I have written here before about the liberal and left-wing bias of the BBC. This applies to its news coverage particularly but also is reflected in it's drama and comedy and light entertainment progamming as well as that which might be described as 'documentary'.
However, that bias was frankly clear to any keen observer and I was in danger of stating 'the bloody obvious', especially to anyone with 'right' leaning political tendencies.
I don't think that any of us could have really been prepared for what is now unfolding at the BBC, relative to the Jimmy Saville cover-up.
For the uninitiated, Saville was a (then) much admired entertainer and charity funds raiser who transitioned from being a radio DJ into an 'all around good guy' on the BBC. All the time though, it seems, he was allegedly sexually abusing under-age girls. Oftentimes on BBC premises. Sometimes in the company of other abusers.
The revelations show that many at the BBC were aware of his sick (and let's not forget illegal) activities but chose to do or say nothing about them.
Following Saville's death, a female reporter, Liz MacKean, put together a TV programme that would expose the activities of Saville and include first-hand accounts from his victims.
The BBC chose not to air the segment. Charitably you might say, because it was going to conflict with two celebrity puff pieces that the BBC was running on Saville and the BBC couldn't really laud him in these and expose him, in the other. That is the most charitable one could be. That the BBC didn't want to appear hypocritical! Heaven forfend!
The less charitable view is that this reflects the view of the liberal intelligentsia and those at the top of the BBC, that the normal rules of society don't apply to them. This 'elite' (mostly male-dominated) think that balance, fairness and above all else common decency and adherence to the law, shouldn't apply at their 'lofty' levels. They see themselves as the shapers of opinion - leaders not followers - and well, if the 'public' haven't yet caught-up, 'don't worry, they will, if we, long enough and exclusively, feed them this line'.
So who do I mean, when I say 'liberal intelligentsia'? The journalists, the editors, the presenters, the governors on the BBC trust - all of these at the BBC. Look then at media outlets like The Guardian and The Observer which push every 'right-on' cause, simply because, yes simply because, it is 'right-on'. The same can be said of our 'arts establishment' - those that push cows in formaldehyde or piles of bricks and say it's 'art' and, what's more, the tax payer should fund it!
Politicians and union leaders are not exempt either. They too look down on 'Joe Public' as just someone to be abused and 'fiscally raped' at every opportunity.
So, what to do?
How about starting with the sacking of the board of governors of the BBC Trust? Don't let a token resign in a fit of suddenly being overcome with rightful shame - sack the lot - all of them. Don't replace them with those that are media or politically qualified - that's just fishing in the same polluted pool.
Move on for a cull of anyone event remotely tainted with the Saville affair. Yes, that might not be fair but since when has fairness ever meant anything to the BBC?
Then end the BBC TV tax - AKA the TV License Fee - Maybe, just maybe, when the organization is subject to the colder winds of commercialism then the BBC just might be less concerned about constantly sniping at and ridiculing those that pursue the profit motive and favouring those parasites whose only goal in life is to look down on 'Joe Public' and the great unwashed.
Don't for one minute, expect resignations - Peter Rippon, the Newsnight editor responsible for 'spiking' the story, hasn't resigned, he has just stepped back, while the 'investigations' plod on - no, resigning requires a sense of moral duty, of knowing what's right and wrong. The BBC, as with so many public institutions, don't hire people with that!
If I think back over resignations from senior public roles, the only one that comes to mind, where true integrity was displayed, was that of Lord Carrington. He was Minister of Defence at the time of the Falklands invasion. He resigned, not because it was his fault but because he felt his department was at fault and so the honourable thing to do was to quit.
Oh, and don't worry about or believe all of the rubbish about a 'great British institution' - that is just part of the myth - the BBC is just a media company - it has no higher role nor is it independent, save in that it is independent of the people that fund it!
To those who chunter on about great British institutions, such as the BBC and the 'blessed' NHS and the 'mother of all parliaments' take a look at this sorry and shaming tale. Still proud of the BBC? Think back to the MP expenses saga, think of Stafford Hospital and Bristol - Still think these are wonderful?
I am ranting because I am angry! The 'powers that be' will do nothing, as usual. A few tokens will be sacrificed and then the gravy train will rumble on but my spleen is a little easier now!
