Unlock Editor’s Digest Lock for Free
FT editor Roula Khalaf will select your favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
The writer is a former controller for BBC Radio4.
Another day crisis. The BBC can always ensure that it provides perceived bias (the most reliable classic) of corporate news coverage (the most reliable classic).
To that list was a truly miserable failure to not withdraw from Bob Billan’s anti-Semitic Setslashland live coverage in Glastonbury.
It’s the horny tits of trouble. And the quick and easy conclusion is that the place must go to the dog. Also. This is because 103-year-old UK public service broadcasters are often thought to go to dogs.
It is in a state of near constant crisis, and many people who work for it feel burdened. There’s always something, something, something, wrong. Neurosis and defense form part of the pathology of the facility.
Therefore, BBC survival can be considered as a type of abnormality. Faster than late — or say many critics — the broadcasters should be removed further (funds cut by 30% in 15 years). Or maybe we have to shoot it completely. £174.50 is no longer available for mandatory license fees. And it pleases the nation that the BBC’s £3.7 billion annual revenues no longer distort the market, restricting many of its competitors.
But it’s all about missing the point. The BBC has not remained a central part of British life and culture – the mistakes and everything in Gothic style – because for decades a generation of people in power forgot to abolish it.
Rather, 35 million people use it every day in the UK, as tens of millions use it every week. It remains the most reliable news source there. The majority of the public complain about the BBC at least for some time, and complain all the time, but with round people, they prefer it more than it gets frustrated.
Yes – they pay for it, but they are not forced to watch, listen, or download. Some programs may not be my preference or yours, but there is no reason to think it is performing badly. The BBC offers enough value to all viewers that are not junk or not. That is the central decision. Crises Command is especially because the BBC offers much of its own airspace and is prominent in its misery. However, responding to any crisis is not a way to assess the success and shortcomings of the BBC.
On the other hand, almost everyone is almost always crossed. All stripes, religious leaders, leaders, business panjandrums, and most expert politicians. Lisa Nandi, the current Secretary of State, declares she is unhappy with Director Tim Davy’s answer about Glastonbury. However, no Culture Secretary was satisfied with the BBC’s answer. Certainly not public. This time, she thwarted the boss more than usual by declaring that the company had “leadership issues.”
If something is unhappy, it makes sense, either because the director of the day is not dependent on it, or because the governance system must be negligent, or because the board is sleeping at work. I don’t want to preempt enquiries about many of the current difficulties, but it’s difficult to present a BBC with donkey-led Lions in place forever.
The boss makes a mistake – I should know – and some foul-ups may have been handled without a doubt. But many of the dilemmas are horrifying truths and complex and cumbersome to solve. Particularly by largely hostile commentary provided by still-influential newspapers with owners with commercial interests.
Perhaps the various cultural secretaries of the nation (since 2010) can come together to define the number of crises that the BBC will generate, taking into account their size, scale and weight. The answer is not zero, it’s close to zero. Of course, they have the perfect right to criticize, but they might work out to stand up and ask some big questions. (They may also do good to think about their own ways of expressing their anger about the BBC error, some very realistic and exaggerated things.)
This is what’s boiling. Is the BBC good at developing British talent? Will the creative industry help to thrive and compete internationally? Does it provide a valuable forum for discussion in our democracy and show respect for both truth and doubt? So does it form only the part that screams it? Because broadcasting in the UK works not because of the BBC, as an industry and as a service.
