Why is the BBC asked to adopt standards/practices that commercial broadcasters are not?

Question

This is a somewhat UK-centred question.

For as long as I can remember, UK governments have placed increasingly tough demands on the BBC. For example, they must ensure that the people on screen and radio are representative in a demographic sense of the consumers they serve, and recently they had to publish details of how much they pay their "talent" and so forth.

I don't have a problem with these requirements. But I do have a problem that they are demanded of the BBC and not other broadcasters who operate in the UK.

I've only heard the glib justification that it's because of "the unique way the BBC is funded". But actually, I don't think the BBC's funding gives it any privilege over commercial broadcasters.

Sure, the simple act of owning a TV means I must pay a "tax" that funds the BBC. But let's be clear, the simple act of purchasing food/heat/light and other essentials means I am funding commercial broadcasters, because it would be practically impossible to buy most of life's necessities without purchasing things whose price includes the cost of advertising on commercial broadcasters.

I can choose which advertised items I buy, but I would argue that I cannot reasonably choose to buy no advertised items. The numbers are hidden from us, but I would expect most annual shopping bills include an advertising cost that's larger than the BBC license fee. I don't have a problem with this, but I'm trying to make the case that UK consumers fund commercial broadcasters just as certainly as we fund the BBC. So why are strict rules applied to the BBC's conduct when those same rules don't apply to its commercial competitors?

Of course I know there are strict rules applied to all broadcasters in the UK, but the BBC has been made a special case, and that seems wrong to me.

I understand why many politicians do not like the BBC, and of course I understand why the commercial press would argue that the BBC is "different". But, behind all the politics, is there any actual justification?

Answer 1

Government-sponsored programs have a mandate to serve the public, at large, and to serve them in a relatively even-handed fashion, because it is the public, at large, in its entirety, that are paying the taxes that fund those programs.

There is no such mandate for private, for-profit entities, unless it serves to maximize profits for the owners.

While some may disagree whether a government-funded program should be in the trenches, side-by-side with private businesses, that's a separate matter from how a government-funded entity runs and the standards that govern their operations.

Answer 2

In a capitalistic society, the default happens to be the market. Companies can offer products and customers are free to buy them or decide not to buy them.

Sometimes a government makes a decision that the private market doesn't provide a certain good that it considers to be important. The government thinks that a certain quality of broadcasting won't be provided by a company that's subject to market pressures and therefore grants the BBC the right to force customers to buy it's programming.

The fact that the government gives the BBC that privilege also the role to actually setting the standards of what it means to do broadcasting in the public interest.

Additionally the rule about representativeness is about making sure that everybody who pays actually gets programming they want. If a company wants to reach my with advertising and I don't watch TV, they might run a Facebook ad instead of buying the TV ad. Advertising encourages broadcasters to actually provide the audience that's that's supposed to be reached. On the other hand, without the rule of having to provide represenative programming the BBC executives could just focus on providing programming they personally like while ignoring the wants of the audience.

Answer 3

Avoiding advertising

I can choose which advertised items I buy, but I would argue that I cannot reasonably choose to buy no advertised items.

Really? Who advertised your home on television? I've seen homes advertised in local newspapers but not broadcast on television. And it's not that hard to buy a home without even newspaper advertising. The primary channel for home sales is the realtor network. Your realtor works with other realtors to connect you to sellers.

Who advertises the local utilities on television? If they are monopolies, probably no one. You get who you get. They don't advertise because they don't compete. And if your utilities do advertise, you can switch to local alternatives like wood stoves and fireplaces.

If you buy your meat and produce from local farmers, who advertised them?

So there's your basic needs: shelter, heat, water, and food. No television advertising.

Choosing your advertising

More importantly, if you buy an advertised item, you may be indirectly supporting some broadcaster. But you aren't supporting all broadcasters who sell advertising. You're just supporting the particular broadcaster who advertised that product. You can refuse to support the broadcaster via a boycott of the advertised goods. Try that with the government:

I am writing you today to tell you that until you stop showing that unbalanced filth on your station, I will no longer be paying taxes.

It won't end well. They will go and levy the money from your bank account. The courts will eventually support them in this, as you aren't claiming that you don't owe the taxes.

If you do the same thing to a broadcaster, or to one or more of their advertisers, you won't go to court. You won't have to pay them the money. You'll just lose access to their goods. And you'll have sent your message.

Beyond all that, the government can impose restrictions on its parts because it is the one paying the money. The government is not paying the private broadcasters money. So you can't just vote in changes. You have to go through the extra work of the boycott. That is both freeing (in the sense that different broadcasters can cater to different parts of the population) and more difficult (because you have to do this in addition to voting for a government).

Monoculture

There is also the problem of monoculture. If every broadcaster has to follow the government's rules, then every broadcaster will be rather similar. As is, broadcasters can choose their niche. One broadcaster can chase the older market. Another broadcaster can chase the young adult market.

Perhaps you like the current set of government rules. But would you have liked the previous set? And will you like the next set? One of the problems with government action is that majority rules. But what if you aren't in the majority? Consider the following (from a United States perspective):

1. Same sex couples didn't appear on television until recently.
2. Indications of cunnilingus have traditionally been avoided more than indications of fellatio.
3. Female nudity has been avoided more than male nudity. In particular, a bare-chested man can be depicted but a bare-chested woman cannot.
4. Violence can be shown so long as its consequences, blood and gore, are not.

Ignoring whether these are some or all justified. What would happen if your choices were reversed? I.e. go down that list and pick how you think that they should appear. Now realize that a government may pick all the opposite positions to take. If they set those rules not just for things subsidized by government funds but for everyone.

Even just in the last nine years positions have shifted. In 2008, Barack Obama ran against same sex marriage (he was for a civil unions alternative). In 2016, that was considered a hopelessly reactionary stance. Donald Trump was pilloried not for holding it but for knowing people who did (e.g. Mike Pence). They're different opinions. Which should have been mandated? Why can't one broadcaster lead opinion on that while another trails?