Of all the national institutions that have had a role in the COVID pandemic the BBC deserves special mention. According to its Charter the BBC should offer a range and depth of analysis and content not widely available from other United Kingdom news providers, using the highest calibre presenters and journalists.
Yet every day the BBC News has been sending out the same message: "no one understands the government guidance". It is the role of the BBC to explain the government guidance. It has failed miserably and it is ridiculous moaning about the lack of information that it should have been providing itself. The BBC was so disorganised that it gave more air time in England to the guidance for Scotland and Wales than that for England even though the Scots and Welsh have their own BBC channels.
At the beginning of the COVID outbreak the BBC was giving air time to people who said it was no worse than seasonal flu. Their "highest calibre presenters and journalists" never bothered to read a few of the scientific and medical reports from China to find out whether this was the case. Sadly only 2% of their "highest calibre" national presenters and journalists have a science qualification of any sort.
The ongoing BBC coverage of the COVID outbreak was right to report the effect of the outbreak on the hospitality industry. But to put some poor publican or restaurateur in the spotlight every single day was mawkish in the extreme.
All the BBC presenters are trained in "speech and drama" so used the daily bad news about COVID to wring out every ounce of pathos and despair from the situation. They seemed to have no idea that one of the implied responsibilities of a National Broadcaster is to keep up the national morale rather than displaying their effete dramatic skills.
Even now, rather than covering the vaccination program as one of success and hope that might be rolled out as fast as possible, the BBC seems to be lurking, hoping for the chance to announce that it is a national failure in a few weeks time.
COVID shows that the BBC is a national liability, not a national asset. It is actually a relief to go to Sky and hear some calm presenters. However, we are paying a compulsory license fee for the BBC whatever we watch.
Brexit has followed the same path as COVID. We left the EU a year ago but from the BBC coverage of the trade negotiations you could be forgiven for thinking that the Referendum was yet to happen. After Brexit the BBC made no mention in their broadcast news of the Copenhagen Criteria for rejoining the EU. These are so severe, demanding the acceptance of political and monetary union, that the country would have accepted that Brexit was truly over given the political price and likelihood of re-entry. Having taken the attitude that Brexit was not really over the BBC then proceeded to cover the transition period from the point of view of Remain campaigners.
During the trade negotiations the BBC actually had news broadcasts saying how the "British" were blocking progress and they followed up with the Irish Taoiseach saying how the British should change their approach if they want a deal, all embroidered with Katya Adler simulating panic from outside the EU headquarters and Laura Kuenssberg snarling in exaggerated disappointment from London. News from the National Broadcaster should not be delivered as a play by pantomime actors.
The BBC resolutely refused to mention the enormous trade and current account deficits between the UK and EU. They hired the most pro-EU economics correspondent in the media - Faisal Islam - to ensure that the real data was suppressed. In other words they reported for day after day on trade negotiations without mentioning the UK-EU trade position. Instead they searched for farmers and businessmen who export to the EU and prodded them to tell us how awful everything will be if the UK does not conclude a Free Trade Agreement. The "high calibre" journalists could not even be bothered to report that most tariffs were small for most items (around 12%) and very low for most UK exports to the EU except cars (cars at 10%) and a few varieties of foodstuffs.
The BBC is a national liability, not a national asset. It prefers to work on behalf of foreign countries such as the EU rather than reporting the truth about trade.
When the "Black Lives Matter" protests began in the USA the BBC immediately elided US politics into UK politics. The BBC failed to mention that "BLM" was run by Maoists or that BLM had returned to the original meaning of the initials BLM - "Black Liberation Movement" - in October. The BBC even ran radio programs declaring that white English people had a historical responsibility for slavery and should be reviled and made to apologise - using the same type of racism as those who declare Jews have a historical responsibility for the death of Christ. This obvious racism, blaming an entire population, 95% of whose ancestors had nothing to do with slavery, for events two centuries ago, was entirely ignored by the DPP and Ofcom.
The joining of US and UK politics by the BBC is partly due to their shared "global" newsroom. The BBC should be relieved of its global channels and the World Service should be transferred to the Foreign Office. As an ardent traveller I have noticed that the BBC has ceased to be available in many foreign hotels, probably because it is so woke it makes them sick, people overseas have different views from the BBC and broadcasting programs that many foreigners find deeply offensive is ridiculous if the desire is to improve the standing of the UK abroad.
The BBC was a national asset, providing calm, factual programs for people overseas but now it is a national liability because it is simply turned off by its target audience. Foreigners watch RT or CGTN instead of the BBC because both make light of the totalitarianism at home in the hope of influencing those abroad.
The Referendum on leaving the EU was a watershed in the history of the BBC because the Corporation has become a group of people who knowingly nudge each other on and seek to mock their own country and fellow citizens for pursuing the path that a Referendum and two elections have democratically confirmed. Our National Broadcaster should be devoted to the fair and honest portrayal of news, not the suppression of information that contradicts their own, self interested view of the world.
What should be done? There are two choices, defund the BBC or shake it up. The shake up is straightforward: the BBC is currently dominated by a narrow group of upper class "humanities" graduates who recruit each other and have no sympathy with the people of the UK, they need to be replaced. The BBC could start by recruiting journalists from the Daily Telegraph, Mail, Express etc. to represent the viewpoint of the 60% of the population whose views are regarded as incorrect by the current BBC coterie. Having removed the foreign interests of the BBC it will be possible to amend the BBC Charter to ensure that the BBC acts for the benefit of the land and people of the UK.
22/12/2020
Comments