5 BBC culture In this thesis_ I examine the BBCs organisational

Document Sample
5 BBC culture In this thesis_ I examine the BBCs organisational Powered By Docstoc
					                                   5.       BBC culture

In this thesis, I examine the BBC's organisational culture as a factor in its relationship

with politics – but the BBC's organisational culture has long held fascination as an object

of study in itself. This fascination exists because the BBC has a corporate culture which

is now, or has historically, been seen as strong, coherent, 'value-imbued', widely-held, and

confident; capable of being reified as a “'BBC ethos', even... a 'BBC type'”.1

The strength, coherence, consistency, and persistence of this organisational culture can

all be called into question. Some see the unity over time of this corporate identity as

questionable. For Tom Burns, the BBC did have a strong corporate culture built around

the 'Reithian consensus' – but this consensus was called into question by a competitor

culture, a culture of 'professionalism', at the same time as increased unionisation led to

more dissonant, particularistic claims. Descriptions of separate and competing 'baronies'

within the BBC call into question the corporate culture's unity across divisions. Those in

Drama, for example, gripe at the remarkable trajectories of those from News & Current

Affairs, a cross between the BBC's Praetorian Guard and its Brains Trust.2 Others see the

strength of this corporate identity as variable over time. Anthropologist Georgina Born

argues that the managerial reforms pursued by former Director-General John Birt have

led to “the only values that are essential to the BBC, those specific to its core activities”,

being “undermined”, whilst those of Birt's successor, Greg Dyke, were “necessary, well

judged, and highly productive”.3

This chapter is not as richly textured as the accounts of Burn, Briggs or Born. For

reasons of comparability, focus, and space, it focuses on three aspects of the BBC's

    Burns 1977, p. 44
    Born 2005, pp. 69, 78 – 79.
    Born 2005, pp. 250, 6
organisational culture: the degree to which values are shared across the organisation, the

existence of action-guiding norms which enshrine those values, levels of turnover, and

relationships with other, competing cultures. I find a high level of agreement on the key

values of independence and due accuracy and impartiality, and extensively-revised

procedure regulating the implementation of these values. Levels of turnover were lower

than those found in RAI. Most intriguingly, I do not find levels of contact with politics

that were, in a quantitative sense, much lower than those found at RAI: BBC executives

reported meeting with politicians as much as executives at RAI. The key difference is

instead a qualitative one: BBC executives tend to initiate such contacts as part of an

overall lobbying strategy.

The BBC's stated values

The three values at the intersection of legal requirements and the BBC’s own statement

of values are independence, impartiality, and due accuracy.4

The value of independence is listed in the BBC's Statement of Values: it is also to be

found in the current Royal Charter and Agreement. The 1996 Charter stated that there

shall be an “independent corporation... to provide broadcasting services”;5 the

Agreement provided, for the first time, a guarantee that the BBC “shall be independent

in all matters concerning the content of its programmes and the times at which they are

broadcast or transmitted and in the management of its affairs”.6

These guarantees follow, rather than establish, convention. The 1924 Crawford

Committee recommended that “the Commissioners [sic.., Governors] should be invested

    BBC 2005, p. 2
    Charter, preamble.
    Agreement, Article 2.1
with the maximum of freedom which Parliament is prepared to concede”.7 By 1951, the

Beveridge Committee on Broadcasting was able to note that, whilst the government's

formal powers over the BBC were “absolute”, “it has become the agreed policy of

successive Governments… that the corporation should be independent of the

Government in the day to day conduct of its business, including both the making of

programmes for broadcasting and general administration”.8

Due impartiality, rather than its close cousins of balance, objectivity and neutrality, has

been the rather studied choice of term used to regulate the BBC’s output on matters

controversial and otherwise. The concept appears in broadcasting law almost fully

formed. The original BBC Agreement made no mention of due impartiality, a

requirement unnecessary in a period when the BBC’s independent news production was

limited. Only after the war did the concept of impartiality emerge as the guiding light for

the BBC’s news coverage. Labour’s 1946 White Paper on Broadcasting Policy argued

that the decision to allow the BBC to broadcast on controversial matters had been made

“in the belief that the Corporation would ensure that such subjects would be treated with

complete impartiality”.9 ‘Due impartiality’ became a requirement for the new-born ITV

eight years later with the 1954 Television At, and the BBC gave private assurances to the

Postmaster-General that it too followed the policy of treating controversial subjects with

due impartiality.10 By the mid-seventies “the requirement of impartiality” had long been

“a matter of interior conscience, not external command”.11

    Great Britain. Broadcasting Committee 1925.
    Great Britain. Broadcasting Committee 1949, §28
    Parliament. 1946, §20
     Munro, C.R. 1979, p. 10
     Curran, C. 1975.
It was a paradoxical measure of the success of this broadcasters’ watchword that the

1977 Annan committee felt able to write that “the notion of due impartiality is under

siege… attacked by sociologists who point out that no-one can be perfectly impartial”,

and regarded warily by those who “see it as a snare spread over the broadcasters’ output

so that politicians and others, with the aid of programme recordings and stopwatches,

can trap the broadcasters by showing that they are giving inadequate coverage to the

views which their critics favour”.12 The term survived, and was incorporated into the

1990 Broadcasting Act and the later Communications Act of 2003. The BBC’s

formulation – the most detailed, and an improvement on that formulation offered by the

Annan committee – states that impartiality requires

             “a wide range of subject matter and views broadcast over an appropriate
             time scale [which should] reflect a wide range of opinion and explore a
             range and conflict of views so that no significant strand of thought is
             knowingly unreflected or under represented”13

‘Due impartiality’ is impartiality “adequate and appropriate to output”, and “does not

require the representation of every argument or facet of every argument on every

occasion or an equal division of time for each view”.14 It does not “narrow news

coverage to a series of indisputable facts”15 but allows “professional judgements”.16

Due accuracy is a “core editorial value”17 and a legal requirement of the BBC.18 More

than just “getting the facts right”, accuracy requires the weighing of competing or

     Great Britain. Committee of Inquiry on the Future of Broadcasting 1977, §17.8
     BBC, “Editorial Guidelines”, p. 26
     ibid, p. 27
     Patricia Hodgson, quoted in Gardam 2004.
     ibid, p. 16
     Agreement §5.1c
conflicting material.19 As before, ‘due’ means ‘adequate and appropriate to the output’,

and does not require a ‘God’s eye’ view of the facts.

The above values – independence, due impartiality, and due accuracy – are the three

values most often claimed by the BBC, and most relevant for a study of its relationship

with politics. But “no agreement on standards at senior levels of the BBC has any value if

there do not exist effective means of communicating those standards to those who have

to put them into practice”.20 How do the principal stated values of the BBC find

expression in the work of the Corporation, and do they command widespread


The BBC’s lived values

From the frequency with which the BBC’s own terms were incorporated into law, it

should come as no surprise that the level of interpretation and effort spent on

communicating the BBC’s core editorial values is high. Three aspects are relevant. First,

all of the core editorial values are subject to detailed exegesis in the Editorial Guidelines.

Second, effort is put into disseminating these values, their requirements, and how to put

them into practice. Third, and consequently, understandings of these values have become

more widely shared than was the case twenty years ago.

The BBC began to codify its policy on core editorial values over forty years ago. The first

formal statement of editorial policy was found in the 1959 Code on the Use of Violence.

Over the next thirty years, the BBC would adopt a variety of policies, subsequently

collected in 1987 in the first edition of the Producers’ Guidelines. These guidelines, now

known as the Editorial Guidelines, cover a variety of topics, from the achievement of

core editorial values to the BBC’s treatment of war and religion. The latest edition,
     Editorial Guidelines, p. 16
     BBC 1973, §9
revised in June 2005, is over two hundred pages long, longer than guidelines issued by

the Australian or Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and four times longer than Rai’s

Codice Etico. These guidelines go considerably beyond legal requirements, and constitute a

detailed exegesis of the BBC’s core editorial values.

Effort is also put into ensuring that the content of the Editorial Guidelines are widely

publicised. Online courses in editorial policy are mandatory for all staff involved in

programme-making,21 and an Editorial Policy Team is available to producers 24 hours a

day.22 Courses at the BBC’s forthcoming College of Journalism will deal with general

editorial values as well as specific instruction on particular issues.

