Close. It. Down. (2)

bbcbullWell, I wasn’t intending to come back to this topic so soon after uploading yesterday’s posting; but things have rather taken on a momentum of their own, so here’s a bit more on the same subject.

In that posting (which can be seen here), I actually condemned the BBC for being an enemy of the average UK citizen in two different respects. Here are the two paragraphs that present my accusations:

As far as the cultural health of the nation is concerned, the modern BBC has quite shamelessly abandoned the principles of its original foundation — in a manner and to an extent that has turned this massively powerful organisation into a broadcasting Behemoth hugely destructive of the cultural awareness and empowerment of the UK population.

Whereas, as far as the political health of the nation is concerned, the BBC has, every bit as shamelessly, maintained the principles of its original foundation — to the extent that its nowadays undisguised elite-serving neoliberal bias and transparent anti-left-wing manipulation of the news agenda mean that it constitutes the single greatest force acting to limit the political awareness and empowerment of the UK population.

As I said at the time, I was happy to leave detailed discussion of the ‘political’ part until a later occasion — allowing interested readers time to examine some broadcasting and online output in the light of the extended list of BBC biases I appended. As it happens, though, two people have been privately in touch to ask me if I wouldn’t mind explaining what that second paragraph referred to; so I’ll put my answer here in case others are interested.

In referring to the BBC ‘maintaining the principles of its original foundation’ as far as politics is concerned, I had in mind what you might call the real, as opposed to the confected, history of the organisation. Whereas ‘officially’, publicly, the Corporation strenuously maintains the pretence that its reporting cleaves to the ideals of political neutrality and journalistic impartiality, the reality is that the BBC — the world’s oldest national state broadcasting organisation — has always been a state propaganda apparatus disguised as a quasi-autonomous public service broadcasting organisation.

https://i2.wp.com/news.bbc.co.uk/aboutbbcnews/spl/hi/history/img/1922_john_reith.jpg

John Charles Walsham Reith, 1st Baron Reith, KT GCVO GBE CB TD PC (1889–1971)

As early as 1926 — the time of the General Strike, and a mere four years after the foundation of the BBC in its original form — the die was being cast. Once the strike had begun, John Reith (the BBC’s General Manager, later Director General) did not merely ‘sympathise’ with the government, but worked actively to assist it and to oppose the 1.7 million striking workers. Reith refused to allow the leaders of the labour movement any opportunity to put their case to the nation, denying them access to the airwaves until after the strike was over; at the same time, the anti-union speeches of Tory Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin were not simply broadcast by the BBC, but were actually written by Reith himself. Nor was the Corporation’s partisan behaviour an early example of a broadcaster being ‘strong-armed’ by a determined government: Reith’s own diaries from the time of the strike make it perfectly clear that ‘objectivity’ and ‘neutrality’ were nothing but high-sounding words disconnected from the reality of the organisation. As he wrote in his entry of 11 May, 1926:

They [i.e. the Cabinet] know they can trust us not to be really impartial.

Now, you may point to the amount of time that has passed since then, and say that a lot can change in 90 years — and I wouldn’t disagree in the slightest. In particular, I would draw attention to the change wrought by a decades-long process that, by now, is more or less complete: the corporate enfoldment of the ostensibly ‘democratic’ state. What this means is that the description of the BBC that I provided above requires to be slightly re-written: the BBC is now a state-corporate propaganda apparatus disguised as a quasi-autonomous public service broadcasting organisation.

Laura Kuenssberg anti-CorbynThus — to take just one prominent contemporary example — the BBC will cheerfully arrogate to itself the responsibility of deciding who should or should not be the leader of the Labour Party: any politician in that role who appears insufficiently enthusiastic in their acceptance of the state-corporate-military-imperial agenda finds the massive, multi-media resources of the BBC being deployed in a full-spectrum assault from which even the pretence of ‘fairness’ or ‘impartiality’ is obtrusively — and, indeed, often ludicrously — absent. Needless to say, this is never reported in the power-serving corporate media; but if you take to Twitter, you will see that the reality is continually being diagnosed, reported and condemned by countless ordinary people — myself among them:

tweet2
tweet1
Now, I wouldn’t be making such a meal of my ‘Twitter history’ were it not for the fact that we who have been complaining about this particular piece of BBC bias (which, let me remind you, is being directed against the man whose 250,000 membership and associate-member votes give him the biggest mandate of any party leader in British political history) have today received impressive confirmation that our accusations are indeed factual and accurate. In the last few hours a story has broken which reveals… well, let me simply append an extract from an internal BBC blog posting which was put up yesterday — and then very rapidly taken down again. By the time I heard about it, it had been carefully ‘disappeared’; but, as we all know, the internet is a place where very little is unfindable, to someone who knows where to look…

BBCblog

(Click on the panel to see a cached copy of the entire page.)

