The BBC

January 29th, 2004 - 22:22 | 5 comments

I’ve always had an interest in the BBC, both as an idea and an institution, and today must be one of the darkest days in its history. The resignation of the two most senior men due to the Hutton Report’s stinging attack must be a body blow. How often do you see staff members spontaneously protesting at the resignation of their boss? I can’t see Andrew Gilligan lasting the week, I’m not sure anybody could stay in a job where a mistake you made brought down two of the most important people in the media. In fact, given the magnitude of the error, I’m not sure you should. But what do I know.

I’m sure this is already being used by those who dislike the BBC to further promote their agendas. Many people seem to have nothing better to do than whinge about license fees, so I’m sure we’ll hear a fair few soundbites/bytes in the coming days. To these people I say this: shut up. While I’m not denying a huge mistake was made, I believe the BBC to be an incredibly important institution. Just comparing the quality and range of output shows that public-funded broadcasting has huge advantages over advertising-based channels. What other channel would have the guts to broadcast a critique of themselves? What other channel produces such a wide range of programming, or devotes entire evenings to charitable broadcasts for free, or runs one of the largest websites in Europe, or leads the way with interactive digital services (even if Telewest don’t carry it all), or helps schoolchildren with their revision, or provides free internet help courses as part of a massive online learning program including help for budding writers like me, or rescues popular programs from cancellation, even if they’re not British (Due South being just one - can’t find a link atm), or invests in films, or runs two whole tv channels purely for children? And there’s so much more.

Answers on a postcard. London W12 7RJ. Oops, force of habit.

I’m not saying that the BBC is a perfect institution, just that I think it does a tremendous amount of good for no other reason than that’s what it’s there to do, and all people seem to do is complain. It’s ironic that the best news coverage I can find is through the BBC itself. It sticks to the facts, avoids becoming opinionated and doesn’t patronise. That’s always been the reason most of my news links have been to the BBC site, and today is no different. Andrew Marr says that Lord Hutton found politicians to be much more trustworthy than journalists, whereas all public opinion polls say the reverse. He says that in the end, both parties should be worried about why they aren’t trusted. As ever, he has a point.

-----

5 Responses to “The BBC”

1 Simon Jan 30th, 2004 at 8:52 am

The BBC is pretty cool. They have the ability to do something because its right, not because their advertisers will pay them more. Ofcourse, that doesn’t mean that I like much of what gets showed these days. I am also disappointed that they have followed some of the reality tv route, and were a major contributor to the docu-soap which probably spawned the concept in the first place.

You didn’t even mention the radio channels in your post. Radio adverts are far more annoying than tv adverts in my opinion. If I am watching tv I am watching tv. When adverts come on I can do something else for 5minutes. With radio however, I am doing something else, perhaps work or something else which needs some thought, and those adverts just get right in there and blow my brains up. I mainly listen to radio1, which by itself probably makes all my opinions on anything null and void but I have listened to radio2 which is my mothers preference and I have to say that they have some interesting and/or fun djs on, and I have listened to radio4, which is my dads preference and I can say that there is some very interesting stuff on there.

I could state, perhaps with some possibility of it being accurate, that I would be a different person if not for the BBC or at least its format. Think about it.
2 Edward Jan 30th, 2004 at 11:33 am

I don’t have time to read all the comments above or the entire article (I’m getting into the slashdot user’s prerogative!!)
I think that the BBC needed to launch the investigation just so that there was a higher level of transparency between the government and the public aka everyone else. In addition, I also feel that perhaps there was something more there, but as with many government matters, (well at least in fiction) I’m sure that it was covered over well. We’ll never get to the bottom of it, but perhaps it will satisfy some of the other countries around the world about the legitimacy of the decision.

Whether the decision was a legally justified decision, I shall leave to a more qualified person to answer since my knowledge of International law (including the UN) is rather poor.
3 Andrew Jan 31st, 2004 at 5:33 pm

Nicely put, Simon. I’d forgotten about the radio stations. There are also a lot (can’t quite seem to find out how many atm) of local radio stations too. Along with the BBC World Service.

International law’s a bit complex, yeah given that world leaders can’t agree on it, what hope is there for us to understand it all…
4 Nodster Feb 1st, 2004 at 4:47 am

America’s understanding of International Law is a bit like a buffet or pick n mix stall.

Sorry couldnt not say it
5 Andrew Feb 3rd, 2004 at 12:52 pm

That all depends - a lot of the brightest people in the world disagree over international law. Nobody disagrees that removing Saddam from power was a good thing, it’s just the method that has proved (just a bit) controversial. How do you remove someone like that from power when nobody can agree on the best way to do it? In any similar situation, someone invariably has to take a lead.

—

-----

Commenting Policy: Thoughts, observations, argument, debate and all other conversational wonderments are encouraged, but personal attacks or general trolling will result in your comment being deleted and your account/IP banned. If you're nice, however, you get strawberries.