Quite rightly, after protests from MPs and listeners, it looks like the proposed cuts to BBC local radio are to be scaled back. But there is another battle brewing at Broadcasting House about cuts to Radio 4.
When Mark Thompson announced his package of cuts, 'Delivering Quality First', on October 6, he was keen to stress that Radio 4 - alongside BBC One, children's programmes, News and the devolved nations - would be largely safe from the cuts. But this pronouncement - which saved Thompson from predictable criticism in the serious print press - is based on the kind of sleight of hand that could only come from BBC management.
Thompson has divided the upcoming BBC cuts into two categories: 'productivity' and 'scope'. A 'scope' cut means saving money by the BBC stopping doing something (for example, no more new daytime shows on BBC Two). A 'productivity' cut means saving money by carrying on doing exactly the same thing, but doing it with fewer people or a smaller budget.
(One small aside: a very senior BBC manager said to me privately the other day that Lord Patten's supervisory BBC Trust, currently consulting on the cuts, can only suggest changes to 'scope' cuts, not to 'productivity' cuts. That's presumably because 'productivity' cuts are operational decisions for Thompson and his management team, not policy decisions for consideration by the Trust. A convenient distinction for management, but one which - as with so many other Trust processes - might not get the best deal for licence-fee payers.)
It is easy to protest against a 'scope' cut - the proposed changes to, for example, local radio schedules were clear to see. It is much more difficult to argue against a 'productivity' cut, because the idea is that listeners and viewers won't see any difference. And, of course, the serious print press traditionally says that the BBC is overstaffed and inefficient, so any increases in productivity should be welcomed by commentators like me.
And true enough, very little in the way of 'scope' cuts are planned for Radio 4, so nothing to worry about, eh?
The true picture is murkier than that. Even though Radio 4, for example, is supposed to be protected from the cuts, 50 staff will lose their jobs in the departments that make its programmes. Can all of those be truly characterised as making the BBC more 'productive', or does there come a point when a cut is simply a cut?
The unions - predictably but, in this case, convincingly - say the latter. 'Radio 4 is seriously threatened,' says a document prepared by the NUJ's Radio and Technology chapel. It goes on to say that the Audio & Music Production department - which makes Desert Island Discs, Start the Week, etc 'proposes to force all its c. 130 Producers and Senior Producers to apply for a newly-defined 'Producer' role – with at least 30 fewer posts but no reduction in R4 output. Those who are unsuccessful face redundancy or demotion. Many, but by no means all, will be replaced by so-called 'Assistant Producer' posts – a euphemism for 'underpaid producers'. There are no proposals to cut management jobs.'
The document finishes by saying 'Is losing so many expert production staff really "the best way ahead"? If this is "special protection", what would swingeing cuts look like?'
No comments:
Post a Comment