The BBC is far from out of the woods and what happens next is crucial

AMBITIOUS souls at the BBC spend years vying for the top job. Tim Davie, appointed as Lord Hall’s successor to lead the Corporation last month, slalomed his way upwards by virtue of people skills, energy and, frankly, a dearth of stellar talent in its management, combined with a reluctance among other media big-hitters to risk the exposed role of Director General in the 2020s.

So far, Davie’s pronouncements have stuck to a safe script of ensuring quality, shoring up the BBC’s core claim to impartiality and “serving all our audiences in this fast-moving world”. But which audiences matter most and on what terms? This week has confronted Britain’s quality media with some unpleasant truths. The Guardian has had to succumb to massive job losses and the closure of sections of the print edition. BBC News is adding 70 more job cuts on top of 450 existing ones.

Reassurances no longer mean very much. Lord Hall suggested that Radio 4 should be spared more cuts, an intention which now looks undeliverable and creates a headache for Mohit Bakaya, who arrived as controller with big ideas to sweep dead wood out of the station.

The Government passed the cost of free licences for the elderly onto the broadcaster, which cannot sustain the licence-fee exemption for over-75s.

We could continue the blame game about this eternally. But when I wander through the BBC’s ghostly corridors these days to record Moral Maze, or test the patience of sound engineers to make Radio 4’s Week in Westminster from my hall cupboard among the shoes and spiders, I am more keenly aware than ever that the BBC’s position is both established — and precarious.

Some of this is structural — younger audiences turning to social media and streaming channels for their news and views. Some of it is self-made. David Jordan, the BBC’s head of editorial policy conceded to a Lords committee this week that the national broadcaster did lose its way by failing to understand and reflect concerns about, or dislike of the EU and large-scale immigration. Jordan reckons such omissions were “in the past”, which calls to mind the old Communist excuse, “Mistakes were made in the Seventies, Comrade.”

In truth, the BBC does need a much more lively engagement with what impartiality means at a time when Leftwing critics want it to be less probing about aspects of identity politics and to act as channels for protest movements rather than interrogating them. They find themselves in an unholy alliance with the “whackers” of the Right such as Conservative MP Ben Bradley, who argues that it is “simply impossible to be either genuinely representative or genuinely impartial in content” today.

Some insiders are starting to think the battle is lost. A major TV anchor told me this week that he thought events like the BBC’s contorted defence of a dimwit social-media promo for a show, which enjoined white, middle-aged “Karens” to “get out of the way”, point to a more raucous, polemical future as broadcasters seek to double-down on the prejudices and passions of younger audiences. Davie, having committed himself to being a ruthless defender of standards and fairness, cannot allow such sloppy selectivity.

Earmarking money for ethnic diversity is not as foolish an idea as opponents claim — it should ensure a richer experience for audiences and reflect the country better. But diversity of thought and outlook matter too, though, and when too many producers, editors and on-air correspondents share the same backgrounds, views and aversions, pluralism becomes a smokescreen.

The BBC has much excellence within it but it needs a reboot, to be sharper, flexible and thrive in a milieu which will continue to test its finances and philosophy. Davie should show that he is uncompromising in addressing areas where the impartiality claim looks threadbare and put aside the mutual resentments of the last year to hammer out a funding deal with the government.

Contrary to BBC orthodoxy, I believe that starting to engage with the idea of a mixed model of core licence-fee and subscription is more promising than relying on a dwindling real-terms levy as audience habits change. Memo to Tim D: start by being more frank about what the BBC should do more of and better — and what you want to leave behind. ⬤ Anne McElvoy is Senior Editor at The Economist and a BBC broadcaster

When too many producers and editors at the BBC share the same views, pluralism becomes a smokescreen