Main Edition
US
FR
Cosying up to the Tories
In David Lodge’s novel Changing Places, the American anti-hero Morris Zapp spends six months of exile in the city of “Rummidge” in the English Midlands. Seeking something that might remind him of California, he tunes in to a pop music station and is entranced by a brilliant satire of the worst kind of American AM radio. The disc jockey only advertises one product: himself — occasionally breaking off to play jingles about himself or to advertise the names of his own listeners. Eventually Morris grasps that this is not a satire: “Radio One was like this all the time.”
If he returned to the UK today, on the BBC’s 100th anniversary, Morris would find that pretty much all of its output is one long advertisement for itself. In one series, the presenter unearths “lost” BBC recordings with all the reverence one might expect an archaeologist to accord to some piece of Etruscan pottery. In another, the son of the DJ John Peel (the BBC gives much airtime to broadcasting dynasties) discusses his father’s record collection. The BBC, forbidden from carrying paid advertisements on its own channels, pays for posters that advertise its own programmes but also for a more general form of advertising that promotes the whole BBC with slogans such as “This is our BBC”.
The sense that the BBC is “ours” and that it is a “national institution” has, in fact, done great damage to the broadcaster. There is a cosy, self-congratulatory tone to much of its programming. Its presenters can expect to become “national institutions”, which greatly increases their earning power from sources other than their formal salaries. Meanwhile, its position as the national broadcaster has made its political reporting lazy. It expects to be at the front of the queue for interviews and inside information: there was, for example, much indignation last Friday when Liz Truss failed to give the BBC first dibs in her press conference. This means that its definition of journalism often means just repeating what politicians tell their interlocuters: “Friends of the Prime Minister tell me that…”, and so on. What gets lost in this is real research.
The keystone of the BBC is the licence fee — an institution similar to one of those ancien regime taxes on windows or powder for wigs. Everyone who watches is required to pay for the privilege and the fee is complicated and messy to collect. Every householder in the country gets stern letters telling them that they must pay and, ostensibly, detector vans can pick up illegal sets in much the same way that the Gestapo could find the position of Special Operations radio operators in occupied France. The exception to this is the BBC World Service, which is paid for out of general taxation. It is also the part of the BBC that commands most respect. Anyone following events in Ukraine will note that the experts from the World Service are usually less smooth than their counterparts in the mainstream BBC, but they are almost invariably better informed and more interesting.
The problems with the licence fee are obvious. Once the BBC had an effective monopoly on Broadcasting in the UK — though there were always a few heroic dissidents who insisted on getting their information from Radio Tirana. Independent television companies have existed since the Fifties but they were regulated in ways that meant that they had to observe the same kinds of rules as the BBC. Now, however, anyone with a computer can watch programmes from anywhere in the world and many don’t bother with television sets at all. Anyone who listens to France Culture or watches the Franco-German television channel Arte would regard the suggestion that the BBC is the best broadcaster in the world as laughable. Most of all, the BBC faces competition from the big American streaming services which have deep pockets and the advantage of starting from scratch, unencumbered by the veneration for its own traditions that does the BBC such damage.
There is a simple way out. Sell the BBC, or sell the particular programmes that it makes. This would be less of a break with the past than it might sound. The BBC already sells its formats to foreign broadcasters. Some say that it would be wrong to sell the BBC because its programmes are popular, but this is an absurd argument — popular programmes are precisely the ones that will get made by private sector companies. And they will be made much better. Not least this will be because Netflix will make celebrity programmes that feature real celebrities rather than just people who are slightly famous because they have appeared in other BBC programmes. There is a core of news and documentary programmes that will probably not attract commercial buyers. But these are precisely the kind of programmes that are made well by the current BBC World Service. A slightly expanded version of this service could be funded by the state — perhaps from the receipts from selling off the rest of the BBC. It would concentrate on factual broadcasting and its gravity would be greatly enhanced by the fact that its presenters would be relatively unknown people who would concentrate on doing their job. They would not have their own twitter accounts and they would certainly not perform cringe-making imitations of Duran Duran, which is what Andrew Marr, until recently the lynchpin of the BBC’s political reporting, once did on one of those charity marathons that the BBC periodically inflicts on its audience.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe BBC’s coverage of the current “mini-budget” traumas is a perfect example of their decline.