The full text reads as as follows (added emphasis is mine) :

Resignation! Making the news on the Daily Politics

Wednesday is always an important day for the Daily Politics because we carry Prime Minister’s Questions live, which brings with it our biggest audience of the week and, we hope, a decent story.

As I arrived at Millbank at 7am it was clear that Jeremy Corbyn’s cabinet reshuffle, which had ended before 1am, was going to dominate at Westminster.

When the programme editor phoned in we agreed that in addition to covering other major stories, including the junior doctors’ strike, fallout from the reshuffle was likely to continue throughout the morning and this was a story where we could make an impact.

When the producers arrived at 8am they began putting out texts and calls to Labour MPs we thought were likely to react strongly to the sacking of several shadow ministers for “disloyalty”.

Just before 9am we learned from Laura Kuenssberg, who comes on the programme every Wednesday ahead of PMQs, that she was speaking to one junior shadow minister who was considering resigning. I wonder, mused our presenter Andrew Neil, if they would consider doing it live on the show?

The question was put to Laura, who thought it was a great idea. Considering it a long shot we carried on the usual work of building the show, and continued speaking to Labour MPs who were confirming reports of a string of shadow ministers considering their positions.

Within the hour we heard that Laura had sealed the deal: the shadow foreign minister Stephen Doughty would resign live in the studio.

Although he himself would probably acknowledge he isn’t a household name, we knew his resignation just before PMQs would be a dramatic moment with big political impact. We took the presenters aside to brief them on the interview while our colleagues on the news desk arranged for a camera crew to film him and Laura arriving in the studio for the TV news packages.

There’s always a bit of nervous energy in the studio and the gallery just before we go on air at 11.30am, but I’d say it was a notch higher than usual this week. By this point we weren’t worried about someone else getting the story as we had Stephen Doughty safely in our green room. Our only fear was that he might pull his punches when the moment came.

When it did, with about five minutes to go before PMQs, he was precise, measured and quietly devastating – telling Andrew that “I’ve just written to Jeremy Corbyn to resign from the front bench” and accusing Mr Corbyn’s team of “unpleasant operations” and telling “lies”.

As Andrew Neil handed from the studio to the Commons chamber we took a moment to watch the story ripple out across news outlets and social media. Within minutes we heard David Cameron refer to the resignation during his exchanges with Jeremy Corbyn.

During our regular debrief after coming off air at 1pm we agreed our job is always most enjoyable when a big story is breaking – but even more so when it’s breaking on the programme.

If you’ve taken the trouble to read all that, you will have seen at once why someone at the BBC rapidly made their (inept) attempt to grab this text back and consign it to the Memory Hole. For what it reveals is that two senior BBC political journalists — Jeremy Corbyn’s self-appointed nemesis Laura Kuenssberg, and the egregious, nakedly right-wing former Murdoch man Andrew Neil — were both engaged in what is transparently an act of direct interference in the political process, conspiring with a disaffected member of Labour’s shadow-ministerial team to engineer a broadcasting spectacle whose nature and timing would be certain to undermine the Labour leadership and present political advantage to the Conservatives minutes before Parliament attempted to hold the Prime Minister to account…

Sacking offence? Not in this universe! For, as I’m sure I am not the only person to realise, it’s only when the bias works in the opposite direction — acting to oppose or offend the state-corporate complex and its agents — that pearls are clutched and arms are waved in horrified outrage, and demands are issued from on high that ‘something must be done’. Pursue an agenda of genuine democratisation and inclusive egalitarianism, on the other hand, and you’ll find that you’re on your own: the BBC — along with all the other attack dogs of concentrated private capital — will be after your anti-corporate ass without you even being granted a right of reply.

alexlittle[[The original blog posting in which citizen-journalist Alex Little presented his deeply shocking (but hardly surprising) discovery can be read here: I recommend it wholeheartedly — as I do the longer and more detailed write-up by Matt Turner that appears here. NOTE ADDED 9 JAN: Now that further scrutiny has been brought to bear on the BBC’s statements, let me also recommend the posting from Tim Fenton that is here.]]