Have these interpretations of the BBC’s key values, and the effort put into publicising

them, led to a high degree of consensus on their application? On the value of

impartiality, the situation today seems different both to that at the time of the Annan

report, and to the situation during the 1980s. The criticism of impartiality voiced in the

seventies – that since each of us carries ineradicable unconscious biases which inevitably

manifest themselves in what we say, and so, the true test of a programme should not be

its quality or presentation, but rather its ability to represent – was not present. By the

mid-1980s, an emerging consensus on the importance of the values of due accuracy and

impartiality co-existed with disagreement over what those values required. Patricia

Hodgson, who, as the BBC’s Director of Policy and Planning, had been involved in the

creation of the Producers’ Guidelines, argued that impartiality “was what individual

journalists chose to make of it in the mid-eighties”.23 The introduction of the Producers’

Guidelines was initially resisted. “Everyone thought this was the most sinister thing that

    Minutes of Editorial Policy Meeting of Thursday 14th October 2004, available online at , accessed Friday, 31 March 2006
     Editorial Guidelines, p. 10
     Interview with Patricia Hodgson
had ever happened”.24 Yet within one to three years, writers and producers came to

accept the Guidelines as authoritative. They did so because “they began to see that the

guidelines were protection for them, not control”.25

Debates about the requirements of due impartiality and accuracy continue. A number of

interviewees noted that the BBC has difficulty in achieving impartiality on issues which

fall outside the range of opinions represented by parliamentary parties. The BBC’s

attitude towards the United Kingdom Independence Party was cited as an example of

BBC failure to achieve impartiality.26 I would suggest, however, that continuing debate is

not evidence of disagreement about the concept of impartiality, or about its

requirements, but evidence of critical reflection on a value already accepted.

As for the value of independence, the BBC has never adopted the view that pursuing

independence from politics requires a rigid separation between broadcaster and

politicians. “The existence of the BBC is an act of political will… Clearly you want to

make sure that as many people in the House of Commons and the House of Lords

understand your case and will argue for it”.27 Most obviously, the BBC is subject to

Parliamentary scrutiny. The role of the whole Parliament in the oversight of the BBC is

negligible; ministers' gentle refusals to delve into matters of the Corporation's day-to-day

conduct have meant that discussion of the BBC has focused on regional aspects

(television reception in Wales, Gaelic broadcasting), matters of commercial and media

policy, and isolated laments about the decreasing importance the BBC places on

broadcasting parliamentary affairs.

     Interview with Will Wyatt
     Interview with Hodgson
     Interview with Peter Ibbotson
     Interview with Wyatt
Parliamentary oversight of the BBC is almost entirely carried out by the Select

Committee on Culture, Media and Sport.28 Since 1997, at the request of the then-

Chairman Sir Christopher Bland, the BBC has presented its Annual Report to the Select

Committee and taken questions during the course of a morning or afternoon. The

Chairman, Director-General, and Controller of Policy are always present; other

Governors or members of the Executive Board attend as and when required. In 1999

and 2004, the Committee also took evidence on the future funding of the BBC and the

Charter Renewal process. On only two occasions have Directors for particular services

given evidence: Roger Mosey (Director, BBC Sport) gave evidence on television rights

for cricket in 2005, and Ken MacQuarrie (Controller, BBC Scotland) appeared in front of

the committee in 2005.

Formal contacts outside parliament complement limited parliamentary oversight. In the

period leading up to licence fee or Charter negotiations, the DG and Controller of Policy

will meet with their sponsoring department as a courtesy to inform them of the

background to the BBC's bidding process. Outside of these periods, a Public Affairs staff

of around fifteen lobbies the government over changes in the law which may affect the

BBC. These efforts are most pronounced during periods of licence fee or Charter review,

when a separate Charter Review Task Force is formed. Other, less predictable legislative

changes may also affect the BBC: one interviewee gave the example of proposed

amendments to the law on terrorism which would have the effect of criminalising

reporters who filmed or interviewed from terrorist training camps.29 Members of the

Public Affairs staff's political affiliations are known by managers (“You asked. You

  Although the Public Accounts Committee took evidence from BBC executives in 2004 and 2005 over
the BBC’s investment in Freeview, and in 1999 over funding arrangements for the World Service.
     Interview with David Jordan
couldn't afford to have undeclared interests or backgrounds”30) and consciously


Semi-formal contact – “formal in the sense that they were BBC invitations and there

would be BBC people present, and what was said would be reported back”31 – completes

the picture of official relationships between BBC executives and politicians. Semi-regular

