Do broadcasters owe a duty to the state?∗

Abstract

Many men and women in broadcasting make their name, but only occasionally does one leave his print upon his times. Reith, of course, did, and so did Hugh Carleton Greene. But it is not only BBC directorsgeneral and chairmen of ITV companies alone who are remembered. The man in the BBC who stood head and shoulders above his contemporaries was Huw Wheldon. For 25 years, as producer, director, commentator and author, his own creative talents were matched by his ability to inspire others to discover their own. It was he who insisted on the principles that have made British television so remarkable. 'No real programme', he said, 'was ever made by a committee. You insure yourself against a failure by having one, but you also ensure against a triumph.' He pinned his faith in the individual in his talent, originality and imagination. But if dedication to quality was part of Huw Wheldon, so too was his dedication to the Corporation. In the last analysis the ideals of the BBC came first: they are bigger, he said, than any individual. He knew that the BBC, as a world-wide famous institution, would time and again be judged as speaking, not for the Government, but for Britain, for the State. And therefore it had obligations to the State. He knew that the BBC is specifically bound to remember these obligations because it is financed by a compulsory licence fee. Today Huw Wheldon's view is disputed; and that is why I want to consider this evening whether broadcasters owe any duty to the State. I got to know Huw Wheldon when I was Chairman of the Committee on the Future of Broadcasting. And it is now just over ten years ago that he retired from the BBC and our Report was published. When I look back at what our Report said I am struck by a paradox. The recommendations in our Report on the organization of broadcasting were thought to be too bureaucratic and inflationary. I thought there was some truth in this. Committees of Enquiry do not get things right first time. Too many trade-offs and silly statements are allowed to stand in order to avoid minority reports or paragraphs of dissent. Contrary to public belief civil