Endless discussions on the activities of Truss’s potential enemies, endless repetition of “U-turns” and absolutely no analysis of policies.
Self-indulgent playground tittle-tattle that the public should not be paying for.
Yes. Utterly vacuous and bordering on infantile, while simultaneously regarding themselves as sophisticated and enlightened.
Pretentious, self-indulgent, sanctimonious half-wits with the temerity and entitlement to assume the public owe them a living.
And that’s the BBC’s best qualities.
Jeremy Hunt’s statement yesterday was followed by lots of analysis of Truss and the Conservative Party and very limited analysis of the package. The question ‘Has it worked?’ was not asked but was the most importnt of all. Of course the BBC didn’t want to ask that question for fear of getting the ‘wrong’ answer.
“…only in the insane world of current British politics can someone who was a cabinet minister under Margaret Thatcher be described as a member of the “liberal establishment”.
Only in the insane world of current British academe can someone have difficulty with such an idea.
Ah great comment!
Are the on-air positions at the BBC, like our ABC, reserved almost entirely for left wing broadcasters?
It’s not so much that they are left wing as that all their assumptions are profoundly elitist: ‘do as we say because we know best’ – rather like the writer of this piece. Chris Patton NOT a member of the liberal establishment?? FFS.
Yes I did wonder whether or not that was a gag line.
He’s right about the cozy relationship between the Tories and the BBC but for the wrong reasons – the real devil’s bargain is that both get to pretend the Tories are right-wing!
FWIW I do support something along the lines he proposes – sell off everything that could be made commercially, and use a much-reduced licence fee to fund the stuff that couldn’t but is otherwise deemed important – World Service, Radio 3, BBC Alba (I know, I know but it’s been spoken in Britain for thousands of years)…
Since George Osborne the World Service is financed almost entirely out of the licence fee.
Chris Patten; one of the original Tory ‘wets’ as I remember.
I guess another way of looking at my question is to ask whether there is an equal number of right wing and left wing presenters? There are heaps of loud lefties on the ABC but no similarly vocal and/or visual righties.
Not that the current state of play should be a surprise, since the ABC and BBC are public sector organisations they are inviting hosts for a long march through their institutions.
I liked the article’s sentiments (though Labour will never act as the BBCs soft-left politics are too useful). But I noted.
“The keystone of the BBC is the licence fee — an institution similar to one of those ancien regime taxes on windows or powder for wigs. Everyone who watches is required to pay for the privilege and the fee is complicated and messy to collect.”
Not quite. “Everyone who watches” should be “Everyone who watches any live TV, whether provided by the BBC or not”. The BBC licence fee is a vicious protection racket extorted on the poorest in out society – those to whom £159 is a serious sum – and enforced thtough the Criminal Justice System. I wrote on TCW:
“You enjoy a daily paper: the Daily Mail, the Daily Mirror or the Sun. One morning, after the paper-boy leaves that day’s edition, you answer a knock on the door to see two large gentlemen with shaved heads, tattoos and ringed fingers. They offer you the amazing opportunity to purchase a subscription to the Guardian: marvellous value at £159 per year. However, this offer is automatically bundled with your usual paper. That is, you must either take the additional subscription to the Guardian, or cancel your daily paper. Obliquely, they mention poor Mr Jones from No 43, who tried to continue his daily paper and not take the Guardian. He met with an unfortunate accident on the way home from the pub, they say, flexing their fists; he may be out of intensive care in a month.
So either you submit to the protection racket, risk a beating, or have no newspaper at all. This is how the BBC licence fee operates, but rather than your daily paper, it is every other independent broadcaster, and instead of large gentlemen with tattoos, there is the UK Criminal Justice System.
This is an extortion racket on the poorest in our society. It is almost feudal. It is outrageous that an organisation with a privileged minority of highly-paid employees should be funded in this way. The statistics are well-known, but briefly – women accounted for almost three quarters (74 per cent) of the 114,000 convictions for TV licence fee evasion in 2019. The 84,000 offences represented 30 per cent of all criminal convictions for women in that year. (A reason why so many women wind up being prosecuted is because they are more likely to be home during the day, and to open the door to inspectors.)”