Governors' Seminars and lunches involve representatives from business, politics,

academia, and civil society: “three vice-chancellors, a couple of professors, captains of

industry... as well as going away pissed, they'll feel they've been listened to”. 32 A rough

estimate of the frequency of contact is given by Patricia Hodgson, former Director of

Policy and Planning:

             “You'd only see the PM once every two or three years... Chair of the
             Select Committee, once every eighteen months, probably... Your
             sponsoring minister, DCMS – you'd see them of course every few
             months on business, informally, once a year or so”33

As in Rai, the Director-General must maintain familiarity with politicians. “As DG it's

your job to get to know cabinet members, leaders of the opposition, and so on”. 34 The

key difference is that political contacts for Directors-General of the BBC must be

balanced across the parties, on behalf of the Corporation, and must never betray any

partisan affiliation or ideological bent.

Informal contacts between the BBC's senior executives and politicians are, by their

nature, harder to gain reliable information about. Given the disproportionate percentage

of graduates from elite universities in both organisations, it would be unusual for such

     Interview with Patricia Hodgson
     Born 2005, p. 87
     Interview with Patricia Hodgson
     Interview with Will Wyatt
friendships not to exist. The question must be whether such relationships are, first,

evidence of a connection between the worlds of public broadcasting and politics that is

more than merely contingent, and second, such as to compromise the BBC's reputation

for independence. Whilst most interviewees reported some friendships with politicians,

few, if any, seemed a consequence of their career at the BBC. Those politicians who were

mentioned were only rarely involved in any way in the government's relations with the

BBC. Tessa Blackstone, friends with former DDG Will Wyatt, became Minister of State

for the Arts at the DCMS – but only after Wyatt had left the BBC. John Birt was friends

with Peter Mandelson, who had been involved with the Labour party's communications

strategy. Even where friendships are long-standing, executives exercise considerable

restraint. Mark Byford describes his relationship with Geoff Hoon in the following


           “Yes, he was at University, he was my lecturer in Law at Leeds. Do you
           still see him? Yes, but during the Hutton period I, and I think he,
           independently decided that during that time, you won't compromise the
           friendship, but also you won't compromise your own professional
           responsibilities and beliefs… We both knew why we weren't talking, and
           we've seen each other since… You're not searching out for friendships
           with members of the cabinet or members of the Shadow cabinet... [but] if
           they've been part of your hinterland, you don't have to abandon those”35

Journalists' contacts with politics are inevitably more frequent and more consuming.

Controller of Editorial Policy David Jordan estimated that upwards of twenty

programme producers were in regular contact with party media officials, on programmes

from Panorama to BBC Radio 2's Jeremy Vine Show.36 These contacts involve co-

ordination of the normal run of interviews conducted by any news organisation.

They also, to some extent, involve criticism and bullying of news organisations in order

to extract better coverage, practices identified by the Independent Review of

     Interview with Byford
     Interview with Jordan
Government Communications.37 There is no evidence to suggest that the BBC enjoys

higher levels of contact with special advisers or media advisers, nor that the BBC faces

structural weaknesses when dealing with such. Indeed, the competition between different

BBC news programmes suggests that BBC producers are price-setters, rather than price-

takers, when it comes to getting politicians to appear (“the interviewees that have been

on Today, World at one will not touch. Today won’t use an interviewee from the

previous night’s Newsnight”38). Managers seemed happy that there existed “well trodden

understandings” of how to take such calls; whilst ‘relationships were much more fraught’

during Alastair Campbell's time as Prime Minister's Official Spokesman, this was largely

‘personality-driven’, and efforts taken during the 2005 general election to deal more

consistently with phone calls to producers seemed to have paid off. Most BBC

journalists seem content to argue that government pressure on the broadcaster is a not a

problem for the BBC; problems only exist if the BBC lacks the courage to tell the

government 'where to get off'.

