Talking trust
| 12:49 UK time, Tuesday, 4 September 2007
“Least said, soonest mended” is Peter Preston's take on the 'trust' row that dominated the Edinburgh TV Festival and which is taking up a fair chunk of our time at the College of Journalism too - though I wouldn't describe the work in progress as searching for what Peter elegantly calls ”paradise probity lost”.
Peter's pessimistic take on the human condition - that stuff happens, good intentions founder, public distrust persists in the face of attempts to turn the tide - may have an element of truth in it. But it would be wrong for educators and publicly funded broadcasters to conclude that there's no point trying or that the mission is doomed to failure. Or that they should shut up about what they can't control.
It would be wrong, too, to ignore the most striking passage in Jeremy Paxman's MacTaggart lecture at the Edinburgh TV Festival. 
"Once people start believing we’re playing fast and loose with them routinely, we’ve had it." Jeremy said. And by people, he didn't mean the people at the Edinburgh TV Festival or other broadcasting worthies. He meant audiences - the people who've been significantly absent from platforms and podiums (though not from the blogs and message boards).
It may be that some broadcasting bosses are a bit fed up with the trust thing, as Peter Preston suggests they ought to be… and jaundiced in their views about remedies. Audiences, though, aren't.
When Newsnight (which you can watch here) looked at Five News' opportunistic decision to ban some TV editing techniques (though not editing per se, you notice) its blog attracted nearly 150 thoughtful audience posts.
Many of those posts - and similar ones to the Guardian's Edinburgh Festival blog - illustrated a truth that lies behind Jeremy's "fast and loose” comment and poses a real problem for those of us trying to construct useful, credible learning for BBC content producers.
For the most part, audiences realise that all media is artifice and contrivance. Even the hardest, straightest most factual news report is the result of choices and framings in the deployment, recording, editing, scripting and presentation.
And there's an element of audience collusion with content producers; both want strong, insightful, compelling narratives… of the kind that you don't get if you present the world without taking the boring bits out.
But it only goes so far and context is everything. “Playing fast and loose” in news could mean intercutting unrelated footage to produce a false relationship of events; do the same in a drama or comedy show and no-one in the audience would raise an eyebrow. The discussion, debate and learning around that judgment of context really is worth talking about. Because the audience cares - is angry, cheated - when broadcasters get it wrong... whether deliberately or in a panic.
At Edinburgh, Jeremy said this too: "The problem is not going to be addressed until senior people in this industry have the courage to come out and state quite clearly what television is for... What’s needed is a manifesto, a statement of belief."
Another reason to reject Peter Preston's call for a period of silence. The boundaries between Big Journalism's constructed content and the content web users make and post for themselves is blurring. Broadcasters can't control - shouldn't want to control - how the web develops and what trust, truth and artifice mean there. But they can decide where they stand and what - in that evolving media world - they stand for.
That's got to be worth a bit of chat, too, hasn't it?
Comments
I thought the most striking passage in Jeremy Paxman's speech was where he said that the licence fee was an outdated concept straight out of the 1950s and was not something that was sustainable.
I agreed heartily with the sentiment.
Please let me spend that money on something I actually want.
Don, you clearly didn't read Paxman's speech or you would have understood that he conceded it was the least worst option, and I get very annoyed at the number of people who [deliberately?] misquote him on this.
If you want lowest common denominator crap and news produced exclusively by the market, please go and live in Italy or the US and leave us with a system which, whilst not perfect, is better than those nightmarish alternatives.
Mr Marsh - didn't Mr Paxman also have something to say about the BBC's 'obsession with interactivity' ?
without coming across as intrusive, is the problem not 'self-serving'? Reports on public figures generally made by the media carry a scrutiny about it which borders on zero tolerance. Why should not those same standards apply here? To consider the immediacy of the need for a solution being found in forums when it comes down to the matter of factual reporting over fiction is a bit like the story of the cake and what to do with it!