“ You enjoy a daily paper: the Daily Mail, the Daily Mirror or the Sun. One morning, after the paper-boy leaves that day’s edition, you answer a knock on the door to see two large gentlemen with shaved heads, tattoos and ringed fingers. They offer you the amazing opportunity to purchase a subscription to the Guardian: marvellous value at £159 per year. However, this offer is automatically bundled with your usual paper. That is, you must either take the additional subscription to the Guardian, or cancel your daily paper. Obliquely, they mention poor Mr Jones from No 43, who tried to continue his daily paper and not take the Guardian. He met with an unfortunate accident on the way home from the pub, they say, flexing their fists; he may be out of intensive care in a month. “
That is a very offensive caricature.
Being a large gentlemen with a shaved head, tattoos and ringed fingers, I would never steep so low as to enforce purchase of the Gruniad.
Please accept my sincere apology!
Indeed, everyone knows that said gentlemen should have a ‘plateau’ haircut shaved downwards from just above the ears, an ‘Islamic’ beard and wear ‘skinny trousers’ and pointed shoes with no socks these days, if our town is anything to go by.
Well, what sort of hired goons would you use? Small, chubby, weedy ones with long hair who look like they were/ are bullied at school shouldn’t be out without Mum to look after them (i.e. off-duty Metropolitan Police PCs)?
True. It sounds exactly like a small version of the UK Thugstate’s tax system, as enforced by HMRC and the State’s own courts – whose Judges are paid from the funds extorted (no conflict of interest there, obviously).
I’ve argued that the BBC is not political but is pro Establishment. The Establishment appears to be increasingly progressive so the likelihood of Labour selling the BBC is remote. It provides jobs for the sons and daughters of the Establishment after all.
It is generally pro-establishment, but it is also pro-statism, anti-business and explicitly anti-Tory Party. So it is definitely politically biased, although the bias is towards the centrist/soft-left, which is why there is the mutual hatred with the Corbyn gang.
I would say it’s not so much of a left/right split as you make out – George Osborne appointing James Harding as head of BBC news and people like Marr and Kuennsburg would suggest otherwise. It’s more about preserving the status quo – and you can be both left or right and still do that.
I don’t go on the BBC website for news very often but just did a quick read through of the content on the SNP’s new plans for Scottish independence. I have to say I am shocked at the bad quality of it.
No questioning, no picking up of even obvious pie-in-the-sky assertions (i.e. that an independent Scotland would have “the best of both worlds” by being part of the Common Travel Area AND joining Schengen – you do not have to know much about this subject to know it has to be one or the other: just ask Ireland) and paragraphs like this:
“The case for independence often starts from an assertion that Scotland already has a strong economy and can be a successful independent nation state.
That is rarely disputed. The next question for the independence campaign is how that can be achieved”.
Oh good grief. Who writes this rubbish?
EITHER the assertion is not disputed because it is correct and you don’t have to worry about how to achieve a strong economy, OR the assertion is wrong, the fact that it is not disputed has created a fairy tale and then you do have to ask how to achieve it.
I don’t know if the BBC is just trying to put lipstick on the pig of a plan which carries the semblance of credibility but which dissolves on first impact with reality or whether the people writing the content just don’t think about what they are doing.
They write the article to fit their preconceptions, and to a certain mindset the preconceptions are far more important than mere facts.
If it is so, the discussion about the BBC’s raison d’etre is essentially over. It has chosen not to fulfil the role assigned to it and is therefore irrelevant. It is a cultural relic.
I’m not even sure what a “strong” economy or a “successful nation state” means in that context. If it means that Scotland can generate sufficient wealth to sustain its current levels of public expenditure without very significant and probably counterproductive tax increases, or running a deficit which will beggar it, then it’s not true. A proper journalist might ask these questions.
They’re just credulous, unquestioning, semi-literate leftist kids, hired for their cosmetic ‘diversity’ rather than their ability.
One aspect of journalism that is little commented on is the way feedback loops with social media work. For a few years TV and Newspapers tried to stand above it all like nosegay carrying Regency fops.
But the fact is that while twitter and other social media platforms, like Tik Tok, Instagram, Facebook can be an arena with nasty, abusive, obsessionals of any *ism* going..it is also the place where news happens.
