The vultures are circling. The barbarians are at the gates of the once-mighty empire, and its familiar opponents – with their familiar agendas – are calling for it to be broken up, the great behemoth dismantled. Meanwhile, the juggernaut trembles, not sure if it will last to the end of the year. But enough about News International and Leveson; let’s talk about the BBC and Newsnight instead.
All right, the comparison isn’t perfect: yes, the BBC has shown a willingness to criticise and to cross-examine itself that it is impossible to imagine from any other large organisation in the world, but there are real and troubling similarities between the two struggling giants, and how we respond to one should shape thoughts on the other.
Both crises, yes, began with real and unforgivable transgressions: but the scandals that followed were driven on and whipped up by their industry rivals, and by politicians practising the crudest type of party politics. The Conservative delusion – the real reason why they’re whispering and muttering about a reduced BBC and an a bifurcated director-general – is that, were it not for the BBC, then suddenly the United Kingdom would decide that Thatcherism red in tooth and claw wasn’t so bad after all; as if the Conservatives’ regional discomfort is the fault of too many repeats of Brassed Off or a leftwing bias among the Look North news team. But there’s a Labour delusion, too: there are those who seriously think that Gordon Brown had a fighting chance of winning the 2010 election – or that Tony Blair could have lost in 1997 – if the Sun had shone in the opposite direction.
Let me tell you what would actually happen to British politics if News International was broken into its composite elements, or the BBC was forced out into the free market: nothing of consequence. The 1980s would still have been Thatcher’s decade; New Labour would have flourished and fell just as it did. But let me tell you what would have happened to British society: it would have been a society without Premiership football, Doctor Who, the Sunday Times Investigation Desk, Sky Arts or BBC Radio. That’s a very large price to pay because the idiot wing of the two major parties thinks that it would have won a few more elections under a different system.
More importantly, in the opportunistic rush to cripple a supposed enemy of the revolution, both parties are failing to engage with the real problems. The Conservatives seem determined to prove that they have no questions to which either a swingeing cut or a radical privatisation are not the answer, while Labour is once again talking about mutualising the BBC.
There’s a glimmer of truth to both arguments – the Conservatives are right to highlight the cost of the licence fee, while Labour is right to argue that there should be a cooperative element to the BBC Trust – but neither address the big problems facing the BBC and print media: namely, how a garguantuan organisation like BBC should best be run, and, for print, the existential question of how to make quality journalism financially viable. Those are questions with difficult answers; they deserve better than reheated versions of the same old solutions.
—————————————————————————————
Stephen Bush writes a weekly column for Progress, the Tuesday review, and tweets @stephenkb
—————————————————————————————
Photo: Adrian Korte
One of the problems about the BBC’s investigative journalism is that it takes place in a highly competitive market dominated by the need to scoop the opposition and to sensationalise findings to make the front page. The former consideration can lead to a rush to broadcast without due regard to accuracy. The latter can result in a story being hyped up without due regard to fairness to those involved.
Whereas other players in the market can get away with these lapses, the BBC is bound by its editorial guidelines covering accuracy and fairness (not to mention impartiality). There is thus a constant tension in the BBC between its journalists trying to make their mark in the media world while following the constraining rules that have been laid down by the BBC Charter. This tension accounts for the current Newsnight fiascos and the many complaints that are made about the breach of guidelines in programmes of this sort. It also accounts for the BBC complaints department (aided and abetted by the BBC Trust) bending the rules to retain the best of their investigative and presentational staff .
This contradiction in the BBC between market and public interest considerations can only be resolved by doing away with the BBC’s editorial guidelines (which is unacceptable) or by extending something like the guidelines to the rest of the market so that a level playing field for decent journalism can be created.. The Leveson Inquiry might be a step in this direction.
It should also be noted that those who run the BBC are prone to prejudice like any other human beings. As someone who has been monitoring their treatment of Tony Blair I have little doubt that they have been engaged in a vendetta against him arising from the fall-out affecting the BBC which resulted from the Hutton inquiry.. My many complaints about this have fallen on deaf ears right up to the top echelons of the BBC Trust. The technique is to avoid addressing the precise points put to them and to rely on the small print of the BBC’ editorial guidelines to wriggle out of upholding complaints.
The answer is to make it mandatory to address complaints in the precise terms in which they are made and to cut down on the many loopholes in the BBC’s guidelines, one of which allows the BBC Trust to dismiss appeals based on the right to reply if they come from a third party (they are currently trying to extend this third party rule to BBC complaints which would of course severely impair the chances of holding them to account on grounds of impartiality).
The wo / man ‘in the street’ just wants to get on with earning a crust to pay for that crust, and to pay for a roof over their head and for their kids schooling. . Existentalism is a word the everyday wo / man in the street wouldn’t get his headaround in a munth o’ Sundeys – empirical values maybe.. watch my lips – keep it simple, Dude ! .. or lose out at ballotbox.
Someone should remind Lord Patten that Retribution is God’s alone, and to keep his fight outside please. His idea on ‘radical change’ and its implementation of it and the wo / man in the street’ interpretation of it are radically different. The Dept @ Westminster may want to overview some sinecure posts at the Trust for a kickoff. Jobshare sounds nice and homely. They are, or will be doing it in USA soon, from the top down – so lets get a jump on Pres. Obama – for once ! instead of lamely following the Stateside prompts and heavy hints.
Tony Blair is still seen by many of those people in the street as a Hero. As to the BBC and moreover the TRUST side being impartial, ha ha. With gi-normous salaries earned by 30% of their staff its little wonder that the ‘loony left’ brigade seem a bit widdled off, its the nature of the beastie to think like a Prole/Pleb when you are treated as one – or feel that way due to MEGA social strata diff’s.
A radical theme must be invented for Aunty Beeb whereby we don’t swing too far to Chairman Mao’s Chinese little Red Fluke (Empire of the Sun), and heavy-handed State run non-TV giant and Rupe et Fils News Intl braggarts’ phoney cardboard (Empire of the PUN )…..
Thank you for making these points so succinctly and to Stephen Bush for the article.
This recent incident has reminded us how normal these people are; that they do make mistakes; and that they too must improve their performance – not just in efficiency but in the quality of debate they are able to engender in our society. That would be worthy aspiration for them but it relies on fairness in debate that the right to reply might address.
For me, support for the BBC comes from considering just one question: “Do we want the quality of our national debate to be at the level of the Sun?”
It might do BBC exec’s some good if they were expected to spend a sabbatical out in industry once in a while.