Part of the openDemocracy Network
Russia tagsNavigationAmazon Store |
Debating the future of BBC’s Russian Service
Planned changes and cuts to Russian programming on the BBC World Service have provoked strong opposition from Britons engaged with Russia, including writers Michael Frayn, Tom Stoppard and Doris Lessing, distinguished historians Geoffrey Hosking, Orlando Figes and Simon Sebag-Montefiore and senior diplomat David Manning. We publish their open letter published in the Times newspaper and the substantial exchange it provoked between the Nigel Chapman, Director of the BBC World Service and Professor Donald Rayfield over the true significance of the proposed changes.
From the editors of openDemocracy Russia: The BBC World Service argues that it has lost 40% of its Russian listeners in recent years, although the budget for its Russian service is its second largest, at about £5 million a year. The loss of listeners is partly due to the fact that following the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko, when relations between Britain and Russia were at a low ebb, the World Service lost its access to FM transmitters in Moscow and St Petersburg. However, the BBC has also cut the number of hours it transmits on short wave, whose reception maybe be inferior, but does reach nationwide. The World Service is proposing to extend its news and current-affairs coverage, and shift its emphasis to online provision, including increased English-language teaching. Its Russian-language website attracts about one million unique visitors a month, a figure that trebled during the Georgia crisis. Critics of the proposals claim that the greater the misunderstanding between the cultures, the more important the traditionally broad intellectual offering becomes. To narrow the service to the provision of news, current-affairs and languages duplicates what other services provides. We would like to hear what Russian listeners think. For this important debate is taking place against the background of a broader disquiet about the BBC's domestic programming in recent years. Many British viewers argue that the BBC has been forgetting its public-service remit, paying vast sums to celebrity hosts and duplicating the services of commercial broadcasters. Have Russian listeners been responding to a similar decline in the quality of provision, rather than to the quality of the signal? Is the decision to focus on news and current affairs sensible? On the other hand, maybe the shift of resources to online provision is justified? We would welcome your input in this discussion Letter to the Times 7 November 2008 Sir, The BBC World Service has announced that its Russian service broadcasts are being cut by 19 hours a week and that it will now drop all analytical and cultural features. A previous unfortunate decision, taken five years ago, was to reduce the hours of short-wave broadcasting, relying on the Russians themselves to rebroadcast BBC programmes on FM frequencies. The Russian service thus became largely dependent on the Russian authorities - whose co-operation, of course, can no longer be counted on. That decision seems to have been taken merely because short wave is considered old-fashioned, even though it is the only reliable means of signal delivery to the whole of Russia. At a time when in Russia misunderstanding and mistrust of Britain has reached a height unprecedented since the end of the USSR this deliberate reduction in the role of the Russian service seems a perverse concession to those authorities in Russia who have been doing their best to curtail the activities of all British cultural institutions (the BBC and the British Council in particular). The Russian service had a fine record of producing long-format features of unique depth and diversity of opinion on matters of serious political and cultural concern. Expansion of internet services is no compensation for the loss of these features. The BBC World Service should be held to account by the press for its inexplicable actions - and everyone who realises that BBC World Service broadcasts are the best ambassadors we have for this country should make their views known. Antony Beevor Orlando Figes Michael Frayn Doris Lessing David Manning, Former UK Ambassador to USA Lucy Popescu, Director of English PEN's Writers in Prison Committee Simon Sebag-Montefiore Tom Stoppard D. M. Thomas Andrew Wood, British Ambassador to Moscow (1995-2000) Roy Allison (Reader in International Relations, London School of Economics) David Wedgwood Benn Bill Bowring (Professor of Law at Birkbeck College, University of London; adviser on Human Rights and Law Reform in Russia for DfID, 1997-2003) Felicity Cave MBE (Russian translator/interpreter) Philip Cavendish (Senior Lecturer in Russian Literature and Film Studies, SSEES, UCL) Robert Chandler (translator, co-chair Pushkin Club) Simon Clark David & Helen Constantine (editors of ‘Modern Poetry in Translation') Elena Cook (Russian-English interpreter and translator) MBE Sergei Cristo ( BBC radio