The Fat Controller has come across some old US government tips on sabotaging organisations. Alarmingly some of these techniques also seem to be the way that “leaders” regularly behave.

I don’t get enough time to read Steve Rubell’s blog. So I sat down when the trains were all over the place at Watford Junction last week and his blog led me to this. Sensible advice from Steve on how to use social media.

The BBC iPlayer and the Orange order? I like this, and this.

My previous posts on this subject are gathered together here.  Sorry about the spelling mistakes!

Thank you for contacting Ofcom.

You submitted the following information:

Title:

Mr

Forename:

Nick

Surname:

Reynolds

Representing:

Self

Organisation (if applicable):

Email:

nick.reynolds@bbc.co.uk

What do you want Ofcom to keep confidential?:

Keep nothing confidential

If you want part of your response kept confidential, which parts?:

Ofcom may publish a response summary:

Yes

I confirm that I have read the declaration:

Yes

Ofcom should only publish this response after the consultation has ended:

You may publish my response on receipt

3i) Do you agree with Ofcom’s assessment that television continues to have an essential role in delivering the purposes of public service broadcasting?:

Yes but the problem is that the internet is now challenging TV as a delivery mechanism for public service content and the regulatory, strategic and funding models for TV don’t work for the internet.

3ii) Do you agree that UK-originated output is fundamental to the delivery of public service broadcasting purposes?:

No. The internet does not respect international boundaries. Wikipedia is public service content, is not UK originated and doesn’t need public funding. Only in certain genres is UK origination important (e.g. children, regional news)

4i) Do you agree with Ofcom’s conclusions about the way that other digital channels and interactive media contribute towards the public purposes?:

No. The conclusions are too focussed on defensively protecting TV as a model.

5i) Do you agree with Ofcom’s assessment of the implications of different economic scenarios for the UK TV market for the future prospects for delivery of the public purposes?:

No. OFCOM is painting too gloomy a picture. TV companies need to reinvent themselves as cross platform media companies, rather than looking for public money.

5ii) Do you agree with Ofcom’s analysis of the costs and benefits of PSB status?:

No. The problem seems to be primarily with ITV and I think they are pulling the wool over your eyes.

6i) Do you agree with Ofcom’s vision for public service content?:

No.

6ii) How important are plurality and competition for quality in delivering the purposes of public service broadcasting, and in what areas?:

Pretty important. The BBC and Channel 4 both need strong competition in all areas.

6iii) In maximising reach and impact of public service content in the future, what roles can different platforms and services play?:

More and more pubic service content will be delivered on new platforms. But OFCOM’s work is too content orientated. Invest in the platforms and infrastructure not in making more TV programmes.

6iv) Do you agree that the existing model for delivering public service broadcasting will not be sufficient to meet changing needs in future?:

No, I disagree. There’s more than enough PS content to meet changing needs. It just needs to migrate to new platforms.

7i) What are your views of the high-level options for funding public service broadcasting in future?:

Don’t spend more public money on content!

We don’t need more content, or even new institutions!

Spend it on infrastructure and rights!

Don’t top slice the licence fee. This will damage the supposed “cornerstone” of PSB, the BBC and won’t result in more or better PSB content.

Option 4 seems like the Arts Council of the Airwaves/PSP option again and this has already been rejected.

7ii) Are the proposed tests of effectiveness for future models for public service broadcasting the right ones?:

No it’s based on the wrong criteria.

We don’t need new institutions or more regulation of them.

7iii) Of the four possible models for long term delivery of public service content, which, if any, do you consider the most appropriate and why? Are there any alternative models, or combination of models that could be more appropriate, and why?:

None of the options are particularly appealing, but if forced I would opt for Option 1 with the following extras:

a) change the remits of the existing PSBs so they can deliver them across all their digital channels and platforms

b)tax breaks/incentives for childrens programmes and for services that deliver them (e,g, broadband portals not just TV channels)

c) Public money put into building out the broadband network particularly in major cities in the regions (far more important than spending public money on content and might help regional news)

d) OFCOM to lead on negotiating a new more relaxed rights framework so that PSB content stuck in archives can be released more easily

e) “Incentivising openness” - OFCOM to find ways of encouraging sharing of techniques and ideas across the sector

f) look again at the public money being spent by government in this area - bring all that money together - could it be spent better?

