The Wisdom of Promoting Diversity

Thirty years after the introduction of the Sex Discrimination Act, the Equal Opportunities Commission wants new laws to close the gender gap. Its annual survey of women in senior management has found the number in oppositions is continuing to rise. But the EOC says parity with males will be decades away without further legislation.

Among the FTSE 100 companies, just 10.5 percent of directors – non-executive and executive – are women. This is up from 8.6 percent two years ago, an annual increase of 1 percentage point. At that pace, it would take 40 years to achieve gender equality on the boards of Britain's largest listed companies.

Yet these figures should not be used to justify costly regulation to force companies to appoint more women directors. Setting any sort of target would ignore individual company circumstances. It would also lead to token appointments that could damage the interests of employees and shareholders – male and female alike.

Nor is it clear that measures against gender discrimination would produce equal numbers of male and female directors. Much more could be done to help staff combine careers and parenting, as many successful businesses have shown. But it would take radical changes in child-rearing practices to put men and women on a completely equal footing in the jobs market.

That said, there is a shocking lack of diversity in the boardroom. Research commissioned by the Financial Times recently showed that the typical non-executive director is a 58-year-old white male with a background in finance. Such individuals are – of course – estimable but boards need a much wider pool of knowledge and experience.

This is not just “motherhood and apple pie”. As James Surowiecki pointed out in The Wisdom of Crowds, homogeneous groups are great at doing what they do well but become progressively less able to investigate alternatives. Bringing in new blood – even if less experienced – makes the group smarter.

A study of large US companies found boards with women directors were better than all-male boards at influencing management. They are also better at recruiting and retaining women employees – a competitive advantage in the war for talent.

Defenders of the status quo rightly say there is a shortage of women with board experience in big companies. And boards overwhelmingly seek specific sector or industry knowledge in recruiting non-executive directors.

Yet as Laura Tyson, dean of London Business School, pointed out in a government-sponsored report in 2003, there is a growing number of talented candidates in the “marzipan layer” just below board level, in smaller companies and in business services firms. Companies that tap into this wider gene pool are likely to be rewarded with superior performance.

The Financial Times. 2006, January 6

1. What can you say about the general tone of the article?

2. Was it written by a man or a woman? What helped you guess?

3. Dwell on the role of figurative language and abstractions in the text under consideration.

Ex. 2. Discussion. Express your opinion about the following. Can you say that the article is characterized by immediacy?

Ex. 3. Follow-up. Analyse the text according to the discourse type parameters. What gender stereotypes are reflected in it?

Ex 4. Problem-solving. According to an article in the Daily Mail, there are some things you will never hear women say, such as: Would you please stop sending me flowers? It’s embarrassing. I’ve just killed that enormous spider in the bath. And there are some things you can never hear from a man, for example: Hi, Mum, I just rang for a chat. Where’s the toilet cleaner? Read the following statements. Which category do you think the Daily Mail put them in? Add at least five more examples from your own experience and ask your groupmates to classify them accordingly.

1. Of course I’d love to have dinner with your sister. The only thing on telly tonight is football.

2. Shall I check the tyre pressures when I go to the petrol station?

3. Let’s switch off the TV, I want to talk about our relationship.

4. Thanks so much for ironing my shirt.

5. Don’t worry I’ll clean that up.

6. Do you think my bottom looks fat in these trousers?

7. I saw this gorgeous suit in that shop in town. The jacket’s a great shape and it wasn’t expensive.

8. You drive, darling, you’re so much better than me.

9. Look, I’m sick of talking about our relationship, OK?

10. But I just don’t need another pair of shoes.

11. Let’s ask that woman for directions.

12. Hi, Mum, I just rang for a chat.

13. I’ve just killed that enormous spider in the bath.

14. Let’s ask that woman for directions.

Task 6. Public Service Media in the Digital Age

Ex. 1. Identifying aspects of communication. Read the speech “Public Service Media in the Digital Age” and get ready to dwell on the main elements of the communicative episode under consideration.

Public Service Media in the Digital Age

Speech by Sir Michael Lyons,

Chairman of the BBC Trust, to EU conference in Strasbourg

July 17, 2008

Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to speak to you.

I was struck by something that Commissioner Kroes said in Cologne last month. She was speaking about the central role that the media now plays in society, and she said this:

“Media is more than a multi-billion euro business. It is also at the heart of democracy and cultural diversity.”

That theme of the media at the very heart of democracy is something I’d like to take up in my remarks today. It underlines the importance of what’s being discussed here today – and it underlines the need for great care in fashioning the right regulatory regime.

The media industries in general, and broadcasting in particular, are going through an extraordinary period of change. The EU regulatory framework has served audiences well. But this is a timely moment to ask whether it remains appropriate for the new world of digital convergence and on-demand services into which we are moving at such speed.

In this debate I can speak only on behalf of the BBC and its audiences. But understanding the BBC’s own experience during this period of great change may be of value as this important debate unfolds.

My starting point is this: the BBC is more than simply a broadcaster.

It is expected to fulfill public purposes that go well beyond the provision of high quality television and radio programmes and online content.

