The Beeb's Next War

We have all been following the dramatic developments in England where a former UN weapons inspector tookhis own life warning of "many dark actors playing games." This is a political story with a mediaback story. It pits the BBC and the Blair government with other "dark actors" waiting for cues offstage.

The BBC boasts, often with legitimacy, of the impartiality it brings to the coverage of the news. But now whathappens when the world¹s most respected broadcaster becomes the news. This drama is now a thriller with ajudicial inquiry already announced with the Prime Minister Tony Blair volunteering to testify.

The Judge Lord Hutton has announced he will move quickly and in the open. The BBC, which initially was silenton charges that Kelly was its principal source in a story suggesting that the Blair Government had "sexedup" an overly alarmist dossier making the case for war with Iraq now says, yes, indeed, Kelly was theirsource.

There is a daily dance underway between a probing media that seemed to have lost its spine in the"fog" of war only to find it in all the discrepancies in official pronouncements about missingweapons of mass destruction, and a public that grows more skeptical by the day. Meanwhile the government getssquirmier and testier by the hour, insisting it was right all along and that the media, especially the BBC,has got it wrong, wrong, wrong.

Many believe that this trashing of the BBC emanates from the pique of a disgruntled politician like Blair¹smedia advisor Alistair Campbell, or is meant only to shift attention away from the WMD controversy. TheTimes of London calls it "a weapon of mass distraction."

It isn¹t.

The Iraq war may be over but the BBC is in the cross hairs of a new low intensity war. Most of the Britishpress has yet to realize that this new battle of Britain is more than a case of shoot the messenger.

If the BBC¹s credibility can be seriously damaged, its global power and political impact can becircumscribed. So far most of the media coverage of this latest controversy is focused on the issues in theforeground, not the interests in the background.

There is more at stake.

Why The Attacks On BBC?

A week ago, a study came out from Cardiff University that found that the BBC, contrary to the impressions ofsome (especially those in the US who compared its war coverage with what passed for journalism on the tubehere) was NOT in the bulk of its coverage anti-war It was, rather, pro-government and tilted towards the war.A German study made a similar point.

That shouldn¹t surprise.

Led by its effective business oriented manager Greg Dyke, a partisan of the New Labour movement headed byBlair, the Beeb is a vast corporation that usually functions as a member of the establishment in goodstanding. The BBC rarely goes to war against the government of the day.

Despite the evidence in the new study, Conservatives, as well as I am told on good authority, Labourpoliticians and elements of the British military, charge that the BBC was anti-war, hostile to the Britishforces, and one-sided.

They seem determined to do something about it.

While the opening shots in their attack are being pegged to a current issue, there is a longer-term strategybehind it that does not seem well understood. Like many conflicts, this one began with a news story, and anincident. But that may only be a pretext for a more insidious strategy.

The Confrontation Begins

History, deceit and small-mindedness in high places has now cast the Beeb (or "Aunty " as it isknown), the world¹s most respected and self-important broadcaster) into an adversarial role. Thegovernment¹s spinner in chief Alistair Campbell, ("Tony wouldn¹t know what to do without me," heis quoted as saying) is accusing BBC of bias in general, of falsely alleging that he was involved in"sexing up" a dossier that was used to justify and sell British involvement in the war. He demandeda retraction and apology.

At issue is a report by BBC defense correspondent Andrew Gilligan who had a high placed source confirming thatinformation in the renamed "dodgy dossier" justifying the war had been doctored. The BBC respondedby standing by the story, and saying that there would be no political journalism in the country if every storyhad to be based on several sources. The BBC insisted its source was credible and could be trusted.

The News Department Hangs Tough

The BBC¹s own Board of Governors, led by a former Intelligence chief reviewed the issue and backed thejudgment of BBC News, which prides itself in its impartiality. News chief Richard Sambrook is hanging tough,charging that the government had tried to steer coverage during the war and otherwise was intimidatingjournalists.

In a l0-page letter to Campbell, he wrote: "Our responsibility was to present an impartial picture andyou were not best placed to judge what was impartial." The BBC prides itself on being a "trustedsource" and claims that 93% of the UK population watched the war on the BBC in the war¹s first twoweeks.

That is some rating and share. No broadcaster in the US can claim such viewer loyalty. Also I can¹t remembereither the last time a news executive in America took on a government so directly. It¹s been thirty yearssince the Watergate revelations and Pentagon Papers battle pitted US media power against political power.

The War Of Words

Blood has been boiling on all sides. The war of words is intense, but privately the BBC doesn¹t seem tounderstand why the government is keeping alive an issue that it clearly can¹t win with the public. The highlycredible BBC is prized by one and all for its independence and, hence, is no easy target for a government withshrinking credibility.