For the rest, pause and consider that the only reason we ever found out about this abuse of BBC power is that one dim-bulb BBC employee actually asked another one to blog about it. What on earth have these people been getting up to that we have never heard about…?

tweet3

*     *     *

Having thus explained what I meant when I referred to the BBC’s ‘nowadays undisguised elite-serving neoliberal bias and transparent anti-left-wing manipulation of the news agenda’ — and substantiated it, too (see? I wasn’t making it up at all!) — I want to move on from examples of the BBC doing things it shouldn’t be doing, and go back to BBC Four and the Corporation not doing things that it should.

After uploading that last posting, I heard from one of my spies about the amount of licence-fee-payers’ money being spent on what I called ‘the broadcasting farce’ that is BBC Four. Here is what she told me (figures for the year 2014/15; i.e. up to April 2015):

BBC Four: Content £46m, total incl. infrastructure, distribution &c £63.1m

BBC Four’s content cost was the same as Radio 2’s (£46.2m) but just more expensive on transmission costs, being television.

£46m content spend for a TV channel is jaw-droppingly little, though that doesn’t excuse what they choose to spend it on. […] As I gather, the savings from making [BBC] Three online only will largely be spent on BBC One — already the most expensive channel at over £1bn p.a. on content, £1.5bn in total.

Pardon my maths; but those total annual costs of £63.1 million work out at £1.2 million per week for the proud beacon of ‘arts, music and culture’ broadcasting that is BBC Four. Do you want to see what the allotted portion of that money — your money, not mine! — is buying you tonight? Here’s the BBC Four schedule (be sure take a deep breath before you look):

BBCsched2
Personally, I think comment is superfluous at this point. But since that’s no way to end a posting, I am actually going to conclude by inserting another schedule — the one that shows today’s broadcasting on the Murdoch-owned subscription-only satellite service Sky Arts. As you read it (be sure to go all the way to the end!) and compare its quantity and range of content with the offerings of our publicly funded national broadcaster’s ‘arts, music and culture’ channel — you remember: the one tasked with providing ‘innovative, high quality programming that is intellectually and culturally enriching’, and whose remit requires it to take ‘an expert and in-depth approach to a wide range of subjects’! — bear in mind that while Ofcom happily allows the culturally desertified ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 to revel in the status of ‘Public Service Broadcasters’, Sky Arts simply doesn’t qualify.

Wouldn’t you love to have the answer to that one?

Skysched1Skysched2 Skysched3
MD

microdonateIf you’ve enjoyed reading this or another posting, please consider making an anonymised micro-donation in return! Micro-donation — 50p, 50c, whatever — is the way to sponsor the creation of quality content outside the control of corporate-owned and power-serving media structures. To micro-donate to me, with guaranteed anonymity, simply click on the button… Thanks!

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Close. It. Down. (2)

  1. ‘anti left wing’, how can you highlight that as one of their main biases!? They tolerate the left they actively hate the right and many other aspects of the world. How objective are you?

    Like

    • Scott, you don’t have to read much public record past or present to understand the outrage of many over the conduct of the BBC. However, I would be interested to see what evidence supports your views, especially given you seem to imply the BBc’s ‘tolerance’ to socialists is a noteworthy remit, let alone an achievement.

      Like

  2. Mark, interesting and though provoking read. Please do me a favour and get a Bitcoin address to ensure donations come ‘outside the control of corporate-owned and power-serving’ banking structures. Happy to help if you struggle.

    Like

  3. Postscript:
    A pal of mine emailed late last night to tell me of the news that the Labour Party had sent a formal letter of complaint to the BBC in connection with the scandalously partisan misbehaviour discussed in this posting. He included a link to a corporate media webpage that — inevitably! — mentioned the letter without including, quoting, or linking to it. (Yes, inevitably: if you let people know what the complaint actually said, they might well decide that it had a point — and we can’t have that, can we…?)