"And there's an element of audience collusion with content producers; both want strong, insightful, compelling narratives… of the kind that you don't get if you present the world without taking the boring bits out."
I would just like news please.
I'm not interested in watching an action packed 3 minute masterpiece complete with poncy camerawork, shouty delivery, soundbites galore and a script more overwrought than an episode of Eastenders.
News. A bit of discussion. Holding people to account. It's not rocket science.
All things should be edited to a point but should be available on request.
Well, Bedd (No2) here is the exact quote:
"The idea of a tax on the ownership of a television belongs in the 1950s. Why not tax people for owning a washing machine to fund the manufacture of Persil?"
I do not want to watch the BBC, you obviously do, but then why should I have to pay for it? In an age when audiences have more choice than ever before why should I pay for something whose institutional positions on just about everything are not what I believe in (Israel/environment/politics/etc etc).
Jeremy asked that senior industry people "..come out and state quite clearly what television is for...". Well that is a very good question. Just what is the BBC for? It is dumbing down to an almost laughable degree, it gives us faked quizzes and documentaries, and it's left wing PC bias permeates every part of its output. It can't even be said that there are no adverts any more, as we get an endless stream of them between every program (and even a very annoying scrolling advert on the screen before programs actually end).
I do not have to contribute to the Daily Mail or Guardian when I buy the Times, why should I have to pay a tax to the PC left wing BBC when I watch Sky/ITV/Channel4 and even programs on my PC?
The BBC, an idea whose time has come and gone.
Why do you call the decision by 5 News 'opportunistic'? I'd be interested to learn if Kermode proposed a similar initiative when he was in charge of BBC Breakfast and, if so, what the reaction was.
(first post for some days but I am accused of abusing the system - why?)
Gareth - couldn't agree more about the news. But remember, we're talking about much more than news here ... questions of trust arise about a whole range of programming and in many of those the boundary between 'truth' and artifice is much more difficult to define.
Bedd (post no.2),
I'm glad you enjoy BBC services and feel you get good value for your licence fee. If you happen to agree with the BBC's political stance and enjoy programmes like 'Celebrity Come Dancing' I'm sure you think you get a good deal.
The thing is this view is only your opinion.
Why should others be forced to pay for things they don't want to subsidise people like you?
JG, for someone who doesn't want to watch or fund the BBC you seem to spend a lot of time watching it and contributing to its web site.
Making the BBC a fully commercial operation is not an option. Its uniqueness and value relies upon not having to pander to advertisers. If anyone comes up with a better, workable way of funding it, I expect a lot of people including the BBC will be all ears to hear it.
It's not just the BBC who use funny tricks to get paid. Think of the 'package of channels' racket run by the cable and satellite companies. Even if you don't want Cartoon Network or Turner Classic Movies you end up having to buy them in order to see the channels you actually watch.
It amazes me that consumer protection allows this. Imagine the newsagent saying 'Sorry sir, you can't have the Times today unless you also pay for the Beano and Vogue.'
Kevin,
Heres the crux
Due to the internet, alternative news sources, video sharing and such the old adage that 'the truth will always out' is becoming a reality
If the BBC want trust, or any news organisation they should start reporting the truth. and more importantly the wide range of versions of the truth.
The wider the gap between the 'official truth' as espoused by news organisation, and the 'actual truth' (from the audiences perspective) , which is now defined through a wide range of new media sources.
Iraq is, as always, example.
The audience know that it is an unjust war, with no legal backing. It is a war that has nothing to do with global security or terrorism and everything to do with Oil and western expansionist ideas. we know this. Some approve and others don't.
But this is never said in the mainstream media. We instead get the standard appoved message from the gatekeepers even though though we all know the actuality of what is and has happened.
If you want to know where the trust has gone just look at how wide this gap is.
