The survival of the BBC is at stake
All too often in the wake of a scandal, or a failure of a governmental institution such as the Civil Service, the cries of anger are directed at the institution rather than those within it responsible for the failures.
I am a defender of the British Civil Service, which, following the reforms of the 19th century, became the finest one of its kind in the world. Of course it had its failures. That is part of our humanity. It is from our failures as well as our successes that we learn to go on to achieve more. There is no doubt that the Blairite "reforms" have damaged it, but that does not mean that the concept of an permanent Civil Service without a partisan loyalty to the Left or the Right is wrong. Indeed, quite the reverse.
I am also a defender of a freely elected, democratic House of Commons having exclusive power to tax and spend. What is wrong with our Parliament is that the electors have put there rather a lot of poor quality people. That is above all a criticism of the electorate. Democracy is hard work and it cannot be left solely to an establishment of professional politicians.
Nor can our system work without an independent free press. The internet will bring changes in just how that press works, as surely as did the invention of the printing process itself. Again, if large sections of the media fall into the wrong hands, the task is to find means of correcting that failing, but not at the price of losing their essential freedom. Indeed we had to do that in the 1980s when militant print unions attempted to censor newspapers
For many years, until technology changed the nature and possibilities of radio and TV broadcasting, we relied on the BBC, guided by statute and established ethical standards. Those too have been eroded, but in this case from within.
Contrary to what many of my critics believe, I regard the BBC as a valuable national institution, which served us well over many years. Its principal failures have sprung from an inbred culture which evolved into a censorship of dissident voices. Its habit of recruiting from a narrow range of political – and of late, politically correct – thought has led to a damaging arrogance. At times it seemed to have fancied itself, if not as an alternative government, then at least an auxiliary opposition during spells of Right-of-centre government. It has also lost touch with the concept of doing well what it was best suited to doing well, and has been anxious to spend much time money and effort in competing for the bottom end of the entertainment market, which is all too well served by the private sector.
Once again, it is a matter of the wrong people in the leadership, not the concept of public-sector broadcasting, which is the problem. Nowhere has that been more obvious than in the Jimmy Savile affair. Savile was not made a paedophile by the BBC, but faced with the knowledge of what he was and how he was exploiting his position within the BBC, the establishment covered up, thereby prolonging his career of depravity. Sadly we have to assume that the BBC establishment would always cover up bad behaviour, even criminality by its own, especially a "celebrity".
There is a desperate need for new men and women at the top of the BBC, who understand the ethics of public-sector broadcasting. Once again my breath is scarcely bated as I wait. The very survival of the BBC and our tradition of public service broadcasting is at stake.
—
I am afraid that pressures of time force me to be somewhat terse in my comments on your comments, and my apologies are due to those I omit.
As ever there was plenty on the EU, and I was particularly glad that – even if they are not hopeful that I will succeed – several of you, including anynamesleft and stagnow, understand my tactics in fighting from within, rather than without the Conservative Party. I realise that I still differ with David in Rome and that Arthur Dent is determined to vote Ukip to put pressure on the Tories, but at least we all more or less agree with the outcome we would like to see.
It is a pity that davidaslindsay spoils his case by simply ignoring why (as I have often explained) I and many like me started out as supporters of the EU and changed our minds as a result of events.
Perhaps that is why I do not join those who dismissed Peston's words as of no account. Politics is often about convincing others, and it is pretty damned silly to then rubbish those who do begin to change their minds.
I agree with those who warn that there will be attempts to fudge the question in any referendum, but the Scottish referendum is a good precedent on that, and that the big money (including the taxpayers') will be on the side of the EU. All the more reason to welcome converts.
On a different matter I am sorry that david dee is determined to stay a stranger to truth. Mitchell did not deny that he swore in the incident at the gates to Downing St. On the matter of the US elections I know very little so I say very little. I am just saddened that the Republican Party and its candidate could not get their act together rather better.
Also off subject, I do so agree with magnolia who regrets the increasing use of the 'f' word, and I would add a number of others. The use of obscenities should be very limited indeed lest they lose their impact, in a sort of inflation effect on speech, and generally obscure argument.
Finally, thank you as ever for your posts. and especially your good wishes.
No comments:
Post a Comment