises governance issues in an opinion piece:
"Should the BBC be privatised? Or overseen by yet another quango, appointed by ministers? Or, as a Blairite think tank has suggested, should it be turned into a mutual society controlled by licence-payers? But the BBC does not belong to the politicians. It is a national institution. If it is simply left to this Government to fiddle with it, as it has so many institutions we shall go from bad to worse. The BBC will become more, not less politicised."
The idea of a mutual society is intruiging, but I've failed to track down the source of the idea so far. I think it is probably the IPPR publication From Public Broadcasting to Public Service Communications published on January 11, before the current controversy.
Update: IPPR thinks it might be a 1996 publication....I'll keep looking
Comments