Comments

In a world where a legal firm can advertise under the slogan "where there's blame, there's a claim", it is hard to see how any organisation can avoid over-caution. What is needed is a wholesale reappraisal of how we (society/government) see risk and develop our (individual/government) responses to it and responsibilities for managing it. But that's not likely, especially when governments like ours in the UK positively relish the nanny role.

The BBC, I'm afraid, will not be putting risk to its integrity at the top of the agenda. Instead it will be evaluating the risk of damaging its relationship with government, which it values far more highly than its own intrinsic standards. Since the departure of Greg Dyke as Director General, the BBC has simply lost any sense of proud independence and bent over backwards to serve a political agenda.

Posted by Rob at July 17, 2007 12:52 AM

Well, I for one take some joy at seeing the BBC squirm.

It pays lip-service to impartiality, and has a built-in bias to 'anti-' agendas. See http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2007/07/the_media_ideol.html for many more details.

I'd hazard a guess that our American cousins have a nostalgic view of the BBC, but times have certainly changed, and as for independence - there's been precious little of that during the NuLabour years.

Posted by Tony (UK) at July 17, 2007 1:31 AM

I can't help but feel it's all a made-up, pathetic squall in a teacup. Then add to this the "scandal" (c'mon!!!) about the UK's Channel 4 sending out an angler 20 minutes ahead of a celebrity chef to "ensure" they had a freshly caught fish he could pretend to have caught himself. If you really think that a) this sort of thing has never gone on before; or even b) it's important then we've got a problem. Don't you just wish someone from the Beeb would stand up and tell us to get a life?

The BBC used to represent serious journalism, brave programming and the old Reithian tradition of "inform, educate and entertain." In the current climate, it seems to think that only the "entertain" bit applies and the other two elements are grudgingly consigned to an hour or so a week as totally inconvenient times.

Call me old fashioned but the BBC is a public service and deserves better than the current management and regulators.

Posted by Mark JF at July 17, 2007 1:44 AM

It is interesting the different brand images of the BBC in different places. I believe the world service is viewed in much higher regards than say the domestic.

I for one am glad for the Beeb - not so much for it's own content but for the influence it has on other UK broadcasters. In some ways having competition that DOESN'T have the same rules is healthy as it broadens the remit of the competitive landscape. When I see TV in other countries I am thankful for the BBC although I see the gap narrowing alrmingly

Sadly Channel 4 has moved away from being radical and cutting edge to delivering lowest common denominator rubbish.

Posted by PaulH at July 17, 2007 2:19 AM

Innovation and creativity do not exclude an ethical approach to storytelling. The BBC, like many of us, has to tell authentic stories during its everyday activities, some stories are true some are fiction. But the authenticity of the story has to be there in both cases if the public are to accept them, especially the new and exciting. Tom's cool friend Rolf Jensen (http://www.tompeters.com/entries.php?note=006653.php) talked of the Dream Society fulfilling our Maslow Social Needs. In the Anni L story the BBC told a made-up story to journalists which actually did not ring true and they should have felt the lack of authenticity and truth from their ethical antennae. If it had been Harry Potter or TAZO (http://www.cdf.org/issue_journal/tazo_tea-2.html) the story would perhaps have felt authentic but we knew it was fiction. I believe ethics and truth are not barriers to innovation and creativity but another platform to leap from

Posted by Jim Rait at July 17, 2007 3:51 AM

Apple's an organisation which seems to be taking considerable risks. its only because they are consistently paying off that the risks don't seem huge. Consider the last few products they have launched.. truly revolutionary.

Posted by Abhinav at July 17, 2007 6:19 AM

From where I sit at this moment, inside "a cousin" to the BBC, risk taking and innovation starts with people. The over the air product is what lures talent here and we're thought to have a highly respected product. But, as a fan of this blog, it all starts with the people we recruit, train and hopefully retain. People decide to take risks and innovate, or not. If people in positions of influence decide that they will take a chance on someone and then empower that person to be innovative (which was done with me a long time ago) companies will hold on to their values but also not be afraid to experiment.

Posted by nextgenradio at July 17, 2007 8:10 AM

1. Liberal corrupt BBC similar to dino-fossil NY Times - have fun with a click on Sean below to link to 1 of many reports on nefarious ones @ BBC:

"The report concludes BBC staff must be more willing to challenge their own beliefs.

It reads: “There is a tendency to 'group think’ with too many staff inhabiting a shared space and comfort zone.”

A staff impartiality seminar held last year is also documented in the report, at which executives admitted they would broadcast images of the Bible being thrown away but not the Koran, in case Muslims were offended."

2. BBC similar to socialism & communism of Trevor Gay - "manager" of 35 years @ NHS - 10 years as pastry & cigarette cart "manager" ... cleverly addicting NHS "managers" to the TG "brand"! >:]

Posted by Sean at July 17, 2007 9:27 AM

risk taking at large enterprises: absolutely, though it isn't always obvious to those that don't keenly follow them.

1. shifts in investments/acquisitions that don't appear to have a common theme until 2-3 years down the road.

2. shifts in business model that take place over years (you need to meet wall street expectations while going through the change; you can't just willy nilly shift all at once). Many times they are bet-the-company decisions that play out over time.

3. aggressive product cycles that eat into your own revenue streams. Wouldn't the low risk path be to let your current products run through an extra year or so?

4. entering new markets that risk affecting your brand value. Most small enterprises don't have extended brand recognition to risk.

The BBC: I agree with the comment that the World-version has a great reputation. It's what CNN was back-in-the-day: mostly unbiased reporting of world events without the shouting and titilating tabloid junk that permeats CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC every night. CNN's nightly line-up is a list of tabloid shows about missing women, screwball court cases and political scandels. Whatever happened to the news?

