Category Archives: BBC bias

Lenny Henry is presumably doing a Stewart Lee and producing experimental comedy that is so existential that it is beyond funny.  Henry, now no longer a ‘comedian’, but funnier than ever as he struts his black stuff and gets into black culture, playing R&B and going all Black Panther on us working up a head of steam about racism and the way Balck people have been marginalised in society.  Can’t say I’ve noticed….Sir Lenny.

Here’s his latest…

‘Some black people stop being black – they become Will Smith’

Veteran comedian Sir Lenny Henry has slammed fellow black actor Will Smith for failing to stay true to his race and using his fame to help improve diversity on screen.

Speaking to the Sunday People, Sir Lenny, 57, said: ‘If a movie makes more than a hundred dollars, some black people stop being black – they ­become Will Smith.’

Not Sir Lenny though…he’s genuine ‘Black’…look he plays R&B….and sings with an American accent…coz he’s Black and can feel their pain.  He’s no sell out playing the fool to whitey anymore.

His claim about Will Smith is bizarre….and in line with other BBC ‘stars’ such as Alvin Hall who claimed the likes of Whitney Houston and Michael Jackson were sell-outs as they ‘sang white’.  Hall also said Rap was the ‘authentic voice of the black ghetto’ reflecting the real lives of Black people…and then complained that it was stereotyping Blacks and that Whites were perpetuating this lifestyle by buying the records…the racist bastards making black singers enormously rich.

Hall and Henry racist in reverse?  Seems like it.

Henry went on to attack the BBC, again…..

His comments were made as part of an interview in which he also slammed the BBC’s ‘very, very white’ culture.

The beloved entertainer, who received a knighthood last year for services to drama and charity, described the BBC as ‘an oppressive institution’ and said while moves were being made towards improving diversity on screen, there will be no real reform until there is change ‘behind the camera’.

He said: ‘I worked at the BBC for 35 years before I had a meeting with anyone who looks like me. The only people like me were cleaning the ­corridors and that is not right.

The reason few Black people were in positions high up the BBC was because they had only been in the UK for a few years relatively and were mostly working class….not racism but more likely ‘classism’ and lack of opportunity…how many whites from council estates were in the management seats at the BBC?

Amused to see this in the Guardian…..which trashes Henry’s claim about successful Blacks and a lack of success….

We’re in an amazing black cultural moment. Cue predictable white backlash

Black American culture is experiencing a kind of delicious dominance at the moment. It’s one that might seem odd given its contrast with the resurgence of racism embodied by some supporters of Donald Trump. But Trumpism, as my colleague Steven Thrasher has noted, is just the latest version of a pattern in America: black progress beckons white rage.

So Black culture is ‘experiencing a delicious dominance’….surely not?  But what of Trump?  Where does he fit in?  Can’t say he has said anything that smacks of being anti-Black.  Just an example of anti-Trump ‘racism’ I guess…make casual, aggressive assertions about him based on him being white…has he ever ‘raged’ against Black people?  No.  Have Whites ‘raged’ against ‘Black progress’?  ‘Blackism’,  just the latest version of a pattern of racism in America.

Oh, hang on, here’s the proof of Trump’s anti-Black racism….

When you, say, reject the birth certificate of the first black president, what you mean to say is that to be American is to be white.

Er…no…he’s not basing it on race but on legality and genuine questions about where Obama was born…the US constitution states that you have to be American to be President…so is the US constitution racist?  This is about politics and an attempt to undermine a Democratic Party’s President not about race.  Shame the Guardian peddles such trash about race and that Henry laps it all up and regurgitates it in his campaign…pity he can’t think for himself rather than rely on racist thugs like Malcolm X to inform himself.

Henry surfaced on the BBC a few weeks ago making the same complaints and plugging his new alter-ego as an ‘authentic’ black person…’coincidentally’ on the same day the BBC launched this…

BBC to quiz recruits on family background

Staff joining the BBC will be asked about their socio-economic background, as part of a bid to increase diversity at the corporation.  Candidates will be asked if they were entitled to free school meals, and if their parents attended university.  Anonymised job applications will also be extended for core roles.