journalist, 1994-2000) John Crowfoot (Russian translator) Martin Dewhirst (Honorary Research Fellow, University of Glasgow) Natasha Dissanayake (Interpreter and Tourist guide) Simon Dixon (Sir Bernard Pares Professor of Russian History, SSEES, UCL) Pete Duncan (Head of Social Sciences Dept, SSEES, UCL) Helen Dunmore (FRSL) Leo Feigin (Record producer) Jo Glanville (editor Index on Censorship) Seth Graham (Lecturer in Russian, SSEES, UCL) Jane Grayson ( Hon. Senior Lecturer, SSEES, UCL ) Constantine Gregory (actor) Keith Hammond (Russian English Translator) Professor Philip Hanson (Associate Fellow, Chatham House Russia and Eurasia Programme, The Royal Institute of International Affairs Jonathan Heawood (Director English PEN) Mrs Jane Henderson ( Senior Lecturer in the Laws of Eastern Europe, King's College London School of Law.) Jeremy Hicks (Head of Russian Dept, Queen Mary, University of London Geoffrey Hosking (Emeritus Professor of Russian History, University College London) John Kampfner (Chief Executive, Index on Censorship) Lydia Kotsishevsky MD , Columbia University Medical Center, New York City, USA Kazimir Krivko MDT, Excelldent Laboratory INC, Scarsdale, NY, USA Alena Ledeneva (Professor of Politics and Society at UCL) Anatol Lieven (Professor, King's College London) Dominic Lieven (Professor LSE) Margot Light ( Emeritus Professor of International Relations, LSE) Christopher MacLehose (Publisher) Olga Makarova (Teaching and Research Fellow, Queen Mary University of London Professor Silvana Malle (University of Verona - and former head of the OECD Economics Department Division) Gerard McBurney (composer, broadcaster, specialist in Russian and Soviet music) Richard McKane (translator from Russian, co-chair Pushkin Club) Professor Arnold and Doctor Svetlana McMillin (SSEES, UCL) Diran Meghreblian (former current affairs editor of BBC Russian Service) Catherine Merridale (Professor of History, Queen Mary, University of London) James Nixey (Manager and Research Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Programme, The Royal Institute of International Affairs Chatham House) Anna Pilkington (Lecturer, Russian Department, Queen Mary, University of London) Donald Rayfield (Emeritus Professor of Russian and Georgian, Queen Mary, University of London) Susan Richards (Editor OpenDemocracy Russia) John Russell (Professor of Russian and Security Studies, Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford) Daniel Salbstein (Chairman of The Great Britain-Russia Society) Andreas Schonle, (Professor of Russian, Queen Mary, University of London) Irina Shumovitch, (producer BBC Russian Service 1989-2003) Philip Spender ( Chair, Stephen Spender Memorial Trust) Dr Arch Tait (translator from Russian) Peter Tegel (co-chair Pushkin Club) William Tompson (economist, former Professor of Political Economy, Birkbeck College, University of London)
Open letter from the BBC Director of World Service to Members of GB-Russia Society I am writing this letter because it has come to our attention that some members of the GB-Russia Society have signed a letter for publication in a British national newspaper. We have been shown a draft copy of the letter and are dismayed at the misleading claims made about our proposals to strengthen the BBC Russian Service output. Although you may not be a signatory, we feel it is important that all members of this respected society have the opportunity to hear first-hand exactly what the BBC World Service is proposing to strengthen the BBC Russian Service. Like you, we want to see a Russian Service which has as much impact with audiences as we can achieve, and uses all the most effective means of reaching them, including a mix of radio and new media. From the audience figures, we know we have to put considerably more resources into bbcrussian.com as audiences for it in Russia are growing rapidly and at a much faster pace than radio. I will first deal with the claims in the letter before outlining our proposals and the reasons why we are taking these decisions. Firstly, the BBC Russian Service broadcasts are not being cut by 22 hours a week, as claimed in the letter. It's important to understand that we are adding new programmes to the schedule as well as dropping some titles. In fact, the net loss is 19 hours a week, and many of these are repeats. It is important to see this number in context. It is not simply a matter of hours added or reduced. We are proposing to close off-peak news bulletins specifically designed for FM broadcasting partners, which are obsolete because we no longer have any FM partners. We are closing a number of feature programmes. These are not news and current affairs programming and are not regularly bringing significant amounts of analysis to the output. Each of these feature programmes tends to be repeated many times in a week. The loss of these repeats makes up a significant proportion of reduced hours of output on the Russian Service. However, we are extending our high quality news and current affairs at key times of the