Britain's public service broadcaster is known all around the world. From BBC World News to the World Service, reporters in every region and a charter designed to produce work for so many genres, the BBC is a dominant force in Britain. It is a cultural part of our nation, producing news, sport, soap, entertainment, sit-com, children’s, drama and faith programmes for all to enjoy. By that very definition, creating such a high volume of programmes, it will inevitably receive criticism. As part of the human condition, people are not going to be happy about something, perhaps going as far as writing a formal complaint.
And why shouldn’t they? A key part of a free society is the right to complain, the right to express your anger at something that has been produced. Of course, people must have the freedom to think the BBC is biased to the left/right, has too much/little diversity, is obsessed with/doesn’t care about faith/music/marriage/drugs/wealth. Why, there are some people, a minority I’m sure, but a significant group of people who believe it should be privatised, the TV licence abolished and impartiality out the window, a private company deciding the editorial viewpoints of the nation. I would far rather have lots of criticism for a public institute, than criticism not be allowed. That is wrong. Once you can’t cannot criticise a body, you’re on the slippery slope to full-on censorship (apart from mercifully agreeing with the government). I'm sure if one tried to criticise the North Korean state broadcaster, because the lady’s pink dress was too bright, they wouldn’t be seen again. I’m all for criticism, anger and peaceful protest. However, looking back at much of the criticisms I have seen, I do think people can either start, or easily jump on, a bandwagon of BBC hate, sometimes not for entirely legitimate reasons. The backlash against the BBC is, in part, because of competition. Back in the 1920's, the dawn of public broadcasting, there was no choice. People listened to the BBC, presumably on the wireless before the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, and that was how they got their news. If you wanted to know what was going on, whether there was supposedly bias to the left or right, you either listened to the wireless or read a newspaper. The quantity of news sources was just tiny. Even when the television, a revolutionary form of technology was introduced, the choice remained stark. Either BBC One, BBC Two (bless) or ITV. Given the distain towards adverts and an obsession with materialism in the post war era, the BBC maintained a monopoly on news and entertainment. They were in charge. Upon the birth of the internet, everything changed forever. There are now so many places for someone to obtain their news. News sites dominate the internet, each with their own open bias. Why shouldn't they? They aren't funded by the public, have no charter to be impartial and wish to fill a space. Why, I myself am a mini-version of those sites, musing on the week's affairs openly expressing my own opinion. I hope to maintain the right to write what I wish for many years to come. The issue comes when these partial news sites, usually online, twist the news to fit their own agenda. Most people don't examine multiple news sources like the politically minded, those addicted to examining every political aspect taking place. The majority of people probably receive their news only from a newspaper and the News at 10. That's quite understandable. They lead busy lives, may want a brief insight into what's going on but most of the time don't wish for government to disturb them. However, when people get used to reading information that only fits their world view, where all the news items are opinion pieces in all but name, transferring over to the BBC, an organisation that, at worst, tries to be impartial of viewpoints would be a challenge. Obviously, if you are right wing, used to reading right wing pieces that reinforce your world view, watching a broadcaster that invites left-wing contributors will always make the BBC appear biased to the left. This doesn't mean I'm against competition. While I'm certainly opposed to large elements of the Thatcherite agenda, that turned communities against each other, helped a few get rich and cared only about wealth, competition and trade, multiple voices within the media isn't a bad thing. Especially as newspaper sales dwindle, the former grandfather of freedom of opinion in our media, it is right that people should be able to access different viewpoints, some of which are open about their bias when reporting on the news. Nevertheless, much of the anger directed at the BBC must stem from shock at viewing different opinions. It's all part of cognitive dissonance, retaining and exposing ourselves to information which fits our world view. The left and right are both guilty of such anger. Take Newsnight, for example. A good old current affairs programme for over three decades, reflecting on the day's affairs and looking forward to the next. Over the last week, Corbynistas have accused the BBC of complete bias due to photoshopping the hat Mr Corbyn was wearing on a Russian backdrop. I know. I wasn't expecting that. The acting editor of Newsnight has already confirmed the hat was not altered to make Jeremy Corbyn look more communist. And even if there were slight changes, do they really think British voters are stupid enough to decide their voting intention by the shade of a hat. A hat. However, this is only one example where some Corbyn supporters have used every opportunity to try and bash the BBC. Maybe there have been errors of impartiality surrounding Jeremy, but to complain over a hat is just nonsense. The right are no better. While many voted 'leave' for left-wing reasons, wishing to escape the capitalist club that is the EU, allegedly, a large reason for voting for leave was less immigration and trade deals abroad, often spouted by Conservative figures. Therefore, frequent criticism arises that the BBC are institutionally 'remain' and by not having a majority of Brexiteers on the panel, they are going against the will of the people! This criticism forgets the referendum has taken place, there is no campaign and the BBC do not need to ensure full equality discussing Brexit, given many remainers, like myself, have now accepted we are leaving. This doesn't mean the BBC is perfect. An organisation that is criticised by both the left and right isn't impartial, instead, it may be doing badly in both ways. Personally, I believe their weather coverage should be fairer to supporters of rain and on Question Time, David Dimbleby, great though he is, can be a bit leaning in his questioning of politicians. It is not a perfect body. Criticism is of course valid and should be heard, but for some, anything the BBC does is seen as an excuse to try and seek its abolition. You don't need this blog to reveal perfectly legal ways to avoid the licence fee. Any Google search will do that, and if someone's hatred of the BBC, a publicly funded body is that high, they will know far more than me about methods of avoiding payment. However, I really don't think the licence fee is a rip-off. Paying just £150 to have access to radio stations, TV channels and all the different resources for a whole year is, in my view, worth the amount. The whole ethos of the BBC is something that should be supported. It seeks to bring people together of different viewpoints with an impartial presenter. In the USA, for example, CNN will tell you how awful Donald Trump is, with guests who all oppose Donald Trump. Flick over to Fox News and you will be told how excellent Donald Trump is, guests adoring him. As I said, news has become opinion. As least the BBC, despite all its faults, aims for a separation between news and opinion. In this age of outrage and offence, that must be something to appreciate.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|