The plans come after the BBC faced pressure from ministers to increase numbers of staff from under-represented backgrounds.  A BBC spokesperson said: “Almost half of our workforce is made up of women and the proportion of our workforce who are black, Asian and other ethnic minority is at an all-time high.”

In a 5Live radio interview Henry told us of his ‘journey’ to being ‘authentically’ Black…his mentors are unfortunately the ones you might expect some impressionable 13 year old to choose….Public Enemy, Malcolm X and #Blacklivesmatter…..hardly where you’d expect to get a rounded view of the world….which is how we end up with Henry berating Will Smith for ‘acting white’….if that’s not racism from Henry what is?

Henry of course rattles off the names of some Black men ‘assassinated’ by police in America…and includes Trayvon Martin, killed by a Hispanic man in self-defence…though the BBC controversially on Friday suggested that his clearance by jury was ‘controversial’.  Henry obviously doesn’t have a clue about the circumstances of the shootings and just recycles the myth that they were ‘executed’ by a racist police force…a narrative that the BBC itself has done much to promote, in an attempt to stir up racial wars presumably….because that would be the inevitable result…as we see even the affable Lenny Henry has been led by the nose down the ‘all Blacks are victims’ route and has chosen as his mentors racists, people who promote violence and those who use the deaths of Black youths to promote a racist anti-white agenda.

As for that video at the top of the post about ‘Public Enemy’…who made that?  The BBC’s James Hales…

Public Enemy: Prophets Of Rage

If, like me, you grew up in the 80s, loved loud music and winding up your parents, there’s a good chance you were into Public Enemy.

At one point they were the biggest thing in hip hop and were hugely popular in the UK with both indie kids and rock fans alike.

I was definitely one of the latter, mostly into hard rock and heavy metal. Hey, I was only 13.

Trouble is, he hasn’t grown up much as the video suggests….a very one-sided and overly benign telling of the background to his heroes, Public Enemy, missing out much of the controversial stuff and glossing over the anti-Semitism whilst the man at the centre of that still made the same claims on camera.

Did Public Enemy make a big impression in 1980’s Britain?  Doubt it.  Only a relatively small niche group would have heard them and an even smaller group would have latched on to any message in their music…no middle-class 13 year old, like Hales, would have bothered…they were just impressed by the ‘Blackness’, the guns, the military uniforms, and the aggressive, anti-Establishment stance…without knowing or really caring what any of it was supposed to mean.   It was exciting, different and out of the norm, it was show biz.  The politics?  Nahh…just turn it up loud.

The BBC once again uses historical allegories to try and explain, explain away, today…and why we are wrong to criticise Islam and the Jihadists…the war against the West is just a myth is the underlying, unspoken message……the stuff of nightmares…

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss Titus Oates (1649-1705) who, with Israel Tonge, spread rumours of a Catholic plot to assassinate Charles II. From 1678, they went to great lengths to support their scheme, forging evidence and identifying the supposed conspirators. Fearing a second Gunpowder Plot, Oates’ supposed revelations caused uproar in London and across the British Isles, with many Catholics, particularly Jesuit priests, wrongly implicated by Oates and then executed. Anyone who doubted him had to keep quiet, to avoid being suspected a sympathiser and thrown in prison.

Nothing new here…the BBC tried to use the Fire of London to suggest that we are hysterical and paranoid about Muslims trying to bomb or shoot us….

Late summer, 1666: London was an emotional and physical tinderbox. Following decades of political and religious upheaval, the restoration in 1660 of the Protestant Charles II ensured that suspicion lingered around republicans and Catholics alike. With the country also at war with the French and Dutch, paranoid xenophobia – a familiar English trait of the period – was rife.

