I've long been an admirer of the BBC. It has been behind some of the best 'telly' ever produced. The best journalism, the best investigative reporting, the best documentaries, the best features on nature, the best sporting coverage.
Just imagine if you had all that talent, all those resources all that expertise, all that power, that 'reach' to influence about 75% of UK citizens in terms of their main informational input, and many millions around the world as well.
It's a fantastic asset for the delivery of information and entertainment and it has become one of the world's most trusted suppliers of 'truth, credibility and news'.
It is - and I still firmly believe this - one of the best things that Britain has ever given to the world.
Its charter talks about accuracy, impartiality, credibility. Editorial independence. Its output is 'forbidden from expressing the opinion of the BBC on current affairs or public policy'.
So it should be providing us with unbiased news. Facts. Unalloyed information upon which we can base our judgements on this complex world.
Is it doing that? Really?
Or is its bias and agenda-pushing being 'put up with' by politicians because they fear its power these days? Has it become too big and too powerful to criticize?
And is that fuelling its belief that what it says goes? Regardless of the facts or the reality?
I've blogged about my nacent uncertainty about what is really going on in the world (here) before. That sometimes decisions are taken and policies introduced that seem to me to be a bit weird, not in line with public opinion or what's best (in my view) for the country: As if there's some kind of sinister power behind what is going on. Something that we cannot influence (even in a so-called 'democratic' society) something that is being done 'to us', rather than 'for us', or even 'with us'.
Just imagine if you had the resources of the world's best communications company on your side if you wanted to achieve something that was, erm, let's just say dodgy or undemocratic. My friend at Langley, at the NSA who reads all my stuff (without my permission {fuck you}) has just sat up a little straighter and become a bit more focussed.
You see the thing is, that despite my love of the BBC's stuff (radio4 mainly), and my fear that some of the best stuff will be lost if it loses its public funding, (more here) it has become a biased organisation. And one that can charge me and you and everyone else in the country, to pay for its bias, its propaganda.
It tells me that AGW (global warming or climate change) is 'settled science' when not only is it not, but it's complete crap (more here). An impartial, editorially independent news organisation would question this rather than just accepting it. More from Sir Anthony Jay & Christopher Booker here (really interesting piece). I pay for it to tell me that immigration is not an issue of concern for the British public when it so clearly is.
It charges me to pay for its views-not-news, about the EU. And receives significant funding from the EU. So it says that the UK leaving the EU would be a disaster. When it clearly wouldn't be - or at least it is a subject worth exploring impartially and in much more depth. More here.
Impartial? Editorially independent? I think not. We all understand the political leanings of the newspapers we buy. The Telegraph or the Times or the Sun, the Express or the Mail or the Grauniad. We can easily choose not to buy their slant or bias. We are not forced to pay for their 'campaigns'. The same is not true of the BBC.
The BBC is essentially charging us to be told what to think.
I have advocated change for the BBC for some years. I have suggested that it needed to change for its own good. The cover-ups, the massive wastes of money on failed projects, the ridiculous pay-offs for former executives, but much more important than all of that shit, is the independence, impartiality and truth by which the BBC is recognised worldwide.
It seems to me that they aren't listening. That they have become subsumed by their lefty, comfortable and smug outlook and, therefore, that it's time to change things. Senior BBC personnel who shape the organisation's editorial policy - who essentially decide what we are told - about Savile, welfare, food banks, poor people suffering because of the heartless nature of the current government, regardless of the facts or the rationale behind the policies, are paid hundreds of thousands of pounds a year as a matter of course. The BBC's head of personnel Lucy Adams is paid £330,000 a year for example. To sign off mega pay-offs for former executives, along with a gagging order so that they won't 'spill the beans'. Yet this is a publicly funded organisation. It's our money she's giving away needlessly. And our money that is being used to stop these people from telling us what is really going on. How can that be right?
And on that kind of income, they can afford to be smug, to supposedly defend the poor people of our country whilst sipping their vintage Krug. They don't really give a flying toss about 'the poor', so long as they get their huge salaries and solid gold pension schemes. And we're paying for it all.
Enough.
They've had the chance to control their own future and make the necessary changes that would restore credibility and our trust in the organisation. To make it live up to it's founding charter and to, once again, make us proud of 'our' BBC. But time after time, in the face of clear public concern, they have not taken it. They have not taken this real, in my view existential, threat seriously. Well you know what? It's time that the decisions surrounding this rejected chance were taken away from them. It's time for the BBC to be forced to change for its own sake, if it is to survive as a credible organisation.
I now think, given all of the above, that the BBC should be cast adrift to secure its own funding on the basis of commercial pressures and no longer be 'given' an almost unlimited amount of free tax-payer money to spread its propaganda. It has, in my opinion lost the right to its free money because it is not delivering on the principles of its charter. I will miss some of the fantastic programming that simply won't exist without the current funding model. I will lament the loss of so many great programmes, particularly on Radio 4 and Radio 3 (from our own correspondent, Saturday live, the Proms, the essay, Bob Harris Country, TMS etc); but if they cannot be persuaded to make the clearly required changes, to eliminate the bias that has infested the organisation in recent years, then they must be forced into making those changes.
They've had their chance and have ignored it. In my view, it's time to impose it. To get back to the values of the Charter of impartiality and credibility upon which the whole edifice is based. It gives me no pleasure to say this, but it is what's needed now. They've had their chance and have smugly blown it. No more.
I saw something online recently where a citizen refused to pay his license fee because of the departure of the BBC from it's 'contract' with the population. He refused to pay his fee and invited the 'authorities' to take him to court on the issue. They declined to do so. I think we should all start to consider this as an option. But I would advocate taking legal advice first.
Much better would be for the government - half of which will obviously be happy for the left bias to continue unchecked - to take some decisive action and leadership on this massively important issue. A biased national broadcaster is a very bad thing for the credibility and standing, not only of the BBC, but of Britain itself on the world stage.
Thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment