Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, in the midst of the
Downing Street woes over a party culture in a time of lockdown and CORONA virus
restrictions and rules has found a way, she thinks and it also appears to the
rest of the population of Great Britain,
of distracting the British public from the infantile, self centred obfuscating
behaviour of Boris Johnson. Who does she think she is kidding? Do
anything to save the idiot, seems to be her approach and what will stir
everybody up like a hornets nest, attack the BBC. So she has got her teeth into
something she hates. It’s obvious.
The Guardian 17.1.2022 Jim Waterson, the Guardian’s media editor writes
The
annual levy on television usage will remain at £159 until April 2024, requiring
cuts to the BBC’s output. However, it will then rise in line with inflation for
the next four years – a better deal than had been proposed in some press
briefings from the government.
Dorries
also watered down her own suggestion that
the licence fee would be abolished from 2028 onwards, raising suspicions that
the focus of her provocative intervention on Sunday was to distract from Boris
Johnson’s woes.”
On Sunday she was virtually announcing the
demise of the BBC in a leaked statement, very undemocratic, but by Monday, to
Parliament, she was back tracking. Probably members of her
own party had a word and explained you can’t just resign something as important
to our culture and the British public as
the BBC to history , just like that, in
some petulant rant. Things seem to have been watered down but the danger to the
.”Beeb,” is still there. Surely the British public should be allowed to have
their say as a minimum requirement. It’s not like getting rid of your garden
waste at the local dump.
The
BBC has been with us for a century. This year is the BBC’s centenary. It
officially began 1922 although its roots go back to 1920. It is a cultural icon
not only for us Brits but also for the rest of the world by way of The World
Service. It has brought open mindedness, the facts, clear sighted analysis of
events, debate about all the important questions relating to us as human
beings, politics, religion, art, music, history, drama, science, entertainment
and education. Just looking at todays agenda on The World Service, Iran’s negotiations
in Vienna are being discussed. Mexico, Afghanistan, Italy, Buddhism and a coup
in Burkina Faso are just some of the topics covered. These programmes are
broadcast to the people of these countries and in many cases provide the only
news outlet and balanced analysis of what is going on. Often the BBC provides another
side to what is going on in these countries.
One
vital aspect of the BBC that has been so important during the COVID pandemic,
is that the BBC has provided educational
output for schools and families. It has provided parents ,teachers and children
with the most amazing resources. Parents have been forced to try their best to
educate their children at home and the BBC has been there to support and lead. It is explorative, questioning and provides high
quality teaching. No educationalist , parent or pupil would argue that learning
online and at home is the best situation for children to learn full time. Learning online has shown its benefits though and that it can be a
useful aspect of learning and teaching. But face to face teaching with friends and fellow pupils in a
school environment will always be vital for immediate teacher feedback and relationshisp and team building. The BBC has got as close as it can to providing good education and done the
best anybody could expect in the circumstances.
People
like Nadine Dorries can argue that the BBC format is outdated. Nowadays we
communicate and get our televisual experiences in so many new ways enabled by
technology. However, SKY, NETFLIX, AMAZON, DISNEY , three of the biggest
providers of entertainment and information online, are companies with investors
and their paramount purpose are profits.
What their political, religious and societal beliefs are , who knows? Whoever
pays them. They pander to the audiences
they attract. We read so many reports about misogyny and racism and political
and religious bias inherent in their structures and algorithms. The BBC is
quite able to and is adapting to the new ways of communication. There really is
no argument against it from that quarter.
The
BBC is truly the nearest any body can get to fairmindedness and openness. In theory it does not have any influences
making it do one thing or another. The
Conservative party accuse it of being left wing liberal. But it is not. Jeremy
Corbyn, especially when he was the leader of the Labour Party, came under the
scrutiny of the BBC. Because it criticises and praises everybody when the
situation requires, it will always be
open to criticism. If the BBC says something against or questions strongly what you as an organisation think and are
trying to do then of course you are going to think of it as biased.
The
spurious argument that people can’t afford the licence fee of £159 a year is a
red herring. Some will obviously find the fee too much for their finances.
These people should be provided for by the government. That licence fee of £159
per annum, in one context sounds a lot but it isn’t. NETFLIX subscriptions cost
anything from £25 per month to £45 per month depending on the package you pay
for. The cheapest of those costs £300 per year the most expensive, £ 540 per
year. How are poor people going to finance that if it is deemed that the £159
is too much? Certainly not from the government. The licence fee pales into
insignificance. What cost freedom of speech and truth being told to power? Do
we want to destroy this democratic, fair minded, educational institution over spurious arguments.