The number of stories that are essentially a day or more late follow-ups of stories from social media increase all the time.
But more than that the old newslist conferences are anachronistic when news is charging along 24 hours a day, and so they become a review of *trending* lists with demands to start running something on this or that story getting the clicks at this moment.
The news agenda is basically run by social media and on top of that every journalist has no option but to try and build a personal *brand* , usually with a few nods to their employer’s brand, and amass clicks, which is how brands are built and valued.
Nothing succeeds like outrage, shock and breathlessness.
Add in the need on social media and the legacy broadcast news channels for constant output and we get what we have .
A News media addicted to presenting every issue as a crisis, a world under permanent threat, but inside a news cycle that must move on often within 12 hours , let alone 24.
With a professional journalist class out there in the ribald music hall of it all, yet still pressing nosegays closely, and affecting a patrician disdain for it all.
I think the idea as presented of a stripped down *World Service* type service isn’t a bad one compared to what we have now..and it isn’t just the UK, or the US, it is the same across the west, and one reason for policy paralysis affecting all liberal democracies.
I’m not sure if this is relevant, but the late, great Brian Redhead used to say that the purpose of interviews on Today was to shed light rather than heat. Nick Robinson’s grillings of politicians seem designed to do the opposite, In any interview there are an infinite number of ‘have you stopped beating your wife’ questions designed to embarrass the interviewee and make Robinson look clever but do they help us understand complicated issues? I think not. Robinson claims he is holding politicians ‘to account.’ I would suggest he just wants to show how smart he is.
The “wrong sort” of smart.
It’s symptomatic of the sorry state of MSM “journalism”, which consists largely of interviewers with inflated egos trying to get their ‘Gotcha” moment with every interviewee, and so-called reporters running along Westminster pavements shouting at politicians on the other side of the road who know the game and have no intention of responding. All so said reporter can say “Mr/Ms X refused to answer our questions”.
It’s puerile, and sadly the BBC isn’t even the worst offender. The Channel 4 News attack-dog team look as if they’ve been fed raw meat before going on camera.
Spot on. The gotcha culture of journalism is just so shallow.
The BBC completely fail to understand that “accounting” includes both positives and negatives.
They use this “hold to account” excuse to avoid providing an honest assessment of anything they do not like.
The BBC should be funded exclusively by a tax on wig powder. It wouldn’t bring in much money but hey!
And fund the UK State with a tax of one groat per tonne on imported French snuff and Virginian tobacco.
Excellent article thanks. It makes a very convincing case for selling off the ‘institution’. The only part I don’t agree with is the praise for the World Service. For most of the last year I’ve listened to it, until recently that is. It’s largely just as ‘woke’ as the rest of the BBC and I assume that it isn’t bound by the same rules of supposed ‘impartiality’ as the domestic arm, judging by the sneering way in which UK politics – or specifically the Tories – are discussed. And most of the documentary/current affairs broadcasts seem to be about climate change and how badly black people are treated in the USA, with lots of history about that, or about women forging their way in the world. I’m all for equality but a change of record would be welcome every now and then.
Looking in from the outside (of the country) this is highly humorous to me. I can see nothing remotely right wing at all in the BBC. What used to be a trusted measured source of edification now is nothing more than a left wing propaganda machine that pretends to be centrist. The joke used to be you could trust the BBC to be for real adults rather than anything American that tended to be for the less intellectually developed…. now there is no difference anymore.
Though I suppose definitions shifting depending on where you are “right wing” here purely means pro-British jingoism rather than conservation of tradition in any broad sense? There are many on the “right” who have no interest in polishing any British statues…..
South Africa having emulated Britain with it’s SABC has fallen down similar but not quite the same holes. It’s essentially bankrupt because of institutionalized corruption and en masse people simply refuse to pay their TV License (it’s being kept afloat anyway by government bailouts) because the quality of the rabidly pro ruling party jingoism is just terrible, others do it in pointless political protest. So be thankful that as bad as the BBC is it is not as bad as it could become.
Although the different channels in the USA follow their own political agendas, there is at least some diversity in agendas – so you can watch news programmes on two channels and get enough evidence to be able to form your own, more accurate view.