At the same time, the BBC is under attack, but not just from the usual suspects. Leaders of the Labourgovernment and the Conservatives, who usually oppose each other, are now joined at the hip in sharpening theirice picks. Their real intentions are not being played out in the public arena. This harness back to the l996Communications Reform Bill in the US when Democrats and Republicans closed ranks behind legislation in thename of promoting more competition. As we now know, it  had the opposite result, triggering more mediaconsolidation. It was later revealed that the media companies poured contributions into the coffers of keylegislators on both sides of the aisle who gave them what they wanted.

The BBC's FCC-like Threat

As is often the case, what is really going on may be lurking in the background in the politicalmachinations surrounding the debate over a new communications bill just as it was in America. I am referringto the fact that American media companies were lobbying the Republican dominated FCC for concessions whilecovering its war. Few broadcasters wanted to pick a fight with the Bush Administration when so much money wasriding on regulatory changes.

At least one prominent US media critic now says that media companies were "kissing the Administration¹sass" by downplaying war criticisms. The FCC rewarded their loyalty with the new rules the companieswanted. One of its rationales was war related. As expressed by Secretary of State Colin Powell¹s son Michael,who chairs the FCC, only big companies could report on wars like the one on Iraq.

The situation in England is not exactly the same but here too a new communications "reform" bill isabout to be approved, setting up a new media regulatory body. Significantly, David Currie, the head of the newregulatory body called OFCOM, recently held consultations with Powell in Washington this summer. The Britishgovernment, which just coordinated its foreign policy, seems to be doing something similar with its mediapolicy.

US Companies Waiting In The Wings

When passed, it will open the door to US companies like Clear Channel and Disney and Viacom to buy upBritish media properties. A Blair advisor, Ed Richards, is credited with inserting provisions into thecommunications bill opening the door to the American media companies who have been lobbying London, as they doWashington.

Not surprisingly Richards was later appointed to the OFCOM board which will, by the way, be allowed to operatewithout Parliamentary accountability. Chairman Currie has already opposed calls that the new agency allowcitizens needs to come before business interests.

So far the BBC has been mostly exempted from "oversight" by this pro-business body. But critics ofthe independence and power of the BCC want to change that. They say the BBC has a political agenda withoutrevealing that OFCOM does too.

Sound familiar? A regulatory body that identifies more with the industry than the public interest! Politicianswho advocate for media interests becoming regulators that favor those interests! The Campaign for Broadcastingand Press Freedom in Britain is organizing against this corporate sell-out. It is an uphill battle.

Britain's 'Liberal Media'

What does this mean for BBC? It means that just as the right in America is targeting "liberalmedia", centrist public service media like the BBC are being challenged in the UK.

Significantly, the BBC¹s charter comes up for renewal in 2005. Already, the Tories (Conservatives) arecalling for a reduction in the license fee that TV viewers here pay and which subsidises the BBC. They arepushing a subscription fee instead, which will have the effect of turning a national broadcaster into a nichechannel. If the fee is cut sharply, it could cripple the BBC.

The Blairites of Labour are joining in with some BBC-bashing of their own. Labour MP Gerald Kaufman now wantsthe BBC to be fully accountable to OFCOM, a clear sign of what political role that body is set up to play.Another Labour MP, Chris Hill, who used to work for the BBC, compared the BBC¹s annual report to "anEnron Annual Report" implying corruption. Kaufman went further demanding that BBC journalists not even beallowed to write for newspapers, charging that Gilligan wrote "bellicose, contentious, controversialarticles with animadversions on individuals. "  Animadversions?

The politicians are trying to chip away at the integrity of BBC journalism. No government wants a reallyindependent news body. (Most independents in other countries are really "dependents" forever seekingfunding and distribution. The BBC has that covered.) In the short run, they are resorting to intimidation. Inthe longer run, if they can get away with it, they will use regulation and deception just as they have inselling the war. This whole attack on the BBC will be sold in the name of giving British viewers more choice.More for less! That is how attacks on quality programming are always disguised.

Follow The Money

While BBC journalism is being debated, the power of the BBC as a sustainable institution is what is really atstake,

In the private sector, media companies - and their backers in Labour and among the Tories - also want the BBCto be tamed. Steven Barnett argues in the Observer that the BBC¹s best hope is with Labour, but thatmay be the case given their affinity for the private sector. He explains that the BBC is not like PBS inAmerica or ABC in Australia, which he describes as "minnows in their respective countries, cowed,underfunded, and ill prepared for serious battle with the governments that decide their future."

