I've occasionally written about the BBC and the role it plays in British politics. The ideal of fact-based reporting, impartiality, and balance have always been values worth striving for. These are the chief props around which the corporation's illusio is draped. But like most official ideologies, these are for the little people - those who produce BBC programming, and those that consume them. As Tom Mills argued a while back, as an institution its leading cadres have always been clear which side the BBC is on. It cleaves to the state, is always guarded in its critical reporting, and takes its political coverage cue from the right wing press. Even though they're in such an advanced state of decay that their collective editorialising reaches niche as opposed to mass audiences.
Despite this, and having been led for the last five years by a close ally of the Tories, being overseen by committees of Tory appointees, and Turness's own efforts to skew news story selection to "win over" Reform supporters, the right in this country want to see the BBC destroyed. The media interests BBC news coverage does so much to emulate want an end to a non-commercial competitor. They want it gone so there's more eyeballs on their programming, more markets, and more opportunity to shape output through the pressure of advertising. They want to rid the airwaves of the idea of journalism, and reduce news coverage to the abysmal level of GB News-style propaganda. The BBC, like the NHS, also demonstrates that organisations based on state funding independent of markets can be successful. Which is anathema to the small-minded but hyper-class conscious elites that dominate this country's media production.
What now? There is an opportunity for the government here. The BBC Board will appoint the next Director General, and considering its present make up another establishment worthy with solid links to the right wing press and/or the Tories would be a likely pick. However, though the body is arm's length there are ways and means Keir Starmer and Lisa Nandy, as culture secretary, can engineer an outcome congenial to them. There are plenty of former Blairites orbiting around the consultation/CEO/directorship circuits available for the role. It is in their interests to have someone at the helm that would nudge the BBC's steering wheel away from amplifying right wing talking points and give the government a bit of a break. But as we've seen time and again, this Labour leadership's first instinct is to appease the right. In my view, Starmer is more likely to acquiesce to the appointment of another right winger than get anyone committed to the BBC as an institution. After all, giving in to what the oligarchs want is the grown up thing to do.
Image Credit
Frankly, the Trump speech editing sounds inexcusable for the BBC - a head had to roll for that, preferably the head of the person actually responsible. Auntie can't pull blatant stunts like that and still keep the (desperately needed) moral authority to, for example, reprimand newsreaders who decide to deviate from an autocue in order to insert their own politically charged opinions. If the BBC degenerates to the level of the US broadcast press then we're in deep trouble.
ReplyDeleteNone of which changes the fact that right wingers of many stripes certainly do have it in for the BBC. None more so lately than the Israel lobby, who are apoplectic at the fact that their puppet UK government wouldn't stop the state media broadcaster from covering the worst of their atrocities against Palestinians. They will be very keen indeed for the next occupant of Tim Davies' chair to be someone far more ideologically friendly to their interests.
Anonymous 01:11 , you must be watching a BBC in another parallel dimension to think that its news and discussion shows and general coverage of issues has anything at all to do with real journalism, and "moral authority " (sic). It is, and has always been, a conduit for UK government, NATO and US-led western imperialist propaganda and anti trade union, anti socialist bias.. The coverage of the Gaza genocide the Israeli embassy , and its sundry agents and apologists seem to be hot under the collar about seems to reside only in the BBC Arabic Service broadcasts. Mainstream BBC coverage of everything from Gaza to the Ukraine War , the Gulf War, the Falklands , Northern Ireland Troubles etc, etc. have always been fully "on Message". That even this servile stuff isn't enough for the Right just shows that nothing short of a full Fox-type News will do for this powerful lobby. The disgraceful , and unnecessary splicing of the Trump speech (which DID actually nevertheless accurately precis the central role of Trump in instigating the attack on the Capitol), was down to BBC arrogance, having done this sort of thing innumerable times to misrepresent the Left and all progressive issues generally.
ReplyDeleteI myself will not weep if the BBC propaganda lie machine disappears . That even Lefties still think it represents "journalism" just shows how useful a transmission belt for ruling
class lies it still is.
Apparently I am in that parallel dimension, since for the last two years the BBC news website has carried stories about the IDF killing civilians in Gaza on its front page almost daily. Even if that's only a fraction of the true horror, it's not hard to see why our Israeli liege lords are fuming about it.
DeleteMy guess is that it's the BBC's similar coverage of Russian atrocities in Ukraine which anon 12:01 is most sore about.
Journalism and moral authority are relative things, as we should all understand in 2025. However much Auntie is wanting for these in absolute terms, it's saintly compared to every available alternative.
The Prescott identified a number of issues. To take one, the reporting of women's rights and trans issues, I'm not sure that the main proponents of womens' rights such as Julie Bindel and Kathleen Stock can be described as 'right wing' unless your definition of 'right wing' is anyone who disagrees with you.
ReplyDeleteand as for 'GB News-style propoganda', GB News are clear with the viewer where their opinions sit on the political spectrum, but they regularly have left wing commentators on who are given time and space to put forward their opinions, and who are argued with in good faith.