The final strand which ties the BBC and the world of party politics lies in the nexus

between BBC employment and political activity, of which the most visible expression lies

in the number of members of Parliament who have worked for the BBC on a contractual

basis. Of those elected to Parliament in the 2005 general election, eleven MPs had been

employed by the BBC for a sustained period of time39, of whom two (Ben Bradshaw and

James Purnell) had gone directly from the BBC to political activity. Less overt political

activity has also, on occasion, caused trouble for the BBC: presenter Dermot O'Leary's

     Phillis 2004
     Interview with Morrison
  They are: Celia Barlow (Labour, Hove); Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter); Greg Clark (Conservative,
Tunbridge Wells); Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet); Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath);
Christopher Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Exwell); Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford), Julie
Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove), Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South); and James Purnell
(Labour, Stalybridge and Hyde). Taken from Dod’s 2006.
co-hosting of a Labour party event in April 2005 led to an unofficial complaint from the

Conservative party.

Yet as with informal contacts between politicians and executives, the fact that such links

exist is less important than the recognition within the BBC that such links need to be

managed if they are not to damage the reputation of the Corporation. Candidates who

stand for elected office must take unpaid leave to do so; the fact of their standing may

affect what job they may return to. “To give an obvious example, you wouldn't be able to

run for a political party and come back and work as a political reporter. But if you ran

and were working as an engineer, there'd be no problems”.40 BBC guidelines on possible

conflicts of interest state that:

           “It is crucial that in both their BBC work and in non BBC activities such
           as writing, speaking or giving interviews, [presenters and reporters
           primarily associated with the BBC] do not:- state how they vote or
           express support for any political party; express views for or against any
           policy which is a matter of current party political debate; advocate any
           particular position on an issue of current public controversy or debate;
           [or] exhort a change in high profile public policy”41

The difference in the level of attention paid to these issues between the BBC and RAI is

quite significant. Whilst in the case of the BBC, the minor political activity of a presenter

employed in a non-news, radio-only capacity with the BBC provokes an official

complaint and an informal recommendation to the presenter in question that such

behaviour was perhaps imprudent, it is accepted in RAI that a presenter of domestic

current affairs programmes (Michele Santoro) should leave the broadcaster to run as a

candidate in European Parliament elections, and should then propose returning to RAI

to conduct more domestic current affairs programmes (see Chapter 6).

     Interview with David Jordan
     BBC, n.d.

The following table presents levels of turnover for, roughly, the forty most important

posts in the BBC, excluding the Board of Governors.42

                             Table 4: Executive turnover in the BBC
     Year     96 –     97 –     98 –     99 –     00 –     01 –     02 –     03 –      04 –     05 –
               97       98       99       00       01       02       03       04        05       06
Changes        12        9        8       10       14        9        3        7         9        8
in post
 Posts in      36       38       38       38       38        38       40       40        40      40
Turnover      33.0     23.7     21.1     26.3     36.8      23.7     7.5      17.5     22.5     20.0
Source: Freedom of Information Act request RFI2006000017, “Lists of Senior Management”

There are three useful comparisons to make. First, the average rate of turnover for BBC

executives (23.2%) is much lower than the comparable figure for Rai (35.9%). Second,

there is no obvious pattern in changes in the level of annual turnover. The highest rate of

turnover, seen between 2000 and 2001, follows the departure of John Birt as Director-

General. The second highest rate of turnover, between 1996 and 1997, does not coincide

  The posts are as follows: from the Executive Board, the Director-General, Deputy Director-General,
Directors of Radio & Music, Television, BBC People, New Media & Technologies, Marketing
Communications & Audience, Strategy & Distribution, Public Policy, and the Chief Operating Officer and
Group Finance Director. From the Executive committee, directors of News, Nations & Regions, Sport,
World Service, Factual & Learning, Drama Entertainment & CBBC. Controllers of BBC1, BBC2, BBC3
and BBC4, Controllers of BBC Radio One, Radio Two, Radio Three, Radio Four, Five Live, Six Music,
and BBC7. From BBC News and Current Affairs, the Head of News Gathering, the Controller Editorial.
Policy; the Chief Adviser, Politics; the Head, Current Affairs; Head, Political Programmes; editors of
Today, Newsnight, Breakfast News, the One O'Clock News, the Six O'Clock News, the Nine/Ten
O'Clock News, and the Political Editor.
with any major departures from senior management, and is more a result of changes in

the editorial staff of major news programmes. Third, levels of turnover do not increase

following general elections or, based on turnover between 1997 and 1998, following

changes in government. However, the two highest annual rates of turnover were

recorded before election years. It is not clear why this should be the case: it may reflect a

desire on the part of editors to bow out before the onerous work of planning election

coverage begins.

