British Bold Creative

The BBC Charter Renewal offers an unmissable opportunity to put the public in charge of Public Service Media, and enable it to reshape the media commons. In the increasingly troubled 21st century this is a strategic necessity.

Federico Gaggio

09 Mar 2026 — 10 min read

I love Auntie. Image: Clive Russell, This Ain’t Rock’n’Roll

It is coming up to 30 years since I moved to the UK. What brought me here, besides meeting the love of my life, was the vibrancy of the creative sector — music, design, the arts, and the broadcast industry I was working in. As a budding broadcast designer, I was given the opportunity to spend a couple of weeks with the BBC presentation department. Every leading designer in the field, without exception,[[1]] started and learned their trade at the BBC. The same for the majority of writers, film-makers, presenters, producers and other creative talent. This centenarian British institution has been the cradle of the UK's creative industry, and remains a beacon of excellence for the global media industry. For instance Discovery, the globally distributed US channel I worked at for some years, built its brand foundations and positive perceptions largely through content acquired from the BBC.

Growing up in Italy I witnessed the near-total capture and degradation of the media landscape at the hands of Silvio Berlusconi and his political backers. My family avoided television as toxic waste. Discovering the wealth of high quality programmes on the BBC, alongside a public and cultural sector that valued the medium as much as cinema, theatre and publishing, changed my understanding of what media could be.

The multiple intersecting crises of our time – climate, education, democracy, mental health, the erosion of trust – are compounded by the corruption of much of the media through which we understand the world, connect and interact with others. Well funded, independent Public Service Media (PSM) is a fundamental pillar of a democratic society. This is why I care deeply about the BBC. I have seen, from the inside and the outside, what it makes possible — and what happens when this kind of public institution is allowed to deteriorate.

Here I reflect on why the Charter Review matters and what I think needs to change. I argue for placing the BBC on a permanent statutory footing, governed by citizen bodies rather than political appointees, and funded through a universal levy set by an independent commission. I propose that the BBC's public purposes be strengthened, focusing on universality, media literacy and public empowerment, epistemic security, and a mandate to act as an anchor institution for the UK's wider media ecosystem. And I make the case for the BBC to lead, not follow, in digital innovation — building public infrastructure and public AI rather than renting space on extractive commercial platforms.

The moment we are in

The BBC's Royal Charter is up for renewal. This happens roughly every decade, and each time it amounts to an existential crisis for the institution. The government has published a Green Paper — Britain's Story: The Next Chapter — setting out its proposals. It could be a moment for bold, democratic thinking about the future of public service media. Instead, the government's proposals appear to offer some tinkering in order to manage decline.

The crisis facing the BBC is not merely financial or structural, nor is it primarily about scandals and poor management. We are living through a period in which the infrastructure of information itself has been colonised by commercial interests whose incentives undermine the public good. I have written before about how we let the space of our social interactions be captured by billionaire-owned corporations, enabling them to exert unprecedented power over public discourse.[[2]] Authoritarian politics are rising across the world. Silicon Valley billionaires are intervening directly in our democratic conversations. The BBC is one of the few institutions with the reach, credibility and independence to act as a counterweight. But only if it is empowered to.

Critics argue that the BBC is no longer relevant in a world of endless choice and digital platforms. The excellent, harrowing documentary "Molly vs. the Machines"[[3]] provides a stark reminder of what is at stake here. Public service media, like the BBC and Channel 4, are more relevant than ever. They are not just about broadcasting, they provide vital civic infrastructure: a fundamental component of what Professor Nick Couldry calls the "infrastructures of connection" that construct our shared reality.[[4]] If that infrastructure fails, or is captured, the consequences reach far beyond our screens.

The BBC belongs to the public

Around 95% of the UK population uses at least one BBC service every month. Universality — the principle that the BBC serves everyone, regardless of income, education or location — is what makes it a shared space rather than a product. It binds us together for the Olympics, the funerals, the national debates. Without a shared 'space of the world', we are just a collection of disparate individuals staring at different screens, managed by algorithms that profit from our division.