These public purposes are set out in some detail in the new BBC Charter – in effect its constitution – which was put in place 18 months ago.

The public purposes range from sustaining citizenship and civil society, through promoting education and learning and stimulating creativity and cultural excellence, to representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities, and bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK. The BBC is also tasked with delivering to audiences the benefits of emerging communications, technologies and services.

This brings me to my second point: It is clear that the BBC can only deliver these high public purposes if it remains independent.

The public purpose of “sustaining citizenship”, for example, implies the provision of high quality impartial coverage of news and current affairs. This is the essential fuel of an informed democracy. And impartiality in news provision cannot be sustained without full editorial independence.

The independence of the BBC is guaranteed by the Charter – and that it includes independence from government.

Of course government has a role – but that role is closely defined. It is to set the Charter – there is a new Charter every 10 years or so – and to set the formula that defines the license fee for the Charter period.

But beyond that, oversight of the BBC is carried out not by government, or by Parliament, but by the BBC Trust. One of the key roles of the Trust is to defend the independence of the BBC from undue pressure from any quarter.

Let me say a little more about the Trust.

As you know it was created by the new Charter as the replacement for the Governors, who, for 80 years, had directed the work of the BBC.

The Governors played an important role. But that system of governance came to be challenged as the media sector became more complex. It was a structure which, rightly or wrongly, created an impression that the interests of the BBC Governors were too closely aligned with those of the BBC managers whose work they directed.

There were questions over whether this structure was capable of ensuring value for money, or of fully guaranteeing the impartiality of BBC news coverage. But there were two issues in particular that created the desire to modernise its constitution.

The first was that the BBC had to become more responsive to the changing needs of all its different audiences. And the second was that it had to become more responsive to the legitimate concerns of other investors in the UK media sector.

This was the context in which the BBC Trust was created.

Although we are part of the BBC, as Trustees we are entirely separate from the Executive that manages its day to day operations. Our role is to represent the interests of those who have invested in the BBC and pay for its services through the license fee. I mean, of course, the British public. The BBC Trust exists to ensure that the BBC is run in their interests not those of the managers or programme-makers.

We see a key part of our role as setting stretching challenges for the Executive on behalf of audiences, as well as providing rigorous examination of the proposals that the Executive put forward.

This process of robust challenge and scrutiny on behalf of the audience is a public manifestation of our independence from the Executive and helps to build public trust in our judgements.

We now have 18 months of experience of the new structure. How is it working in practice? Let me give you an example.

One of the first pieces of research we commissioned as Trustees sought to identify the public’s priorities and the areas where they felt the BBC was falling short. Amongst the findings, one thing we learned was that some audiences feel the BBC serves them less well than others. This is in part a demographic issue – but most striking was the geographical element of this. In short, audiences tend to feel less warmly about the BBC the farther away they live from London. This seems to reflect a widespread view – expressed frequently to me by members of the public – that too much BBC decision-making is based in London, and that BBC programming gives too much weight to a metropolitan way of thinking.

As Trustees we have responded decisively to this very clear message. We have challenged the BBC Executive to do much more to ensure the BBC responds appropriately to the needs of all audiences in the UK.

We have supported plans to move very significant amounts of production and control of airtime out of London. Our aim is that by the end of the Charter period in 2016 around 50 percent of BBC production should take place outside London.

We have also prompted the Executive to make significant changes in BBC journalism to ensure that our news gives a truer and more accurate picture of life throughout the UK, and fully reflects the fact that powers have been devolved from Westminster to new legislative bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Taken together, these changes are taking the BBC in a new direction – a direction set by its audiences, and mediated by the Trust as the representative of those audiences.

A similar journey has begun in regard to the relationship between the BBC and other organisations active in the UK media market.

This relationship is never going to be a completely easy one.

There will always be areas of direct competition between what the BBC provides and what the market supplies. Convergence and market changes are bringing new areas of competition as both public and private providers seek to make the most of the opportunities created by the digital revolution.

On this general issue, our fundamental position as Trustees representing the interest of audiences is this: audiences clearly like wide choice in their media diet and deserve to get the benefits of competition and innovation, so the BBC must not use its market power in a way that restricts audience choice.

And we have the power to ensure this happens. The power to approve new BBC services used to lie with government. But under the new Charter it rests with us. This is a significant strengthening of the independence of the BBC.

The process of approval involves a Public Value Test. This is one of the most significant innovations introduced by the Trust.

It is an open and transparent process that allows all interested parties – including commercial interests – to make their case before we take our decision on whether or not to approve a proposed launch.

The Public Value Test exemplifies the Trust approach of taking decisions based on strong evidence, after careful and open consultation with all interested parties, and with a clear commitment to publish not just our conclusions but also our detailed reasoning so that the whole process is itself open to scrutiny.

The Public Value Test, or PVT, has two parts. There is a public value assessment and there is a market impact assessment. The public value assessment weighs the potential citizen value of the new service, and whether it is a good use of scarce BBC resources. The market impact assessment – carried out by the industry regulator, Ofcom – examines the potential impact on others in the market.

