In a time of national mourning, how should broadcasters behave?

This weekend television’s programme controllers will be watching anxiously for the viewing figures of Prince Philip’s funeral. The confirmed Broadcasters’ Audience Research Board (BARB) ratings for last week show that usual audiences plunged by as much as 83.29 per cent in prime time, when the BBC and ITV gave over their airtime to saturation coverage of the life and death of the Duke of Edinburgh. 

It was the BBC’s misfortune that the announcement of his Royal Highness’s demise coincided with programmes much looked forward to by Middle England, including The Great British Bake-off final, the second spring episode of Gardeners World, and both Tony Blackburn’s Golden Hour and his Sounds of the Sixties. Radio One’s seamless segue from Classic Dance Anthems into the National Anthem has become a much-shared social media classic. Scheduled programming on all channels was cancelled, replaced by what “The Suits” considered to be less troubling content at such a sad time.

The BBC’s online comment forum was soon overwhelmed by more than 100,000 complaints from those aggrieved at being peremptorily deprived of their regular programmes. Diplomatically, the BBC closed down the site. They didn’t suffer alone. In Australia, the state-maintained ABC, also came under sustained abuse for delaying the next episode of Vera, ITV’s Geordie detective series, for tributes to the Duke.

Views are shifting as to what should be expected of national broadcasters at times of national mourning.

Royal deaths pose a particular headache for the BBC, which is also, likely wrongly, viewing Prince Philip’s passing as the dress rehearsal for the change of monarch. The BBC’s weak spot is its self-importance. It regards itself as a pillar of state, the true representative of the Fourth Estate, on a par with parliament, the Church of England and the monarchy. If anything it is subservient to the parliament and the government which grants its Royal Charter, rather than to the charter’s nominal signatory. 

In preserving its own dignity, the BBC gives full recognition to those who are not monarchists. This attitude underpinned its initial “old lady dies” approach to the Queen Mother’s passing in 2002, epitomized by Peter Sisson’s burgundy tie. Having got that one wrong in the court of public opinion, the corporation has been over-compensating ever since.

For those, including Sky News, outside the establishment hierarchy the Queen Mother’s death was a no-brainer, an obvious black time moment. As was the news last Friday, although at Sky we were told that from last Monday sombre attire only would suffice except for on the funeral day when the return to full mourning will be de rigueur again. 

It is vital to judge the public’s mood correctly. The big story immediately before Diana’s death was the EU and Mad Cow Disease. After much chasing by us, Franz Fischler, the Agriculture Commissioner, offered himself for an interview in the days after the tragedy. I insisted that we should do it. It was a mistake for which I am still teased. 

We try to reflect what we think would interest our viewers. This may not be what “the powers that be” would like. Broadcasters rightly guard their editorial independence. But in-depth coverage of the Head of State and the Royal Family does require their cooperation. Many private consultations are held about coverage of anticipated royal events with representatives of the Palace and the government making clear what their expectations are. It’s a nod and wink old boy, but broadcasters who break ranks could face the ultimate sanctions of boycott and denied access.

In the four decades I’ve worked in television, my employers have always had an agreed confidential file of what should happen when the dreaded moments arrive. These plans are perpetually revised under regularly altered code names. The code names used to be Royal Houses like “Tudor” but I think we’ve now moved on to bridges in Scotland. Under these agreements, the BBC may not have too much choice over the cancellation of regular programming for all its vaunted independence. 

Deference can also backfire. Sky News suffered the embarrassment of killing off the Queen Mother years before her time when a technician misunderstood a mandatory rehearsal for the big event taking place in our studios late one weekend evening. Rather than check what he was seeing, a picture editor called Wayne Hanson got on the office phone to break the sad news to his mum in Australia. She immediately passed on what her son “an Editor at Sky News” had told her to the local phone-in radio station. Paul Keating, the Australian Prime Minister had already donned his black tie and was preparing to broadcast to the nation by the time the error was discovered. 

When the BBC had a broadcasting monopoly, or when it enjoyed a duopoly with ITV, anyone who switched on a television had to watch what was on. Those days are long gone. 

It is now a quarter of the century since Tony Hall, then head of BBC News and subsequently its Director General, pointed out that in a multi-channel world broadcasters could no longer force viewers to watch what was improving for them. “I’m not saying eat your greens it’s good for you…” he told the National Press Club, “what I am saying is that people don’t make the connections between their lives and events in the world. If they don’t make those connections then it’s partly because we as journalists are failing.” 

The Prince Philip coverage was a worthy but massive helping of kale and assorted rabbit food, greens to which many general viewers said “no thanks”. 

In a world of choice there was somewhere for those who wanted full coverage to go. Sky News, for example, enjoyed dramatic increases in audience share both on television and online, albeit in a fraction of the total potential audience. In his latest incarnation as the boss of GB NEWS Andrew Neil is going round declaring that “rolling news is dead”. This is a premature obituary, “there when you need us” still applies to all kinds of news events. There is still an appetite for the product of those who bother to gather and report the news. 

As far as obituaries go, death is not the great leveller. Some attract the public’s attention and others don’t. I was surprised by the lack of interest, outside the obituaries in the posh papers, in the lives of former Prime Minister Jim Callaghan and Roy Jenkins. Yet Jenkins’ fellow member of the SDP Gang of Four, Shirley Williams, clearly struck a chord with many this week, as did Denis Thatcher, Mrs Thatcher’s husband, when he predeceased her. In their cases, we reporters were asked for more content than we had prepared.

With wrap-around front pages on national newspapers, the mainstream media gave Prince Philip a big send-off. The members of the public just weren’t that curious about a 99-year-old man they’d known for many years. 

I predict that Prince Philip’s funeral on Saturday afternoon will get decent audiences – monarchy and ceremony are national brands – though probably not as many as Harry and Meghan’s wedding. That’s the nature of funerals and there will be no celebrities on show. 

The best we can do is make sure that there is top quality coverage available of an event of national and international significance. We can’t force you to watch it anymore.