Interview: Stephen Carter & David Currie, Ofcom (Evening Standard)
By David Rowan
THE first thing that strikes you about the media's new "super-regulators" is how keen they are to parody the jargon of management consultants. For men shaping some of Britain's most creative industries, Stephen Carter and David Currie are strangely comfortable chatting about "workstream prioritisation", "specificity in the communications landscape", and "enforcement mechanisms attached to the outputs not the inputs".
The second thing you notice is that their cultivated aversion to expressing specific opinions has a weak link. Suggest for a moment that their extravagant Thames-side offices are perhaps a tad ostentatious, or their salary bill a little top-heavy, and you trigger a passionate polemic infused with straight-talking detail.
Two days ago, Carter and Currie became the most influential double act in British media when Ofcom assumed power to regulate broadcasting and telecoms. As chief executive and chairman of the Office of Communications, their remit covers everything from sex and violence on TV to foreign takeovers of our commercial channels. Their decisions will affect your mobilephone bill and your broadband charges, and may even determine who owns your daily newspaper. With 263 separate regulatory duties and an in-tray bursting with reviews of public-service broadcasting and BT's dominance, it is perhaps not surprising that they studiously avoid giving much away.
How, for instance, would they preserve ITV's "public-service" obligations if Americans took over? Stephen Carter's answer could be straight out of Dilbert: "The challenge is, is it possible to separate the question of ownership from the question of output, or the question of ownership from the reality of output, and the only way in which you can do that is to make the rules very clear." This is telly that we're talking about?
Surveying magnificent river views from their stunning Bankside headquarters, the Ofcom bosses face a paradox. Labour wants them to promote its free-market vision through "light touch" regulation - as exemplified in their deft handling of the Carlton-Granada merger. But that means letting the market largely take care of itself - with only minimal intervention on behalf of you the viewer (or, in Ofcom jargon, the "citizen-consumer"). "Effective regulation is a bit like the drains," explains David Currie, more formally the Labour peer Lord Currie of Marylebone. "You only notice them when they go badly wrong."
As a former Treasury "wise man" and London Business School economics professor, it is not surprising that Currie, 57, defines a thriving media in terms of "effective competition and successful markets". Carter, too, favours the thoroughly commercial approach that you would expect from a former chief executive of the J Walter Thompson ad agency.
Carter, 39, is sharp, assertive, and impatient of any suggestion that multi-channel TV may have diluted programme quality. "When it arrived a dozen or so years ago, people thought it was going to be the evil of the world," he says. "Now I don't know any of my social peers who don't have some form of pay-television, and don't regard it as an addition to their lives. Go back to read the Hansard report from 1954 when commercial television was being launched and the view then was that it was the end of the world. While there are things that have gone wrong in the world, I don't think you can lay them all at the door of commercial television."
Ofcom will, he says, seek to preserve impartial news, maintain quality UK production and regional coverage, and apply "some controls on appropriate broadcasting". But what of those in the industry who worry that Carter's commercial background - he also ran NTL - make him an unlikely advocate for public-service broadcasting (or "PSB", in the jargon)? "Well, the last time I looked, advertising paid for commercial public-service broadcasting - contributing about £1.8 billion," he fires back. Sitting beside him, David Currie adds: "And one of the things our PSB review will do is look at all the evidence in this area and the allegation that quality has fallen. Well, has it? Has anybody really quantified that?"
DO they accept some commentators' views that there is too much sex on terrestrial television? "If you look at what people really think out there," Currie says, "the evidence is that the concern is more on violence than sex and nudity. And I think we should take those views quite seriously." What about rival broadcasters' complaints that Sky has too much power as "gatekeeper" to other companies' programming? There is a long pause. "Sky is a significant player in the pay-television market," Carter says cautiously, "and it has grown that business from a standing start." He regrets the demonisation of individuals, he says. "Not everything Mr Murdoch does is a bad thing."
Another concern is the temptation for a spin-obsessed government to " nobble" a single, all-embracing regulator. There are worries within the BBC, in particular, that its journalistic independence will suffer if, as has been mooted, Ofcom assumes more of the governors' powers.
But, although Lord Currie has been a Labour Party donor, and Ed Richards recently joined the board straight from Downing Street, Stephen Carter insists that Ofcom is defiantly non-partisan. "They are only two of a large number of people here, many of whose political opinions I have no idea about," he says. "I understand why people make the accusation [of potential bias], but the truth is, it's irrelevant." On other matters that touch us all as "citizen-consumers", the regulators are determinedly noncommittal. Do they think mobile-call charges are too high? "I can see no evidence on that subject," Stephen Carter responds, before David Currie adds: "Mobile telephony is remarkably popular, and the penetration is rising all the time." He is, he says, no supporter of price caps.
What about the directoryenquiries mess? "I'm not sure it's accurate to call it a mess," tiptoes Carter. "It's undoubtedly a perceived mess, but we could have an interesting discussion about whether it's a factual mess ..." Alas, there is no time today for that interesting discussion - but Carter does reveal that Ofcom is likely to announce new performance criteria soon for 118 services.
For one rare moment, though, the regulators reveal a fiery side that belies their studious detachment. It concerns press criticism of Ofcom's "bloated" structure, its 28 staff earning more than £100,000, and those luxurious gym-equipped offices.
"It's such tosh," snaps Carter, who points out that Ofcom's 880 staff replace 1,200 employed by the previous regulators. The salaries are "appropriate" for attracting talented people who, if coming from business, have invariably taken a pay cut. As for those sumptuous offices ... "Do you know, I sometimes think we'd have been better off if we'd chosen a really expensive building with poor views, rather than a very efficient building with nice views," Carter says. Besides, the rent is £25 per square foot; Croydon, both men say in unison, would have cost £40.
It proves a forlorn hope that such "specificity" (as Ofcom's bosses would say) might extend to disclosing their own favourite TV shows. Stephen Carter is back to giving nothing away. "I am a big fan of television, I love radio, I'm a big user of the internet and I'm probably slightly too addicted to newspapers," he says. "But you know what? I never comment on specifics."
(Evening Standard, December 31 2003)
THE first thing that strikes you about the media's new "super-regulators" is how keen they are to parody the jargon of management consultants. For men shaping some of Britain's most creative industries, Stephen Carter and David Currie are strangely comfortable chatting about "workstream prioritisation", "specificity in the communications landscape", and "enforcement mechanisms attached to the outputs not the inputs".
The second thing you notice is that their cultivated aversion to expressing specific opinions has a weak link. Suggest for a moment that their extravagant Thames-side offices are perhaps a tad ostentatious, or their salary bill a little top-heavy, and you trigger a passionate polemic infused with straight-talking detail.
Two days ago, Carter and Currie became the most influential double act in British media when Ofcom assumed power to regulate broadcasting and telecoms. As chief executive and chairman of the Office of Communications, their remit covers everything from sex and violence on TV to foreign takeovers of our commercial channels. Their decisions will affect your mobilephone bill and your broadband charges, and may even determine who owns your daily newspaper. With 263 separate regulatory duties and an in-tray bursting with reviews of public-service broadcasting and BT's dominance, it is perhaps not surprising that they studiously avoid giving much away.
How, for instance, would they preserve ITV's "public-service" obligations if Americans took over? Stephen Carter's answer could be straight out of Dilbert: "The challenge is, is it possible to separate the question of ownership from the question of output, or the question of ownership from the reality of output, and the only way in which you can do that is to make the rules very clear." This is telly that we're talking about?
Surveying magnificent river views from their stunning Bankside headquarters, the Ofcom bosses face a paradox. Labour wants them to promote its free-market vision through "light touch" regulation - as exemplified in their deft handling of the Carlton-Granada merger. But that means letting the market largely take care of itself - with only minimal intervention on behalf of you the viewer (or, in Ofcom jargon, the "citizen-consumer"). "Effective regulation is a bit like the drains," explains David Currie, more formally the Labour peer Lord Currie of Marylebone. "You only notice them when they go badly wrong."
As a former Treasury "wise man" and London Business School economics professor, it is not surprising that Currie, 57, defines a thriving media in terms of "effective competition and successful markets". Carter, too, favours the thoroughly commercial approach that you would expect from a former chief executive of the J Walter Thompson ad agency.
Carter, 39, is sharp, assertive, and impatient of any suggestion that multi-channel TV may have diluted programme quality. "When it arrived a dozen or so years ago, people thought it was going to be the evil of the world," he says. "Now I don't know any of my social peers who don't have some form of pay-television, and don't regard it as an addition to their lives. Go back to read the Hansard report from 1954 when commercial television was being launched and the view then was that it was the end of the world. While there are things that have gone wrong in the world, I don't think you can lay them all at the door of commercial television."
Ofcom will, he says, seek to preserve impartial news, maintain quality UK production and regional coverage, and apply "some controls on appropriate broadcasting". But what of those in the industry who worry that Carter's commercial background - he also ran NTL - make him an unlikely advocate for public-service broadcasting (or "PSB", in the jargon)? "Well, the last time I looked, advertising paid for commercial public-service broadcasting - contributing about £1.8 billion," he fires back. Sitting beside him, David Currie adds: "And one of the things our PSB review will do is look at all the evidence in this area and the allegation that quality has fallen. Well, has it? Has anybody really quantified that?"
DO they accept some commentators' views that there is too much sex on terrestrial television? "If you look at what people really think out there," Currie says, "the evidence is that the concern is more on violence than sex and nudity. And I think we should take those views quite seriously." What about rival broadcasters' complaints that Sky has too much power as "gatekeeper" to other companies' programming? There is a long pause. "Sky is a significant player in the pay-television market," Carter says cautiously, "and it has grown that business from a standing start." He regrets the demonisation of individuals, he says. "Not everything Mr Murdoch does is a bad thing."
Another concern is the temptation for a spin-obsessed government to " nobble" a single, all-embracing regulator. There are worries within the BBC, in particular, that its journalistic independence will suffer if, as has been mooted, Ofcom assumes more of the governors' powers.
But, although Lord Currie has been a Labour Party donor, and Ed Richards recently joined the board straight from Downing Street, Stephen Carter insists that Ofcom is defiantly non-partisan. "They are only two of a large number of people here, many of whose political opinions I have no idea about," he says. "I understand why people make the accusation [of potential bias], but the truth is, it's irrelevant." On other matters that touch us all as "citizen-consumers", the regulators are determinedly noncommittal. Do they think mobile-call charges are too high? "I can see no evidence on that subject," Stephen Carter responds, before David Currie adds: "Mobile telephony is remarkably popular, and the penetration is rising all the time." He is, he says, no supporter of price caps.
What about the directoryenquiries mess? "I'm not sure it's accurate to call it a mess," tiptoes Carter. "It's undoubtedly a perceived mess, but we could have an interesting discussion about whether it's a factual mess ..." Alas, there is no time today for that interesting discussion - but Carter does reveal that Ofcom is likely to announce new performance criteria soon for 118 services.
For one rare moment, though, the regulators reveal a fiery side that belies their studious detachment. It concerns press criticism of Ofcom's "bloated" structure, its 28 staff earning more than £100,000, and those luxurious gym-equipped offices.
"It's such tosh," snaps Carter, who points out that Ofcom's 880 staff replace 1,200 employed by the previous regulators. The salaries are "appropriate" for attracting talented people who, if coming from business, have invariably taken a pay cut. As for those sumptuous offices ... "Do you know, I sometimes think we'd have been better off if we'd chosen a really expensive building with poor views, rather than a very efficient building with nice views," Carter says. Besides, the rent is £25 per square foot; Croydon, both men say in unison, would have cost £40.
It proves a forlorn hope that such "specificity" (as Ofcom's bosses would say) might extend to disclosing their own favourite TV shows. Stephen Carter is back to giving nothing away. "I am a big fan of television, I love radio, I'm a big user of the internet and I'm probably slightly too addicted to newspapers," he says. "But you know what? I never comment on specifics."
(Evening Standard, December 31 2003)
posted by David Rowan at Wednesday, December 31, 2003
<< Home