|
|
BBC zou niet moeten besluiten hoe de maatschappij zich ontwikkelt
Maandag, 17 December, 2007
Door Janet Daley Wat is BBC voor? U zou kunnen denken dat er een vrij ongecompliceerd antwoord aan die vraag was, of minstens dat het antwoord dat door Lord Reith (“ te informeren, op te leiden en te onderhouden“) wordt gegeven kon nauwelijks voor eenvoud en felicitousness worden verbeterd. Maar beste oh, nr - dit is een complexere wereld dan in die BBC geboren was. Zo hangt groot sphinx-als vraag over het bedrijf zoals een bedreiging van dood. In feite, wordt dat blijkbaar filosofische onderzoek, waaraan BBC eindeloos intern meditatie en debat heeft gewijd, ontworpen om een logisch gezien hardnekkig dilemma te richten samengevat in twee eerder specifiekere vragen. Vrij behalve buitengewoon (wanneer u aan het denkt) capaciteit om mensen die voor het weigeren worden gevangengenomen om hun activiteiten, waarom zou BBC het het verpletteren voordeel over zijn concurrenten, niet alleen in televisie en radio, maar op Internet eveneens moeten hebben te steunen betalen te hebben, dat door een reusachtige openbare subsidie wordt verstrekt? En, gezien het dat heeft? 3.2 miljard subsidie, waarom zou het dan om ruthlessly met commerciële rivalen, voor al te concurreren moeten tot doel hebben wereld alsof het bij de reclame van opbrengst zo afhankelijk was om te overleven zoals zij waren? Zodra geuit, antwoorden die vragen zelf - of eerder, wordt het duidelijk dat zij geen antwoord hebben. Er is geen goede reden waarom BBC exclusieve toegang tot een steeds grotere subsidie zou moeten hebben wanneer het zich enkel als één meer crassly concurrerend uitzendend bedrijf gedraagt, vooral als zijn openbare financiering toestaat het om de markten te vervormen waarin het door, bijvoorbeeld, humungous prijzen aan beroemdheidspresentators aan te bieden of een nieuwswebsite concurreert in werking te stellen waarvan enorme middelen kon misschien aanpassen geen krantenplaats. Dat, blijkbaar, is de correcte conclusie van de Conservatieve Partij, die van plan is om een idee te onderschrijven dat gaand de rondes sinds enige tijd is geweest: dat het geld dat door het licentierecht voor openbare dienst het uitzenden wordt verstrekt zou moeten ophouden om door BBC worden gemonopoliseerd. Een aandeel van het zou aan om het even welke het uitzenden uitrusting beschikbaar moeten zijn die voorstelt om programma's te maken die worden geacht om in het openbare belang te zijn. Niet alleen zou dit meer enkel zijn, maar het zou een stimulus aan alle kanalen zijn om hun spel op te heffen. British television broadcasting is plunging downmarket in a desperate race for the “mass audience”. Serious documentaries and grown-up political discussion have been the biggest losers. ITV has axed its last remaining political programme, Channel 4 clings desperately to the prestige of its single evening news broadcast, and BBC News 24 (which should have been the last redoubt of proper current affairs programming) is killing off Dateline London and Head to Head. Ironically, in the supposedly cut-throat commercial environment of American television, no major network or cable news channel would dream of ditching the great flagship political discussion programmes - Meet the Press, Face the Nation, Late Edition, Fox on Sunday - which appeal to small, specialised audiences but are hugely influential. Being able to bid for public funding to make serious, high-quality programmes, whether factual documentaries, political debates or original drama, would provide a counter-balancing influence for broadcasting organisations which now have to rely on crude market share to attract advertising revenue. It would also put an end to the existential musings of the great BBC monolith (What are we for? Why are we here? Can we go on?) which, in the great tradition of metaphysical system building, have produced sinister, self-serving results. For, in fact, the BBC - with the help of some credulous parliamentarians - has answered its own question with a huge leap into the social policy business. The new BBC Charter resolves the insoluble dilemma of why the corporation should be treated differently from all other broadcasting companies by elevating it on to another plane entirely. You may not have been aware of this (even though you pay for it) but the BBC - rather like M&S food in those memorable TV adverts - is not just a broadcaster. In