We needn’t be polemical about the future of the BBC. The evidence about what works is out there

In recent years, debates about the BBC’s future have become politically charged. From yearning for a ‘one nation’ analogue past to impatient advocacy of global commercial models, opinions about the Corporation are often stated as fact.

The recent resignations of the Director General and Head of News have plunged it into another period of crisis. This comes at a critical juncture for the BBC and Public Service Media (PSM) in the UK as we await the Charter Renewal Green Paper. The government’s challenge is an unenviable one in today’s transformed media landscape. Decision-makers face new questions: is the license fee fit for purpose? How can the BBC be sustainably funded in a competitive market dominated by global tech giants? What role do public service media play in 21st century democracies? And how can the public be engaged as media habits change?

But this is also an opportunity to take a balanced, evidence-informed approach. To reassess the value of PSM and create the right conditions for a thriving UK media sector.

As Fellows of the British Academy and researchers specialising in media, we convened colleagues from across the world to examine PSM in countries around the world, from the UK to Scandinavia, Canada to Australia. Our aim was simple: to gather the evidence about what works and what doesn’t.

Our comparative study makes a strong case for a publicly-funded BBC as one of the world’s most trusted and popular public service media. Across Europe and Australia, we find that trust and support are higher for PSM when the funding model is healthy and stable. When trust is strong, support largely crosses political lines.

How decisions are made, and by whom, is another key factor in generating support for PSM. The current model means the BBC, built over 100 years, could be dismantled in one Parliament by one political party.

Our evidence suggests that putting funding decisions, governance and key appointments in the hands of democratic but independent institutions and experts increases trust and support – as does creating genuine forms of citizen engagement. Take Germany, where decisions are made by a number of independent interconnected supervisory bodies set up to reflect different social interests. Accountability is baked in: the regional Medienräte or Media Councils, made up of seven independent experts, examine whether the different PSM organisations are fulfilling their mandate. It is encouraging to hear the Culture Secretary setting political appointments to the BBC’s Board in her sights for reform, but there is much more that can be done to de-politicise the Corporation.

The Swiss model centres on four regional associations, organised according to the country’s official languages. Any citizen can join according to their area of residence. This level of engagement has helped the Swiss government defend its PSM funding model in two referenda. Germany, Austria, Finland and Iceland have all committed to engaging citizens in media literacy education and audience input, and they rank highly in reported trust levels. Public engagement and meaningful input from the devolved nations could make the BBC’s governance more trusted and stable.

On funding, the licence fee is unpopular and no longer raises enough money. Most countries we looked at have scrapped it, favouring either a household levy (with exceptions for poorer households), as in Germany, or general taxation, favoured by the Scandinavians. Each has merits and disadvantages, but both are now used by other countries to raise more money per capita than the licence fee, with inflationary rises built in, as in Sweden where a 2% rise is accounted for each year.

The evidence also shows that PSM play a key role in boosting creative economies, generating thriving independent and commercial activity, and providing both skills and innovation for sectoral growth. Counter-intuitively, countries with strong PSM create a stronger, more sustainable landscape for commercial activity.

The evidence points overwhelmingly towards the need for a new institution – independent from government and party politics – to make long-term decisions on the BBC’s funding. Once again, several countries have pursued this, with Germany’s KEF (Kommission zur Ermittlung des Finanzbedarfs) – an independent commission that assesses the funding requirements for public broadcasters – as perhaps the place to begin.

Whether you are passionate in your defence of the BBC or believe that it is ripe for reform, the broader PSM remit of impartiality and cultural renewal remains crucial to a healthy democracy and society. For a relatively low cost - currently one coffee per household per week - the BBC’s positive social impact, contributions to our national and regional creative industries and global reputation bring major dividends. It is time to learn the lessons from around the world to shape and secure the BBC’s future.

Read the full public service media: funding and governance options report here.

For further information contact the Press Office on [email protected]  / 07500 010 432.