day. This is a very significant addition to the schedule at a time when audiences will listen to us. It also plays to our core strengths: to provide unbiased news and information to Russian audiences when availability from other broadcast sources in Russia is becoming much more limited. So, far from dropping analytical programmes, as claimed, we are increasing our investment to produce more. The letter claims we are cutting cultural output. In fact we are putting many of the elements of our cultural output into extended editions of our peak time flagship programmes. We are also increasing the current affairs reporting of British cultural and social affairs. The whole strategy is based on trying to increase the "unique depth and diversity of opinion on matters of serious political and cultural concern", as the letter demands, by putting these important elements in parts of the schedule when most Russians are able to hear it; and in ways they have shown they wish to receive it. The letter says the BBC has reduced short wave. In recent times the BBC has ensured that all its programmes in Russian are transmitted on shortwave. We have kept faith with shortwave despite clear evidence that usage is declining among audiences and is rapidly becoming a miniscule part of the Russian media landscape. But all our shortwave signals are affected by the current cycle of sunspot activity that has diminished the power of our broadcasts over the last 18 months or so and will do so for another year at least. This natural phenomenon is outside our control. We are negotiating to obtain extra and stronger frequencies. The BBC is not "largely dependent on the Russian authorities", as stated in the letter. The majority of the BBC Russian Service's audience comes through a mixture of short wave and online which has no interference from the Russian government. Some commentators have described this as the only true unrestricted medium in Russia. We supplement this with three medium wave relays. We have no FM partners. Here is a detailed outline of what we plan across radio and new media in Russian. The major change is a greater investment in bbcrussian.com as the key method for delivery of all our content and the strengthening of some existing areas such as news, video and interactivity on the site. Radio will also change, with our key news and current affairs blocks at peak audience listening times. Utro and Vecher na BBC will become longer and a new weekend edition of Vecher will be introduced. Other key programmes, such as, BBSeva, Vam Slovo and Ranniy Chas will remain. The key elements of the new offer will be: Radio
- We intend to develop extra newsgathering resources in Russia, resulting in increased reporting and analysis of Russian affairs in the key flagship radio programmes. We also intend to increase the current affairs reporting of British, cultural and social affairs, as well as reporting on the FSU, for all programmes and online.
Online
In Russia bbcrussian.com is having a significant impact, where it is easier to access than BBC radio services and where demand is growing. In August, at the height of the conflict between Russia and Georgia, the number of monthly users increased dramatically to nearly three million. The audience is also accessing other platforms online - listening to audio doubled in August; demand for video jumped sixfold to nearly 2,300,000 views. Even page impressions to our mobile services, in which we are currently working without a partner, more than doubled. We are therefore investing in strengthening bbcrussian.com through:
To pay for these improvements we will have to reprioritise resources from within the current Russian Service budget. This means there will be the changes to other parts of the radio outlined in the first part of my letter. These improvements are self-funded from within the Russian Service which will continue to have the second highest level of funding and radio output after the Arabic Service. We believe that a fuller multimedia news offer for audiences will strengthen the impact of the BBC's second biggest non-English language service, and that these changes will help the BBC Russian Service become the most trusted and influential international news provider in Russia, serving audiences in the global Russian-speaking community, across all borders and platforms. It will continue to be a distinctive public service which sits squarely within BBC World Service's core mission. I hope this fuller account of our plans allays your concerns. If you require further details or wish to comment on these changes, please do not hesitate to contact me. Nigel Chapman CMG Director, BBC World Service
Letter from Professor Donald Rayfield to the Director of the BBC World Service 9 November 2008
Dear Mr Chapman,
This article is published by Editors OpenDemocracy Russia, , and openDemocracy.net under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Commercial media must contact us for permission and fees. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.
I was shocked that Chapman's letter was the only one published in the Times, as I expected to see at least one other contrasting point represented. Foolishly enough, I thought newspapers used to present a balanced display of the correspondence they receive. Even though I didn't expect them to publish the message I wrote (criticising the cutbacks to BBC's Brazilian Services and the state of their website, which lost all its relevance and distinctiveness), there's clearly such a wide gap between the alledged improvements done to the World Service in its online form and the reality of their web-based services that any half-curious journalist might be inclined to do some research on the issue. At least they printed Robert Chandler's reply - of course it would have been so much better if they hadn't edited it. The work Robert has been doing to galvanise public opinion has been fantastic and I can only agree with Lara Pawson's words. They express the same kind of sadness that I feel about BBC's current Brazilian service, and it's also reassuring to know I'm not alone. Keep up the good work, Robert. I'm sure this will have a positive and lasting impact on the way the World Service changes from now on. I read criticism for narrowing the scope covered by BBC. The observation that BBC News may have to over self censor its notes is unquestionable, but leaving the issue to that point, gives the impression that BBC News impartiality -to every one's opinion- is out of a question. My personal experiences and complains I read about BBC News would not go along that line at all. It is not only its obscure method of selection of commentaries to publish them on time in the "Have your say Section" or their reasons to reject commentaries even supported by references. What is happening to the BBC Russia service echoes what is happening - or already happened - throughout the World Service. Reading your letter fills me with regret that we were not able to produce a letter of similar weight, with similarly weighty signatories, to try and defend the BBC African services, the BBC Greek service (no longer in existence) and many others. Nigel Chapman is, yes, out of kilter, as most of BBC management have been for at least the last decade. It is deeply depressing to see what has happened to the World Service, which so many listeners around the globe have appreciated for so many years. You should hear the comments I have been told, face to face, from listeners throughout the African continent. They cannot understand why the BBC has allowed the African services to fall to such miserable standards. And yet, and yet... management insists it has all got so much better. I wish you all great luck and strength in defending the Russian service. You are all quite right to write. Well done. Bravo. I would like to speak in defence of the BBC. Their national radio channel, Radio 4, is regarded by its many devoted listeners with its mixture of heavyweight current affairs, plays, comedy and features continues as it has for decades to be both essential daily listening and a national treasure. What happens on their light entertainment channels is relatively unimportant - other, commercial, channels could do it equally well so the recent misjudgements on R2 should be seen in perspective. I would also like to commend the World Service for the independence of its recent broadcast investigation of the events in South Ossetia. It took Foreign Secretary Miliband to task for misrepresenting these events as a Russian invasion. I take the Russian reaction to the brutal attack on S Ossetia to be in turn excessive and brutal and not untypical however misrepresentation of the sequence hardly serves either the cause of truth or as least as I see it British national interest. The end of the Cold War was something to be celebrated. I regret attempts to revive it. We should though revive just one facet of it: a rational mutual fear of war and a rational approach to de-escalation, mutul confidence-building, an avoidance of unnecessary provocations and a negotiated modus vivendi. Post new comment |
Peter Pallai (not verified) said:
Fri, 2008-11-14 15:58Nigel Chapman’s letter reads like an action replay of any or each phase of the gradual destruction of the BBC World Service. Each language service that was axed had been ‘strengthened’ before its demise in exactly the same way the Russian is meant to be now. The Foreign Office tightens the purse strings and the BBC is increasingly looking at the Middle East at the expense of all else. Why not come clean and admit it? No European in his right mind can listen nowadays to the BBC World Service in English since its network of European correspondents has been well nigh abolished. No one disputes the importance of broadcasting to Asia and Africa but, let’s face it, with it’s present priorities the name World Service is a misnomer.
Peter Pallai
of the late Hungarian Service