Nadine Dorries might not like the BBC and I am sure many others don’t for
different reasons. Do we want one hater to destroy this immensely valuable cultural
organisation?
The BBC’s charter is renewed every few years. Not if Nadine Dorries gets her way though. Its premise and ethos originally looked very much like that of the British upper classes. It reflected the status quo of 1922. Our society and the world has changed and developed unrecognisably since then and so has the BBC. However, its central ethos, that it is required to be fair and honest, that central moral principle, has not changed. In 1922 it was trying to be fair and honest too. As society and the world changes obviously some changes in its royal charter are necessary to fit the times we live in.
This present charter was presented to Parliament by the Secretary of
State for Culture, Media and Sport by Command of Her Majesty in December 2016 and
sets out the key purposes of the BBC. The charter begins with this statement.
“The BBC’s
Mission The Mission of the BBC is to act in the public interest, serving all
audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive
output and services which inform, educate and entertain. The Public Purposes of the BBC are as follows.
I have taken
the five key points from the charter that explain what the BBC is for in more detail.
The first
point,
“To provide
impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the
world around them:”
Everyday of
every week and every year the BBC provides this impartial news through
reporting but also discussion and analysis. The daily TV and radio news
programmes provide the on going evolving news. Programmes such as Question
Time, debate current issues involving people from all sides of the argument.
They discuss questions provided by ordinary people about issues in the news. Panorama,
investigates and discusses single important issues, for instance, education,
poverty, housing, whatever it might be. The early morning Radio 4 programme
team question vigorously and energetically government ministers, heads of
business, scientists and those at the heart of current issues. They are made to
explain themselves and their actions. Programmes discussing more esoteric
topics such as religion , philosophy or morality might be debated in programmes
such as The Moral Maze.
Secondly:
“To support
learning for people of all ages:”
During the
lock downs and the closures of schools the BBC has provided vitally important
lessons for all school years. They have been providing online material for
teachers for many years but during this pandemic they have really stepped up.No other organisation could have done that. The BBC ‘s independence allows it to
do this. When the OPEN university began the BBC provided lectures and lessons to support Open University degrees. When eventually
schools become, Open Schools, the BBC will be needed to to support everday
schooling. The work done during lockdown can only be built on. Of course
families living in poverty will need to be supported. Some of the funding that
goes into educating every child in this country can be used to support this change
without much extra money being required. The BBC also supports all our learning and teaches every individual in this country through programming about wildlife, history, science, geography, technology,
art, music, drama and literature. No other organisation could dedicate itself
to doing this.
Thirdly:
“To show the
most creative, highest quality and distinctive output and services.”
This refers
to art, music, literature and drama. The BBC because it is funded by the
taxpayer and not some for profit organisation with share holders and people
with their own political agenda, they can take risks. It can
afford to try things which might fail. Some of the most creative and
adventurous television has come from the BBC because of this ability. Much of what the BBC
produces wins awards around the world. It is not only a cultural icon for
Britain but drama and documentaries relevant to many cultures and other
countries has enriched the world as a whole.
Fourthly:
“To reflect,
represent and serve the diverse communities of all of the United Kingdom’s
nations and regions and, in doing so, support the creative economy across the
United Kingdom.”
Every region
of the United Kingdom has its own regional BBC radio station. They also
have regional television stations too.,
BBC South. BBC London and so on. The national and global output of the BBC is
also available to all of the UK as well. It gives voice to diverse groups within
the UK. It encourages and develops new initiatives within the regions
highlighting art, businesses, music and technologies within those regions.
Fifthly:
“To reflect
the United Kingdom, its culture and values to the world:”
I mentioned
above the WORLD SERVICE and how that helps educate and inform the rest of the world.
It might be relevant to ask, is that a good thing? Isn’t the British Government,
through The World Service, promoting propaganda to the people of various
countries? Part of the statement in the charter states that the BBC must
promote ,” values of accuracy, impartiality, and fairness.”
Of course
this can be argued about. What does it mean? How can we actually tell if this
is what the BBC is actually doing and not just propagandising? We do get feedback
from the people of those countries. I
know Americans tell me they would rather listen to the BBC news than their own
news outputs. Friends in South America laud the importance of the BBC. I can
site other examples of what people tell me. I know this is a very small straw
poll but it does give an impression of how the BBC is thought of and valued
round the world. We of course can make our further judgements based on what we
see and hear from other news outlets and of course from what we read. The more
we search and listen and look the more our own assessment is informed.
“The BBC is
to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of
impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform,
educate and entertain.”