And of course the infamous ‘Power of Nightmares’ wove a tale of intrigue, paranoia and deceit and claimed the war on terror had been invented and that Al Qaeda didn’t exist…

Here is the BBC blurb for ‘The Power of Nightmares’:

In the past our politicians offered us dreams of a better world. Now they promise to protect us from nightmares.  The most frightening of these is the threat of an international terror network. But just as the dreams were not true, neither are these nightmares.  In a new series, the Power of Nightmares explores how the idea that we are threatened by a hidden and organised terrorist network is an illusion.  It is a myth that has spread unquestioned through politics, the security services and the international media. 

In the BBC we trust.

John Humphrys led the charge on Today (08:37) trying to separate fact from fiction in the EU debate…so-called debate.  Many claims have been made, but which if them have any basis in truth?

The first ‘fact’ examined was Leave stating that we send £350 million per week to the EU.  The BBC says we don’t…because we get a rebate and the EU graciously spends some of that money on UK projects….meaning that we actually ‘only’ send £190 million per week to the EU coffers to spend on themselves.

However this misses Leave’s point…as did Humphrys when interviewing Gisela Stuart recently about the NHS…that if we didn’t send any money to the EU we could decide how to spend that money ourselves…on the NHS for instance.  We could if we wished continue to spend that money on the same projects the EU spent our money on, or we could opt for some other project…but we would also have that other £190 million per week to spend.  The BBC entirely misses the point and makes no reference to it in this piece.

The next ‘fact’ was Remain’s claim that each household would be £4,300 worse off by 2030 if we Brexited.  Now the BBC did say this was an exaggeration…but made no attempt to examine whether the principle that we would lose money on Brexit stood up…the BBC just accepts Brexit means the UK economy will suffer long term as well as short term.

‘Fact’ three?  Leave says 88 million people will be eligible to come to the UK on accession of new countries to the EU…such as Turkey.  The BBC pooh-poohed this by saying it was ridiculous to suggest all 88 million would come here…and anyway it would be very difficult for these countries to meet the necessary criteria to join.  Leave of course didn’t suggest all 88 million would come…just that they would be eligible to do so if they wanted to….and with 88 million eligible even 4 or 5 million would be more than likely…and most would be Muslim Turks….not a consideration for the BBC.

The last claim examined was Remain’s claim that 3 million jobs would go…this was found not to be true….though 3 million jobs, maybe 4 million says the BBC, are connected to trade with the EU…and therefore subject to that trade continuing.  What the BBC doesn’t look at is a possibility that trade may increase, both with the EU and the rest of the world….how many jobs would we gain long term?  No answer.

Humphrys rounded the report off by saying none of the claims were true…but that isn’t true is it?  We do send £350 million per week to the EU and the EU decides how to spend it…not us.  The £4,300 figure?  The BBC just suggests an exaggeration but doesn’t dispute the ‘fact’ that families would lose out on Brexit.  The 88 million swarming over the border?  Not a claim made by Leave…but that didn’t stop the BBC suggesting that it was.  The 3 million jobs, or now 4 million as the BBC subtly suggests….would trade with the EU stop?  No.  Slow?  Maybe, but the EU would want to keep the deals going.  Increase?  Possibly…with freedom to act and the incentive to do so companies might ramp up their efforts to export both to the EU and the rest of the world.  Again no sign that the BBC will admit such a possibility here.

All in all pro-Remain…the BBC says Leave  on the face of it correct but the detail says not, conversely Remain are slightly exaggerating but on the while are correct that we are doomed on Brexit.  It looks like a genuine attempt to examine the claims but isn’t.

The BBC’s head of religious programming, a Muslim called Aaqil Ahmed, who was renowned for producing pro-Muslim programmes at C4, has finally struck.  He has made the case for lessening the amount of Christian programming on the BBC and is insisting on Islam, oh, and other religions of course, to have a higher profile on the BBC.

Not sure how Muslims and Islam could have a higher profile given that the BBC fills just about every programme with material designed to reassure us that Islam is peaceful and tolerant and that Muslims are marvellous people or to make excuses for them when they aren’t so marvellous.

