Three items following the launch of RDN's book: Scrap the BBC!
1. An outing on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, ABC. Click
here.
2. An item on 18 Doughty Street, the micro-TV station. Click
here.
3. And, below, a piece for the Yorkshire Post.
Let's Scrap the BBC!
By Richard D North*
Yorkshire
Post, 18 January, 2007
You'll be paying a bit more for the BBC from now on, and using
it less. Those have been the trends for decades and the political
and commenting classes have just spent 2006 making it likely that
the pattern will remain for another ten years. But the current Charter,
just a few days old, and the new quite generous licence fee settlement,
which is likely to be announced today, really could be the last
time the nation bobs the knee, or tugs the forelock, to Auntie.
I know it is a shocking thought that we should scrap the BBC. It
has a special niche in the national psyche: it's respectable; it
comes from a time when we felt ourselves to be great; Winston Churchill
used it to fight our greatest war; we built Christmas on Erie and
Eric (we forget they split for "the other side"). Hell,
even now there's Strictly Come Dancing and Bleak House and Paxo
and Harrumphrys. Come on.
Sure, there's good stuff on the BBC and with £3 billion to
play with, there ought to be. The trouble is that there is nothing
so special about what the BBC does that we should suffer the indignity
of being made to pay for it just because we want to own a TV. In
1926, it was understandable that people should be made to pay for
something to listen to at the same time as they bought their wireless
set. We were terrified, back then, that the alternative to a monopoly
was a mad bun fight as stations scrambled for signals, an appalling
vulgarity as commercial interests took over, and the strong possibility
of propaganda horrors too.
Eighty years later, a digital world means that channels are readily
available. More teasingly, the BBC, desperate to hang on to its
shrinking share of the market, is quite as vulgar as everyone else.
And as to propaganda, the vulnerable are prey to all the shrieking
lies they could possible want (and, Lord, how they love them) on
the internet.
Granted the vitality of the broadcast scene, we now know that we
could unplug the BBC, and nothing much would change. Channel 4 would
still provide the only indispensable hour of news. HBO from the
States would still be providing the most intriguing drama. The intelligentsia
would still be sneaking off to catch up on Celebrity Big Brother.
Too many young Muslims would still be watching garrottings on their
laptops. And that nice Mr Murdoch would still bring us his Sky News.
What's more, it is very likely that Radio 4 would still bring you
its green, soft-left liberal pabulum. I say this because there are
so many ways the middle class could organise the continuance of
its favourite ear-massage. Radio 4 has about 10 million listeners,
most of them affluent and devoted. They would love to band together
and form a British Broadcasting Club. A £7 subscription from
these ABC1 social types would pay for the existing service to proceed,
and be freely available to such of the C2DE classes as wanted to
tune in. I am not sure that the new service would be allowed to
keep the BBC moniker, because it might be regarded as too close
to the BBC World Service name, which would probably continue as
the government went on funding the planet's best (but right-on)
news service to benighted foreigners.
So let's get bold and imagine that the middle classes wanted the
best of BBC2, News 24, and Radios 1, 2, 3 and 4. About £500
million should do nicely, and would be a cinch for a membership
of 10 million people. A National Trust of the Airwaves or a Royal
National Listeners and Viewers Institution would make a fascinating
new national body, and fit an existing habit of nicely self-interested
noblesse oblige.
Why bother? The answer's that we need an area of broadcasting which
is unabashed in its elitism. We know the BBC has abandoned any thought
that it could appeal to the brightest and the best. Indeed, it has
joined the national mush which makes such talk seem nasty. Tough.
Whilst the BBC heads off towards "social inclusion" and
a chatty, emotional, feminised world view, those of us who loath
this guff should be released from paying for it and encouraged to
develop alternatives.
The present arrangements are a curse all round. For all sorts of
historical reasons, all our broadcasters - not just the BBC - are
treated as children who need discipline. They are all required to
be impartial. The absurdity of this idea is clear when you think
of the vibrancy of the British print media. At the top end, it's
doubtful if a more serious medium has ever existed and at the bottom
it's doubtful if there was ever a more lively one. On everything
that matters, there are astonishing levels of truthfulness, and
it is not likely that any populace anywhere in the world is more
challenged as it thinks things through. But this is not the product
of control and censorship of the kind broadcasters have to submit
to. Instead, a riot of arrangements - commercial and voluntary -
produces a vigorous argey-bargey of newspapers, magazines and pamphlets.
No-one claims in print that they have a monopoly of authority or
insight. Our broadcasters, on the other hand, are required to pretend
that they are both godlike and virginal. They are not allowed to
support any politician or policy. They are neutered. So they make
a fetish of pseudo-dissident investigation and interrogation, only
a small proportion of which produces valuable news or opinion. Our
broadcasters are condemned to pick away at authority, and our democratic
institutions, because they are not allowed to do anything serious.
They are treated like children, and so are we.
*The author's "Scrap the BBC!": Ten years to set broadcasters
free has just been published by the Social Affairs Unit, £15.95
ends
|