Osborne set to put brakes on BBC gravy train

In Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs media comes
either under 'esteem' or 'self-actualization'.

After John Whittingdale its now the turn of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In his interview for the Andrew Marr Show, George Osborne has underlined the obligation of the BBC in contributing to balance the books of Britain’s finances. It is an altogether different debate as to whether austerity as proposed by the Conservative government is the right thing to do in the present circumstance, but as a publicly funded organisation, the BBC certainly has its responsibilities in fulfilling certain socio-economic obligations and merely wishing it away in the name of creative licence or journalistic rights or media freedom is not commensurate to the needs of a 21st century organisation, especially at a time when the deprived and the vulnerable are feeling the pinch of the £12 billion welfare cuts as proposed by the government of David Cameron. However important media freedom might be, and no one is denying its significance for a free society, meeting the basic survival needs of the people, especially the impoverished and the vulnerable, comes much higher in the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs as compared to the importance of consuming news.

Along with his colleague Whittingdale, the Secretary of State Media Culture and Sports, Osborne also need to have a close look at how the corporation, considered to be one of the prized British institutions, is managed. BBC Director General Tony Hall has already promised a leaner and thinner corporation which fits into the mold of a modern, inclusive and smart organisation. He has also announced a further thousand job cuts comprising mostly of managers, yet a closer scrutiny is necessary to make sure that public money is not wasted especially at a time of austerity.

'Imperial ambition'

The other observation made by the chancellor about the BBC is equally important. Osborne has expressed his concerns about the “imperial” ambitions of the BBC. His concerns may have stemmed more from Osborne’s political ideology promoting free market where other media organisations within the UK are on a level playing field so as to encourage healthy competition, but a different facet of the problem is as important as mending its finances.

George Osborne wants the BBC to play its role in balancing
the books and rein in over its "imperial" ambitions

The chancellor has highlighted his apprehension about the BBC doing everything from publishing "features and cooking recipes" and “effectively” nearly serving the purpose of the “national newspaper as well as the national broadcaster." But there is a wider aspect to it which goes beyond the national domain of the United Kingdom.
As the successor of the “Empire Service”, the BBC World Service may have lived its age of “overseas broadcasting” since the early 1930s and decided to continue with it in 1946 “after the immediate exigencies of the war had melted away and in harsh austerity conditions”, and many may enjoy the grandiose of referring it to be a “jewel in the BBC’s crown” but one also has to recognise the changed global order where Britain no longer occupies the position of importance it once did.

The purpose of the media in the modern day society may be of an antidote to power and the powerful, ironically its voice and that of the wider civil society is listened to only if they are associated with those who matter and with clout. Whatever may have been its imperial past, not much sheen is left for Great Britain in the current matrix of diplomacy and accordingly the British media doesn't enjoy that kind of penetration and reach as is the case with those in the United States of America, or the emerging economies like in Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Despite all the myth surrounding the glory of the BBC, it has to be accepted that Britain is neither a trend-setter in today's world nor does it have the power and position to adjudicate on maters global as was once the case.

In such a backdrop, it makes little sense to flaunt the BBC World Service as an effective soft power tool. Soft Power as proposed by Joseph Nye becomes effective only when it is supplemented by Hard Power, the resultant being the Smart Power, which lies somewhere in between Hard Power and Soft Power. For the proponents of the argument surrounding World Service as a soft power tool may be self-aggrandisement, but there are doubts as to whether it is value for money for the British economy and fetches any commensurate benefit to the British people.

Cost-benefit analysis

Funding the World Service cost the BBC £245 million in 2014-15, and it is now time to do a cost-benefit analysis in terms of the advantages accrued to Britain - its economy and the people - and whether it is worth spending that kind of money at a time when a large section of the British population, including the disadvantaged and the vulnerable, are feeling the pains of austerity and cuts in public services.

Its now time to do a cost-benefit analysis of the benefits
accrued to Britain from the BBC programmes
in India and Bangladesh

While provisions like the Ebola information service for West Africa on WhatsApp may still be of some ethical value, although rightly questionable at a time of austerity, given Britain's commitment to human rights, development, but one finds it hard to reason as to what British interest will be served by the launch of the BBC Bangla TV programme - BBC Probaho, on Bangladesh’s cable/satellite station, Channel-I, apart from the fact that the editor of the BBC Bangla Service will use this pretext to make bi-monthly trips to Dhaka at the cost of the British taxpayer.
According to the information available through the Freedom of Information Act 2000, "the incumbent editor of the Bangla Service spent 49 working days on duty away from London during the period 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010. The total cost of the three trips paid by the BBC World Service was £6,384.44". The BBC, however, didn't provide any information regarding the costs incurred by the BBC World Service Trust, now the BBC Media Action, as it is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

The media market in Bangladesh is already saturated with a large number of television channels and it will be hard to make any impact for any new entrant. Moreover as it happened with the BBC Hindi TV in India in the 1990s (and the beneficiary it that case was the  ANI), Channel I will flourish at the cost of the British taxpayers. These sort of projects generally serve as a platform of quid pro quo, often nourishing symbiotic relationship between those in the upper echelons of in this case the Bangladeshi society. The privileged make hay as the impoverished and the vulnerable in Britain suffer, and it is morally imperative on the government of the day to rectify such delinquencies.

