Lord Hall makes a big play of the BBC being non-political and a lot of noise about interference from politicians….which is all nonsense when you think about it.
The BBC is in essence a creation of the politicians set up to use soft power to control the unruly unwashed. The BBC though oversteps its political masters’ boundaries and tries not only to influence how we, the Public, think and behave, but also to pressurise politicians to steer government policy in particular directions. No wonder politicians want to interfere in how the BBC is run. The BBC has set itself up as a government in all but name.
Much as I claim the BBC is ironically, after itself issuing constant ‘warnings from history’ about them, to blame for the rise of the Far Right due to its promotion of immigration and Islam Robert Aitken suggests the BBC’s attempt to stifle debate on the EU will lead to ever greater scepticism about the benefits of membership and may lead to a vote for Brexit.
Aitken finishes his piece with this statement about the power of the BBC to influence politicians…
‘The point about the BBC is this: if it gets behind an idea it can exert almost irresistible pressure on a government. If BBC journalists had been in favour (themselves) of a referendum collectively they could have made it happen. But, almost to a woman, they set themselves against a vote throughout the ’90s and into the new century; indeed they still endlessly repeat the trope that the referendum was forced on the government by Eurosceptic Tories – ignoring the polling evidence which shows the electorate has long wanted to have its say.’
The BBC does have enormous power over politicians, knows it, and has never been shy about using that power to pressurise politicians to alter their policies in a way that then reflects the BBC view.
Any wonder politicians think they have a right, a need, to rein in the BBC? If the BBC wants politicians to stay out of its business then it should stay out of theirs and not try to govern Britain by the backdoor.
The BBC could and should come clean and launch itself as a political party.
Its somewhere between Blair and Brown, being very bureaucratic, statist and anti-business, pro-EU, pro-climate change, sceptical but not totally opposed to air strikes, big state, high taxes, high welfare (somewhat Scandanavian), seeing the world through the eyes of unearned entitlement, and of course pro-mass immigration and pro-Muslim. It has its Corbynistas, showing themselves when they represent a big part of an editorial team of a given programme, but I think they are in the minority.
I would have no problem with them doing that, as long as they own up to it, scrap the licence fee and raise their own revenue.
“I would have no problem with them doing that, as long as they own up to it, scrap the license fee and raise their own revenue.”
The upper middle class Left view it as their right to live off everybody else. In July 2009 Alan Yentob (who does voice overs for the BBC) was revealed to have accumulated a BBC pension worth £6.3m, giving him an annual retirement income of £216,667 for the rest of his life. Anthony Charles Lynton Blair (who makes speeches about the need for more equality) accumulated $90 million and a property portfolio worth $37.5 million in the years since he had left office. The Marxist historian E. P. Thompson wrote articles about how wonderful the Soviet Union was from his Georgian country house (including deer park) in the West Country. The Miliband brother, great advocates of equality these two, set up a trust to avoid having to pay inheritance tax on their Marxist father’s multi-million pound Hampstead mansion. And so on and so on………….
Expecting these egalitarians to quit living off the serfs is about as likely as the BBC making a politically balanced current affairs programme.
Unfortunately I believe you are right in regard as to how the left wing /BBC establishment know they have a right to sponge and lead us less enlightened individuals. This is partly because their money/inffluence protects them from the consequences of their own poor decisions. (Crikey I sound like a socialist!)
In addition their media influence enables them to address all this crap up as caring, sharing, enriching socialist nonsense but really they are all shit scared of having to get their hands dirty in the real world. (Emily Thornberry) is a brilliant example of this). So to show that they care for all, they save their ire for poor bloody soldiers pushed beyond their limits in combat situations or call those of us who still care about our culture WACISTS!!!
I am very cynical that any meaningful change will come about from the BBC charter review as the whole establishment seems to be closing ranks and employing smoke and mirrors to try and kid us that real politics still are taking place – (illustrated by the phoney EU renegotiations or George Osborne wanting immigration to rise)
Christ you couldnt make this stuff up!
Anyway off to work now and rant over!!!!!
re
I agree that a full subscription model is the only sensible democratic way forward in the 21st century for the BBC. Of course the BBC will fight tooth and nail to retain the LF and even to increase its guaranteed income. It will base its case on two main assertions. Firstly, that it is good value for money and secondly, that its ‘universality’, ( in non BBC speak this means compulsory charge) ensures that it can provide great content for everyone, even tiny niche groups. The first assertion is extremely doubtful and certainly it produces almost nothing that other providers don’t or can’t. The second assertion is an attempt to conceal the fact that those who don’t want to have the BBC in their homes must be compelled to pay for it anyway, not for the greater good as the BBC tries to make out, but because the BBC fears that if the public were allowed to subscribe to the BBC only if they wanted to consume its output , large sections would decide not to pay for it. As far as niche goes the only niche they cater for are the leftist clowns who watch Newsnight and the rabble they invite onto QT.
Aitkin is right about elected governments fearing the unelected elite that run the BBC. It this fear that will stop the Tory government insisting that the BBC becomes a subscription service. As has been said before, we in the UK are probably unique in the world becuase we are actually governed by a media elite , of perhaps less than 2000 people, who run the BBC and which our elected centreist government dare not upset too much. Pathetic isn’t it.
“Pathetic isn’t it.”
Yes.