Denzil McDaniel considers the BBC's challenges in a changing media landscape

It’s likely that you will do, maybe to see the fallout from the train crash on ‘Call the Midwife’, or to listen to the football results or news on radio, or to catch up on ‘Match of the Day’.

But it’s also certain that you won’t listen to or watch the BBC anywhere near as much as you used to, which raises the question of how relevant the Corporation is to the lives of ordinary families now.

Gone are the days when the Beeb was one of only a few channels which everyone gathered around to watch programmes on in real time.

A recent survey revealed that 35 per cent of under-30s never watch BBC television live, and even people of my age watch shows on iPlayer at a time that suits.

Does that mean, though, that the day is coming when the BBC is no more?

It’s no exaggeration to say that the future of it – at least, the future of how it will look – is under intense scrutiny.

Like the NHS, the Church and others, changes in modern society provide challenges in adapting for monoliths which began with honourable intentions, but have been overtaken by fresh demands.

Last month, the Westminster Culture Secretary, Nadine Dorries, said the BBC licence fee would be frozen for two years, effectively meaning a multi-million cut in income, but more ominously she said it was time to discuss and debate new ways of funding content.

A new way of funding the BBC will come into effect at Charter renewal in 2027.

Now, we know that Nadine has conducted a few interviews recently in which she looked as if she was the worse for wear from the night before, and that her main previous experience of “culture” was as a contestant in ‘I’m A Celebrity’, and that Labour have accused the Tories of attacking the BBC because they don’t like its journalism (true).

But the fact remains that major change is on the way, even though Nadine and her ilk haven’t even begun to work out what that change should be.

There is no doubt that that the BBC still produces marvellous programmes, such as David Attenborough’s ‘The Green Planet’, and that ‘Strictly’ has a loyal and enthusiastic audience.

It produces first-class comedy and drama, and a range of services including radio, regional programmes, educational services etc. etc.

Critics suggest, though, that these can be made by other broadcasters in an age of Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney Plus, etc.

This is all before we begin to talk about digital services and where the BBC sits in the social media world.

And don’t get me started on the privileged position of the BBC in local journalism while ultra-local newspapers and other news providers are under financial resource pressure like never before.

If the BBC is to continue making quality content, the debate will ask how it is funded; indeed, what kind of BBC do people want, and fundamentally does public service broadcasting still benefit the public and communities?

There are various funding models for public service broadcasting around the world.

Some countries, such as Sweden, have a tax on income, which seems unlikely in the UK and it would mean a broadcaster directly funded by the Government which would require checks and balances.

Especially if an under-pressure government embarked on tax cutting.

Another suggestion made was the German system of a household fee, but when mooted, the then Chancellor George Osborne felt this was too reminiscent of the poll tax; and anyway, it still involves the public paying for a service that a diminishing number are using.

Advertising on the BBC doesn’t appear popular, and may not raise the £3.9 billion the Beeb received from licence fees in 2019 – about three-quarters of its income.

It would also have an impact on ITV, which may lose some revenue.

The other funding model would be a subscription that you would pay if you want to receive the BBC, which would compete with other similar services.

At the moment in our home, we have Netflix at about a tenner a month, and Amazon Prime at £7.99.

One of my kids living away also gets Disney Plus at a similar amount.

I cancelled Sky recently as it was getting very expensive, but have Now TV, via a BT box, which gets me Sky Sports, Sky Atlantic, Documentaries and so on. Essentially, if I want something, I pay for it.

So, would I be prepared to pay a further subscription for the BBC which I find myself using less and less? I might, depending on what they provide, but others wouldn’t.

Having said all that, the licence fee of £159 a year sounds great value for a very wide range of services; it’s just that I personally don’t use that many of them. I pick and choose across other platforms.

There remains the issue, though, of the desirability of public service broadcasting in a democracy; where a publicly-funded broadcaster makes content which reflects their communities.

One commentator recently claimed that the commercial environment of global streaming services meant that while they produced hundreds of hours of British TV per year, the BBC produces 22,000 hours.

There are issues on this island about whether our broadcasters fully represent the diversity of our changing community.

While much of this article is about the BBC, one of the criticisms of the public service broadcaster in the South, RTE, is that it is set in its establishment ways.

It has a blind spot as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, and even in its own jurisdiction, appears resistant to a changing electoral picture.

The Claire Byrne programme on Monday evening shipped some criticism with accusations that an anti-Sinn Fein agenda was out of step with electoral polls.

Having said that, I do watch quite a bit of RTE, and wonder if they offered they offered the people of the North an opportunity to pay their licence fee (rather than a BBC one, even), would we take it? And how would that competition have an impact on BBC NI?

In Northern Ireland, does the BBC fully reflect a changed society, including new communities, for example?

At a conference I attended recently, a black woman said that the only time her community was represented on the BBC was when there was an incident of racism.

And as regards our traditional divide and our current divisions, nobody expects our journalists to be cheerleaders for peace if we want them to “tell it like it is”.

But is the daily diet of conflict and division on some programming, notably Nolan, fully reflecting “how it is”?

The regularity of Jim Allister begs the question, is he really the touchstone for how people in Northern Ireland feel?

Conflict sells, so ratings are high, and there is a danger than Nolan has become bigger than the BBC in Belfast.

BBC management shouldn’t be enthralled with just ratings, and appears asleep at the wheel when it comes to the ideal of a responsible public service broadcaster, despite many individual journalists upholding their end of the bargain.

The argument about regional content is further nuanced in an era where the notion of objective, fair and fact-checked journalism is ever-more difficult.

Everyone seems to have their own truth, and objectivity and respectful discourse are diminishing.

This is, surely, where public service broadcasting should play a role in giving space to a less vacuous debate about wider issues.

The role of public service broadcasting in the United States is a pertinent lesson in how not to do it.

Aside from the occasional decent documentary, its programmes are largely subsidised or supported by big brands.

So, in the absence of a responsible mainstream media in the US, the debate over vaccine conspiracy theorists and even the rise of Trump reflected a society which takes its view from networks with an agenda.

There is a future on this side of the Atlantic for a good, responsible public service broadcaster, and if the BBC can be reformed and a funding model be found to raise the necessary capital to produce quality content, it may well still have a future.