Also available:
Why should I pay for the BBC.
Scrap BBC tax at a time of austerity

Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.

He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.

Future British workforce facing systemic failure

Labour market expert and author of a review of vocational education for former Education Secretary Michael Gove, Alison Wolf has argued that cuts in the sectoral budget will be detrimental to the supply of skilled workforce for the British economy.

Historically, the supply of skilled workforce in Britain may have been ensured by apprenticeship programmes and institutes of vocational learning, but these organisations are failing the current generation and funding cuts is not the only reason behind their systemic failure.

This observation is based on a real life experience of an Employability Adviser in a Further Education (FE) college over the past two years. The views may be constrained by being biased on the experience of an individual in only one such institution, but the general feeling among a large section of the population who are either employed or associated with the FE sector is that a majority, if not all, of such organisations of further education across London, if not all over the country, are run in a similar fashion.

The popular wisdom about the FE colleges in the United Kingdom is that these organisations are meant to make those who are not suitable for the normal route of GCSE and AS & A-levels for whatever reasons, employable so that there is a steady flow of skilled workforce in the British economy and only those who are capable of traversing the higher education route are allowed to do so. The idea was to engage the less qualified ones into gainful employment so that over time they can gain some practical skills so as to make up for the lack of their academic qualifications.

However, it is now evident that the focus is not on making the learners employable by way of imparting vocational education and teaching them functional skills but to make them 'pass' their course(s), by handing over coursework often without independent assessment, so as to ensure the funding of the FE college. The underlying presumption is that a 'pass' ensures £5000 per student per annum and there is no incentive for 'merit' and 'distinction' either to the student or the staff. I do not want to delve into any further details as to how a 'pass' is ensured, often without any learning at all, but there is enough evidence that a section of the students who are unable to write a proper sentence or do some basic Maths even when they are in Level 3, which is equivalent to AS/A-Levels.

Talking about functional skills, there is generally not much faith either in the curriculum or in the teaching methods in English and Mathematics. Having studied in India, I find the content too simple so as to expose the students to the complexities of modern life. Although on paper the focus is on student-centered learning, in practice the onus is on the teachers to ensure that the learners get a 'pass', even if it is through innumerable 're-sits', and the teachers literally hunt the students, coax and cajole them to appear for the tests. This is because of the fact that the performance of a teacher is linked to the paper results of his/her students. Often we are told that the students should be encouraged to take ownership of their acts and be responsible for their actions, however, responsibility or to use its nearest synonym obligation are not part of the lexicon of a majority of the students. Many of them attend these courses not because of any willingness to learn or gain skills but to make sure that the benefits of their parents or carers are not curtailed.

The FE Colleges may be meant to make the students who can't traverse the academic route, of the GCSE, AS and the A-levels, for whatever reasons and make them employable, however, in reality employability has the least priority. The 16-19 year old Levels 1 & 2 students are supposed to attend an hourly session on Employability for 36 weeks, but since it has no qualifications attached, no assignments or examinations, and the Employability Advisers are not accorded the status of lecturers, the students start loosing their focus after six-10 weeks when they start getting assignments on their vocational courses. These lead to behavioral, punctuality and attendance issues ultimately vitiating the relationship between the Employability Advisers and the learners.

Often the classroom sessions deter students with genuine interest and employability needs from seeking help as their voices are eclipsed by those resorting to problems as they consider the hour-long employability session nothing but useless captivity. However, the college enforces classroom seasons over workshop-style ones as, and this is the general perception, it ensures £900 per students per annum as compared to £100 for workshops. In the process, the college ensures its earning at the cost of the Employment Advisers facing the flak at the front-line and the majority of the learners failing to develop any of the peoples' skill.

Making the students employable may be one of the main objectives of the FE colleges, but employability advisers face enormous hurdles while organising work experience for the students and the resistance / reluctance / indifference  are alike from the vocational lecturers, curriculum managers, careers and apprenticeship teams, the college management and the students. There is tremendous apathy on the part of the curriculum managerial staff to engage with the local employers and trade bodies so as to ensure work experience for the students and facilitate employment for them in the long run.

The FE sector in the UK calls for serious introspection and possible overhauling as it is increasingly digressing from one of its main objectives and in the process failing a large section of the future workforce.

Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.