In March Ahmed put out this programme…

The Battle For Christianity (Tuesday 22 March, BBC One, 10.45pm) examines the reasons behind a rise in popularity in Christianity in the UK in a documentary which shows how confident, assertive faith is replacing traditional churches in the UK.

Now you might think he was just putting out a programme on Christianity and that as a Muslim that shows he is tolerant and inclusive….but what is the reality behind that programme?  This gives the clue to his real motive…

Migration to Britain from Africa in particular has brought versions of Christianity that are more assertive than the Christianity that most Britons have grown up with. The assertiveness of these different forms of Christianity are often at odds with more liberal beliefs around issues such as same sex marriage and blasphemy.

Alongside this growth in a more muscular Pentecostalism, immigration from Eastern Europe and from Poland in particular has also seen an upsurge in Catholic numbers, with some Churches now offering services in a variety of languages.

What does this mean for the rest of society?

Well it means Christianity is not in terminal decline as many would have us believe, it’s just different now and it’s growing. It also means we have to confront two big issues. One is our chronic lack of religious literacy in society. If there are more diverse forms of Christianity growing alongside other faiths then can we continue with our blind ignorance and relegation of faith and believers?

Linked to this is the second point: if amongst this growth is a more assertive Christianity with conflicting views with society on homosexuality, for example, then how do we deal with this?

This battle between liberalism and orthodoxy is not just one confined to Christianity, it’s one that involves all faiths and because of that involves everyone whether you are a believer or not.

In other words Ahmed is in fact using Christianity, the advent of more muscular, fundamentalist Chrisitianity coming in with immigration, to lay out a case for the UK being more open to, and tolerant of, intolerant and oppressive religious regimes such as the one that Islam would impose upon you….we are being softened up to accept conservative Islam, an extreme ideology in a liberal, western democracy, as normal.

Warsi, insanely put in charge of ‘faith matters’ by the craven Tories, used the same tactic….supporting and campaigning for more tolerance of more hardline Christian beliefs in the knowledge that if that is taken up then no one can then object to fundamentalist Islam and its adherents being allowed to flourish openly in the UK.

Trojan Horse?  Just maybe.

The case might be made for more controls on immigration and the prevention of people with such views from coming here…maybe Trump was right…why allow your country to be overrun with religious fundamentalists who want a return to the Dark Ages?

Everyone knows that Frau Merkel pulls the strings in Europe…vote no and the pressure is turned on until you vote yes,  want a deal that will mean your country isn’t strangled by debt and can recover?….Frau Merkel won’t allow it. Want to control immigration?  Instead Frau Merkel will open the borders and invite the world in…in to your country.  Want help to fool the voters in the EU referendum?  Merkel volunteers her help to keep the jackboot on our necks.

Merkel runs Europe, the Germans run Europe, whatever the French may think.  And yet this BBC headline gives the impression that not only is such a thing unlikely but comparing the EU empire building and the crushing of democracies around Europe to Hitler’s empire building is extraordinarily assinine……so much so it is the frontpage’s top headline….

EU Referendum: Boris Johnson compares EU’s aims to Hitler’s

Curious they choose to make no mention in the heading of the Roman Empire or Napoleon who Boris also mentioned…but then that is typical cherrypicking by the BBC…they select a single word or phrase and give the impression that that is all one person said and that everything else he talks of hinges around that cherrypicked item…as when Boris laid out several reason for Obama not liking Britain…one of which, and he was merely quoting other’s suggestion, was that Obama was part Kenyan and his grandfather had been abused by the British.  The only bit of his speech that the BBC latched onto was the ‘part-Kenyan’ bit and went on to use that to accuse Boris of being a racist…never mind that many, many others, the Guardian amongst them, asked exactly the same question…would Obama’s part-Kenyan heritage effect his relationship with Britain?  John Humphrys disgracefully continued with that accusation of racism against Boris this week….despite Boris’ speech being based on ideas taken from the dog-whistling Guardian….