the words of its new chairman, Sir Michael Lyons, it must be much more than a mere “commissioner, producer and transmitter of wonderful programmes”. In order to justify its unique role (and its unique form of income) it should engage with licence payers as “citizens” as well as audiences. There is a new Charter commitment to “sustain citizenship and civil society”, which is elaborated as “reflecting and strengthening cultural identities”, as well as “promoting awareness of different cultures and alternative viewpoints”. As Sir Michael put it in a speech last month, the BBC is being “challenged to play its part in reinforcing social cohesion in an increasingly diverse society”. He went on to give his personal commitment to that objective in these terms: “All of my previous work has convinced me that diversity both within and between local communities is a source of strength rather than weakness - and that the UK will become stronger the more it recognises and builds on that diversity. The BBC can and should help with this.” Whether you agree with those sentiments is neither here nor there. Who precisely is Sir Michael, not to say all those hundreds of faceless programme producers, writers and editors, to decide that the UK will become stronger if it embraces diversity? Who elected them? Sir Michael’s account of the BBC’s mission is explicitly, tendentiously and presumptuously political. Whether licence fee payers believe that their country will become stronger “the more it recognises and builds on” diversity is a matter between them and their mandated government. It is entirely inappropriate for the BBC to enforce a particular systematic view of how society should develop and how, as Sir Michael himself notes, its rapidly changing structure should be addressed. Engaging in a clash of overtly political objectives is properly the business of political parties or opposing lobby groups, not a supposedly neutral, publicly subsidised broadcaster. If there is a case for diversity, it must be among the viewpoints of broadcasters themselves. But I doubt that was what Sir Michael had in mind. Have Your Say: BBC should not decide how society develops Please read our posting guidelines before posting. Alternatively you can discuss this report here. Related News
|
Activists arrested because of UK Indymedia secret IP logging Last post by Mick @ 04:31 PM Go to Forum
| Latest Topics
UK police seize Gaza aid vans Last post by Victor @ 04:24 PM New collapse footage of WTC7 and North Tower - Nov 2008 Last post by Unregistered @ 03:53 PM Foot vs Brain Last post by Regina @ 03:35 PM G20 leaders will face mass protests Last post by Boris The Bullet Dodger @ 03:34 PM Rumsfeld Knew His Guys Were Torturing People to Death, Which Is a Serious Crime Last post by Mick @ 03:28 PM Red Dwarf returns! Last post by Regina @ 03:25 PM Foreign Office Link to Torture Cover-up Last post by Mick @ 03:25 PM Rendition Case Enters "Bizarre" Realms of Secrecy Last post by Mick @ 03:22 PM Can Chavez run again? Venezuelans decide in vote Last post by Unregistered @ 03:17 PM  Email This Page To A Friend Latest Headlines
More Breaking News  Archive
|
TOP NEWS DISCUSSIONS |
LATEST NEWS DISCUSSIONS |
|
|
UK Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, on drugs Top MI6 spy: Terrorism less serious than bird flu Lendman: Obama's 'War on Terror' Amy Goodman: Obama?s Afghan Trap Scottish Ministers 'completely opposed' to ID cards |
skund weed smoker commented on: UK Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, on drugs Jacqui 666 Smith is evil. Continue Reading & Reply Jim the Jamster commented on: Scottish Ministers ‘completely opposed’ to ID cards We do not do dodgy ID cards for ?10 and we do not hack into the... Continue Reading & Reply John Church commented on: Most Britons want troops out of Afghanistan: poll To-day 14th February yet another brave young marine has given his life to a cause... Continue Reading & Reply Sgant commented on: Why You Should Delete Your MySpace Account though I in no way, shape, or form support any type of racism we should still allow free speech.... Continue Reading & Reply |
|
The views expressed in the RINF news wire and newsletter are the sole responsibility of the author (s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the webmaster. RINF.COM: Breaking News & Alternative Media is Copyleft - Copy & Distribute Freely. News Forum |
Loading ...