The difference is enormous. Ordinary people in Britain spend an average of 16 hours and 21 minutes a weektuned into some BBC service. We are not talking about some small time TV station here. It is powerful andindependent, paid for by license fees. According to the 2003 BBC annual report, "The BBC broadcasts 8network television and l0 network radio services as well as 22 TV and 46 radio services for audiences in thenations and English regions." World Service just marked its 70th birthday. Its history is impressive, andits brand is increasingly global.

More importantly, BBC¹s mission is still high-minded. "Our purposes is to enrich people's lives withprograms and services that inform educate and entertain," says its charter. "Our vision is to be themost creative organization in the world." No US broadcaster even pretends at such a mission or makes aclaim such as this: "Trust is the foundation of the BBC: We are independent, impartial and honest."

This doesn¹t mean the BBC is beyond reproach. Far from it. Their own Governors released a statementindicating that "we have ten key objectives where we think the BBC can do better." Among them arereaching younger audiences, serving ethnic minorities and "the underserved." There is continuing andoften heated debate within and without the BBC about how well it is doing. TV critics frequently skewer theirshows as they do programs on other channels. Financially, the BBC has a big debt and has already sold off itsbuildings in a complex lease back deal set up by a US investment bank.

Going Global

For years now the BBC has pursued a corporate strategy of its own to demonstrate efficiency and pays itsown bills, which include generous salaries and perks for executives. It has created many profitableenterprises including the commercial BBC World that hopes to launch as a 24-hour channel in the US this year.

When many Americans turned to the BBC for less jingoistic war news, the corporation realized they were beinggiven a business opening. BBC understood that it could do very well competing head on with US channels.Amazingly enough, more people now watch BBC shows in the US than watch TV l, their lead channel in Britain.

The big media companies are not unaware of what all this means. What BBC sees as an opportunity, they see as athreat. Remember their religion has little use for "visions," "values" and public interestmissions. They are driven only by self-interest, worshipping the bottom line.

BBC just released a 2003 annual report showing that annual revenues grew to $5.63 billion last year,Worldwide sales were up 16%. They hope to earn two hundred million pounds by 2007. That is a lot ofmoney. A lot of money. No wonder US and British media companies are motivated to see BBC's growth checked,broken up, or even privatized.

All of this money and power will likely now become a target for government regulators like the merry men ofOFCOM who want to contain public enterprises and serve those avaricious private businesses who would love toslice off some of BBC¹s market share. If they perceive the BBC competing with them, they will compete withit. And they play dirty whenever they can get away with it.

Murdoch At The Ready

A long time BBC basher, Rupert Murdoch, a big supporter of the Bush-Blair Iraq war, is not disinterested.He may be angling to buy a lucrative terrestrial TV station like Channel 5 (he already owns SKY News andsatellite stations.) I was told that virtually the entire Blair government attended a party for an outgoingeditor of the Sun, Murdoch¹s tabloid newspaper known for the topless page 3 girl and dishing outreactionary slogans to the working class. This right wing press lord has been a big Blair electoral backer.Not surprisingly, it was Blair loyalists in the House of Lords who killed a proposed amendment to the billproposed by Moviemaker and now Lord David Putnam to stop Murdoch¹s ambitions.

Also as a new ITV merger threatens between ITN and Granada, the British broadcasting environment is changingrapidly. This must affect the BBC¹s future.

Also interested in a British Channel is AOL Time Warner and others global media giants The Media Guardianthis week carries a profile of Michael Lynton, the head of AOL in Europe. In it, he seems to be pitchinghimself for a job at BBC. Read between the lines: "I would love to be involved with broadcasting. Themarket here is a more interesting one than the US because the opportunity for innovation is a lot moresubstantial."

For "Innovation," read "privatisation", and you can imagine how an AOL type"innovation" could "enrich¹ (read "decimate") the culture and quality of the BBC.

And one more ominous note:

Mel Hell

In September, the Royal Television Society is holding a convention in Cambridge titled "The End Game:Winners and Losers in the Digital Decade." BBC Director Greg Dyke is moderating.

But the lead speaker is none other than Mel Karmazin, the one-time radio ad salesman who now runs Viacom,Infinity Broadcasting and CBS, His biggest claim to fame is as the media exec who unleashed the serial sexistshock jock Howard Stern on American culture. Mel has never known a media tradition he was not anxious to dumbdown.

Watch out Britain. Today¹s winners can easily become tomorrow¹s losers. It seems to be logic of these times.Just as "Old Labour" was displaced by New, so the old BBC can be, shall we say,"modernized" by the marauders of the market. Don¹t say it can¹t happen here.