Turnover at the BBC is therefore of a moderate level, and does not seem to follow a

strong politico-electoral cycle. It is therefore unlikely to impair the BBC’s ability to resist

political pressure.

Relationships with other cultures

Whilst the BBC's relationship with politics has already been covered in detailing the

BBC's implementation of its core value of independence, its relationship with other

players in the competitive British media ecology may still have an influence on the BBC's

ability to resist political interference. Two links are important: the BBC's relationship vis-

à-vis other broadcasters, and the BBC's relationship with print journalism.

As a broadcaster, the BBC competes with ITV, Channel 4, and other news and

entertainment channels on satellite and digital for ratings and prestige. As a producer of

television and radio content, it competes with ITV and independent producers for

technical expertise ideas, staff, and formats. Regular flows of staff, technical expertise,

and, on some occasions, programmes have been the result of this competition.

Consequently, those in broadcasting both inside and outside the BBC will have an

understanding of the BBC's particular routines and foibles. As a monopolist, and,

subsequently, a media hegemon, the BBC provided a reservoir of talent from which ITV
drew before its birth in 1956, and which Channel 4 tapped in 1982. As Georgina Born

finds in her interviews,

           “[Born:] People have described the duopoly period to me in terms of a
           common culture, because ITV was staffed by people who were ex-BBC
           or floating between the two...?

           Yes, there was a profession in common. There were drama people who
           never crossed the line, but they were the exception”43

With the requirement that independent productions make up 25% of the BBC's output,

the growth of independent production created new opportunities for BBC and ITV staff

to set up independent production companies and benefit from a new demand for

independent production. Work histories of those in television broadcasting collected by

the British Film Institute44 show the frequency with which television workers pass from

the BBC to independent production or ITV, and vice versa.

Increasing competition in broadcasting and production has had two consequences. First,

the BBC has tended to be an exporter of television staff and practice. Most importantly

from the point of view of the politics of broadcasting, the BBC has exported the

requirement and practice of 'due impartiality'. Second, as competing terrestrial channels

developed and independent production boomed, the level of unionisation within the

television industry has decreased. Unions have therefore gone from a position of

“considerable power” in the early eighties to reduced influence in the early naughties.

Whilst union-led strikes remain a considerable factor during periods of retrenchment,

unions have not provided a locus for politicised television as journalists' unions did in

Italy in the seventies.

     Born 2005, p. 40
     Paterson 2000
The BBC's relationship with the print press is more distant. Were the BBC to act as a net

importer of values and working practices from the print press, the more obvious the

links between these two worlds of journalism, the easier it is for politicians to treat

broadcasters as a tamer version of the essentially partisan print press. Yet whilst there has

been some fluidity between competing broadcasters, there seems to be few linkages or

fluidity in movements between print and broadcast journalism. Richard Sambrook

comments that “very few members of staff were recruited from tabloid or Sunday

newspapers”.45 A 1995 survey of British journalists found that the percentage of

journalists currently working for the BBC was the same as the percentage of journalists

who had started journalism with the BBC.46 Whilst this does not suggest that those who

start out with the BBC continue on with the BBC, it does show that the BBC was not a

major net importer or net exporter of journalists to or from print journalism. Antony

Delano's (2001) work The Formation of the British Journalist 1900 – 2000 also argues for the

existence of a relatively rigid demarcation between the 'different worlds' of broadcast and

print journalism.

Consequently, the BBC has good reason to argue that the journalism it practices is

substantially different from the journalism practised by the traditionally partisan British

press. This basis might risk being impugned if it came to pass that a particular news

programme began an aggressive programme of hiring investigative journalists from Fleet

Street – as, it is argued, happened during Rod Liddle's tenure as editor of the Today

programme, and which formed a weak point in the BBC's defence to the Hutton inquiry.

     Henningham and Delano 1998

Seen in comparative perspective, the effort expended on transmitting the BBC's values

throughout the organisation stands out. Stated values are shared, and their concrete

requirements spelt out. Whilst levels of contact with politics amongst senior management

are not noticeably less frequent than those at RAI, the key difference is that BBC

management's political contacts are organised and usually initiated by management,

rather than politicians. The BBC's organisational culture seems well-suited to prevent

successful political interference.

Shared By: