How have �Reithian values� shaped the model of public broadcasting adopted by the BBC? In view of the current debate around the institutions future, to what extent do these values remain relevant?
�Inform, educate and entertain� are the three pillars on which the elaborate BBC highrise arose from; it�s early architect John Reith. These are the key foundations of �Reithism�, the principles of it�s founding father, who�s shadowing presence ruled the organisation between 1922 and 1938 and has left it�s imprint to this very day.
But from it�s towering, lone presence at birth the BBC�s dominance has been gradually eroded to play a smaller, yet significant part in a cut throat, competitive market. The explosion of digital media poses difficult challenges for the organisation, which, despite the efforts of Margaret Thatcher is one of the few national institutions to be with us at the dawn of the 21st century. But is it�s life limited? Will it limp into the media wasteground leaving the market to be ruled by other television overlords? And will the values of it�s creator survive deep into the new age or be descended into the vault of history?
Lord Reith envisioned the new media as a means of improving moral and social standards of society. It shares a strange series of similarities to media in countries less democratic than our own. A gentle face of the �mass manipulation� model where the public were to be polluted, not with blatant ideological messages, but with good manors and the Kings English. In reality the BBC occupied terretory between the government and �lassez faire� philosphy employed by America, a unique position independent of government and commercial pressures. The stream of information was directed at the higher integrety of the masses.
�To exploit so good a scientific invention for the purpose and pursuit of entertainment alone would be a prostitution of it�s powers and an insult to the character and intelligence of the people� (John Reith).
Although entertainment consisted of a huge slice of the output �what Reith saw as entertainment was not in keeping with popular attitudes of the period (yellow book. 48).�
The aims were to shape and furnish the public with what the BBC thought was best for them. In the absence of competition in the market, a complete monopoly led the BBC to be arrogant and out of touch with the people who it was providing for.
�It is occasionally represented to us that we are apparently setting out to give the public what we think they need, and not what they want, but few know what they want and very few know what they need.� (John Reith. p 49. yellow book). This points to an ethos paternal arrogance which is evident throughout the organisation�s infancy, the time when John Reith executed ultimate power.
The classic impression of this breech is when the new mediums opened up to be economically viable for the working classes who were dissatisfied by the pompus, middle class programmes. Reithian somber Sunday was deserted in favour of foreign broadcasters who were more tuned in to the mood of the public and catering for their demands.
It was only with the passing of Reith�s reign that BBC started showing signs of hesitantly moving towards the public opinion, or even consider the opinion of it�s audience. The tightly ordered, well manored, programme output that typified Reithism radio was gradually invaded by streaks of barrack room humour and the images of started to corrode to form an attitude that didn�t blindly preech it�s principles to the people, but showed signs of listening to what they wanted to hear.
Not all aspects of Reithism should be as glorious bleeched images that are embraced by the modern Beeb, or even society. Firing people because they are homosexual and preventing divorcees participating in musical line ups, are values not wholely endorsed by John Birt. The high brow output of the Reithian era is typified by the Kings English and the highest moral standards. Above, not alongside, the public.
This forcefeeding of information was eroded with the intruduction of competition into the market place. From then, to this day, the broadcasters are judged by the quantitive evaluation of viewing figures rather than more qualititive considerations.
I find the weekly struggle between Eastenders and Coronation street perpectually depressing. It�s the straining knowlege that they�re both crap. But the BBC has to continually justify it�s unique position in broadcasting, mainly through ratings. A balance is the key as it has to provide popular programmes but can�t afford to be dragged down the road to glorious ratings too far, else it will loose it�s identity. There is no point in paying for another �commercial� style programme obsessed with this and letting quality lack. A recently flung acquisition of the organisation is that it is too much market driven rather than ideas led. If I see another �Docu-soap� I might burst into tears. Still, the broadcaster has the potential to cater for a more diverse range of people who�s aim extends beyond delivering the greatest number of people to the messages of it�s advertisers every fifteen minutes.