8i) What do you think is the appropriate public service role for Channel 4 in the short, medium and long term? What do you think of Channel 4’s proposed vision?:

Channel 4’s vision may be a public relations triumph but as strategy I find it back ward looking and closed. They are trying to protect a broken model (TV) instead of working out how to suceed on the internet. Turning themselves into a mini BBC won’t promote plurality or competition in general and won’t encourage creativity. It will simple lead to more bureaucracy and public money being wasted.

If they can afford to spend £50 million on 4iP (4iP is a good idea) then I’m sceptical about their supposed funding gap.

8ii) Which of the options set out for the commercial PSBs do you favour?:

There seems to be no problem with channel 5.

ITV’s remit can be tweaked so that they deliver it across all platforms.

9i) To what extent do you agree with Ofcom’s assessment of the likely future long term issues as they apply to the nations, regions and localities of the UK?:

Seems reasonable.

9ii) Which model(s) do you think will be most appropriate in each of the nations and in the English regions in the long term, and why?:

The most difficult part of the work to find a solution too.

The answer may lie in cooperation between ITV, the BBC and local newspapers

9iii) What are your views on short/medium-term issues referred to, including the out-of-London network production quotas?:

No opinion other than ITV should not be allowed to get away with further relaxation of the quotas.

9iv) What are your initial views on the preliminary options set out relating to ITV plc’s regional news proposal? (Please note that Ofcom will put forward firm options on these issues, and consult also on ITV plc’s regional news proposal, in phase 2 of this Review.):

Don’t allow ITV to further reduce its committments. Let it serve up regional programmes on ITV TWO etc.

10i) Do you agree with our assessment of the possible short term options available relating to children’s programming:

No.

It is disingenuous (to say the least) of OFCOM to say that childrens programming is “very unprofitable now” when no hard data is given and the evidence I can find elsewhere does not support this.

CITV is profitable now.

This is not evidence based policy making!

See this post on my personal blog:

http://nickreynoldsatwork.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/ofcom-public-service-review-1-a-kangaroo-for-children/

11i) Do you agree that new legislation will need to be in place by 2011 in order to ensure continued delivery of the public purposes in the medium and long term?:

No (except if primary legislation is needed to extend the PSB’s remits across all channels and platforms). See my answer at 7 iii above.

Comments:

Please do not respond to this email, it is an automated record of your submission.
******************************************************************************************************************
Ofcom is the independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communications industries, with responsibilities across television, radio, telecommunications and wireless communications services.

For further details and to register for automatic updates from Ofcom on key publications and other developments, please visit www.ofcom.org.uk

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.

If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. This footer also confirms that this email message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses.

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifies and with authority, states them to be the views of Ofcom.

I happened to catch this wonderful programme on Radio 3 on Saturday.

A long time ago I made some world music documentaries with Lucy Duran for BBC World Service.

It’s great to see her still out there finding and recording music that’s probably never been heard on the radio before anywhere.

In particular watch out for the fabulous female singing at about 39 minutes in.

Available to listen until next Saturday and even as a download and podcast (I know I work for the BBC but even so, you’ve got to love those words “download and podcast”).

It’s been one of those days. But I still cling to the belief that no problem can’t be sorted by blogging so I’ll blog on.

Today is the deadline for responses to OFCOM’s PSB review. I did mine yesterday I confess in a bit of a rush (sorry for the spelling mistakes Ed!). My previous posts on this subject are gathered together here.