@JG, as Bedd pointed out, Paxman went on to say that he prefers the licence fee: "It’s possible that good old British hypocrisy – or creative ambiguity - will get us over the contradictions inherent in the licence fee. I certainly hope so, because the alternatives aren’t appealing."
As an aside, people who feel the need to visit the BBC's website and contribute to online discussions should probably stop complaining that they never use anything the BBC offers.
No 11
Why should I stop using the website? I am forced to pay for it at them moment. I just don't want to in the future. Is this not a pretty simple concept to understand?
In response to Gregor Atkins,
You are right and wrong, right that the BBC is failing in its primary role as a news reporting organisation.
However, you are dead wrong with the rest of your comments, the UK and the US did not go into Iraq for oil, and shame on you for pushing such an absurd theory. The US and the UK went into Iraq to remove a tyrant who spent his life invading Iran and Kuwait with a spot of ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Kurds.
Funny for a person who attacks the BBC for not telling the truth you forget to mention Saddam Hussains track record.
I have read your inane comments on the so called 9/11 conspiracy in which you blame the US for the terrorist attacks on its own citizens, so I suggest that in the interest of truth that you come out and admit your hatred of the US and ensure that you present a balanced perspective for other people to have when judging your comments.
I don't mind funding the BBC although perhaps the name of the license should be changed to represent what I am paying for (not the ownership of a Television - but the funding of the BBC and whatever else the cash is used for)/ Or, maybe an arts tax where the BBC gets the lions share would make more sense? It could be taken out of everyones wages - then there would be no need for the beaurocracy of broadcast licensing. I strongly believe that there is a need for the BBC to stay as a funded organisation - it's a little piece of Great Britain that I would like to keep.
I support the existence of the BBC, simply because commercial interests and priorities are more than adequately represented in British media and the damage being caused by this in social terms is clear to see - a selfish, materialistic society which sneers at the aquisition of knowledge for its own sake and is only concerned with superficial gloss and commercialist spin.
The BBC at present has drifted away from its public service remit and towards the above priorities but crucially it can be repaired, whereas if it were privatised, broken up and sold to the highest bidder there would be no going back, and before long we'd no doubt see Celebrity Gladiator Deathmatch or something on a weekday teatime as the media companies scrabbled over ever-dwindling advertising revenue and ratings. The BBC is the only thing keeping me interested in broadcast TV as a medium right now - take it away and I'd probably get rid of my sets.
That said I do disagree with the current setup and administration of the license fee and would rather see a ring-fenced sum taken from the general taxation pot or some such system. As an increase in income tax this would not disproportionately penalise low-income groups as at present. It would also do away with the need for a private TV Licensing Authority, with it's mean-spirited commercials, unnecessarily threatening tone of correspondence and excessive powers to fine and imprison. I have no issue with paying for other 'public services' which I don't currently use such as social services, education etc and I think there would be far less opposition to a similar arrangement to cover the costs of the BBC (other than from the usual Murdochite opponents of publicly owned media that is!)
Regarding the BBC tax... errr... I mean license fee:
The BBC has several categories of audience, but only it's domestic audience pays the license fee. As it's more or less human nature to resent paying one's hard earned cash to unaccountable bureaucracies, and as there's obviously private news and media companies doing everything the BBC does vis a vis it's domestic audience, except taking money directly out of their pockets... the best way for the BBC to improve it's image within the UK would be to give up the license fee money. (duh) This would benefit the BBC WAY out of proportion to the loss in revenue from the fees, both in good will and ratings. People who grumble about BBC's political or editorial leanings would become vocal supporters (merely for letting them keep their own money!).
The ethical grounds for objection to the license fee (as opposed to the cynical case above) is very simple. The BBC is technically a public not for profit corporation in the UK. But decades of previous license fee payees have already paid for BBC news and entertainment programs that now RAKE in money outside the UK. UK citizens probably have only a vague idea of value re syndication, stock footage library, cable channel advertising, or direct sales revenue income that said UK citizens paid for long ago but rarely see. The BBC editors who read this, however, have a very good idea of how huge a fortune the golden BBC goose lays in foreign sales eggs.
Ironically, for all the attention and exposure BBC News and programming draws in the UK, the FOR PROFIT international entities (primarily BBC America, but BBC World as well) that license and distribute BBC programs under the BBC America flag stay well under the radar in both the UK and US. "BBC America", the for profit corporation spin off, is incorporated in the U.S. State of Delaware (basically the Channel Islands of U.S. corporate culture) and lists as it's U.S. "contact address" a firm in Houston, Texas. So BBC America, after it pays U.S. State and Federal taxes on profits, has tens to hundreds of millions of pounds in revenue that ethically speaking belongs to the UK license fee payees who "invested" in the original BBC programs being sold over and over abroad.
For those UK readers who tend towards the BBC superiority complex argument (you dumb Americans can keep your MTV "Flava' Of Love" show!): In addition to the BBC America, and BBC World News cable channels, the BBC ALSO sells programs to Public Broadcast Stations (the U.S. version of the BBC) at a discount, and is more or less NPR's (National Public Radio) international news division. The BBC News programs excepted, BBC America is able to sell shows to U.S. PBS wholesale because YOU, UK license fee payee, have already footed the bill! Anything extra the shows can make is close to pure profit.
All this does not substantively color the BBC's domestic News and entertainment programing nor UK editorial slant (as far as I can tell). But because the revenue does underwrite BBC World News, which buys commercial satelite bandwidth next to CNN, Bloomberg, Media Corp., and etc. in places like Brazil and India and S. Africa, the practical effect is to create two faces of the BBC. The public non profit entity that sucks up license fees from its captive audience to generate valuable shows and other media. And the corporate media player with a cash cow program library underwriting a more overtly Nationalist international commercial-free News service.
So for the BBC Editors blog: as you all don't control corp. board disclosure policy, there's little you could do to change the more obnoxious practices of your international associates or the BBC's business consultant Big Media corporate sharks. What you CAN do is advocate for a reduction or suspension of the BBC tax/mandatory fee charged in the UK; You could also inform your domestic audience that the BBC THEY see is not necessarily the version everyone else in the modern world sees.
Best
"At Edinburgh, Jeremy said this too: "The problem is not going to be addressed until senior people in this industry have the courage to come out and state quite clearly what television is for... What’s needed is a manifesto, a statement of belief."
More than glorious and generalized "policy":
(1) state the objectives
(2) rank them in order of importance.
(3) weight them.
Example: Is it more important to give citizens information needed for voting?
or is having a large audience rating more important?
The present product is a hodge-podge tending to popular trivia.
To JG #6
Your point about representation that you pay for is completely bogus and lacks reason.
When you buy food for example, a loaf of bread (one choice of many brands) do you always make sure that the advertising budget (a fraction of the cost) goes to a media stream that you agree with and represents your views?
I believe your answer is no.
In the absence of an answer I`ll assume you have understood the unreasonable nature of your position and comment.
It is a pity that “Relief relief” has been so overwhelmed by submissions that it has not been able to publish mine of the 6th September. I hope that was the problem and not embarrassment about one more gratuitous and slanted opinion.
YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO POST COMMENTS
So much for trust. The above was the result of my submission about a BBC news program gratuitously describing a Government plan for children as “Stalinesque”
The unvarnished truth; no personal opinions or comments unless in well balanced discussions.
These things are rarely supplied by organizations that are subject to commercial pressures. They justify every penny of a licence fee.
The BBC has failed to deliver for some time now despite considerable criticism. The top echelons agree with the present performance or are unable to exercise control. For example, I recently heard, in a BBC morning news program, a Government scheme for children described as Stalinesque. It may or may not be. What is certain, is that a gratuitous unquestioned personal opinion in those circumstances is not appropriate.