BBC:it never rains but pours

The last week was nothing but nightmare for BBC, whose credibility appeared to be put into question. first it was fined 50,000 pounds for faking a winner on Blue Peter Phone-in competition, then was hit by the Crowngate affair, before the Treasury complained about a BBC Newsnight program on new PM Gordon Brown.

It seems that it never rains but pours, and the public service broadcaste is facing its biggest crisis of confidence since a slip of the tongue by Andrew Gilligan on the Today programme led to a bitter battle with the government and brought down the BBC's director-general and chairman. But there is still difference between them. BBC won much sympathy and support from both media and society in general in the Gilligan affair, however, on this occassion, BBC could only have themselves to blame.

what is wrong with the editing control of the BBC? The two films on Gordon and Queen
respectively are commissioned to the indepedent producers, like RDF or an indepedent document-maker. They may not be the in-house staff, but for the outsiders, they all represent BBC. Of course, when commissioning the programs from the indepedent producers, BBC has editorial control, which is also stipulated in the Code of Practice of BBC Commissioning. However, the Code of Practice is full of the rules and regulations on programming rights and revenue participation, with only three or four lines devoted to the section of Editorial Control. It could show that what people mainly concern is not the editorial control but the way of dividing commercial benefits between them.

Besides, what I can'tunderstand or accept is the way they, whether BBC or indepedent producers, edit the programs. They could change the sequence of events for dramatic effects, to drive up the viewer ratings. Unfortuantely such kind of mediation is linked with BBC, which could undermine the reputation of the dedicated public service broadcaster. That would be the last thing on the mind of BBC management, since BBC has tried to distinguish itself from other commercial broadcasters or new media by describing it as a reliable and credible source of information in the digital age.

BBC could reduce the pressure by shifting blame to the indepedent producers, but it would be fragile excuse, since they are expected to have editorial control on it. In this case they should focus on themselves and doing some "serious" heartsearching. instead of finding scapegoats. Alastair Campbell's diary revealed that both Blair and him tended to use the term "not serious" to describe those who they disagree with or dislike. In this case, Campbell, who has had a checkered history with BBC, would say that BBC is "not serious" enough.

Damage have been done, although BBC could adopt some damaging-limiting measures. But the most important is to be serious enough, but not panicky, to find out the bottom cause. Does BBC have given too much attention to ratings and commercial rights, instead of editorial content? Does BBC have, inadvertently, been driven by the market and confuse them with other commercial broadcasters? Such questions are really serious questions BBC need to think seriously about.