    Now, I’m always grateful for emails and comments telling me about things — so don’t stop sending them! — but the truth is that in this case I already knew about the complaint when I was writing the posting. The reason I didn’t mention it is that such things are *a total waste of everyone’s time*. The BBC never admits to anything — because it cannot be made to admit to anything. Complaints — however serious, however well-substantiated — are simply swatted away with the smug and self-loving arrogance of any cabal that knows it is completely untouchable. The only thing that frightens the BBC is the one thing that a properly constituted broadcaster would refuse to be frightened of; i.e. the government. In the present arrangement, however, it’s the government that has its hand on the money tap and the tiller, thanks to Downing Street’s control of both the BBC licence fee and the BBC Trust.

    And today, of course, the BBC has responded to the complaint. Have I read the response? Only in part. I read the hilariously predictable incantation at the opening (“I would like to reassure you that we are committed to producing impartial journalism and programme content that treats all political parties fairly…”) — and then I jumped straight to the end and looked at who had signed it: ‘Robbie Gibb, Editor, BBC Live Political Programmes’. Ah, Robbie Gibb! That Robbie Gibb. The Robbie Gibb who is former Deputy Chair of the Federation of Conservative Students. The Robbie Gibb whose brother is Tory MP Nicolas Gibb. The Robbie Gibb who is a former Chief of Staff for Tory Minister Francis Maude. The Robbie Gibb who was best man at the wedding of Tory MP Mark MacGregor…

    Can you really not hear these people laughing at you?

    Seriously: how could we ever scrub that place clean? Close it down.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Myself, I have to confess to being completely astounded at some of the responses my call has provoked. In essence, what I am hearing from some quarters is a lot of shouting that goes: “The BBC has become an *absolute disgrace*! Someone needs to *tinker with it*…!”

      Like

  4. Would you like to comment on the Media’s similar treatment of Bernie Sanders in the US Obviously, two sides of the same coin. Independent journalism is under threat.
    Good work.

    Like

    • I can’t say much of any significance about Sanders because I only view the US situation as a distant outsider. But it does seem to me that there are clear similarities. I’ve known for a long time that on a whole slew of issues the US population constantly polls significantly to the left of any stitched-up Rep/Dem choice they are ever offered. In that sense, the electorate now scooped up by Sanders was always there for the taking — apart from the fact that the US corporate media is sufficiently omnipresent and monolithic that it can operate a virtual blackout with the greatest ease. (Tonight’s headline: Sanders has more supporters than Trump, gets 4% of coverage’.)

      But then, the BBC is omnipresent and monolithic: several times in the last two years there have been large public protests that the BBC simply didn’t report — and anger about their blackout then led to large public protests outside BBC premises — and the BBC didn’t report those either! It’s in this way that a parallel media world is created in which elite interests are served no matter what, and no challenge to them is ever allowed to get off the ground. Somewhere out there will still be the evidence of a stunning example: a Scottish independence meeting filmed by numerous attendees using their phones and very clearly a large and mixed crowd … but whose damp-squib report on the BBC news website was illustrated with a photo of half a dozen nerdy-looking people with placards standing in a loose group looking like pitiful eccentrics. But then, the BBC stood to lose more than a quarter of a billion pounds in excess Scottish licence fee money if Scotland went its own way; and the Establishment stood to lose even more than that. (Which was why the eventual result was almost certainly fraudulent. And how do I know that? Because every news organisation agreed with every other that *there wouldn’t be an exit poll*…)

      For the rest — and here you’ll have to pardon me if I sound too snarky! — Sanders isn’t Corbyn: he’s actually a weapons-loving warmongering corporatist and a supporter of Zionist Israel. Myself, I’d have a very difficult time persuading myself to vote for him, even though he might genuinely be the ‘least worst’ of those on offer…

      Like

  5. And in other news… There’s a junior doctors’ strike tomorrow. Naturally, Murdoch’s Sky News — representing as it does the interests of concentrated private capital dedicated to destroying the NHS and replacing it with a system in which shareholders and CEOs can leech off the population in the same way they do in the US — put out an appeal asking that any patients whose operations have been cancelled tomorrow should get in touch…

    And so, of course, did *the BBC*…

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s