What's a Jonathan Ross worth?

Speaking about salaries of top stars on Richard Bacon's five live programme Monday night ten o'clock - and looking like its past my bedtime.

should we trust the Trust?

Last weeks BBC Trust report into online revealed some shocking truths about the state of the BBC and the reactions from commercial rivals have been predictable. In an era of cheese pairing penny pinching across the corporation, to be £38 million pounds adrift takes some doing. Successive Director Generals have altered the structures of the organisation. Like a football manager, a new DG will change the team and mold it in his image. Each DG has the outward aim of improving the function pf the organisation. Each with the inner aim of harnessing the vast body into a shape that he can control and, like an Elizabethan court, this involves favourites being promoted and others being sent to the tower. Greg Dyke's flatter management led to more than twenty divisions, each with a seat on the management board; an unwieldy group who don't need reminding that they presided over the events surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly. The BBC that Mark Thompson inherited was a product of these events. Many of the structural changes that Thompson has brought in have centralised functions that had previously been devolved to the various divisions. However it still often appears as a multi-headed beast with little or no internal discipline.


Part of the landscape inherited by the current DG was the perceived need for greater external regulation. Previous governance was seen to be too close to BBC management. Ofcom was waiting in the wings, and privately, would have been pleased to have control of the BBC. The fix for this supposed problem was the creation of the BBC Trust. Although quiet in its first few months, it has now shown to take itself very seriously. It is a common joke at the BBC that the BBC Trust is the BBC's biggest growth area. Bit by bit the Trust has set up its own structures mirroring the BBC's. So there is a committee looking at finance, editorial issues, commercial issues and so on. They scrutinise BBC management plans and set the financial parameters; When the chairman of the BBC wrote directly to staff to give an update over impending cuts, many saw this as crossing an important line. Now they commission external consultants to tell them where management is going wrong. As a result the BBC is now effectively being run by a shadow government in Marlebone High Street. Important lessons can be learnt from the experiences of Future Media and Technology and the BBC's inability to properly supervise its own activities, however, a BBC reliant on, or influenced by, any external body, BBC Trust included, must be bad, not only for business but for the future stability and function of the BBC.

The offside rule

I've been asked to participate in the PricewaterhouseCoopers review of the economic impact of the BBC. The BBC Trust has commissioned this work in order "to help inform its judgements on future priorities and investment decisions". It's all part of the Trusts drive to be seen to be rigorous and independent, however, they are very conscious of the BBC's 'footprint' and one feels they are sometimes embarrassed by the BBC's success. The terms of reference are available here. There seems to be a dilemma inherent in all this. On the one hand, if the BBC is successful, it will inevitably have a larger impact on the market and therefore, be likely to have its wings clipped for erring into commercial no-fly zones . If, on the other hand, the BBC fails to make a significant impact, critics will use this as evidence that the licence fee cannot be justified and cue further attacks on the BBC. Or, to put it another way: In football there is much discussion over the offside rule and, in particular the rule that says that if a player in advance of the ball is not interfering with play then they cannot be judged to be offside, however, if the player on the football pitch is not interfering with play then they shouldn't be on the pitch in the first place.

Another dilemma highlighted by this project; the more that the Trust conducts its own studies and makes it decisions in isolation from the BBC executive, the more people will ask the question - who actually runs the BBC? Mark Thompson or its Government in exile at Marylebone High Street? Any thoughts on this and the study terms would most welcome.

reading room

Lots of announcements today. Ofcom bringing our its statement on the Digital Dividend Review. The BBC Trust with a report on procurement and spectum use and ITV gave a trading update. Too tired to read them now.

ever expanding wages, ever expanding Trust

So the BBC Trust is to review stars' pay; of course they are commissioning outside consultants to tell them what we already know; the salaries of some 'talent' have escalated beyond reason. In the same way premiership footballers have seen pay go up with diminishing return, until recently BBC management have been shrugging their shoulders when it comes to big draw talent - this is because of the mantra now at the BBC - it's all about 'reach' Chris Moyles and JR reach the parts that other programmes cannot reach. So how come it's the Trust that is doing this work and not the management of the BBC? The more they encroach into the day to day managerial function of the BBC, the more surely they will imperil its independence - sad when its avowed primary function is to maintain such Independence. The review, the Guardian tells us, will not look at editorial decisions - "The study will focus on "business processes and not the editorial strategy for individual commissions" but not any editorial decisions."
But the only justification for such decisions must be editorial. One things for sure, when the overpriced invoice comes in telling us the blatantly obvious, it will be paid- out of licence fee income, no doubt.

