There are changes afoot at the BBC – here's what our approach must be

Almost the opposite unfolded and only a humiliating deal with the DUP shored up a beleaguered government limping towards an evasive end-game. The journey to Brexit became a stumbling and incoherent farce and all the time the future of Scotland was being gambled. It was also a significant day for very different reasons. It was the day that the BBC woke up to their own date with destiny – their first morning of being externally regulated.

The communications watchdog Ofcom now has oversight of the BBC and although many of you will see a change in regulation as an arcane point, it will have greater impact than standing outside Pacific Quay waving a Saltire.

Ofcom’s first annual report has been quietly insistent.

It argues that the BBC is not sufficiently transparent; needs to focus more consistently on original programme making; needs to take further steps to engage young people, and must become better at representing the whole of the UK. The report ends with a sting in the tale. Ofcom has announced a further review, focusing on the most contentious area of the corporation’s output – news and current affairs.

I have always argued that external regulation would be to Scotland’s benefit. A window of fresh air will now open on the news directorate of the BBC, arguably for the first time ever.

Independent regulation was never popular inside the BBC and most senior managers favoured the bureaucratic fudges of the past: opaque internal reviews, a compliant Board of Governors and latterly the BBC Trust. All of them were self-serving solutions to a very real problem: how should the BBC open itself to scrutiny and how should it be fairly judged? The BBC’s reluctance brought to mind an old shibboleth much loved by civil libertarians in the 1970s – “the police watches over us, but who polices the police?”

Even the most ardent defenders of the licence fee have found it hard to rationalise why the BBC had its own unique systems of governance while ITV, STV, Channel 4 and all new digital channels were licensed and regulated by Ofcom.

Change became inevitable, but before we ask an obvious question – does Scotland get the news and current affairs coverage it deserves? – it is important to understand Ofcom, too.

From the outset, Ofcom placed an emphasis on being an evidence-based regulator. This now governs everything it does, from the pricing of mobile phone networks to the quality of television we watch in our homes.

Thus far we have seen benefits to Scotland. Ofcom has dug deep into the sleight-of-hand tactics of network broadcasters and exposed the way in which they commission content and plan production across the UK.

Rather than accept talent should flow to London, Ofcom has set stretching targets for production in the nations and regions of the UK, bringing valuable investment to production in Scotland, which in turn creates employment and opportunity.

Ofcom spends a fortune on research, and the quality of its analysis is world class. So consequently it never takes decisions that are not backed up by statistical evidence and hardcore number-crunching.

There is one huge benefit to this – Ofcom is not impressed with vague generalisations, passing fads or unsupported

theories, nor is it wedded to the status quo if research demonstrates otherwise. Consequently it is not spooked by noisy online complaints either. There is a belief within the corridors of the regulator that a well-argued letter is worth more than a thousand emails, especially those in which the body text is cut and paste from an online campaign.

So the clear advice if you feel short-changed by news coverage is not to complain en masse and not to file knee-jerk reactions, but to take time to pursue your complaint in earnest, supporting your points with reasoned objection and clear evidence.

Frustratingly, this is not always the independence movement’s greatest attribute – there is a tendency to get angry at media injustice, whip-up online campaigns and measure success by what trends.

Reacting to volcanic eruption is not how Ofcom works. They are not going to be swayed by a hastily worded online petition, but a carefully crafted complaint or a piece of research that respects evidence will be given due status.

The review of the BBC’s news and current affairs coverage is an unprecedented opportunity to put forward reasoned and thought-out critiques backed by evidence, not gut instincts, age-old resentments or tired clichés.

If we want the case for self-governance to be better reflected on the BBC then a door to change is opening up, and the opportunity should not be squandered on the altar of grand-standing or Twitter spats.

Ofcom’s chief executive Sharon White has already stated that trustworthiness will be at the heart of the BBC’s news and current affairs review. She has described the BBC as “the most-used source of news and current affairs in the UK” but is also clear this comes with an onerous responsibility.

It is clear from existing research that levels of trustworthiness in the BBC are lower in Scotland. Ofcom wants to know why and how that might be corrected. Sharon White has also signalled that the so-called “fake news” controversy “heightens the importance of the BBC’s role as a trusted provider”. The stakes are high and the future of the licence fee is at risk.

Allowing the BBC to drift to a place where it is increasingly distrusted over either Scottish independence or Brexit is not something that Ofcom will tolerate and the runes are clear.

There is a very widespread view inside the BBC that the corporation has not sufficiently adapted to take account of devolution and that new methods of news-gathering, story-telling and running orders is a matter of urgency.

My own view is that many of the failings of the BBC are not in themselves institutional bias but stem from a stasis that has beset the BBC since television began: a slowness to comprehend change and a consequent tendency to feel most comfortable with the status quo.

This is not a failing unique to the BBC either. It is almost certainly at the root of the behaviours of older voters, reluctant to countenance the seismic change that independence will bring.

One of the clearest of all failings within BBC news coverage has been the notion of “balance” – a deeply flawed concept that lingers in the hearts and minds of both viewers and broadcasters and has a legacy that dates back to two-party politics.

Although “balance” is almost as a lightning rod inside the BBC, it is an intellectually bereft idea that assumes complex issues have two sides that need to be offset and balanced against each other.

In fact, most public policy issues are infinitely more complex than that, and a new paradigm is needed.

The BBC has recently introduced the concept of “diversity of opinion” into its producer guidelines as a first step in recognising that the days of see-saw “balance” are numbered. It is a baby step where big leaps are needed.

The Ofcom review of news and current affairs at the BBC will be a testing moment in the history of television, and rather than moan at Jackie Bird as she reads the autocue, we need a much more sophisticated response to assist the journey to a fairer news media.