A Seismic Shift in British Public Diplomacy? Didn’t Feel a Thing

A Seismic Shift in British Public Diplomacy? Didn’t Feel a Thing

CPD’s views. May 13, 2014 The best known – and, dare I say it, the most respected – example of public diplomacy broadcasting just ended. Did you notice? Don’t worry, you weren’t supposed to. You see, in April, after 75 years, the British government stopped directly funding the BBC World Service. And, according to traditional

CPD’s views.


May 13, 2014

The best known – and, dare I say it, the most respected – example of public diplomacy broadcasting just ended. Did you notice? Don’t worry, you weren’t supposed to. You see, in April, after 75 years, the British government stopped directly funding the BBC World Service. And, according to traditional definitions at least, if the World Service is not government-funded, it is not a public diplomacy broadcaster.

That is technically seismic. Since the 1930’s the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been directly funding the BBC World Service, first partially, then fully. In 2013, that grant amounted to around £239m ($406m). Broadcasting around the world on radio, TV, and online in more than thirty languages at its peak, the World Service has been the single most high-profile tool of British public diplomacy.

Strange then, that at the time of the change, the boss of the World Service, Peter Horrocks, told an internal gathering of staff, at which I was present, that he welcomed the move.

As I said, it was technically seismic, yet few felt the earth move. Let me explain.

The World Service is not closing down, so don’t retune to NPR just yet. As of April, it is now funded from the license fee, the BBC’s main source of income. The license fee is effectively a tax on every UK household that owns a TV. However archaic that may sound in this burgeoning age of online video consumption, it still delivers a yearly income of around £3.5bn (almost $6bn). From this the BBC must pay for 10 TV networks, 15 national and regional radio stations and a network of 40 local radio stations, with substantial online output (there is also income of around £1bn, or $1.8bn, from commercial sources). If I might be allowed the tiniest of plugs here, at £145.50 (approx. $235) the license fee is remarkably good value.

An important point here is that license fee revenue is public money not government money. Although the government has ultimate control over the license fee by setting its level (and it has been frozen by the Conservative-led Coalition government since 2011), it is administered by an independent body and does not go through the hands of government before it reaches the BBC.

The difference to the BBC of bringing World Service funding in-house is that the budget, however huge it may seem, must stretch further. This has meant some painful cuts, including job losses. The need for savings has also seen the closure of 5 language services entirely and the end of radio broadcasts in 7 others. World Service colleagues, who cherished their broad agenda, have voiced worries that domestic news priorities may start to dominate their output now that costs must be shared.  And, Peter Horrocks announced in April, the World service will start to carry some limited advertising, to beef up revenues. This has certainly alarmed some colleagues, who fear a potential clash between commercial and editorial interests.

But what effect will it have on British public diplomacy?

The point about the BBC, as I wrote in a recent edition of CPD’s Perspectives, is that the legislation that established it back in 1922 guarantees editorial freedom from government, regardless of funding. Throughout the years, some have doubted this separation, but this BBC journalist knows that I do not take my orders from the Foreign Office – and the Foreign Office knows it would not try to tell me, nor any of my colleagues, what to say.

By branding our editorial independence so fiercely, the BBC is seen as a champion of free speech, diversity, and respect for plurality of opinion. And those are the same values that underpin a liberal democracy, such as the UK. So, by creating a strong, independent, international media organization, the government is communicating to foreign publics that Britain is a country with high regard for open debate and critical thought, with a democratic system so robust that it can withstand the most forensic scrutiny (which we and our commercial colleagues often perform). In other words, it doesn’t matter if the government pays for the World Service or not, it still derives soft power from the editorially independent BBC.

From the point of view of audience perceptions of the BBC, the change in funding must surely be a good move. Previously Mr. Horrocks has talked about how it makes the BBC truly independent of government and how it frees us from the ‘taint of policy.’ In terms of audience engagement, the World Service audience figures have actually gone up in the last year, to 193m a week, accessing services across multiple platforms. And, two months into this new reality of British public diplomacy broadcasting, let me tell you, my work as a BBC journalist doesn’t feel any different.

Whether the government’s politically expedient decision to cut funding will prove to be damaging to British influence around the world (because financial pressures force the down-sizing of World Service output) will only be borne out over time – and may be down to more factors than who pays for Newshour. But that is for the government to worry about. Our job is to continue to serve our audience by providing strong, independent journalism, as we always have.

Please follow and like us:
error

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in posts
Search in pages

RSS BIDD

  • DOJ  should take action against China’s Twitter propaganda 22nd August 2019
    Over the last few years, Chinese state media organs have accelerated a campaign to leverage U.S. social media platforms – namely, Twitter – to promote the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) narrative on several issues. The post DOJ  should take action against China’s Twitter propaganda appeared first on BIDD.
  • Travelling to the EU or live there? Get ready for Brexit 22nd August 2019
    Skip to content Christopher Pincher Minister of State (Minister for Europe and the Americas) 22nd August 2019 London Travelling to the EU or live there? Get ready for Brexit The UK is leaving the EU on 31 October and we are making all necessary preparations to ensure we are ready. This includes making sure UK […]

RSS Diplo Portal Belgrade

  • German Ambassador: boycott not good for democracy 22nd August 2019
    AUTHOR: N1 Belgrade According to the ambassador, political debates should be held in parliament, adding that it’s important for the opposition to have the conditions to operate. He recalled the European Union progress report which said that the conditions in parliament are not good and should be changed. “The opposition has indicated that it will […]
  • Projekat „Poljske pomoći” u Vršcu 22nd August 2019
    Otpravnik poslova Republike Poljske Andžej Kinđuk izvršio je monitoring razvojnog projekta koji Ambasada realizuje u Vršcu. The post Projekat „Poljske pomoći” u Vršcu appeared first on Diplomatic portal.

Catalog of Destroyed and Desecrated Churches in Kosovo ( VIDEO )

Most Viewed Posts

  • Twitter Suspends Hamas Accounts
    By ROBERT MACKEYLast Updated, Sunday, Jan. 19 | Several Twitter accounts used by the military wing of Hamas have been suspended by the social network in recent days, angering the Islamist militants and delighting Israel’s military. #Twitter has suspended the official account of #Hamas, a terrorist group that uses social media to threaten #Israel http://t.co/g1UxKc9fpf
  • The State of Gastrodiplomacy
    By Paul Rockower It is fitting that a magazine devoted to studying innovations and trends in the field of public diplomacy has turned its focus on an increasingly popular forms of cultural diplomacy: gastrodiplomacy. Public Diplomacy Magazine’s Summer 2009 issue on Middle Powers explored the behavior of middle powers and the contours of “middlepowermanship.” Articles

How Belgrade based diplomats use Digital Diplomacy and Internet 2016

Diplo Portal Belgrade

Please follow and like us:
error

Scroll Up
error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)