The BBC has hit back at claims by ITV that its output is derivative and indistinct, claiming the broadcaster has misrepresented the facts in a bid to further its own interests in the run-up to charter renewal.
In a document released on Tuesday, BBC head of policy James Heath argued that proposals to tightly regulate and restrict the content it commissions and buys would lead to less creativity and more generic output across UK broadcasting.
ITV’s submission to the government’s review of the BBC argued that during the last charter renewal period in 2005, the corporation had pledged to deliver distinctiveness but had in fact produced derivative programming in a bid to compete with ITV and other broadcasters for viewers.
It suggested tighter controls on what the BBC was able to broadcast and when, including banning the corporation from buying in big budget shows from abroad or competing with commercial rivals for formats and programmes that had already been made.
ITV recently beat the BBC to the rights to broadcast The Voice from 2017, after the corporation decided it was not prepared to enter a bidding war with its commercial rival.
The BBC document includes a number of claims it says contradict ITV’s submission to the government, including:
- The BBC is not aping ITV, with a different mix of shows during peak-time schedules and a huge reduction in acquired programming compared to 30 years ago.
- That it is ITV rather than the BBC that is responsible for many big-budget popular shows being scheduled at the same time as others.
- That BBC1 shows “a much broader range and depth of content than ITV”, with double the number of hours of factual programming in peak-time and half the amount of entertainment.
- If the BBC were to stop making programmes similar to those made by rivals, commercial broadcasters would reduce their investment in content.
Heath said ITV’s proposals for restricting the BBC’s scheduling and programme buying powers, “demonstrate why the next charter must be designed by the public interest, not lobbying interests”.
He said: “Regulation of the BBC must be effective but not prescriptive and paralysing … Having cut the BBC’s funding, if you then freeze the BBC in aspic with very detailed regulations, there is a real danger that you end up with a diminished BBC.”
“While a BBC that paints by numbers and ticks any number of boxes may be good news for commercial competitors, it would not deliver the genuine creativity and innovation valued by licence fee payers.”
An ITV spokesman said: “This would appear to be an attempt by the BBC to divert attention from the real issue - the future of the BBC - as it hits out at anyone who voices an opinion. We were invited to make submissions to the government and the Commons culture select committee on the BBC’s charter review, which is precisely what we have done.
“ITV is completely self- sufficient and earns everything it spends on programming. No-one can sensibly take the view that there shouldn’t be a significant public debate about how the BBC spends almost £4bn of public money every year.
“With regard to the regulation of the BBC, what we have simply suggested is that it should be regulated by Ofcom in just the same way as other broadcasters. On the subject of the BBC’s lack of distinctiveness, this is not just our view, our submission quotes criticism from both the BBC Trust and Ofcom.”