The Green Paper's underlying message, sometimes explicit, often unspoken, is that the BBC has failed. This is demonstrably untrue. The corporation contributes almost £5 billion to the economy annually, supporting over 50,000 workers. As Anna Shea of Equity put it, the BBC should be understood as "an arm of the welfare state in which arts and culture are enshrined as an essential public service alongside health, education, social security and housing."[[5]] What has failed is not the BBC, but the political will to protect and invest in it.

The Green Paper proposes to introduce advertising and top-up subscriptions. Both would be corrosive. Advertising would integrate the BBC into invasive ad-tech surveillance markets, influence commissioning decisions, and undermine universality. It would also erode, in a declining market, the opportunities available to commercial rivals. Subscriptions would create a two-tier BBC: a premium service for those who can afford it, a degraded version for everyone else. Both would transform the relationship between the citizen and the broadcaster from a shared civic bond into a commercial transaction.

I believe the BBC's funding must remain universal and guaranteed. Whether through a reformed licence fee or a progressive household levy, the mechanism should apply to all citizens to enable the BBC's universal mission. It is a public good, underpinning the information environment everyone lives in, regardless of whether they use it or not, just as non-drivers benefit from roads. But the mechanism for setting the level of funding must change. Allowing the Treasury to determine the licence fee means governments can use funding as political leverage. I support the creation of an Independent Funding Commission, a statutory body, similar to the German KEF, conducting evidence-based assessments of the resources required to fulfil the BBC's mission. The government must either accept or publicly justify rejecting its recommendations. The BBC has suffered a 30–40% real-terms cut since 2010. The key shift is from sustainable — which risks becoming a euphemism for managed decline — to adequate.

Freeing the BBC from political capture

The current Royal Charter timelines create a recurring threat. Every decade, the BBC must negotiate for its own survival with the government of the day. This holds the institution hostage to electoral cycles and invites political pressure, precisely when we face the dreadful possibility of a future government that views independent journalism as an enemy rather than a public good.

I believe the BBC should be placed on a permanent statutory footing, a "Forever Charter" that divorces its constitutional right to exist from short-term political leverage. Operational performance would and should be rigorously scrutinised, but the institution itself would never again be forced to beg for its own life. I am far from alone in this view. Demos proposes a complementary mechanism, a "Public Lock," requiring citizens' assemblies and supermajority votes across all UK legislatures before any fundamental change could be enacted.[[5]] A Forever Charter doesn't mean an unchangeable BBC. As a public institution, any statutory changes require the public's informed consent, not just the decision of whichever government happens to hold office.

Of course the BBC should be held accountable. But it should answer to us citizens rather than to the government of the day. Dan Hind and others have proposed reconstituting the BBC as a Public Service Cooperative, where every licence fee payer is a member with real rights.[[6]] The Voice of the Listener & Viewer proposed a Public Media Commission with independent oversight of appointments and funding.[[7]] Several voices suggest standing Citizens' Assemblies, selected by sortition like juries, with statutory power to set the BBC's strategic direction. All of these are possible constitutional designs converging on a single conviction: the citizens – who pay for, and benefit from the BBC – should govern it.

Rethinking the BBC's purposes

The Green Paper proposes modifications to the BBC's Public Purposes. Two of them concern me.

The first is the elevation of "accuracy" to a standalone Public Purpose alongside impartiality. Of course accuracy is non-negotiable: the public expects it from the world's most trusted news source, in fact it is already embedded in the BBC's editorial guidelines. The question is whether a statutory purpose is the right instrument to protect it, or whether it creates new vulnerabilities. Under potential future governments hostile to the BBC, defining it as a statutory purpose could open the door to increased political pressure on specific stories under the guise of regulatory oversight.