Could Obama’s dual colonial heritage spell the end of the special relationship?

The intriguing question of whether the president’s dual colonial inheritance – of Kenyan and Irish ancestry – is helping reshape America’s supposedly “special relationship” with Britain.

The BBC is pretty much a disgrace as it manipulates the news to attack Boris, leader of the Leave campaign…to label him a racist and to now try and paint him as some sort of loon who links everything to Hitler….never mind the BBC is itself constantly warning us of the rise of a new Fascism and frequently likes to link UKIP to the Nazis. The BBC is smearing Boris on behalf of its chums in Remain.  It did the same when it attacked Gove for suggesting the worthless Cameron EU ‘reforms’ were not legally enforceable…the BBC attacked him and then didn’t bother to report it when a ‘top Eurocrat’ actually said Cameron’s EU renegotiation is nothing more than a deal ‘hammered out down the local bazaar’ and isn’t legally binding.

The BBC cherry picker is very busy these days.

The BBC this week in fact used exactly the same tactic of using history to make your case by spinning us a tale of how wonderful the Roman Empire had been and how wonderfully multicultural Europe was….they didn’t of course mention the EU but you know what the real message was….

What has really shaped Europeans’ identity? In the first of a new series, historian Margaret MacMillan visits Rome to explore the idea of ‘universal’ Europe , and the constant tension between unity and diversity. From imperial ambition to local life, roads to religion, maps to food she discovers a continent and a way of life in constant creation.

Once again the BBC tries to undermine the notion of the nation state and a national or local identity.  Just more EU propaganda…and EU that wants to dismantle the UK and turn it into Regions 1, 2 and 3.

So just why did the BBC cherrypick ‘Hitler’ out of Boris’ speech when they could have chosen the Roman Empire or Napoleon?  Are they trying to give the impression that he is recklessly and hyperbolically scaremongering?  I think they are when the truth is he was, as with Obama, laying out a perfectly reasoned and historical analysis of the inevitable failure of a policy to force a ‘united’ Europe upon people who don’t really want it…it is after all a political project that is to proceed come what may, come whatever the economic cost…as Greece has found out.

Here you go, a brand new OPEN thread to detail the bias. If the bias is annoying you, share it with us please.

The BBC has never been enthusiastic about Corbyn but, as fellow travellers, has dutifully protected his back more by omitting to report the bad news about him and his cronies in any rigorous manner than by positive tales of his political genius.  Nick Robinson’s warning not to be nasty to him must have paid off.

That all changed on the election of Sadiq Khan to be London Mayor…suddenly the BBC saw someone they believed not only could be the next leader of the Labour Party but one who encapsulated everything they believed in…he was brown, Muslim, left-wing and a consummate politician able to spin a tale and win arguments, silencing opposition even if it was by playing the race card and using the ‘Hate not fear, unity not division’ holy hokum.

Corbyn out, Khan in.

You could feel the excitement in the BBC coverage and whilst not explicitly saying Corbyn must go that was the feeling you got from the BBC’s ‘analysis’…..helped along by the fact that Khan launched a scathing attack on Corbyn  giving the impression that he maybe has an eye on the leadership himself.

Curiously, rather than admit this is hardcore, lefty BBC positive discrimination at work,  there are some who think this is all a right-wing plot that has put pressure on the BBC to do away with Corbyn….

Sir Michael Lyons, who chaired the trust from 2007 to 2011 and is a former Labour councillor, claimed that there had been “some quite extraordinary attacks on the elected leader of the Labour party”.

He told the BBC’s The World at One: “I can understand why people are worried about whether some of the most senior editorial voices in the BBC have lost their impartiality on this.

“All I’m voicing is the anxiety that has been expressed publicly by others … We had here a charter review process which has been littered with wild kites flown which, we can’t see the string is held by the secretary of state, but the suspicion is that actually it’s people very close to him.

