Leader: Lessons learnt?

Emily Booth, acting editor

• Increase image
• View all images

The BBC has been handed a record fine - but that isn't the end of the trust crisis.

A mixed week for the BBC, which saw criticism resurface as it was handed its biggest ever fine from Ofcom over its 2007 phone-in and competition deceptions, and plaudits from the Trust over the success of the Window of Creative Competition (WoCC).

Ofcom's swingeing £400,000 penalty covered a multitude of sins, including faking quiz winners and misleading the public across a range of programming - all much discussed last year.

One thing is clear. Something went badly wrong with the corporation's editorial practices.

Ofcom found that production teams had taken pre-meditated decisions to broadcast competitions and encourage listeners to enter in the full knowledge that the audience stood no chance of winning. In other cases, programmes faced with technical problems made up the names of winners.

The BBC can't blame the breakneck pace of digital expansion for the problems, because they were identified across a wide range of output, from BBC1 and Radio 1 to the digital realms of BBC 6 Music.

In the wake of the fine, aspects of how the BBC has handled these malpractices are still troubling. While the BBC has conducted a root and branch review of editorial practices, instituted training for 19,000 staff and states that it should be wary of complacency over the issue, the corporation is still not sending out quite the right signals. For example, the BBC still handed out massive senior staff bonuses.

And while the corporation suggests it is rebuilding the trust of viewers and listeners, clearer lines of accountability must be established if that is to happen.

Happier news for the BBC came in the Trust's report on the WoCC, which confirmed the process of offering a 25% quota of shows where indies and in-house producers compete for commissions is working well. As Broadcast revealed earlier this year, indies outperformed BBC programme-makers, particularly in  children's, factual, entertainment and comedy.

If the name of the game for the BBC is to get the best programmes on screen, it should lose no time considering how it might extend the scheme to genres such as sport and news - the latter is currently excluded.

Improvements should also include more clarity about how the process works, as feedback shows there is still much confusion. One step would be to clarify which programmes contribute to which quota; in-house, WoCC or indies' 25%. The ability to identify individual shows commissioned through the WoCC would surely allow  those outside the BBC to draw their own conclusions about how well the system works.
Emily Booth, Acting Editor