The BBC is an unwieldy beast, about which exists a great deal of misunderstanding. Much of this is owed to the formal mythology that the Corporation is independent and dedicated to the service of the entire public. A true Public Service Broadcaster. It would be wonderful indeed if these things were, or could be, true. No broadcaster however well intentioned can serve everyone; society has a myriad of frequently conflicting 'interests', and I believe there to be no-one qualified to understand or address them, however large the resources. Secondly, the Corporation's Charter makes it abundantly clear that the content of programming and the existence of the BBC itself is dependent on the assent of the government. That a publicly funded broadcaster should be so bound is probably unavoidable, but it does make a mockery of notions of independence.
The BBC itself defines its objectives as follows: "to inform, educate and entertain"; "to serve everyone and enrich people's lives" and "to be the most creative, trusted organisation in the world". The first of these to stick out is entertainment: that we are taxed to entertain each other in this age is nothing short of absurd. "To serve everyone and enrich people's lives" is so vague as to be meaningless. To inform and educate? Laudable, and worthy, if done properly. The interesting one is "to be the most creative, trusted organisation in the world". The BBC is popularly regarded as the most reliable and impartial global news service, and this certainly brings authority and influence. What is regrettable is that it is never asked if this is a good thing.
The only real value of a publicly funded body like the BBC is to tell unpalatable truths, especially those that are unpalatable to the government. The extent to which commercial services will shrink from this duty varies, from the appallingly placid and slavish news media that dominates the USA and much of Britain, to occasional cynics who genuinely seek to get beneath the façade that fronts most of political life. If a publicly funded broadcaster - the BBC - genuinely applied itself to this task, then the anomalous and unjustifiable licence fee would be well worth the money, however much one might baulk at the injustice of such a tax.
The problem, of course, is that it doesn't. If we take the Iraq war as an instructive example, the BBC's coverage was notable for focusing rather blandly on the official, choreographed sequence and version of events. Where fundamental critique was to be found, it was notably found elsewhere. The BBC reported general facts, the government "understanding" and little else. One journalist, Andrew Gilligan, who did have the audacity to question a highly questionable justification for the war - the Dodgy Dossier and the claim that Iraq could threaten British interests with chemical weapons within 45 minutes - was hounded out of a job with vicious alacrity. It speaks volumes that despite this placidity the BBC was still chastised by Donald Rumsfeld for 'not doing its job' in covering the war. More recently, the BBC gave blanket coverage to the sanitised, rockstars cum diplomats playing music for Africa, whilst virtually ignoring the largest protest ever to happen in Scotland. This might not have been a conscious decision to focus on the more frivolous of the two events at the great expense of the other, considerably more important, but the fact that this was the end result betrays the utter lack of anything resembling a critical, cynical approach towards the week's events. Entertainment won out over education. Ratings beat relevance. The BBC censored a serious, major protest in favour of a concert.
For well over £2 billion a year in public money the BBC provides nothing worthwhile that isn't provided elsewhere more efficiently, more critically and without the absurd drain on the public's expenses. The argument that we need to BBC to guard against American-style news media has been thoroughly undermined. We cannot rely on vast media organisations to inform and educate us, as their agenda cannot be adequately divorced from the government in the BBC's case, or corporate interests in the case of the commercial broadcasters. It is the small publishers and broadcasters, whose raison d'être is to fill the void neglected by the BBC and its ilk, to which we must turn for our information and for criticism. In an age where we demand answers to the most complex of problems, yet continue to be informed in the most simplistic of ways, we must ourselves seek to raise the bar. Not to rely on the established behemoths whose declared priorities are to entertain and be trusted. We need better. But until we put the effort into doing so then we deserve everything we get, and at present that's not very much that's of any use.
I want a drastically reformed BBC, not to do away with it altogether.
Originally posted by VillagerI have listened to the BBC almost every night for most of my adult life. I used to listen via shortwave but the past few years NPR has re-broadcast the BBC via FM and so I usually listen that way now. No doubt what you say is true but for me, an American, the BBC still provides the best news from countries around the world. I do not like what seems to me excessive sports coverage and "fluff" feature pieces but I suppose that's the "new" BBC. Even though it was better in the Hot and Cold War days the BBC still offers the best world coverage that I can get on a regular basis. Monitor Radio on shortwave was just as good in world coverage and I also listened to that until the Christian Scientist church decided to pull the plug a decade or so ago.
The BBC is an unwieldy beast, about which exists a great deal of misunderstanding. Much of this is owed to the formal mythology that the Corporation is independent and dedicated to the service of the entire public. A true Public Service Br ...[text shortened]... ant a drastically reformed BBC, not to do away with it altogether.
Originally posted by VillagerI beg to disagree.
The BBC is an unwieldy beast, about which exists a great deal of misunderstanding. Much of this is owed to the formal mythology that the Corporation is independent and dedicated to the service of the entire public. A true Public Service Broadcaster. It would be wonderful indeed if these things were, or could be, true. No broadcaster however well intentioned ...[text shortened]... ch that's of any use.
I want a drastically reformed BBC, not to do away with it altogether.
Look at some of the comedies and dramas the BBC has created. Some of the best in the world. The quality is there, but the demand isn't.
People don't want to see another "War and Peace", they want more fly-on-the-wall programmes, more Eastenders and more cookery rubbish.
However, I invite you to come over to Holland for a week's vacation and stay at my place. You will have to watch 16 hours of Dutch TV though each day.
You don't realise how good certain things are until you've experienced what else is on offer!
Seriously. No adverts in a world where there's 5 minute blocks of adverts every 20 minutes is a luxury you really don't want to disperse with.