Only if there is objective evidence to support a judgement that the public value created by a proposed new service is greater than its potential negative impact do we give permission to launch a new service. The final decision rests with the Trust.

We applied a Public Value Test before we agreed to the launch of the BBCiPlayer, the successful service that allows audiences to catch up via the internet with BBC programmes they may have missed on transmission – that PVT process resulted in significant changes to the original proposal.

And we are currently carrying out a PVT on proposals to launch a new BBC internet service, called Local Video. This proposal from the Executive was developed following a challenge from the Trust to respond to audience demands for improved local services. The Executive’s proposal is for a broadband service offering video coverage of local news and events in 60 areas of the UK.

Preparations for our Public Value Test have already produced strong views for and against. In favour are those who want to see a more local and more responsive BBC. But there is opposition from those with interests in commercial local media who fear the potential impact of the proposed new BBC service on their businesses.

Our job is to assemble all the evidence and then reach an objective judgement on the facts.

We’ve been using the PVT process now for about 18 months and it is proving robust in practice. We also have new arrangements in place to deal with fair trading complaints. Although not yet extensively called into use, they too are proving effective.

However, we believe the relationship between the BBC and the commercial sector should be based on more than just rules and regulations. We want to see a more openly collaborative relationship between the two.

We believe strongly that audience interests are best served by the BBC using its scale and public investment on behalf of the UK media sector as a whole, emphasising co-operation as well as competition, and we have challenged the Executive to find ways to do this.

The BBC already has a good record of working productively with other UK broadcasters on big technology projects that benefit all audiences. Recent examples include Freeview, the leading digital platform in the UK, and Freesat, which offers guaranteed subscription free satellite television, including high-definition channels.

But we want to see more, and the Executive is now actively exploring new ways to bring the benefits of the BBC’s strength and skills to the whole sector and we expect to see detailed proposals before the end of the year.

The BBC already makes a significant contribution to the economic health of the UK and in particular to the UK’s vibrant creative sector with its strong export performance.

The Trust recently commissioned an independent study of the economic impact of the BBC in order to give us a reliable baseline for our economic decisions.

The main headline from the report which we have published today in the UK is this: the overall economic impact of the BBC is positive. The creative industries in the UK would be worse off by at least £5 billion, or 7 billion Euros each year, if the BBC did not exist. The benefits the BBC brings to the sector include a stable stream of investment regardless of the economic climate, training programmes that benefit the industry as a whole, and a strong record in developing new technology and platforms that help the whole sector to grow.

Of course I wouldn’t want to suggest that everything the BBC does is positive. The report also highlights areas where the BBC needs to pay particular care to the scale of its impact on commercial markets. These insights are particularly useful for the Trust when we consider major investments and when we carry out full-scale service reviews. Importantly, this information also provides guidance on where the BBC can do more to generate positive outcomes. The BBC is a deliberate intervention in the market, but if we can minimise any negative effects, the economic value it creates can be increased still further.

As you can see from my brief summary, the BBC’s contribution to the economic and creative health of the UK is considerable and can be strengthened by strong governance and self regulation which protects its vital independence.

The message is an important one: successful and accountable public service broadcasters bring positive benefits to the overall creative economy – and this can apply not just to the UK, but to Europe as a whole.

To sum up: let me draw some conclusions from this brief history of recent developments in the life of the BBC.

What the BBC Trust is trying to bring about is a BBC that is responsive to the needs of all its audiences, and is also a good corporate neighbour to other players in the UK media sector.

I think the evidence shows that we are beginning to make this happen.

The interests of audiences are being actively promoted, and, in the Public Value Test, we have a mechanism for considering expected public gain alongside any possible adverse market impacts.

Meanwhile, the BBC remains robustly independent and well able to resist undue political and commercial pressure. And this independence allows it to deliver its public purposes with maximum effectiveness.

As I said at the start, I speak only for the BBC and its audiences in this debate.

I do not believe in a one-size-fits-all approach, and I am not arguing that the BBC model would necessarily work for other countries. But I do believe it is working well for the UK.

It is right to review the existing EU regulatory regime. But I hope no-one will forget that that the current regime has proved remarkably benign. The very significant constitutional changes that the BBC has been through in recent years have all been achieved within the existing rules.

In considering how best to ensure that the media and communications industries continue to play a productive role at the heart of democracy in the EU, it is important that we avoid over regulation and changes which I hope that nothing will be done that might damage the success of the current system in enabling positive and constructive change.

I hope that this brief history of the BBC as it reshapes itself to respond to the challenges of convergence and on-demand will be of some value to you in your deliberations today.

http://www.bbc.co.uk

1. How does the speaker define the theme of the speech?

2. Analyse the linking means the speaker uses.

3. How does the speaker identify his role in the communicative episode under consideration?

Ex. 2. Discussion. Express your opinion about the following. Compare the introduction and the ending of the speech and decide which sounds more persuasive and why. How would you characterize this principle of arranging the speech?

Ex. 3. Follow-up. Analyse the speech from the point of view of the process of encoding. Dwell on the problems of language and the communicative context. Which type of discourse does this text represent? What are the means leading to the pragmatic effect?

---

Дата добавления: 2015-11-14