And this is the bit from my response where I choose from one of OFCOM’s models/options:

“None of the options are particularly appealing, but if forced I would opt for Option 1 with the following extras:

a) change the remits of the existing PSBs so they can deliver them across all their digital channels and platforms

b)tax breaks/incentives for childrens programmes and for services that deliver them (e,g, broadband portals not just TV channels)

c) Public money put into building out the broadband network particularly in major cities in the regions (far more important than spending public money on content and might help regional news)

d) OFCOM to lead on negotiating a new more relaxed rights framework so that PSB content stuck in archives can be released more easily

e) “Incentivising openness” - OFCOM to find ways of encouraging sharing of techniques and ideas across the sector

f) look again at the public money being spent by government in this area - bring all that money together - could it be spent better?”

I’ll discuss the other models and post my full respnse in another blog post to come.

I love this kind of thing!

It’s not a tweet - it’s a hiaku!

I while back I blogged about “What Do They Know” a site about Freedom of Information requests (in this case about the BBC).

Last week by accident I stumbled on the BBC’s own Freedom of Information site.

Which one would you rather use?

A reminder in case one was needed: these are my personal views.

Follow these links for Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4.

So after a brief musical interlude, a lie down, some biscuits and a spot of argy bargy let’s concentrate our minds and focus again on Ofcom’s review of Public Service Broadcasting.

Particularly as all suggestions, submissions and windy rhetoric has to be submitted by June 19th so I’d better hurry up.

Next I read the research called “The audience’s view on the future of Public Service Broadcasting” done by Mori. I read the executive summary and section 7 “The provision of Public Service Broadcasting in the future”.

I had a curious feeling of deja vu. I’ve read this kind of research before.

People are happy with the public service television they have at the moment. That’s logical because what they get is pretty good.

But there is an elephant in the room. They really like the idea of high end public service TV like documentaries and current affairs. They think it’s a social/public good. They want it to continue. But they don’t actually want to watch it - at least not in large enough numbers to make it commercially viable.

The report doesn’t really spell this out but you get hints of it in statements like:

“Some participants were concerned solely with their own viewing enjoyment and believed their personal needs would be better met by programmes that catered for the majority”.

So we have a paradox. People really want something to continue but are not prepared to put enough eyeballs across it. So the state has to intervene somehow? Or does it?

Younger audiences (who are using the internet more) are less interested in certain kinds of content on television. That may not mean they don’t want public service content.

The instinctive reaction of regulators is to react defensively and try and protect television.

But what if television isn’t the best medium for fulfilling certain public service purposes? What if the internet is actually better at say providing news and current affairs than TV? Does it matter if TV has a bit less PSB content if that gap is taken up by other mediums? What if the real problem is findability not content?

The research at the end of the document about willingness to pay (figure 7.2) is also being interpreted in a rather over generous way.

Overall, however, the main conclusion for the majority was that these choices were extremely hard and that people preferred to see an increase in costs to maintain current levels of provision.

You could equally argue that the research shows that roughly half of those surveyed did not want to pay more unless they were forced to.

Over the past few days I’ve read both the BBC Trust’s Service Licence Review of bbc.co.uk and the BBC’s management’s submission.

It feels like the BBC is hovering on the edge of a conceptual leap forwards, scared about making the leap.

I quote (management submission p.98):

The BBC grew up in and often shaped the age of broadcasting. Over the last 10 years, it has been thrust into the age of computers where it has made important but fewer defining contributions. It has been a rapidly-evolving age, in which many of the truths of the broadcasting age have been contested. These are the truths on which the BBC has built its global stature – that professionals know best, that control is the way to ensure quality, that audience contributions are valuable but must be crafted or editorialised to release that value, that the audience must only be given the finished product, that professionals will create more content than the audience.

To fit itself for the future, the BBC must demonstrate a willingness and an ability to engage in the discussion about the new world. The internet will help it to do so by enabling a direct dialogue by which it can be held to account and develop greater responsiveness.

The BBc has to do a lot more than just “enter a dialogue”.

From the BBC Trust’s review (p. 31):

“The encouragement of user participation by means of user-generated content (UGC) will need to be managed carefully so that BBC news’ brand values of impartiality, accuracy and independence (which we have found to be particularly strong online) are not challenged.”

