麻豆社

Summary

Devolution of power from Westminster to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland over the last ten years represents a major change in the governance of the United Kingdom. For the 麻豆社, as for all broadcasters, it inevitably adds to the complexity of network news and current affairs coverage of the four nations. The 麻豆社 has a particular responsibility to serve the whole UK, not least because it draws the same licence fee from citizens wherever they live. From a variety of sources, however, concerns were expressed to the 麻豆社 Trust that the 麻豆社 was not covering the different policies of the nations in a way that enabled audiences to understand fully what was happening in different parts of the UK.

The Trust accordingly commissioned an independent assessment from Professor Anthony King, with research from Cardiff University and the British Market Research Bureau (BMRB), to assist it in reaching a view on the accuracy and impartiality of the 麻豆社's network news and current affairs coverage of the four nations. This work is now complete. Among its important findings, it indicates a clear desire on the part of audiences to learn about all parts of the UK. It also indicates that the 麻豆社's coverage is generally seen as fair and impartial.

But the analysis also points out shortcomings in the 麻豆社's coverage of the whole UK. It suggests that the 麻豆社 is missing opportunities to reflect more consistently the reality of devolution, and that it needs to go further in reporting the changing UK with the range that audiences are entitled to expect. It also sets out concerns about the precision and clarity of reporting.

Audiences across the UK need to be confident that the 麻豆社 understands and accurately reflects policy debates and decisions in each of the four nations of the UK. We are encouraged that the 麻豆社 Management is committed to getting this right. We have asked Management for a clear final action plan by the summer, and shall track vigorously their progress in achieving it.

Context

The 麻豆社 Trust represents licence fee payers in its oversight of the 麻豆社. It listens to their opinions and expectations and uses them to inform its own decisions. It expects Management to deliver public value within the Public Purposes established by the Charter through bringing distinctive services of the highest quality to audiences across the UK. It also expects the 麻豆社's journalism to meet the highest standards of accuracy and impartiality in order to underpin the 麻豆社's independence and to sustain public trust.

In keeping with a practice established by the 麻豆社 Governors, the 麻豆社 Trust assesses the impartiality of 麻豆社 output through independently-led reviews, underpinned by research as appropriate, in order to provide information to the Trust in holding the Executive to account for the impartiality of its services.

Devolution of power from Westminster to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland represents transformational change within the United Kingdom. Following elections in May 2007, each of these nations had political parties in power or sharing power which advocated independence. For everyone and for all opinions this represented a significant development a decade on from the start of devolution. Meanwhile, the Trust was hearing concerns from audiences that the 麻豆社 was not covering the different policies of the nations in a way that enabled them to understand fully what was happening in different parts of the United Kingdom. This was emerging in a variety of ways:

• through comments from the 麻豆社 Audience Councils, which are made up of licence fee payers who advise the 麻豆社 Trust on how well the 麻豆社 is delivering its Public Purposes and serving licence fee payers in different parts of the UK;
• through extensive Purpose Remits research carried out for the Trust in 2007 which identified relevant performance gaps – that is the difference between the importance that the audience places on provision and the extent to which it perceives it is being fulfilled by the 麻豆社. In this area, two gaps were identified in relation to the two Public Purposes Representing the UK, its nations regions and communities, and Sustaining citizenship and civil society in the Charter:
• in relation to the first, audiences in the different UK nations believed that the 麻豆社 could do better in catering for their own communities, and in representing their area to other parts of the UK. The Trust said at the time that "the priority to represent the different nations, regions and communities to the rest of the UK is one where licence fee payers across the UK see room for improvement"
• in relation to the second, one of the priorities is helping audiences to understand how the UK is governed. Research showed that in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales audiences believed the 麻豆社 could do better in helping them understand how their nation was politically governed. The Trust noted that there was a clear interest amongst audiences in the nations for news provision which reflects the changing realities in the United Kingdom as devolution unfolds; and
• through direct comments to Trustees from the audience at public meetings and through radio phone-ins.

Accordingly, the Trust commissioned Professor Anthony King to offer his assessment as to whether the 麻豆社's network news and current affairs output was impartial, accurate and clear as to which facts and views applied to the individual nations and to consider if the nations' policies were properly reflected and explained. The project has also been supported and evidenced by two substantial items of research commissioned by the Trust: content analysis by Cardiff University and audience research by the British Market Research Bureau (BMRB). The reports of both research projects are published as appendices A and B to Professor King's report.

Findings

Professor King's report and the accompanying research analysis address serious questions for the 麻豆社. Does its news and current affairs output meet the high editorial standards expected of the 麻豆社, and does it meet the Public Purposes which require the 麻豆社 to sustain citizenship and civil society and to represent the nations of the UK?