A busy day for the BBC Trust

The BBC Trust gave the go-ahead for a BBC HD service, no doubt in response to the NUJ's compelling arguments. Although they could cut back on many things, the BBC needs to be in the HD game. Set manufacturers and retailers have colluded in mis-selling this technology to the public and the public now expects to have this service and to have it for free. Meanwhile, the Trust has launched a review of impartiality of coverage by BBC news of the nations. The move represents further evidence of this regulators expansionist tendencies. a bit like Ofcom in its infancy, who also sought to have an undue influence over the BBC. This latest development is no doubt a political response to the debate in Scotland, where SNP have set up a broadcasting commission. There are also issues for Wales and Northern Ireland which need to be addressed. Scotland, in particular can expect to be given a larger share of the BBC's broadcasting pie and being Scottish who am I to disagree? The BBC approach, up to now, has pointed in two directions at the same time. When they talk about more work going to Independents, they say they commission the best ideas, no matter where they come from; By giving the Nations a guaranteed quota of Network production, they ensure that they have one hand on the scales as they balance things out. The NUJ will discuss broadcasting policy issues for the Nations later this week.

clear as mud

We met with the Head of Finance at the BBC to talk about the BBC's current financial numbers and the background to the proposed cuts. We still have yet to receive written information detailing the case for the cuts at corporate level and negotiators were presented with a series of slides. The plans are vast and deserve serious scrutiny. The law requires meaningful consultation, so far this has not been the case.

Bad day for Broadcasting

The end of a long day. We started off at 7.30 am with the Director General of the BBC and his advisers. It ends with terrible scenes from Pakistan, a reminder that some are sadly dealing with life and death issues today. In terms of the BBC, it is to be hoped that this monolithic tanker can be turned round, reducing the cuts on programme makers and avoiding a loss of core public service values. The organisation is deeply unsettled and staff deserve to be treated respectfully and properly. Someone from the bridge ought to ask - isn't that an iceberg that is on its way towards us? At ITV, the findings of the Deloitte report have caused problems for the company and the industry. We are critical of ITV's approach to its public service commitments and to jobs however, it is to be commended for the way it has dealt with this issue, thus far (leaving to one side whether they sought to 'bury bad news' on a day likely to be dominated by strife at the BBC). They were the first to get in independent auditors they have now acted in a manner which has not sought to look for scapegoats. It would be good if others had acted this way in dealing with their own 'trust issues'.

Corporation Chaos

Another day, another day of chaos at the BBC. You can feel the tension. It's a bit like the science fiction movie where a comet is hurtling it's way toward earth and will arrive in the not-too-distant future. Some people try and behave normally, others, fearing the worst, become insane and behave in increasingly bizarre ways. Many are billing the upcoming conflict as a battle for the soul of the BBC. Disaster can be avoided but BBC leaders will have to learn to listen as well as preach.

BBC - no comment

Today, the network radio newsroom published a letter calling on the BBC to relent in its plans for drastic cuts. BBC Trust Chair Sir Michael Lyons attempted to put an end to staff disquiet. You might imagine he reassured people, said that quality and professionalism would not be compromised, a stout defence of a troubled BBC perhaps, no, the method he used was more traditional for leaders in troubled times; he sought to silence opposition.

who do you trust?

Rumours are getting out of hand at the BBC. The Trust and BBC management seem hell-bent on proposing large scale job cuts. As on previous occasions, it looks like the staff will be targeted for the failings of management. All look like suffering, though of course, management themselves will be exempt. Meanwhile sackings are announced over the 'trust' issue. Having been told that the cases involved senior staff, it is surprising to see more junior people singled out. On the 6 Music network are we to believe that radio management didn't listen to the output concerned? If they did they were responsible, if they did not, they were failing in their duty. It seems some politicians and broadcast executives have more in common than we might think; They are quick to tell us what went wrong and never prepared to accept responsibility.

Staff Trust

BBC employees are used to receiving lots of emails in the course of their day. However, it's not every day they get a message from the Chair of the BBC Trust. In it, the chair,
Sir Micheal Lyons, makes a commitment to staff. Many believe that the main decisions have already been taken and that this represents too little, too late. Consultation with Staff or Unions is not offered, however, it is a step in the right direction. Strange though that the offer comes from the Trust and not BBC management. It is simply unacceptable that at no point during the last few months have staff at the BBC or the Unions who represent staff been asked for their views regarding the way ahead. In a world of facebook and interactivity this approach by BBC managers seems sadly out of touch. It will also amplify the feelings of disquiet and anger if heavily trailed cuts are announced later in the year.