I know many people in the States that who watch the BBC World News just to get a professional view of what happened that day.

Posted by Jeff at July 17, 2007 12:22 PM

Sean – Although I am really grateful that you are one of my greatest fans, please don't talk about me so much as regulars on TP site will believe you and I have constructed a PR plan to boost my image .. I don’t need a PR agent with you around my friend :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 17, 2007 5:20 PM

Some great comments and inputs here. I have to say, like Mark JF, it does seem to me on this occasion to be a storm in a teacup. In neither of the two recent cases do I really feel much lasting damage has been done (although HRH QEII may have a different point of view!). Do either of these stories really matter? And if they don't, then why do we as consumers tolerate them getting much more air time than they really deserve?

And yet, I can't help thinking that much of the behaviour we are seeing from the BBC today dates back to the infamous WMD debacle of a couple of years ago. The tragic backlash from the stream of events that was kicked off by a zealous BBC reporter seems to have left a legacy of overcaution.

Like PaulH, I am pleased to have a BBC, warts and all. The organisation makes significant contributions to the education of our nation, and as Jeff observes, can be relied on for quality journalism. Biased it may be in some peoples eyes, but 99 times out of 100 it is thorough and thoughtful.

Which is why it is so disappointing to me that the lapses in ethics and truth that Jim alluded to can creep in. The vicious competition for viewers and ratings cannot be allowed to overrule the principles that the BBC stands for, but how can they deal with this dilemma? Damned if I know, but I can't help feeling that a policing mentality is not going to get to the root of the problem.

Posted by Madeleine at July 17, 2007 5:22 PM

A thoughtful post Madeline and excellent comments.

I feel the BBC is fighting a losing battle. There is so much competition these days in every walk of life – not just broadcasting – and to hold on to ‘old world romantic views’ is too little too late.

We have moved on … a broad sheet quality newspaper can now be produced in a front room and we are close to professional broadcasting being produced from the same venue.

I love the concept of the BBC being a beacon amongst a lot of crap but for instance I look at soccer coverage on rival organisations like Sky it is comparing chalk and cheese I’m afraid.

The BBC has to wake up and change radically or die.

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 17, 2007 5:35 PM

Madeleine

Edward De Bono in his book "textbook of wisdom" (page 124 item #85) offers us an explanation....

"The English emphasis on 'class' and 'club' is an excellent device for the protection of mediocrity. If you are stupid you can still belong and will be protected by the others. If you try to be too smart, that is frowned upon because you are setting competitive standards for the others. 'Showing off' is not permitted for the same reason. Once you 'belong', you are carried along and do not have to make much effort."

De Bono follows up directly (page 125) with....

"Belonging to the gang is important because it is terrible to be left out of any gang; the terror of isolation is real when all action goes through the gangs. You also acquire your identity and your mates by belonging."

Richard.

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at July 17, 2007 6:02 PM

Trevor I think you are right to a point on the broadcasting front. Interestingly on the internet front the Beeb has been critisised for being too good - that effectively it's website made others un competitive.

In some ways SKY is an org in more trouble than the Beeb. It's revenue stream will be hit harder as people turn away from exposure to TV advertising. It's the reason I have not gone for Sky personally - Why would I pay you so I can watch adverts??? uk viagra no prescription

Ironically the BEEB may survive into the new age of broadcasting better than the commercial stations

Posted by PaulH at July 18, 2007 2:26 AM

1. ... seems like what may be lost here though is that BBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN & generally all media careers attract social liberals that cause the failure of their endeavors because they are NOT balanced/truthful/remotely scientific ...

2. ... they become PC clones & clowns ... that couldn't spot a business & revenue model even if it was biting them in their lazy backsides!

3. ... most liberals & media types are not adept intellectuals by any stretch.

4. ... what do you call a Med/Dental/Engineering school drop out? A journalist. Media & journalism degrees are as easy as Paris Hilton & Britney Spears.

Posted by Sean at July 18, 2007 7:40 AM purchase viagra soft tabs

Interesting point 4 Sean. Out of the eighty or so fellow graduates on the Media Studies course that I graduated from ten years ago last week, only a few have actually gone into work in any aspect of the media in the UK.At the last count, I'm one of about fifteen people who work in the UK media industry.

The Media Studies course I undertook wasn't a thoroughly practical one, and I took the decision to not say anything about the fact that I was already a working journalist when I enrolled on the course. In fact I was given a national magazine column just a month after starting the course and I still have that twelve years on.

After spending six weeks recovering from a critical illness a couple of years ago, the BBC was a beacon on the cable box that at the time sported around sixty channels. I don't have a television set at my own flat, but if I'm at my girlfriend's place, then we rarely watch programmes on non-BBC channels, largely because the quality is so low (Bruce Springsteen got it right when he sang about 57 Channels and nothing on...).

May be it's time that the BBC made an approach to get Greg Dyke back!!

Posted by Keith Rickaby at July 19, 2007 2:34 PM

Interestingly there is some concern that because the BEEB has been forced to outsource some of it's work it may have lost control over the behaviour.

I don't believe that is an excuse for the BEEB but it makes for an interesting general discussion point - how do you safeguard your brand value, image, integrity etc in an ever more fragmented, networked and outsourced world?

Posted by PaulH at July 20, 2007 6:55 AM

1. Seems like media in the last 25 years has gone the way of "entertainment culture" and so much money involved that anything & everything goes - ethics & truth be damned!

2. Case in point - the Beckhams $250M+ invasion of la la land LA USA - I tend to admire them though - but USA/UK media have become drama-queen entertainment as bread & butter - heaven forbid they even have Beckham calling it soccer!

Posted by Sean at July 20, 2007 9:21 AM