On Tuesday 19 July BBC licence fee payers had the opportunity to question Governors and senior executives at the first of a series of Public Meetings.
If you missed the event you can watch the debate as it happened, using the links below.
You can also read Michael Grade's opening speech here
Watch the web-cast Watch the web-cast with sub-titles and sign language interpretation
Below is a summary of the BBC's response to questions asked at the meeting.
• Is the BBC distinctive enough? Is it doing something that the other channels aren't?
• We thoroughly enjoyed the recent History of Britain, will that be excluded from the repeats?
• What tangible assurance can you give us that the BBC's political independence will be maintained?
• How does the new complaints system work?
• What is the BBC doing to address the complaints about the new weather graphics?
• Can you guarantee there will be no increase in the licence fee to move all the staff to Manchester?
What are the possibilities of abolishing the licence fee and replacing it by general advertisements that we see on ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5?
Michael Grade responded: The only alternative ways of funding the BBC would be though advertising, by a direct Government grant or by subscription. There is direct connection between the quality and range of programmes you get and the method of payment. If you put the BBC into competition for revenue all the editorial decisions about programmes would have to be shared with the interests of the advertisers. It would be possible to fund the BBC by advertising, but that would impoverish the whole of broadcasting. The BBC's current revenue is £2.8 billion. If you wanted the BBC to continue to do the same thing with advertising the advertising pot is not going to increase by £2.8 billion overnight to fund the BBC. So, money would come out of ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and Sky and all of the new fledgling digital and cable channels and everyone would be impoverished. BBC would change out of recognition. I think ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and Sky would be up in arms because it would really hurt their business and it would reduce choice for the viewers.
Is the BBC distinctive enough? Is it doing something that the other channels aren't? What do you think should be the difference between public service broadcasting and commercial and do you think you are providing it?
Dermot Gleeson responded: The BBC has to do two things to distinguish it from the other channels. First, it must consistently achieve higher standards of quality. Across the range of programmes it must set the benchmark. Secondly, it is incumbent on the BBC to make programmes in areas that the commercial broadcasters, subject to commercial pressures, are to some extent likely to ignore. For example, programmes in the areas of the arts, religion, serious analytical current affairs.
Do we achieve our objectives in those respects? Very often, but not always. In last year's Annual Report, we highlighted some research which showed that over recent years there has been a decline in audience perception of the quality of BBC Television. Not a very great decline and not as great as that experienced by other channels, but it gave us serious pause for thought. We commissioned some research to find out why people feel like that. What we have learnt is that people do not like derivative programmes. They do not like repeats. They do not like as much emphasis, as has been the case up until recently, on make-over programmes. They want more intelligent comedy, more high-quality drama and more programmes from which they feel they can get education, or takeaway value. They want to feel they have learnt something they didn't know before they started watching the programme. Against that background the Governors in this year's Annual Report have set at the top of our list of objectives the whole area of editorial strategy. More specifically, we have asked the executive to develop a five-year strategy, which ensures we achieve across the board, the levels of quality which people rightly expect from us. For that purpose, the Director-General has initiated something called the Creative Future project.
Mark Thompson added: We recognise this concern and we are trying to deliver programmes which are genuinely distinctive which you do not get on commercial channels. The Creative Future project is looking at how the BBC can produce genuinely high quality, original content in all of the areas that the public want. It is also looking at how we make it relevant and useful to audiences in the digital future when they are getting content in different ways. We would love to reduce the proportion of repeats on BBC One and replace them with new drama and comedy and so on. To do that we need to find the money. So we are looking very hard at value inside the organisation and ways in which we can cut cost. We think we have identified over £350 million we can move out of overhead costs and into new content.
How do you prioritise between quality and the need to inform and quantity, which is ratings driven. How does the BBC define and quantify its audience?
Michael Grade responded: Quality is a bit like great art, you know it when you see it but it's very hard to define. I have never believed that quality and high ratings are necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, one of the great high points of British mass culture - Morecambe and Wise's Christmas show - used to get 25 million viewers. Nobody said that wasn't comedy and entertainment of the highest calibre in the great British tradition of the music hall. Two stars at the height of their powers. Nobody said the BBC was dumbing-down or had lost its way because it was chasing ratings. It's how you get the ratings that matter. You have to earn ratings and not buy them. If you get ratings with Only Fools and Horses or The Office it's a huge achievement, because not only have you delivered something of great quality, but you've delivered something that the whole nation can enjoy and talk about. There are other programmes that won't get big ratings but have high quality.