The second is a new purpose to "drive economic growth." While the BBC undoubtedly contributes to the UK economy, making growth a statutory goal risks reorienting its priorities from serving citizens to catering for consumers and businesses. Instead, I support the idea of the BBC as an Anchor Institution for local media — mandated to share resources, footage and technology with independent local news providers and young creators across the UK. This would strengthen the local information ecosystem, which is in genuine crisis, positioning the BBC as a partner rather than a competitor.

More broadly, I think we need new metrics for assessing the BBC's value. The Demos report introduces the concept of Epistemic Security — measuring the BBC's contribution to democratic resilience and the integrity of the information space.[[8]] Developing robust indicators for this is itself a task the BBC and its regulators should undertake. This matters more than Gross Value Added. In a landscape where commercial platforms optimise for polarisation and engagement, drowning out verified facts, the BBC's role in maintaining a shared, trustworthy information environment is itself a form of national security. We should measure and protect it as such.

I also support the MRC's proposal for a new Public Purpose for Media Literacy and Public Empowerment. This would shift the focus from passive consumption of news to active citizenship: helping the public understand how media works, how information is produced and distorted, and how to participate in the media landscape rather than be controlled by it. In an age of algorithmic manipulation and AI, this is not a luxury — it is a democratic necessity.

Building, not renting

The Green Paper acknowledges the transformed media landscape, dominated by foreign, for-profit platforms. But its response is cautious, framing the BBC primarily as a content producer which needs to adapt to infrastructure built by others.

I think this is a failure of imagination. The BBC has always been a technological innovator — it pioneered radio, television, the iPlayer. In the 1990s, BBC staff were developing community-based digital social media and were blocked from doing so on the grounds that it would inhibit market innovation. The result, as Dan Hind has observed, was that we got extractive data vampires based in California instead of a public option in digital media. In 2017, the BBC was explicitly told it could no longer pursue technological innovation — reversing a permission granted a decade earlier.[[5]]

I described this pattern in my article on media ecology.[[9]] The dominant paradigm treats media infrastructure as a market to be captured, not a commons to be cultivated. The current digital landscape is dominated by US and Chinese tech giants who extract value, impose their own rules, and do not have citizens' needs at heart. The market alone will not produce the digital commons societies need.

The Charter Review is an opportunity to change direction. The Demos report acknowledges that we are in a "democratic emergency" where the infrastructure of information is hostile to the public interest. A bold public service vision would put the BBC at the forefront of building public digital infrastructure: open, interoperable platforms that prioritise privacy and public value over data extraction. Rather than renting space on platforms designed to monetise our attention, the BBC should be contributing to the next generation of media infrastructure for public value. And it wouldn't have to do it alone. Working with its European counterparts and initiatives such as Eurostack on technological sovereignty, the BBC could participate in the development of Public AI: artificial intelligence governed as a public resource, built on sovereign data trusts, ensuring these powerful tools serve the common good rather than surveillance for commercial or political ends.[[10]]

British, Bold, Creative

Ten years ago, I had the privilege of working with the very talented team at BBC Creative to help them articulate their purpose and culture. The team recognised the importance of connecting to the broader public service mission, and were inspired by Cheryl Taylor, BBC Children's head of content, who said: "CBBC is there to help children become good citizens." In a similar vein we must take seriously the BBC's role as a cultural anchor for the whole of the UK. Like universal healthcare and education, a healthy information space is a critical public service need.

I join many in celebrating the significance of the BBC for the UK, and for the creative sector I have been working in for over three decades. But this moment demands the imagination and political courage to reinvent Public Service Media for the complexity of today's world, and the century ahead of us.

A British, Bold, Creative vision will not come from tinkering and cowering under the blows of powerful detractors at home and abroad. It requires political will and organised action. The BBC can provide a safe space where citizens come together to understand the world and each other — a civic commons, not just content or products.

The Charter Review consultation closes soon, but the process continues through to 2027. Join me in making the case for a truly independent, well funded and citizens-led BBC.