Whereas in the U.K. every single channel adheres to a left liberal political agenda, which they desperately try to conceal, and so it’s impossible to achieve an objective view from British tv news alone.
What do you think of GB News?
I’m really sorry that Colin Brazier is gone, he was unfailingly polite but showed a moral seriousness, a sense of purpose, that is now rare.
I find GB News to generally be a last enclave of Liberals forced by circumstance into being neocons. They don’t want to be where they are, they are uncomfortable being there…. but the crazies on the left terrify them and they had to grow backbones to defend what is left to defend. That is respectable at least but a lot of it is too little too late.
Basically “unless you agree with our patently British party line you are simply not British”.
Vaguely similar to but less hysterical than “unless you agree with our progressive party line you are simply not a good person”.
Same Jingoism either way.
The article ignores that the type of conservatives who like the BBC are ones who do not believe in anyone being sceptical about Climate Change, Covid Lockdown,Feminism,LBGT or Multi-Culturalism..
Genuine Sceptics on the right have long been disillusioned about the BBC
There is a need for a public broadcasting tv channel that tries to establish objective truth as opposed to agit-prop opinions.
The BBC could be that channel but is requires an executive staff that has a diversity of opinions.BBC executives do not.Whether Tory or Labour they all hold the same fashionable views on the aforementioned issues.
No let’s keep the BBC but with a board of governors elected by licence fee payers on a regional basis and a firm ban on appointing anyone directly from university – especially Oxford University.
I’ve never understood why the BBC can’t poll licence-payers (all of whose details they have) with regard to the level of ‘celebrity’ salaries. I remember the fuss about Chris Evans leaving, since when no difference has been noted that I’ve seen (though since I never watch or listen to the BBC these days they may all still be crying their eyes out for all I know).
How about instead imposing on the BBC a code of conduct that includes STRICT political neutrality?
But they still will do their super woke ‘Doctor Who’ thing, and everything else they can to ensure social decay.
They are the enemy within the gates – take it out behind the barn and blow it away –
You would have to spell it out in detail, as their groupthink prevents them from seeing the seemingly obvious bias of their output
The code has always been in place, surely?
It’s just that they ignore it.
Or, as Ian Barton suggests, their groupthink mindset is such that they cannot see their own bias, and sincerely believe that they are neutral.
Like you
The typical approach of the BBC is to make a short statement outlining a government action and then bringing only people critical of it to comment – rather than also bringing in other people who may agree with it. That is by any definition biased.
I’m not objecting to your (rather terse) observation, and I haven’t downvoted you.
On the other hand:
With you to define and police the “neutrality”?
Only a simpleton thinks there is neutrality of any sort, still less “strict neutrality”.
You’re biased. I’m biased. Everyone is hopelessly biased, especially the people who think they’re not.
See:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23689015/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/alternative-truths/201006/the-persistent-illusion-impartiality
With you to define and police the “neutrality”?
Much as I’d love to help, I don’t live in the UK.
“You’re biased. I’m biased.”
No sh*t, Sherlock. The point of a code of conduct is to prevent journalists giving rein to their own biases.
“Only a simpleton thinks there is neutrality of any sort, still less “strict neutrality”.
No neutrality of any sort? Wow! Perhaps we should get rid of the Speaker in parliament then – s/he can’t possibly exercise any sort of neutrality.
What alternative would you suggest to a strict code of conduct?
The following grotesque, disconnected non-sequitur sums up this piece of attack-dog propaganda
“The Chairman of the BBC from 2011 to 2014, Chris Patten, was a former Tory politician — only in the insane world of current British politics can someone who was a cabinet minister under Margaret Thatcher be described as a member of the “liberal establishment”.”
And so in one gigantic leap of the imagination, the author completely disregards the fact that it is precisely since 2016, that the BBC has taken its huge lurch into Leftist, Remainer bias. How can we possibly take seriously anything else he writes, when he uses such a monstrous lie as any sort of premise?
I argued for this (in the late lamented Standpoint) twelve years ago when the Cameron government was in dire financial straits. I advanced similar reasons to Richard Vinen’s, but the most important motive for selling off the Beeb was and remains financial. It’s a huge media brand and could well go for hundreds of billions of quid. Possibly enough to put our dodgy national finances back on track – at least until the next disaster.
