Some of us believed then that the structure was a disaster waiting to happen, which is exactly what we've seen in recent weeks. The problem is that no one is quite sure whether the chairman of the trust is the person in charge of the regulatory body, who should stand back and review matters – or the person ultimately responsible for the running of the BBC, who should get involved in the corporation's everyday concerns.
But, of course, you can't blame structures alone. Roll on another five years, and Lord Patten, a patrician Tory politician who, when you examine his track record, has no real experience of running any sort of organisation, is appointed chairman of the trust.
Within a matter of months, it was clear, to me at least, that he was working out how he could be an all-powerful BBC chairman. First, he announced publicly that the successful and experienced existing director-general, Mark Thompson, would be leaving sooner than planned. Then he manoeuvred into Thompson's place George Entwistle, someone with limited managerial experience and no experience of dealing with a crisis. Just a year earlier he was a commissioner in a comparatively small programming area.
Even before the board had decided that the job should go to Entwistle, some of the other candidates were openly saying that they wouldn't get it because Patten was determined to appoint Entwistle. So why was he so smitten with George? The argument goes that he was Patten's sort of person – male, white, urbane, intellectual and public-school educated.
But what about his lack of experience? Well, that's where Patten would come in. He would guide and help his inexperienced protégé. As it turned out, Patten wasn't exactly standing alongside George on the barricades when it all went wrong. And, as a result, young Entwistle was hung out to dry, his career effectively destroyed.
While it was right for George Entwistle to take the honourable course and resign – how could he have recovered after the Today interview and a disastrous appearance before the select committee? – one has to feel some sympathy for him. He wasn't given the support from above that he needed and deserved.
So what now for the BBC? Short-term it is clearly damaged, but long-term I suspect it will recover under Hall's leadership. During my time at the corporation, we tried to define its basic values and came up with the overriding one that "trust is the foundation of the BBC".
When I resigned in 2004 over the crisis surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly and the Hutton report, public trust in the BBC didn't waver, while trust in Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell plummeted. The public believed the BBC over Iraq, not the government, which is just as well given that the evidence that Blair's government sexed up the case for war is now overwhelming. In the years since, public trust in the BBC has increased even further. But figures show that this trust has now been broken, and the biggest job Tony Hall has is to rebuild it.
He may also have to address a change made nearly two decades ago when the current affairs and news departments were merged. The events of recent weeks suggest it would be sensible to break them up, so that daily shows like Newsnight don't get involved in long-term, costly investigations. Old current affairs hands such as myself would welcome that – the victory of 24-hour, rolling news over weekly current affairs right across broadcasting hasn't necessarily been good for thoughtful investigative programming. At times, it has led to the wrong sort of journalists working on the wrong sort of programmes.
Another of Hall's crucial tasks is to sort out the BBC's complex management structure. The problem is that there are "acting" leaders in virtually all the top jobs – news, radio, television and probably finance, too. A wealth of experience was lost after George Entwistle was appointed – people whom the BBC could have used to steady the ship and plan the future. In fact, some might have helped prevent the mess in the first place.
And then there is the governance system. I have no doubt that when the BBC Charter is next renewed, in 2016, Tessa Jowell's structure will be abandoned. Instead, Ofcom will take on a light-touch regulatory role and the BBC will end up with a far more sensible arrangement. It will be run by a board with a chairman, a chief executive (director-general) and a mix of executive and non-executive directors – like almost every organisation in the world.
Naturally, such a change will take some years to achieve because it requires legislation. But there is a short-term fix. The Culture Secretary should inform Lord Patten that he is only chairman of the regulatory body, the BBC Trust. An experienced outsider should be brought in to head what is called the executive board and is, at the moment, chaired by the director-general. I would suggest that former BBC chairman Sir Christopher Bland – who, when he left in 2001 went on to rebuild BT – should be appointed, not least because he's powerful enough to stand up to Lord Patten if he stays. But should Patten stay?
Clearly, he has been tainted by the events of the past month. George Entwistle was very much his candidate and, I understand, only last week Lord Patten wanted quickly to appoint another insider to the role of director-general. It took pressure from other members of the trust to stop him and to search outside for the right man. Step forward Tony Hall, your moment has arrived – at last.
No comments:
Post a Comment