How many
organisations can say that?
Controlling
or even abolishing the BBC is an act of cultural vandalism by those who want to
escape questioning or rather the questions they don’t want to hear. Schools,
and the curriculum, Universities, museums, public demonstrations, immigrants,
are all in the sights of this government. Oliver Dowden a previous culture minister and now
Nadine Dorries are waging a war on our
culture from free speech to historical interpretation.
Late last night I listened to a radio 4 programme
called The Moral Maze. Philosophers were
discussing the morality of our Prime Minister and the moral judgements of our government
in the wake of ,”partygate,” the perceived breaking of lock down rules during
this COVID pandemic. Rules they made themselves and the population as a whole
has had to follow to , often, peoples pain and personal anguish. Only the BBC
would or could hold a discussion like that broadcast to the nation. They explained
a murky situation to say the least. Our Prime Minister is acting immorally was
the bottom line. Listening made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. What
backlash would the BBC receive? Or was it so late at night and on Radio 4 and
that probably very few people would actually be listening, the government might
not notice? Still, the programme is out there. This is what the government wants
to stop, free and open debate. The BBC is still providing it.One previous
Conservative Minister, being interviewed on the programme, stridently put the
point that it didn’t matter that Boris broke the rules his own rules over COVID
restrictions. It didn’t matter to her these small transgressions of the
government. What mattered to her are the
policies they are trying to implement. The panel actually laughed at her
stridency and then pointed out the immorality of her standpoint. I remember
discussing the morality of ,”does the end justify the means,” as a school boy.
They dismissed her off hand. These are very strange times indeed.
As well as
getting rid of the BBC , which appears to be a veiled way of controlling the
cultural narrative, a new policy statement for culture has been produced by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities. It denies
systemic racism exists and argues against what many minorities and liberal
minded people see as the faults and problems in our society. The government
wants to control the narrative about our country and our culture. There is a
battle over Black Lives Matter, and whether statues should be removed or not.
The government wants to control how we understand and explain these things. It
does not want open debate and free questioning to take place. The National Trust, is another body under
scrutiny by our right wing government. The National Trust wants to interpret its houses and properties form the stand point of our colonial past. Why shouldn’t we
know that the immense wealth that was made to build these amazing houses and estates
came from slavery? Slavery is an important strand of our nation and its wealth,
power and influence. An understanding of its role should have a more prominent
part in our overall understanding of our history. It hasn’t been highlighted much in the past. These opposing
views to the governments narrative is out there being discussed and supported
by many minority groups and political organisations. This government cannot turn
the clock back and they cannot control the narrative now. Too many people and
society as a whole, can see the evidence for themselves. There seems to be a
cultural battle taking place on many fronts which the government will lose.
They cannot eradicate the arguments and the narrative they don’t like.
So the BBC is under attack. If this government
destroys the BBC they will be destroying our society and our freedom of speech
and intrinsically our democracy.
References:
The BBC Royal
Charter: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/about/how_we_govern/2016/charter.pdf
Commission on Race
and Ethnic Disparities: The Report March 2021
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-report-of-the-commission-on-race-and-ethnic-disparities
There’s too much at
stake to risk losing the BBC | Letters | The Guardian
Boris Johnson
accused of targeting BBC to save his premiership | Politics | The Guardian
https://www.ft.com/content/3f499042-64c5-40d1-8d83-7d8ca0d817d9
Tony,
ReplyDeletethe BBC has always been my dream.
I would pay the £159 fee if I was allowed to watch the BBC in Brazil.
I hope the British fight to keep this heritage.
More 100 years, dear Auntie Beeb!
Thanks Raquel. Myself and many others will do what we can to keep the BBC. It is a unique institution. All the best, Tony
DeletePS I’ll try and leave a comment on your blog.
Tony, my friends and I in the US watch the BBC (both news and entertainment) as much as our own NPR (National Public Radio) and PBS (Public Broadcast Service) our answers to the BBC. They, too, are considered liberal institutions, although their mission is to represent all Americans. These attacks on the BBC (and on NPR and PBS by the right) is an attack on our freedom of speech and diverse points of view. What a sad state of affairs.
ReplyDeleteYes , Vic. It is an attack on British culture, free speech and everything we should hold sacred as ademocratic society.. Take care, Tony
ReplyDeleteTony, I didn't know the BBC was under attack. Can't imagine a Britain without The Beeb!
ReplyDeleteHi Jean. Our government want to wreck everything. The BBC is such an important part of British life, culture education, drama, art entertainment and news. It speaks truth to power. Sometimes those in power don't like that.
Delete