Westminster Media Fourm: PSB, plurality and, of course, the licence fee

By Peter Phillips

Last Wednesday the Westminster Media Forum held a seminar about public service broadcasting. It was a fascinating morning of debate, with speakers including Andy Duncan from Channel 4, Jeremy Hunt MP, Caroline Thomson from the BBC, ITV's Carolyn Fairbairn, and Sue Robertson from Five. I also gave a speech and answered some questions - you can read it here if you're interested. The range of different voices, viewpoints and ideas mooted during the discussions was a valuable exercise in plurality - a subject we see as central to this debate.

Indeed, we have sought to inform a  wider debate about plurality by commissioning a collection of essays about plurality which the Reuters Institute published earlier this month. That book recognises that, although plurality as a principle is generally supported by most observers of PSB, it comes at a cost. Essay authors such as Tim Gardam, David Puttnam, Samir Shah, David Elstein, Richard Tait and Roger Laughton discuss the principles of plurality, the nature of institutions, the genres at risk, and international perspectives. It is a valuable contribution to the imminent decisions that will have to be made about the appropriate level of plurality in the UK. If you're interested in reading more, the book can be accessed here.

It was also apparent at the Westminster Media Forum seminar that there is a certain appeal and natural tendency to focus this debate on the future use of the licence fee. While that is obviously understandable given its legacy and its vocal supporters, it would be short-sighted to ignore the many other alternative funding sources that are available - if indeed, it is deemed by Parliament necessary to find money at all.

Direct funding, indirect benefits like access to spectrum, and levies on industry can and do already work as ways of funding public service broadcasting around the world. It would be good to see as much focus on these issues as has been given to the licence fee in this debate.

Comments

[Russ]

Peter writes: 'it would be short-sighted to ignore the many other alternative funding sources that are available - if indeed, it is deemed by Parliament necessary to find money at all'

That's correct, I suppose, but Ofcom have already seemingly taken certain options off the table by simply not researching them or consulting on them.

For example, isn't it also short-sighted to ignore the option to privatise Channel 4?

I would prefer the money be used for other public purposes like education, but you could also take some or all of the proceeds of the Channel 4 sale and ear-mark them for public service broadcasting and related purposes. I suppose the government would have the final say.

It seems to me that it is Ofcom's role to advise the government on all possible prudent options relating to PSB during this time of transition and uncertainty -- surely a sale of Channel 4 is one of those prudent options?

Ofcom said at the outset of this review that the focus would be on the viewer. I wonder whether viewers are fully aware that Channel 4 is state-owned and about to start making losses for the state?

I wonder what viewers would make of the option to sell C4 and use that money for PSB?

I wonder what C4 is worth?

Anyway, these are some useful questions if you want to think and debate about things other than top-slicing the licence fee to prop up a loss-making state-owned entreprise.