Perhaps Lyons, and he doesn’t have the decency to note the fact he, a Labour man, was the BBC Trust Chair, should wake up and note that most opposition to Corbyn comes from within the Labour Party itself…the Tories would love Corbyn to remain in-situ dragging the Labour Party more and more into the gutter with every day that passes.

I fail to see Lyons’ logic…..other than a frothy mouthed, eye-swivelling conspiracy theory I see no evidence of any government involvement…what has the Charter review got to do with how the BBC reports on Corbyn?  The BBC has been very careful not to dig too hard into Corbyn’s real political views and those of his looney-left chums that he has surrounded himself with.  Evidence surely, if anything of the very opposite of what Lyons accuses the BBC of doing.

It seems that, as with Maria Eagle, another Labourite has been thrown by the pro-BBC white paper and has had to root around in desperation to find a new stick to beat Whittingdale with however unconvincing and patently absurd it is in the hope that no one notices and that at least some mud will stick.

If he really wanted a conspiracy theory of merit he might ask why the BBC never published the story of Whittingdale and the drug addicted hooker that it knew about for so long, and how the much vaunted ‘evisceration’ of the BBC never came to pass.  The BBC knew of this tale of the politician, the Press and the prostitute from 2014 and yet said nothing despite Whittingdale being involved in Press regulation and subsequently in charge of the BBC Charter review.  Some might put two and two together and come up with an interesting question or two.

Not Mr Lyons though.

Well, as Alan notes, I was on the BBC earlier today to discuss the much awaited White Paper on the future of the BBC. I have to say that it was, as many predicted, a complete whitewash, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing. The fundamental problem is that the BBC license tax is confirmed for the next 11 years, allowing it to extort the annual £3.5bn license tax on fear of criminalisation. That is the substantial point  – all this other stuff about creating a new Unitary board is largely an irrelevance. There is no real disclosure of who earns what – unless you are in the £450k+ league and even then the actually income is not to be revealed. We may all be “shareholders” in this “envy of the world” but we’re not to be told how much the bosses earn!

It gets worse;

Whittingdale said the BBC will be “required to give greater focus to under-served audiences, in particular those from black, Asian and ethnic minority backgrounds, and those in the nations and regions”.

So he is actually pandering to the BBC’s existing obsession to please anyone who isn’t White British.

I find the whole thing pathetic. The Government has BOTTLED it and rolled over to the BBC. We can expect more of the same for years to come and it is a Conservative Government which has ensured this. Talk about Darwinism.

The Government’s white paper on the future of the BBC was published today and the BBC is to be duly eviscerated…..oh, no, in fact not much will change in the end and the BBC is in fact pretty happy, as it should be, with the deal.

Let’s deal with Peter Kosminsky first…he’s a bit of a drama queen and wildly over the top in his attacks on Whittingdale and was entirely wrong about the whole process…Whittingdale was never going to ‘eviscerate’ the BBC and he made that quite clear in several speeches.

Kosminsky was on 5Live with Peter Allen and was raving about the Unitary Board that will replace the Trust…apparently this will be packed wiith political placemen who will control the editorial direction of the BBC, the Board will be stuffed with people who think just as the government does.  This is ‘really, really scary’.

Trouble is that’s complete bunk…8 of the Board’s members will be chosen by the BBC, 6 by the government…and it has no control over the editorial direction of the BBC…which Kosminsky would know if he had actually listened to the speech by Whittingdale…

So the new Charter will create a unitary board for the BBC that has a much clearer separation of governance and regulation. The board will be responsible for ensuring that the BBC’s strategy, activity and output are in the public interest and accord to the missions and purposes set out in the Charter.

Editorial decisions will remain the responsibility of the Director-General – and his editorial independence will be explicitly enshrined in the Charter – while the unitary board will consider any issues or complaints that arise post-transmission.

And for the first time, the BBC will have the ability to appoint a majority of its board independently of government. This is a major change, as previously the BBC Governors, and then the members of the BBC Trust, were all appointed by government.

