GREATER scrutiny of the BBC by the National Audit Office must not undermine the editorial freedom of the broadcaster, the director general has said.
Lord Tony Hall said the powers given to the NAO must not hamper the BBC’s ability to take creative risks.
He said that while he welcomes the NAO’s role in ensuring the BBC provides value for money, he told MPs: “There are two areas where we need more clarification and more work.”
He told the Public Accounts Committee in Salford: “We need to make clear beyond all doubt that editorial and creative independence is maintained. The white paper rightly has a chapter on the distinctiveness of the BBC defined as taking risks, pushing boundaries, doing things that we hope will work but may not creatively work.”
He also said he wanted more clarity over the protections that would be given to commercial subsidiaries and BBC Worldwide.
He added: “Nobody wants the BBC to feel in some ways inhibited in the editorial judgments it takes, or indeed creatively inhibited if people are worried over taking a risk on a drama or whatever that they will get some spotlight put on them. I just want to make sure when it comes down to the fine print we all know what we are dealing with.”
Lord Hall and Anne Bulford, the managing director of finance and operations, also faced questions about making cultural changes in the corporation in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal and whether there is a culture of fear that stops the reporting of issues and concerns.
Ms Bulford said: “I think people do raise issues. We have more rigorous vehicles in places in terms of whistle-blowing and helplines, for raising issues and raising issues early.”
Questioned about closing the so-called “iPlayer loophole” which allows viewers to watch content on-demand without paying a licence fee, Lord Hall said: “It is the next stage of myBBC and how we move towards mandatory sign-in and are there things we should be offering for free before that.”
He added: “At the moment our thinking is around how we expand the sign-in and with what data. We would like to do postcode and date of birth.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel