The licence fee needs to change, but only taxpayer funding can ensure a distinctively British voice in domestic and global media, says Will Cooling
Ronald Reagan once joked that the scariest words in the (American) English language were “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help”. It increasingly feels like the modern British version is, “I’m from a public service, and I’m here to consult”.
It will soon be the BBC’s turn to combine our national pastimes of whingeing and bureaucracy, with its director general promising that 2025 will see the “biggest-ever consultation exercise” on how the corporation is funded. And yet before a single survey or focus group has been completed, Tim Davie has all but revealed his preferred outcome; a higher licence fee mitigated by free licences for those on extremely low incomes.
There has always been a tension between the understandable envy the BBC’s commercial rivals feel towards the corporation’s guaranteed income and the knowledge that if the BBC was ever unchained from the licence fee it would be free to gobble up the advertising budgets and subscription spending that smaller outlets rely upon.
However, the problem both the BBC and its commercial rivals face is that increasingly it is the computer and phone screen through which people access content. That puts the BBC into direct conflict with newspapers and magazines, thus adding previously sympathetic outlets to its long list of commercial rivals.
But it also creates problems for the BBC’s critics, because it makes the corporation the one British media company that can truly compete with the multinational monoliths that control social media. Whereas once ITV or Sky would be have been the beneficiaries of a BBC cut down to size, now such cuts would just be ceding even more space to YouTube, Netflix and TikTok. Only taxpayer funding ensures a distinctively British voice in domestic and global media.
That taxpayer funding could however be delivered in ways better suited to the modern age. As more and more of the BBC’s content is delivered through mobile and home internet connections, you could transition to funding the BBC through a surcharge on people’s data packages, collected from the internet providers themselves. That would not only save the BBC the hassle of chasing individuals for payment or erecting paywalls around its online content, but would also mean that those who consume more online content, pay more towards the BBC.
That income could also be used in different ways. Since the 1990s, the BBC has been forced to meet quotas for how much of its television content is produced by external partners. This has ensured that a taxpayer hegemony coexists with a thriving eco-system of independent production studios. That model needs to be applied to online content, rather than the BBC crowding out smaller providers. The BBC commissioning outlets to conduct investigations, produce longform essays, and record podcasts on its behalf would not only ensure a diversity of voices continued to be heard, but would also provide for better quality content than online advertising can support, and avoid such content being hidden behind a paywall.
That Russell T Davies, the superstar writer behind Doctor Who, is telling audiences that the BBC’s death is inevitable, should persuade the Corporation that now is not the time for safety-first tactics. Taxpayer funding is the only way Britain can sustain a broadcaster with the depth and breadth of the BBC, but the source of that funding must evolve to reflect changes in how we consume media. And the BBC must recognise that these changes have made it part of a much broader marketplace for online content. It’s once again time for a BBC that’s both bigger, and more cooperative.