Kosminsky went on to tell us the BBC’s role was to speak truth to power on behalf of the public…trouble is the BBC doesn’t represent the Great British Public, it represents a very small group that thinks of itself as an elite that should govern without the trouble of having to be elected….so much for representing the public.

Curiously I heard a BBC guest this morning talking on a different subject but by coincidence state that the BBC is not driven by public opinion and if it were it would be a very different BBC.  No kidding.

In contrast to the excitable Kosminksy there was the BBC’s very own James Purnell in the studio as well who was pretty much purring as he digested the fact that the BBC has got away with it, not just got away with it but come out on top with a very good deal.

Before Whittingdale’s speech Peter Allen had on one Professor Patrick Barwise from the London Business school whom you might have thought the BBC would have brought on to be an independent voice of reason and calm discussion.  Far from it.  He is very pro the BBC and was in fact employed by the BBC to run up an ‘independent’ report for them and in his own writing openly expresses support for the BBC…

Our research suggests that cutting the BBC licence fee would reduce consumer choice and value for money, as well as greatly damaging UK programme producers.

We believe that without the BBC, the UK television industry’s revenue would most likely be lower.

Our analysis suggests that although scaling back the BBC would not be as bad as abolishing it, it would still have a detrimental effect on UK viewers and producers. within a generation the BBC will be reduced to a minor sideshow, the UK equivalent of PBS (the Public Broadcasting Service) in the United States.

On the programme he ranted that we had ‘a secretary of state who was very hostile to the BBC and who was ideologically inclined to take it apart in the interests of commercial media companies’…he also dismissed DV as ‘The Blogger’, as did Peter Allen.   So over-the-top was Barwise that Allen actually had to step in and say Whittingdale was not here to defend himself.  Ian Hislop came on to give us his two penneth worth for what they were worth…not that much I should say.  Apparently the government had been publicly trumpeting a lot of very bad ideas that it then withdrew almost immediately…and he hoped, they will now bin them all.  So at least we know where the BBC stooge stands if we didn’t before.  Guaranteed another season of HIGNFY then.

So what is all the fuss about?  Is the BBC to be eviscerated?  Or has it been handed a lifeline that keeps it afloat and indeed launches it into a very secure future?

What are the onerous demands placed upon the BBC?

It must be impartial in its news and current affairs…yes, well, that is perhaps asking a lot…..’by making it clear in the organisation’s overall mission for the first time. This will make sure the BBC remains the most trusted provider of high quality news for audiences in the UK and abroad. ‘

It must support diversity…no problem there.

It must support the creative industries…and all programming, except news and current affairs, will be put out to tender…so Hall’s bluff about the BBC being the essential hub of a creative Britain has been called….’the BBC should proactively seek to enhance, bolster and work in partnership with the wider broadcasting and creative industries.’

The BBC must support local media in the interests of furthering democracy…not sure letting the BBC having influence over local media is in the interests of democracy.

The BBC must produce programming that has quality and innovation at its heart….programmes that are of ‘high public value’ and which are ‘distinctive’ in nature…..“Commissioning editors should ask consistently of new programming: ‘Is this idea sufficiently innovative and high quality?’ rather than simply ‘How will it do in the ratings?'”

The BBC has always been keen to hear the views of the National Audit Office and now it has a chance to feel the benefit up close and personal...’.The NAO will become the financial auditor of the BBC and have the power to conduct value for money investigations of the BBC’s activities, with appropriate safeguards for editorial matters.’

The good, and expert, Professor Barwise, in his ‘analysis’ after the speech, stated that the license fee would not go up….and yet Whittingdale quite clearly stated it would go up in line with inflation…

The licence fee has been frozen at £145.50 since 2010. We will end this freeze, and will increase the licence fee in line with inflation to 2021-22, at which point there will be a new settlement. In line with the other reforms to funding announced last July, this means that the BBC will have a flat-cash settlement to 2021-22.

