THE BBC has just published the results of what it ludicrously and pretentiously calls ‘the biggest ever conversation with audiences’.
More than 870,000 people, it claims, took part in Our BBC, Our Future, a questionnaire supposedly designed to help shape the corporation’s long-term direction ahead of Charter renewal in 2027. It is projected as democracy in action, but it’s yet another cynical exercise in crude PR.
The BBC’s press release blares that 91 per cent of respondents think independence from government is important, and that most see the BBC as a cornerstone of British life. These are the figures now no doubt being gleefully circulated through Whitehall, Ofcom and sympathetic media outlets by the battalions of BBC spin doctors. They will soon be quoted in Charter-renewal hearings as proof that ‘the public still loves the BBC’.
Burrowing down through the PR hype, the truth is very different. Only 43 per cent believe the Corporation is currently independent from government – a perception gap of almost 50 points. Even that figure may be inflated, because respondents were overwhelmingly drawn from BBC account-holders: people already inclined to be loyal consumers of the brand. This is consultation by echo chamber.
Most revealing are the questions the BBC didn’t ask. There was no opportunity to rate impartiality by subject on areas of blatant bias such as Brexit, climate, gender or Israel-Gaza. No question about whether the complaints process works, or whether Ofcom oversight commands trust.
No invitation to assess viewpoint diversity, only demographic diversity – allowing the BBC to parade visible inclusivity while ignoring the ideological conformity of its newsroom.
And, of course, not a word about the funding model. Should the licence fee continue? Might voluntary subscription be fairer? In the BBC’s pampered universe these are unthinkable questions, apparently.
In other words, this ‘conversation’ excluded almost every topic where the BBC’s impartiality, governance or accountability could be meaningfully tested.
The BBC’s methodology deployed in the survey – its choice of what to ask – is itself a political act. By inviting respondents to endorse broad values such as ‘trust’, ‘quality’ and ‘creativity’, it steers them towards affirming the institution’s existing purposes rather than examining whether those purposes remain valid.
This is agenda control: by defining the boundaries of the debate, the BBC ensures that the conversation begins and ends within its own worldview.
A genuinely independent survey might have asked:
- To what extent do you think BBC news coverage reflects the full range of opinion on major national issues?
- Do you feel your complaints to the BBC are handled impartially?
- Does the BBC give equal scrutiny to all political parties?
- Would you support an external body, independent of both BBC and Ofcom, to adjudicate impartiality complaints?
- How should the BBC be funded in future – licence fee, subscription or taxation?
None of these questions appeared. The BBC is happy to measure affection; it is not willing to measure accountability.
The purpose of Our BBC, Our Future is not to gather insight but to generate quotable lines for the next Charter debate. Expect to hear: ‘Nine out of ten people say the BBC matters to democracy’. That phrase will be repeated endlessly to justify the continuation of the licence fee and the status quo.
Meanwhile, the 57 per cent who doubt the BBC’s independence, and the millions who never received the survey link, will be quietly airbrushed out of the picture.
For those who have followed BBC governance for decades, this is nothing new. From John Birt’s ‘mission to explain’ to Tim Davie’s ‘reconnecting with audiences’, the corporation has repeatedly used consultation exercises as a PR shield – proof of responsiveness without any real change in editorial culture. Once again, the BBC is both the subject and the judge of its own impartiality.
Our BBC, Our Future is not a mirror held up to the nation: it is a mirror angled back at Broadcasting House. By deciding which questions could – and could not – be asked, the BBC has controlled the outcome from the start. It will now use the findings to claim legitimacy and to persuade ministers that the public supports its current course. And this current government might well take heed.
In truth, the survey tells us far less about what the public thinks of the BBC than it does about how the BBC thinks of the public: as an audience to be managed, not a constituency to be heard.