As a backdrop to these questions, Professor King's report illustrates the significant ways in which the UK has changed in recent years, economically, socially, culturally and institutionally. Such developments inevitably make the reporting of public policy in the UK more complex, and pose challenges and opportunities to 麻豆社 network news and current affairs. Professor King acknowledges that 麻豆社 Management is fully aware of the issues posed by this large-scale and constant change. The 麻豆社 Management's submission to the review can be found at appendix C of Professor King's report.

Among the research findings from Cardiff University and BMRB, indications are that the vast majority of people are interested in what is happening elsewhere in the UK and want to learn more. The 麻豆社's performance in reporting the whole UK is seen as consistently superior to that of other broadcasters. Audiences who consume the 麻豆社's output appear to approve of what they listen to and watch, with nearly 70 per cent considering that the 麻豆社 accurately and fairly represents their nations and communities to the rest of the UK. Those who watch or listen most frequently to 麻豆社 news and current affairs programmes are consistently among the best informed.

Professor King's review finds little or no evidence that 麻豆社 network coverage in this area falls short on grounds of impartiality. On the contrary, the 麻豆社 has received praise for the impartiality of its coverage of politics and policy in all four nations of the UK.

Notwithstanding examples of good practice, however, and supported by findings from the Cardiff research, the review highlights concern that 麻豆社 network news and current affairs programmes taken as a whole are not reporting the changing UK with the range and precision that might reasonably be expected given the high standards the 麻豆社 itself aspires to. There are specific concerns as to accuracy and clarity of reporting, the balance of coverage, and missed opportunities of drawing on the rich variety of the UK and communicating it to multiple audiences. As examples, political coverage is seen as unduly focused on Westminster in volume and style; there is seen to be a general bias in favour of stories about England or telling stories from an England perspective; and there is evidence that several stories in the nations which may have been significant to the UK were not taken up by the network. Overall, Professor King concludes that the 麻豆社 has not responded adequately and appropriately to the UK's changing political, social, economic and cultural architecture. In the closing sections of his report, he offers a range of suggestions and issues for consideration in resolving the concerns he has highlighted.

Trust conclusions

The Trust appreciates the substantial work undertaken by Professor King, Cardiff University and BMRB. We accept the broad findings, which provide evidence and context for concerns expressed to us by licence fee payers.

The Trust welcomes the clear conclusion that 麻豆社 network coverage of politics and policy is impartial. This is an important conclusion and central to the Trust's duty of ensuring the impartiality of 麻豆社 coverage. We also welcome confirmation of the value placed on 麻豆社 output in this area by a majority of users, as evidenced by the BMRB research which says that most people agree that the 麻豆社 has better coverage of UK news than anyone else and that watching the 麻豆社 has raised their awareness of the key political processes within the UK nations.

However, we are concerned at Professor King's assessment that the 麻豆社 is not reporting the changing UK with the range that might be expected, given the fact that audiences have expressed a desire to learn more about other parts of the UK in the 麻豆社's coverage. This echoes a wider concern expressed to the Trust that audiences see the 麻豆社 as too preoccupied with the interests and experiences of London, and that those who live elsewhere in the UK do not see their lives adequately reflected on the 麻豆社. It is not acceptable that a 麻豆社 funded by licence fee payers across the whole country should not address the interests of them all in fair measure.

We are also concerned at the finding by Professor King that there is insufficient precision and clarity in the 麻豆社's network coverage. The 麻豆社's output must meet the high standards expected by the licence fee payer. It is essential that accurate information about political developments in the four nations is reflected in network news and current affairs so that the authority of the voice of the 麻豆社 is maintained, and the audience has confidence in that voice. To achieve full accuracy, the audience needs to be made aware by clear labelling which facts are applicable to which nations of the UK.

For all the strengths of the 麻豆社's coverage, these are weaknesses which must be remedied. They are central to audiences' trust in the 麻豆社 and to the 麻豆社's delivery of the Public Purposes.

This is an urgent challenge if the 麻豆社 is to meet the objective of serving the interests of licence fee payers in all parts of the UK in equal measure. We welcome the 麻豆社 Management's commitment to respond to the important concerns raised by the review, as evidenced in their initial response which is attached as an appendix to our conclusions. The issues we highlight for immediate action are around the accuracy and clarity of reporting, missed opportunities and balance of coverage. From our initial discussions with the Management, the 麻豆社's readiness to provide the platform for all parts of the UK to engage in this changed democracy is not in doubt.

We have asked the Management to provide a final action plan by July which sets out how they will deliver their proposed actions over the next year. We shall publish this. Subsequently, the Trust proposes to seek the cooperation of the Audience Councils in tracking the success of action taken in meeting the challenges ahead, and within eighteen months we shall ourselves repeat the research undertaken to provide a clear assessment of whether the 麻豆社's performance is improving.