There’s an underlying anxiety that if we collaberate with licence fee payers in places not controlled by the BBC, or allow them to help make or influence BBC content it will somehow damage BBC values and traditional strengths.

It may be true that there are some places which the BBC should not go.

But to choose an example Wikipedia is not one of them.

Wikipedia’s values are almost exactly the same as the BBC’s.

What’s the difference between Wikipedia’s value of neutrality:

“Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.”

and the BBC’s value of impartiality including this:

we strive to reflect a wide range of opinion and explore a range and conflict of views so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under represented. “

The difference is not in values or principles but in how you do it.

Wikipedia says “we want to search for the truth. And we want everyone to help us find it”

The BBC says “we want to search for the truth. But ONLY professional BBC people are allowed to do it.”

We’re wrong.

In practice there is at least one recent example of where the BBC used the wisdom of the crowd to change and improve its journalism. Last year the Newsround webpages about 9/11 were changed after some concerted lobbying from various bloggers. Here’s what Sinead Rocks said on the Editors blog. Here’s what I said at the time on my internal BBC blog. You won’t be able to see my blog outside the firewall so here’s a quote:

“Is (this) an organised lobby of people with an axe to grind about the BBC’s output? Is it a example of “networked journalism”? Or perhaps both? …

Has the conversation made what’s on Newsround’s website better? On balance I think yes, although I would be interested to know what others think.”

This was an uncomfortable experience for the BBC. But how practically was it any different from the kind of often fractious debates and editing that go on in Wikipedia?

We have to come down off our pedestals and realise that some licence fee payers are cleverer than we are. Anyone who shares the BBC values should be welcome to make or help make BBC content whether they are professional and paid by us or whether they are not.

Doing this does not undermine BBC values. It strengthens them.

What would it be like if licence fee payers not only understood and believed in impartiality (which they do), but also actively helped make the BBC’s content more impartial?

Isn’t that an exciting prospect? Let’s jump!

I love this story from the Observer.

“BBC insiders”, “senior BBC correspondents”, “insiders”, “there is a perception…” (so a perception then, not anything which is actually true or there is any evidence for)…

“it is believed several journalists” (it is believed? by who?)… but “the BBC says” (who exactly is this “BBC”? care to give us a name?)…

“Figures obtained by the Observer” (aha! there is some evidence! from where exactly? an internal BBC report? or did an Observer journalist sit by the telly and count on his or her fingers? )

“BBC insiders claim reporters fear… “but experienced correspondents privately say”… “according to the insider, a feeling shared by senior production staff. They…”

Hang on a second. Is there one insider or a lot of them? Are these experienced correspondents (who of course can only speak in private) the same as the senior production staff or a different bunch of people?

“One of the BBC’s most senior news executives…”

Let’s have a guess at who this might be. Richard Sambrook? Or Craig Oliver who is actually named? Peter Horrocks? Pity whoever it is feels they cannot be named (and I can’t for the life of me think why not. Fear of offending some of those experienced correspondents perhaps? Of course those correspondents are scared too, otherwise they would go on the record. So two lots of anonymous people who are too scared of each other to talk in public.)

“The BBC Trust, which replaced the board of governors and is responsible for monitoring, would not comment. A BBC spokesman…” so who’s the BBC spokesman?

A non story involving people who won’t speak and won’t be named.

From OFCOM’s PSB review blog:

It was also apparent at the Westminster Media Forum seminar that there is a certain appeal and natural tendency to focus this debate on the future use of the licence fee. While that is obviously understandable given its legacy and its vocal supporters, it would be short-sighted to ignore the many other alternative funding sources that are available - if indeed, it is deemed by Parliament necessary to find money at all.

Direct funding, indirect benefits like access to spectrum, and levies on industry can and do already work as ways of funding public service broadcasting around the world. It would be good to see as much focus on these issues as has been given to the licence fee in this debate.

Indeed. See my anguished appeal here.