One of the most extraordinary ratings surprises of the year was the series that marked the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz . That was a programme that you don't put on to get ratings. We were extraordinarily surprised at how many people tuned into probably one of the most difficult subjects you could possibly want to present to an audience.
Mark Thompson added: My experience as controller of BBC Two and TV chief executive at Channel 4 and now in my current job, is that the public turn to programmes of real conviction. Programmes which are believed in, and which have a creative heart to them, whether it's Auschwitz , The Monastery or Doctor Who, which was a popular programme with creative heart and wit. I think in a way, the public as a whole are very astute about recognising programmes they should watch and programmes they should admire.
Every month 96% of the UK population say they use BBC services, it's a high reach. One of the things which is very important to the Governors is it that the BBC deliveres programmes which are memorable. We have to cover every household, whether it's CBeebies or The Valkyrie , the BBC has to offer something for everyone to value.
We all have to pay our licence fee, why are so many programmes repeats of items we have seen and paid for in the past?
Michael Grade responded: We'd like to be at a position in the next ten-year period, where we could make, if we had enough money, BBC One and possibly BBC Two repeat-free zones during peak time. This depends on money - how well savings programmes go, what the licence settlement will be. There are gradations to get to a point where there are no repeats. It's economic. It costs a lot more money to make an original programme than it does to transmit a repeat. 1 in 10 programmes in peak time being a repeat is not good enough.
Mark Thompson added: We know that people find BBC One peak time repeats a real irritant. The point of the creative futures exercise is to try and come up with the great ideas, so we can offer as many new programmes as we can.
We also want to open up our archive in a different way. So as more and more people get broadband they can choose when to go into the archive themselves rather than being presented it.
We thoroughly enjoyed Alan Titchmarsh's recent A Natural History of Britain, will that be excluded from the repeats?
Mark Thompson responded: A Natural History of Britain , is a good example of something which we probably wouldn't want to show again in peak time on BBC One, but maybe on one of our other channels or in the afternoon. It's a good example of a practical issue we face at the BBC, which is something that one person regards as an outrage or an imposition, somebody else says that's what I wanted.
We hear talk of the digital switch-over, what happens when there is geography or topography that stops it. I live in a house with a forest of trees behind it, we can't get digital, we can't get satellite, what will you do, knock the trees down?
Fabian Monds responded: One of the objectives of the Governors is to focus on improvement in availability and take-up of digital services. On the general point about access, there will always be situations where individual locations will give difficulties, even receiving the current terrestrial signal. However, there are few locations in the UK that don't have access to digital satellite because it's up in the sky. Even before switch over, 73% of the population can access Freeview. The BBC has been trying very hard to promote subscription free digital, although there might be a one-off cost. There are 250,000 new users are coming on to Freeview every month and there have been clever technical solutions to different reception situations in the past using relays or such other technology. Think of broadband and the way it is now available right across the UK . There may well be technical solution to your particular problem. Obviously there will always be certain situations where geography makes it difficult to receive a signal, be it analogue or digital.
I pay a licence fee, which is lot of money - £126.50 a year. Why should I have to pay extra for digital. Whether it be a Freeview box, at £50 or digital satellite which is £150 plus?
It's a one-off cost. When people went from black and white TV to colour, there was an extra cost. When they go to widescreen there's an extra cost. High Definition TV will involve an extra cost. There will always be some cost when systems changeover. But we believe it does represent good value.
What tangible assurance can you give us that the BBC's political independence will be maintained? I think it's been under systematic attack by this Government and I don't think that the new structure is best designed to resist that. I don't think there was anything wrong with the last system, it was just poorly implemented.