However, that bias was frankly clear to any keen observer and I was in danger of stating 'the bloody obvious', especially to anyone with 'right' leaning political tendencies.
I don't think that any of us could have really been prepared for what is now unfolding at the BBC, relative to the Jimmy Saville cover-up.
For the uninitiated, Saville was a (then) much admired entertainer and charity funds raiser who transitioned from being a radio DJ into an 'all around good guy' on the BBC. All the time though, it seems, he was allegedly sexually abusing under-age girls. Oftentimes on BBC premises. Sometimes in the company of other abusers.
The revelations show that many at the BBC were aware of his sick (and let's not forget illegal) activities but chose to do or say nothing about them.
Following Saville's death, a female reporter, Liz MacKean, put together a TV programme that would expose the activities of Saville and include first-hand accounts from his victims.
The BBC chose not to air the segment. Charitably you might say, because it was going to conflict with two celebrity puff pieces that the BBC was running on Saville and the BBC couldn't really laud him in these and expose him, in the other. That is the most charitable one could be. That the BBC didn't want to appear hypocritical! Heaven forfend!
The less charitable view is that this reflects the view of the liberal intelligentsia and those at the top of the BBC, that the normal rules of society don't apply to them. This 'elite' (mostly male-dominated) think that balance, fairness and above all else common decency and adherence to the law, shouldn't apply at their 'lofty' levels. They see themselves as the shapers of opinion - leaders not followers - and well, if the 'public' haven't yet caught-up, 'don't worry, they will, if we, long enough and exclusively, feed them this line'.
So who do I mean, when I say 'liberal intelligentsia'? The journalists, the editors, the presenters, the governors on the BBC trust - all of these at the BBC. Look then at media outlets like The Guardian and The Observer which push every 'right-on' cause, simply because, yes simply because, it is 'right-on'. The same can be said of our 'arts establishment' - those that push cows in formaldehyde or piles of bricks and say it's 'art' and, what's more, the tax payer should fund it!
Politicians and union leaders are not exempt either. They too look down on 'Joe Public' as just someone to be abused and 'fiscally raped' at every opportunity.
So, what to do?
How about starting with the sacking of the board of governors of the BBC Trust? Don't let a token resign in a fit of suddenly being overcome with rightful shame - sack the lot - all of them. Don't replace them with those that are media or politically qualified - that's just fishing in the same polluted pool.
Move on for a cull of anyone event remotely tainted with the Saville affair. Yes, that might not be fair but since when has fairness ever meant anything to the BBC?
Then end the BBC TV tax - AKA the TV License Fee - Maybe, just maybe, when the organization is subject to the colder winds of commercialism then the BBC just might be less concerned about constantly sniping at and ridiculing those that pursue the profit motive and favouring those parasites whose only goal in life is to look down on 'Joe Public' and the great unwashed.
Don't for one minute, expect resignations - Peter Rippon, the Newsnight editor responsible for 'spiking' the story, hasn't resigned, he has just stepped back, while the 'investigations' plod on - no, resigning requires a sense of moral duty, of knowing what's right and wrong. The BBC, as with so many public institutions, don't hire people with that!
If I think back over resignations from senior public roles, the only one that comes to mind, where true integrity was displayed, was that of Lord Carrington. He was Minister of Defence at the time of the Falklands invasion. He resigned, not because it was his fault but because he felt his department was at fault and so the honourable thing to do was to quit.
Oh, and don't worry about or believe all of the rubbish about a 'great British institution' - that is just part of the myth - the BBC is just a media company - it has no higher role nor is it independent, save in that it is independent of the people that fund it!
To those who chunter on about great British institutions, such as the BBC and the 'blessed' NHS and the 'mother of all parliaments' take a look at this sorry and shaming tale. Still proud of the BBC? Think back to the MP expenses saga, think of Stafford Hospital and Bristol - Still think these are wonderful?
I am ranting because I am angry! The 'powers that be' will do nothing, as usual. A few tokens will be sacrificed and then the gravy train will rumble on but my spleen is a little easier now!
No comments:
Post a Comment