The BBC World Service is worth its weight in gold

The news that the BBC World Service will run out of funds in a matter of weeks — unless there is a charge of heart in the corridors of power that leads to a new deal to secure it — the future of the service as we know it is in serious doubt, and regrettably so.

In this ruptured world, there is a tendency to think of acquiring influence mainly through hard power, such as military interventions, coercive diplomacy or economic sanctions designed to force, rather than persuade, states or other international actors to change their behavior. This leads to the sidelining of what, over the years, has proven to be a successful and extremely cost-effective foreign affairs instrument: the influence of soft power.

Joseph Nye, the original thought leader in the field, defined soft power as the ability of a country “to influence the preferences and behaviors of various actors in the international arena (states, corporations, communities, publics) through attraction or persuasion rather than coercion.” The World Service is a very fine example of such an instrument of influence.

Soft power, which is not always easy to measure, is derived from perceptions of quality, reliability, value, ethics and, as a British Council report once noted, even “coolness,” in which the UK is usually highly regarded. Despite those who see soft power as an airy concept, research has clearly demonstrated that there is a strong relationship between successfully wielded soft power and attracting foreign direct investment inflows.

As an institution, it passes with flying colors the three criteria for success: reach, value and impact

Yossi Mekelberg

There is hardly a more recognizable or trusted instrument of British soft power than the World Service. It has an audience of about 310 million listeners a year, primarily outside the UK, and its strength is in providing accurate, impartial and independent news and programming, not only in English but also in 42 other languages. As an institution, it passes with flying colors the three criteria for success: reach, value and impact.

Why, then, are British governments, one after another over the years, slashing this institution’s budget and thereby harming it and the country? There is no obvious answer.

One possible explanation is that it is not felt to be a priority for the wider electorate. One does not get votes in elections for maintaining a media outlet that, within the UK, is very niche, most of whose listeners are overseas and do not have the right to vote and, worse, it is paid for by them. At a time when money is tight, and right now it is very tight, especially when the government is committing to big increases in the defense budget — hard power, in other words — a radio station, as good and as loved as it may be, is perceived by some as a luxury.

To be sure, the current government is not by nature hostile to the BBC as a whole, unlike several previous administrations, which have claimed that it is stuffed with progressive liberals and lefties. Yet, unless the government changes its mind and properly funds the iconic World Service, this quintessentially British institution, which has enhanced the country’s reputation since it was established in 1932, might lose much of its unique character, including its brave journalists reporting from the most dangerous war zones and territories hit by natural disasters.

In many ways, the story of the World Service tells the story of the UK in global affairs. It started as a means of connecting the British Empire via shortwave radio. It continued during the Second World War to report from the battlefields, while it was also part of Britain’s propaganda machine, in addition to sending coded messages to European resistance groups. It is delivered in every major European language, along with separate services for the Soviet Union, Persia, India, Japan and many other areas. It created a legacy of credibility and trust that lasted through the Cold War, upsetting Moscow, which did its best to block it — a major badge of honor for the service.

Despite recent technological advancements and the world entering a post-truth era, the World Service remains a go-to station where issues are addressed in depth, information is verified and expertise is valued.

The World Service remains a go-to station where issues are addressed in depth, information is verified and expertise is valued

Yossi Mekelberg

New technologies mean that the media landscape is becoming more diffuse, creating more opportunities for individuals and groups to promote their information and views through digital channels and social media. Audiences have more choice, but on the other hand this has increased the risk of unverified content, leading to the spread of disinformation at a speed and volume previously unknown. Much of this disinformation is state-sponsored.

Because of these developments, an institution such as the World Service, with its tradition and history of free and cutting-edge journalism, which is also subject to public scrutiny by the British Parliament and other bodies, is now more important than ever.

Much of the government funding that supports the World Service comes from the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the proposed cut in funding would trigger a financial crisis that would lead to the loss of a further 130 jobs. This would be a major blow to an institution that, over the last few years, has lost nearly half its workforce since 2011.

To put it in perspective, the World Service's entire budget is £358 million ($479 million). At the same time, it is estimated that Russia and China are pouring up to £10 billion into their overseas media, which suggests that, given the World Service’s global standing, it must be regarded as excellent value for money.

I know the World Service both as an avid listener, whether I am at home or abroad, and as an interviewee on many occasions. In either experience, I have found it to be most professional and enlightening, educating me on myriad issues about which I have known nothing or very little. When I have contributed, it has allowed me to engage with audiences around the world in a considerate and inclusive manner, even during times of war.

The World Service is not going to disappear altogether, but funding cuts constantly chip away at its capacity. It is time to stop keeping it on life support and instead find a sustainable funding model that guarantees its long-term viability and growth. Failure to do so would be a loss for the cause of reliable, trustworthy media — first and foremost for its listeners around the world, but also very much for the UK as an effective method of advancing its interests and values.

• Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. X: @YMekelberg