Richard Tait, Chair of the Governors' Programme Complaints Committee, responded: The new arrangements are based on the same principles that you admire in the old one - that the editorial independence of the BBC is guaranteed by a group of people who are not appointed by the Government. They are here to represent you and take decisions with a view to maintaining the BBC's independence and impartiality as an incredible important part of our society. There is nothing that will stop the trustees operating the same way independent of Government pressure that the Governors have in the past. You have to look at the history of the BBC - despite a few close calls the BBC has never been captured by any political party or any commercial interest.
You have said in the past that the BBC has made some slip-ups, perhaps being too defensive, perhaps not apologised or perhaps not stood its ground in the way it should .
Michael Grade responded: Much has been written and said about the Hutton Inquiry and personal and human tragedy that lay behind it. All I would say is whether the story was right or wrong, there were two misfortunes. One was that the BBC did not get the story on to the air in a watertight and defensible way. The second misfortune, an honourable misfortune, was that the Governors of the day decided that the best way to defend the independence of the BBC was to defend the programme. But unfortunately the story as broadcast didn't stack up under scrutiny. 95% right is not good enough.
The BBC maintains its reporting is balanced and unbiased. Are Orla Guerin, married to Palestinian, and Barbara Plett, who gives her personal opinion when reporting from the Middle East, in breach of the BBC charter?
Richard Tait responded: The BBC Director of News apologised for what Barbara Plett said. It was a mistake. Governors agree it was a mistake. When you make mistakes, you should put your hand up and say so.
As far as Orla Guerin is concerned I don't think you should judge a journalist's impartiality by who they are married to, you should judge them on their work. The reality is all journalists have views of their own. Whether they work for a national newspaper for the ITN, or Sky News and the broadcasters are obliged by law to produce impartial coverage. The rules are simple - you leave your private views and connections at the front door when you come to work. I see no evidence whatsoever that Orla Guerin, who is a very fine correspondent, that her work is influenced by the factors you mentioned.
Do you get equal number of complaints from Palestinians as Israelis on how the BBC covers the Middle East?
Richard Tait responded: It varies quite a bit. The reality of the Middle East is that it's a violent and very difficult conflict. It's one where both sides would like to win the propaganda war, to win international support and it's one which divides people among the licence fee payers. There are strong views on both sides of divide. Therefore the BBC has the difficult and important job of trying to be impartial to both sides. That sometimes means that neither side is totally satisfied.
Michael Grade added: The Governors are about to commission some independent research, which will look at impartiality in the whole of the BBC's coverage of the Middle East . It is obviously an issue which divides and creates a lot of dissatisfaction. This will be a serious and in-depth look at the impartiality of our coverage.
Why does the BBC use lobby groups and experts without explaining properly where they are coming from.
Richard Tait responded: I think the BBC does explain who its experts are. It is important to have to have a range of views on news and current affairs.
The BBC refers to attacks by organisations such as Hamas as 'militant', and attacks by Al-Qaeda as 'terrorism'. Are some people more acceptable to kill than others?
Michael Grade responded: It is right that all BBC journalists have a real care about the language and terminology they use. They are trained to do so and the journalistic guidelines are designed to instil the importance of the use of language in reporting, particularly in contentious areas.
Mark Thompson added: On the use of the word terrorist, if you look at our editorial guidelines, the main point of the guideline on terror is that our journalists and editors should think carefully of the words they use, because obviously these words are potentially emotive. It's been wrongly said in a number of newspapers there is a ban on the word terrorist, there isn't. We used the word terrorist a number of times across television and radio in discussing the events of 7 July. We used the word terrorism, terror and terrorist in other contexts as well.
You say that we never use the word terrorist in the Middle East . We absolutely recognise this is a complex area. If you look at our guidelines, it makes the point we need to be careful and that the use of the word "terrorist" can actually be a bar to understanding, sometimes it's the word to use. I think the coverage of the Middle East is one of the most complex stories of all of the ones we have to cover. I believe the more depth and understanding we can bring to bear the better. We have appointed Jeremy Bowen as a new editor for the Middle East for the whole of the BBC, so we are strengthening the journalistic coverage of that particular area. We want to see the quality; the range and the impartiality of our coverage in the Middle East continue to grow. From my point of view as Editor in Chief, nothing is more important than the credibility and the political independence of the BBC and its journalism. I and my colleagues are doing, and will do, everything we can to make sure our journalism remains independent and robust. We are absolutely committed to maintaining the independence and the robustness of our journalism.
