Only the Corporation’s stab at clarity could be so perfectly inaccessible

‘The more complicated the justification for spending other people’s money is, the weaker the argument’

Fans of sitcom W1A, that witty satire of BBC jargon, will be delighted to know a new episode, set in the Lords, has been recorded. I was lucky enough to be in the studio audience (surprisingly small) at which three execs played parodies of themselves: Tim Davie, the director-general who thinks everything is super; Richard Sharp, the chairman who is one more Jimmy Savile away from a heart attack; and Clare Sumner, the director of policy who just talks gibberish.

The first question from Baroness Stowell, chairman of the communications and digital committee, was: “What is the future of the BBC?”

“This is, as you all well know, a centuries-old institution,” said Mr Sharp, starting badly by confusing it with the monarchy, “that has potential for multigenerational value in the future, not just to this nation but to the world.” So why don’t the young watch it anymore? “The youth should be media promiscuous,” he replied, his mind maybe drifting to that horrific monkeypox outbreak that started in a sauna, but ultimately it’s about “how we influence the ecosystem”.

Mr Davie agreed with Lord Lipsey that the BBC shouldn’t “lurch to the young... Universality... does not mean doing everything for everybody”.

Rather the BBC needs to be a “public service that is purpose led with accessibility”. Accessible rather than universal? Baroness Stowell asked.

Well, I prefer to think of it as “differentiation and focus”, explained Mr Davie – and Ms Sumner helpfully noted that universality has “three different prisms”. We need to look at “all the options... without preconception”, insisted Mr Sharp. But it’s always important to strategise before tinkering with a beloved organisation (which, let’s not forget, pre-dates Magna Carta).

“When you make a change... you have to be incredibly thoughtful to evaluate the... unintended consequences vs the intended consequences.” Warming to his theme, and likely encouraged by the pin-drop silence in the room, he said: “We should think of ourselves as a national mutual... The priorities of our values lead to what is distinctive in aggregate about the value proposition we represent to the nation and to the world.”

At that point, Baroness Buscombe, who had listened to all of this with the expression of a woman being given complex directions in Swahili, asked: who is going to “interpret” what you’re saying to the general public? And I must admit, I was thinking much the same. Though the dialogue of this scene was very funny, surely even these characters could see the irony of using words like accessibility and universality in a way that makes them entirely inaccessible and peculiar? It’s a rule of thumb that the more complicated the justification for spending other people’s money sounds, the weaker the argument.

“In terms of debate,” concluded Ms Sumner, “in terms of being really clear what we mean, as you say, kind of cut through, some of the clarity as it were.”

Baroness Buscombe nodded politely. One hopes this episode is broadcast with subtitles.