This gives the BBC the certainty and funding levels it needs to deliver its updated mission and purposes. And it will ensure the BBC will remain one of the best-funded public service broadcasters in the world, receiving more than £18 billion from 2017-18 to 2021-22.

The Charter will last 11 years to take it out of the political cycle but will have a mid-term check.

The license fee funding system will also remain for 11 years at least and the iPlayer will now only be watchable with a licence.

Ofcom will also get a bigger role in regulating the BBC….

Ofcom has a proven track record as a regulator of media and telecoms. It is the right body to take on external regulation of the BBC.

We will require Ofcom to establish new operating licences for the BBC – with powers to ensure its findings are acted upon. Ofcom will also take charge of regulating the distribution framework and fair trading arrangements for the BBC. It will be a strong regulator to match a strong BBC.

At present Ofcom cannot hear complaints about BBC impartiality and accuracy and it is the BBC Trust that not only judges on editorial matters and complaints on them but also approves BBC editorial standards and so there is a conflict of interest as they sit on judgement on themselves.

Whittingdale doesn’t set out the exact process for complaints merely saying…‘The complaints system will undergo long overdue reform.’  However the Report by Sir David Clement on which this white paper is mostly based suggests a BBC first approach where the complaint goes to the BBC first and if not answered satisfactorily Ofcom can be appealed to or can itself step in if it thinks the case warrants early intervention in order to speed up the process.

Overall not much will really change as even the BBC admits….’For an exercise billed as a far-reaching reform, what’s striking about the white paper is how little will change fundamentally.’   The BBC has come out of this review rather well with guaranteed independence, a licence fee linked to inflation and more cash from the iPlayer and a more hands-off approach from the politicians with the Charter given an 11 year lease of life.  The new Unitary Board won’t rock the boat, especially with so many of the BBC’s own appointees on board, and Ofcom will be a minor fly in the ointment for the BBC.

On a final note, Labour’s Maria Eagle was entirely graceless, ill-judged and misinformed in her response to to Whittingdale’s speech loudly claiming that he was involved in some right-wing stitch up with the Press to do down the BBC…the echoing silence in the House said much about what the MPs thought of her conspiracy theory as they had just listened to the man himself lay out the very good terms of business he proposes for the BBC’s long term future.

Labour, as always, desperate to make some political point scoring and yet have had the rug pulled from under them as the much trumpeted ‘evisceration’ of the BBC has not happened leaving Labour high and dry with nothing to complain about as Whittingdale notes himself…

“[Eagle] rehearsed all her lines of attack only to wake up this morning to discover that all the concerns she expressed were based on ill-founded hysterical speculation by leftwing luvvies and others,” he said. “In actual fact what the government has proposed has been widely welcomed by, amongst others, the BBC.”

LOL.

Amused to hear the BBC dismiss DV as ‘The Blogger’ this morning.  They managed to avoid actually telling you what he blogged on and where to find it.  Funny that.  Wonder how such dismissive tones sits with the new duty to reflect the views of all people in the UK…presumably that will include those of a different political persuasion to those the BBC normally panders to in its news and programming.  Can we have a rightwing Kosminsky?

For your edification, education, delight and entertainment…

• BBC Charter Review: A snapshot of the government’s plan for the BBC

  • Published 12 May 2016
  • Guidance
  • DCMS
  • Part of a collection: BBC Charter Review

• Research to explore public views about the BBC

  • Published 12 May 2016
  • Research and analysis
  • DCMS
  • Part of a collection: BBC Charter Review

• Culture Secretary statement on the BBC reforms

  • Published 12 May 2016
  • Statement to Parliament
  • DCMS
  • Part of a collection: BBC Charter Review

• Plans to overhaul governance and secure the future of BBC

  • Published 12 May 2016
  • Press release
  • DCMS
  • Part of a collection: BBC Charter Review

• A BBC for the future: a broadcaster of distinction

  • Published 12 May 2016
  • Policy paper
  • DCMS
  • Part of a collection: BBC Charter Review