Licence Fees do not cover the cost of the BBC. It is only a contribution towards the cost. Most of the cost is from taxation – how much, I do not know, but its is quite unsustainable for our taxes to be spent in this way, when the Television part of the BBC is obtainable from other sources with equal professionalism. Frequent adverts are easily coped with by pre-recording.
However BBC Radio is unique in that is has no adverts during programmes. I would suggest, that a large proportion of the population listen to the Radio (including World Service) either in the house or in the car. Payment for that would be minuscule compared with that of television.
My one grouse…only give us News two or three times a day as happened in the past and was quite adequate to keep us informed..
‘…the absurd Tory pantomime of simultaneously getting uncritical coverage and complaining about Left-wing bias.’ A risible comment. The BBC’s bigoted metropolitan loathing for everything and everyone ‘right’ of the Lib Dems is rank and obvious, every day.
I don’t know anyone who has any respect for the BBC.
How about Truss abolishing the beeb and giving the licence fee money back to the people ?
It would cut taxes, help the working class and please the tory crowd. Seem less idiotic than praying for Progressive Labour to shoot their media channel in the foot
Should be a popular stance for the commentators on Unherd!
Interesting that the real left-wing viscerally hate the BBC, as well as the right-wing. Personally I think that the license fee is great value, way better than any streaming service, and I would pay it just for the ‘Sounds’ as I am far more a radio listener than TV watcher; I also understand from those in the business that turning BBC ‘commercial’ would be a serious blow, perhaps terminal, to the current commercial radio stations as it does stuff so much better.
Further of interest that although it is the news and current affairs coverage which brings down opprobrium from all ends of the political spectrum, surely a sign that it is doing its job properly, that is the bit that this writer wants to keep, and funded by the government – wow that’s a real guarantee of editorial independence!
As a question of fact, isn’t the BBC World Service no longer funded by the government, as it used to be, but by the BBC from the license fee, which is why it is now being cut back as the BBC face financial constraints?
The standard defense of the BBC – “If everyone hates us and says we are biased, that is a sign that we are doing something right” – er.. maybe.
Or did you ever think that it is a sign of something else – like the BBC is biased and not very good?
The license fee is a de-facto tax, so in reality it is funded by the taxpayer. (The government doesn’t fund anything – we do.)
All the people who say what great value the license fee is should surely be happy to pay it as a voluntary subscription, and yet for some reason they always oppose this idea.
‘I also understand from those in the business that turning BBC ‘commercial’ would be a serious blow, perhaps terminal, to the current commercial radio stations as it does stuff so much better.’
Oh, I see, so by getting an £X00 million guaranteed free subsidy, BBC Radio is ACTUALLY doing commercial radio a favour? Well, I guess commercial radio would just have to raise its game, eh? That’s how a competitive market is meant to work.
‘Further of interest that although it is the news and current affairs coverage which brings down opprobrium from all ends of the political spectrum, surely a sign that it is doing its job properly, that is the bit that this writer wants to keep, and funded by the government – wow that’s a real guarantee of editorial independence!’
Yesss… Thank you James Purnell.
The common sense centre-right and the radical Trots can both agree on one thing: the BBC is stuffed with narrow-minded, self-serving middle-class Blairites. And they are right.
No doubt the BBC could do better. Many of the same complaints are lodged against the CBC in Canada, especially from the right wing. It’s worth remembering that countries with public broadcasters generally are more stable and have increased political knowledge across the spectrum of the public. With social media fracturing the world into increasingly isolated echo chambers, abandoning a common public arena for news and comment is folly.
Arrrrrrggggghhhhhh! Are you all mad? The BBC is spot on! So what if there are programs that are too WOKE? And promote our diverse multicultural country. The alternative is hate filled bile. Just look at Russia. The BBC is owned by the British people. You’ll be wanting to sell off the NHS next!
You guys want a hard-right propaganda channel to reflect your own biases back at you. CBB – Comfort Bubble Broadcasting – the station that’s always right lol
No, we want a politically neutral, propaganda-free broadcaster that treats its audience as adults, capable of making up their own minds when presented with all sides of a story. Is that so hard to understand?
Reminds me of the following quote:
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”― William F. Buckley