Although the core of �Reithism� still exists at the heart of the institution, the edges are being adapted to maximise it�s effectivness in modern times, where lassie faire liberalism has taken a grasping hold on the media. The BBC has developed a commerical shadow, a complementary being and not something that threatens to engulf the creature. These commercial outlets are set to exploit the envied archives and lies secondary to the main public service aims.
Although the programmes that typify the time of Reith are reduced to a flickering memory of a by gone era, the first Director-general has left much more than a fading imprint on the model of broadcasting adopted by the beeb today. Puting it crudley today�s BBC is still a quality source of infomation, a healthy mix between the three defined key concepts. It is not comparable with a channel such as Sky One, which soups up an eternal loop of Simpsons, Star Trek, Friends and Opera. The nearest to documentary output whitnessed here are sensationalist and tabloid items like �when police chases go bad� or �America�s dumbest criminals�. The main output of �quality� television from my extensive reseach into the contents of cable TV are funded by the licence fee and you pay the cable bill to watch them again! Documentaries seem destined to run on a slightly longer perpectual loop on UK Horizons. The discovery channel is a welcome exception, although a lot of the programmes are jointly produced with the BBC.
Perhaps the unique position of the Beeb, between the government and big business and the public servie objectives is Reith�s legacy and the foundations of the BBC as we know it today. Reith �would define the character, ethos and ambition of the institution more than any other person in it�s history� (John Birt, 75 years of beeb website).The key �Reithian� principles of public service broadcasting do more than just survive in a battered wilderness, they are cherished by the institution up to this day. His mark on history is undisputed.
But from history, to the future. The future is here, the future is digital. �To confine the BBC to it�s traditional anoglue services in the next five years would be to sign it�s death warrent� (Gavyn Davies 1998).
The future of Reithism lies in the future of the BBC. So the deleting of the BBC will have wider connotations, shuddering through society. It�s aims are still relevant today. Empowering people with knowedge.
The licence fee constitutes a tax on television - it has to be paid by everyone no matter if they use the service provided. If the BBC�s audience share declines to a pathetic squib in the competative market place then such a tax cannot be justified.
Enivetably the BBC�s audience share will become diluted in the free range of choice.
Gavin dAvies report.
relevant to public sphere
It also has remifications that may shock the �public sphere�. Habermass defines this idea as a place that lies between the government and business. A free debating ground of
The public needs information to have a voice and that is where the media facilitates the people. But to counter the demise of public service broadcasting is the new quality of information called the internet. In the future when analogue transmitions are a flickering memory that moderatl grumpy people reminiss about in old people�s homes, current trends predict that the everpresent television mulling in the corner will have access to the internet. and soon they will merge into a irreconsilable whole. We will enter a state when every web page is a potential TV station and the audience will be able to watch what they want, when they want, much as they can read whatever they choose to today. Judging the effects on public service broadcasting, will it adapt to survive in this fragmented virtual world. Will there indeed be any broadcasting? Or will entertainment be completly flexible, where you can subscribe to particualar shows and view them any time. Will the BBC decend from it�s current forms into a series of menus thrown up by seach engines, the new medium of the internet swallowing up TV, similar to how TV ate chunks out of radio and that mainmed the age old medium of print. Myself, I th there will still a market for a constant broadcasting network, the internet may disolve and not destroy. The BBC may be seen as an impartial voice in this new age, a reliable source of information in a jungle of weak web TV. It is at the moment seen by many as this, especially the
This new word does throw up concerns for the licence fee. In this world the British are paying for this service and anyone across the world has access to it. Americans use BBC online all the time and this will face several challenges to the organisation and the way it is funded. Also with the natural trend of convergence, when you can watch TV on your computer
The disapearence of the Beeb in replacement for this type of tarted up trash would be worrying. To see the three pillars of Reithism values truely evaporated then the world would be a much worse, information poor, place. The future awaits.
Would the man who enforced these deeply presbeterian principles upon the workers allow someone like Spike Milligan just do whatever the hell he felt like every week?