ReplyDeleteYou certainly are in some sort of parallel dimension for BBC coverage of the gaza genocide anon12:01. The BBC has always pumped out the lies of the Israeli government about the events of the very unwise Hamas October 7 breakout, hostage-seeking, raid from the Gaza concentration camp into Israel. It neither explained , or ever explains, the vital historical background, of the 1948 and onwards mass ethnic cleansing by the Israeli Zionists of the Palestinians from their land , with mass killing to force them to leave , nor challenged the ludicrous , utterly now discredited, claims of October 7 mass rapes and " babies in ovens" spread by the Israelis to justify the ensuing genocide. Many independent examinations of BBC coverage of the mass murder of Palestinians relative to the few IDF or Israeli citizens detail the very different word usage in describing deaths in the conflict, eg, Israelis are "killed by Hamas", but Palestinians always just "die" or are "casualties" for instance. The BBC never points out that on October 7, it was the IDF itself , per the "Hannibal Directive" that killed most Israelis that day !
ReplyDeleteOn the Ukraine proxy war, or the looming US invasion of Venezuela for instance, the BBC simply regurgitates US and NATO propaganda. That aint journalism Anon 12:01. And your pure concocted fiction about BBC coverage of the Gaza genocide suggests you work for the Israeli Embassy mate.
Any BBC-haters here who aren't obvious transphobes and/or Russian stooges?
ReplyDeleteAnyone...?
The BBC had a legitimation crisis long before the spat with Trump and the ongoing misreporting of the Gaza genocide. Since its Reithian conception, the BBC has never been anything other than a conduit for ‘the establishment’ (justifying capitalism and its levers of power as immutable ‘common sense’): its acquiescent news output with all that cosy Westminster chatter about our elected leaders and their honourable beneficence); its forelock tugging to the Royals; its ahistorical view of world affairs (events abroad just seem to happen without any antecedence) and its dull, dull, dull ‘human interest’ stories. With the exception of the intellectual output of the two David’s (Attenborough & Olusoga) its daily programming of cookery competitions, game shows, celebrity tomfoolery and entrepreneurial porn (Dragons Den, The Apprentice etc) provide the masses with a dumbed-down and stultifying version of its initial grandiose aim to ‘enrich the intellectual and cultural life of the nation’.
DeleteThe recent events of Trump’s presidency and the pressure being brought to bear by the Israeli lobby have lifted the veil on the BBC. The corporation is in the middle of the perfect storm. It is now clear that no amount of submission to the right is going to be enough for the oligarchs, supremacists and their bullyboys. In parallel, the BBC’s soft-machine mode of legitimation is becoming increasingly ineffective. Particularly since the financial collapse of 2008, the masses feel they have not only been let down by their political leaders but also by the BBC Ubermensch. Seething with resentment about the diminution in the quality of their daily lives and the life chances for their children and grandchildren, the masses are no longer willing to bend their necks and listen obediently to concocted narratives offered by privately educated school boys & girls that have limited ontological credibility. In its present format, the role of the BBC in managing that resentment is now untenable.
Has the BBC the resilience to ride out this storm? What doesn’t kill it may make it stronger!
The Graun seems to be very upset at the rolling of these two heads.
ReplyDeleteI find it fascinating how a set of views on a number of seemingly unrelated issues are always held by the "I'm not right wing I'm just for common sense" brigade.
ReplyDeleteRigid views on gender and sex (accompanied by an expression of how concerned these men are for women's rights) and a hatred of the whole LGBTQIA+ concept. They'll tell you they have nothing against 'homosexuals', it's just all these weird hybrids they can't take.
Support for Israel's 'right to exist' and tacit acceptance that this is only possible by denying the Palestinians any rights at all, combined with agreement that Israel's need for self-defence through extreme violence, unprovoked attacks, occupation and genocide is self evident and justified.
A patronising attitude to any non-neoliberal view of how the economy should be run, and an absolute conviction that There Is No Alternative - even when the whole economy is collapsing in on itself because of the sheer suction being applied by those at the top to extract every penny from the rest. Any attempt to point out that an economy thrives when people can afford to live decently, and dies if they cannot, is derided as fanciful, marxist, or childish.
The persistent belief that the "adults in the room" i.e. them, know best, and are the only ones equipped to run the country - despite many years of empirical proof that these people are the ones destroying it through their stubborn faith in the deliberate lie that is trickle down, and the self-serving myths behind the whole neoliberal project.
The opinion that immigration has gone too far and undermined the traditional values of the white working class - a class that they and their theories sacrificed to the Gods of shareholder value and financial gerrymandering and left bereft, broken and isolated. Any solidarity having been carefully sabotaged along the way.
There are many more, but the whole unsavoury collection, like a selection of Greggs finest dragged out of a wheelie bin in a manky plastic bag, always seems to come as a package.
Well, one obvious common thread is that most (not all!) holders of these views tend to be some years passed the point where they ceased to be able to adjust their worldview to incorporate sweeping changes based on new evidence. Instead, when confronted with it, they are emotionally forced to reject the evidence. They can only cope with gradual changes to the social environment, much slower than those which are actually occurring.
DeleteIt's always the environment which they saw themselves in their formative years, not the environment as it actually was then, which matters. So (for example) if the actual non-white population of the country has increased by 10% but the proportion of non-white faces on the TV that they watch has increased by 50% in the same period, then they react as though the actual non-white population has increased by 50%.
In other words, they are small-c conservatives. Perineuronal nets too strong, amygdala too dominant. The perfect minions for psychopaths to manipulate.
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common; they don't alter their opinion to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their opinion." ... as a Time Lord once put it. And of course, rarely in history has it been more obvious that great power and great stupidity can often accrue to the same individual.