– the storm has passed and they’re not kicking up another one just at the moment. Meanwhile, pundits are stock-taking, generally with a sense that somehow journalism has been the loser. Few have come out and praised Lord Hutton, and even if they have they’ve said at least something about his ‘unworldliness’, or being a bit Northern Irish for the subtleties of London affairs, or ‘hackings’ to that effect.
Rounding up, I’d start with Johann Hari, admirably honest in admitting the Gilligan debacle but terrier-like in defending the basic beast that is the BBC. He’s also (unintentionally) funny. His antipathy to privatisation of the Beeb is fuelled by his dislike of Murdoch and what he calls ‘the late unlamented Conrad Black’- whose death is news to me (nothing like being first with a good news story, eh, Johann?). Johann’s one who believes that ‘the basic case for public service broadcasting needs urgently to be restated’ and that ‘The BBC is necessary because, unlike all other media outlets, it is accountable to us, the viewing public’. I might agree with the first point- in my own modest way- but how on earth does he believe the second? Would that be in the ‘Have Your Say’ bit on the BBC website, which has been regularly the source of angst for the good people of this site (including me)? Or was he thinking of ‘Points of View’, with cuddly Terry Wogan, or icy Anne Robinson, or Angela Rippon (see, I have been thinking about this for a while)?
He considers ‘It is essential for democracy that a range of media sources not owned by rich people is entrenched in Britain’s de facto constitution’. Is that a description of the Beeb’s position? Even roughly? [nb, I think this ‘even roughly?’ remark was a mistake. What I think is that it’s questionable whether the BBC truly represents ‘a range of media sources’, and whether people like, for instance, Dyke, Wark and Paxman can be considered ‘not rich’ and not representing therefore vested interests.] ‘Rich people’ would obviously be those who earn a lot more than Greg Dyke earned- something way over £400,000 ($700, 000+) per annum then. To be fair to Hari’s point Greg Dyke must be excused because he only acted like he owned the BBC. And he wasn’t untouchable, on last week’s evidence, but neither was Lord Black, on recent evidence. In fact, Black’s a classic example of where private wealth does not render people untouchable, as his almighty litigation hangover will testify- watch out for Lord Black’s accellerated ageing process on a TV screen near you soon, though not fast enough for Johann- and it’s not as if Murdoch hasn’t had to face a shareholder’s inquisition over the Murdoch succession in the last year. It really did take a man to die for harsh scrutiny to happen at the Beeb.
To refer to other commentators, firstly I will declare that I really have no time at all for Max Hastings. However (moving on), Norm Geras has been his usual guarded self, which often seems to lead to firm and dramatic conclusions- and he gives us Martin Kettle and Mark Steyn as his favoured commenters on Hutton, the Beeb et al. I would add Melanie Phillips, who’s been stalwart and rapier-like on Hutton and the Beeb. I particularly liked her one sentence summary of the current fog of disbelief over WMD- but that’s unrelated, that’s just me. It’s a brilliant piece of ordered thinking expressed in quick-smart writing, so good you have to pinch yourself to appreciate it fully. BTW, I’ll also ignore Rod Liddel, which is the best policy for us all I feel- right, left or BiasedBBC.
“US apoplexy over Jackson flash”
OK, I recognize the different attitudes toward the body in the US and in Europe. But does the BBC have to be so predictable in playing it up? The reporter quotes his source, a Syracuse professor(?) as follows:
>
See, if people can’t strip each other on broadcast TV then we might as well be living under the Taliban. Nuts to the professor (assuming he wasn’t taken out of context), and nuts to the reporter for taking him literally.
Notice the completely unsubstantiated assertion (contrary to NFL statements) that MTV will produce the show next year. This reporter continues the tradition of wantonly inserting personal opinions in reports.
I could have told you that nothing was going to change at the
“US apoplexy over Jackson flash”
OK, I recognize the different attitudes toward the body in the US and in Europe. But does the BBC have to be so predictable in playing it up? The reporter quotes his source, a Syracuse professor(?) as follows:
—
As for next year’s half-time show at the Super Bowl, it is highly unlikely the entertainment will not be produced by MTV.
“Maybe a clown making balloon animals might be more in order,” said Mr Thompson.
But would anyone watch?
—
See, if people can’t strip each other on broadcast TV then we might as well be living under the Taliban. Nuts to the professor, and nuts to the reporter for taking him literally.
Notice the completely unsubstantiated assertion (contrary to NFL statements) that MTV will produce the show next year. This reporter continues the tradition of wantonly inserting personal opinions in reports.
I could have told you that nothing was going to change at the BBC.
I am a reasonable man. However, last night whilst watching the 10 o clock news on BBC, I snapped.
The reason?
A BBC report from Iraq, following a US platoon during the night rounding up suspects, and during the day giving out presents and supplies to Iraqis. In one sequence, a US soldier throws a football to a group of around 20 boys, who scramble to get hold of the ball.
Harmless fun you might think?
Oh no, not for the BBC reporter who comments “even the football causes chaos in the village”.
I wept.
The BBC has been accused of focussing too much on the anti-war stance. Well, just look at the BBC news site now:
Top story:
“Anti-war protesters force the House of Commons to be suspended as MPs begin debating the Hutton Report.”
Second story:
“A group of protesters have been arrested for throwing white paint at the gates of Downing Street.”
The idea that the BBC is accountable to the public is incredibly laughable. If so why do I see so many anti-BBC sites and so many threats to stop paying the license fee? They are anything but accountable to the people.
In “Roy Greenslade on Hutton: Chutzpah” we establish that one cannot criticise the BBC because they are orphans.
Greenslade’s latest on Hutton in the Irish Times (Feb 4) was pure chutzpah.
Chutzpah allows a person who has killed his parents to throw himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.
Mr Greenslade pronounces Hutton a “whitewash” based on a hidden premise: to be fair and balanced, journalists must present both sides and give them equal moral value. … To be fair, Hutton had to find fault with the Government as well as with BBC.
Greenslade’s bill of particulars consists of one item:
“… the MoD … should… have offered him a safe place away from the press along with wise counsel.”
The media faults the court for failing to grant mercy on the ground that it was not prevented from killing its parents.
Childishness has been elevated to the sacrocanct victim status of being an orphan.
The BBC, top management included, made a very serious allegation, that the PM and hence the collective cabinet, deliberately and knowingly misled parliament and the people, and went to war in Iraq, by falsifying intelligence data. If Hutton had shown that this had been true, then the PM and the cabinet would have had no alternative but to resign collectively. In fact the PM would have had to ask the Queen to dissolve parliament. This would have caused a serious crisis in the UK, of the same magnitude as that of Suez.
The BBC is now angling for a much wider remit for investigation into intelligence failures. They also want the remit to look at political failures as well. This the BBC does not do by actually demanding it, but by giving time to politicians who want to get Blair on any ground.
Well, I think the PM should oblige them and widen the remit, and to widen it sufficiently to look at the BBC’s own political agenda as well, particularly when the nation was at war.