Why didn't the Governors act over the record numbers of complaints (55,000) received over Jerry Springer - the Opera?
Deborah Bull responded: It's not the Governors' role to be previewing programmes and banning them before they're shown. If you go down that route, the logical extension is that the Governors are scheduling the programmes on the BBC. That is not our role. We did not ignore the strength of feeling behind those complaints. We took it very, very seriously indeed. Those 55,000 complaints were from people who hadn't seen the opera, nevertheless we asked the Director-General to assure us, as the Governors, that he believed that editorial standards were not being breached. There were some changes made to the overall presentation and there were very, very strong warnings put out. There were contextual programmes to make sure it was set in context. After the programme, when some 8,000 complaints came in, we launched a special investigation into all of the issues and looked at them in great detail. While we recognised the genuine offence felt by many people, we had to balance that with the BBC's duty to protect freedom of expression and to protect innovation in the arts. You have to remember that while there were 8,000 people complaining, this piece is widely judged by its peers as one of the most important musical theatre pieces of this day. It had great artistic merit. It doesn't appeal to everybody, cutting of edge art never does. But the BBC had a duty in showing a piece of theatre to people throughout the UK who may have wanted to see it. The Governors' Programme Complaints Committee viewed the programme and reviewed the investigation and came to a majority decision.
Michael Grade added: If you go down the route of taking more seriously a complaint of which there are thousands and thousands, you are then devaluing a single complaint, however legitimate. Some individual may have been absolutely traduced by some bit of the BBC - you can't dismiss it because it's a single complaint. You cannot judge complaints by their number. One complaint is treated the same as one by 55,000 people. We do not take the status of the complainant into account and so be it a VIP, a lobby group or a householder - all complaints are deal with in the same way.
Angela Sarkis noted: I was on the Committee and said that I thought it should not have been shown. However, I stand by my colleagues in the final decision which was made. On examining the programme closely it was clear that guidelines had been followed and the programme was technically not in breach. The issues I had was that I felt that management had shown a degree of naivety in not being aware that there would have been complaints people for faith about this programme.
Mark Thompson said: It's absolutely essential that it's management who decide on whether things should get transmitted and the Governors, after the fact, can judge whether we made the right decision or not. It should be very clear that we took the decision to broadcast Jerry Springer: The Opera absolutely aware of the scale of anxiety being expressed by some people who were emailing us. In other words, although it may be that the full scale of campaign that would emerge was not clear to the people commissioning the programme when it first emerged, by the time we came to the decision that Jana Bennett director of television and I decided whether to broadcast or not, we were very clear this was a programme of considerable merit on the one hand, while on the other it was clearly a programme which potentially might cause offence to other people. We were trying to weigh those two things.
There's a new complaints system. If anybody has a complaint, it will get answered in ten days could you explain how it works?
Mark Byford, Deputy Director-General, responded: The complaints system we hope is simpler, fairer, more open. There are two ways of making a complaint, to BBC Information or to the programme department itself. We have a new code of practice which means you would expect to get a response from management within ten working days. If you are unhappy with the response, you should reply initially to the person who responded to you and outline your concern. If your complaint is about a specific programme, and you believe it breached the BBC's editorial standards, you can ask the Editorial Complaints Unit to investigate. The unit examines such complaints independently from programme makers. If you dispute this response then you may appeal to the Governors' Programme Complaints Committee, the highest body within the BBC. We have a new complaints' website, that's clearly accessible on the BBC website which explains the process and where you can see all upheld complaints and responses from us. To reiterate what the Governors are say, it doesn't matter if there are lots and lots of complaints, we take each one seriously. Whoever complains is treated the same.
8,000 complaints were received by the BBC up to the end of June 2005 about the new weather graphics.
Merfyn Jones responded: Complaining about the weather map seems to have taken over from complaining about the weather as a national pastime. However, on a more serious note, many people did complain and there a number of genuine issues particularly in the way that Scotland and the North of England were presented. What is important is that management took these complaints very seriously and responded by making changes to the service.
Mark Thompson added: The design for the weather was fairly extensively tested with audiences before it was broadcast. And amongst many people watching it, the basic clarity of the underlying weather story of the day gets high marks. We also recognise that for all sorts of different groups of people, there are real questions. We've adjusted the tilt of the graphics, so indeed Scotland has indeed been restored to its natural and proper size. We've restored isobars and we are also looking at the best way of getting wind speeds back. We underestimated how many people out there wanted to hear wind speeds. Over the next few months, we are going to do a lot of work talking and listening to all sorts of groups of people, including special interest groups such as sailors and fishermen, and through August will look at ways to try and arrive at a set of weather graphics which really work, as far as possible, for the public as a whole. We are even going to look at the colour.
The 2001 census shows that 43% of under 15s in Birmingham are non-white. What is the BBC doing to attract these future licence fee payers?
Ranjit Sondhi responded: I don't think there is a single governor around this table who doesn't believe that the BBC needs to work harder, to get it right, engage deeper with its ethnic minority audiences. The challenge of course is with all of its audiences. We know that 21st century Britain shows us a rapidly shifting cultural landscape. Just as audiences are fragmenting so are ethnic minority audiences. There are different ways of being brown, black just as there are different ways of being white. It's always a struggle to satisfy the spectrum of tastes and interests that the 21st century represents to us. Not only in terms of ethnicity but also religion, values, age. The UK consists of increasingly fragmented groups all of whom pay the licence fee and therefore expect to get something back in return.
Mark Thompson added: For me the fundamental point is trying to reflect modern Britain in all its diversity. We have made enormous leaps in terms of way in which we portray Britain 's ethnic diversity on programmes like Holby, Eastenders, Casualty, Hustle, Spooks and so on. If it's true within that, there aren't enough examples of professional black women being shown in these dramas or other dramas, we should look at that.
Alan Yentob , Director, Drama, Comedy and CBBC noted: One way or another we are trying to ensure we are attracting the genuine diversity of Britain in a way which five or ten years ago was more difficult to achieve. Now we are making sure that the stories we tell are common to all kinds of people. We need the right writer; we need a genuine range of actors. I do think we have made strides in the last few years. It's not about political correctness; it's about genuinely relishing diversity in our programmes. That means people behind the camera, people writing scripts, just as much as it means people in front of camera. That is where we are trying to go.
Is there a way of letting members of the public make a programme or contribute to the making of the programme?
Mark Thompson responded: The age of public access is really just beginning.
On our website for example, there are many areas where the public can post all sorts of things. We have opportunities for people to come in to BBC local radio stations and make programmes the best of which get on the air. On the 7th of July, the day of the London bombings, one of the interesting things was how many members of public chose to share their experiences and their videos. That directly influenced the way we covered that story on television and radio.
Can you guarantee there will be no increase in licence fees to move staff to Manchester, please?
Mark Thompson responded: At this stage, we are still looking at the options in terms of how we do the move and whereabouts in Manchester we do it. We are also looking hard at trying to do it for as little money as possible. I can't give a blanket guarantee, but the management won't even propose it to the Governors, unless we think it represents real value for money. I think that moving the BBC across the UK , representing the whole UK , creating real opportunities for programme-making I think it's a very important priority for the BBC. Not just in the north-west, but in the whole of the North of England. I think it's the right thing and for the UK and the public as well as the BBC. I remain 100% behind it.
Michael Grade added: Everything we hear from licence-fee payers and through the network of the Broadcasting Councils, the English National Forum and the Advisory Councils, tell us that there is a huge hunger for the BBC to be less London-centric, and to better represent the regions and areas where they live. There is a real hunger now and quite a vacuum as ITV has consolidated more or less in London . We have to meet that demand. Manchester is the first step along that road. Can we afford to do it? I hope so. Can we afford not to do it? That is an equally important question.
The Board of Governors seem incredibly mono-class. In terms of getting closer to the viewers' views, it would be nice to see people from a range of different communities.
Michael Grade responded: There's no reason why anybody here or anybody watching on the webcast should not apply. They are publicly advertised and it is an open appointments system. You are more than welcome to apply. Top
