Why britain needs the bbc | thearticle

I’ve been a regular contributor to news and current affairs programmes for over thirty five years, so I have followed the latest furore over Emily Maitlis and Newsnight with some interest. I

do not quite go back to an era of “is there anything else you would like to say tonight to the people of Bury North, Mr Burt?” but like most of my generation I’ve seen changes in the way

reporting works. Some things never change. In 1982 the Skipton Conservative Association proposed a motion for debate at Party Conference, (when Associations were still allowed to do so),

which read “This Conference believes that the Home Secretary should remind the BBC… that the responsibility to inform the public by radio and television should not be abused by commentators

and used at politically sensitive times to persuade, however indirectly.” Political activists of the left would have shared similar views to the Skipton Tories, and the BBC wearily continued

rolling out the defence that if it was offensive to all, then it must be doing something right. The status quo rumbled gently on. I am glad it did. I reckoned as Minister, then as an

Opposition Shadow, the pendulum would give me the opportunity to defend myself against a probing BBC, and alternatively work with it when our interests temporarily coincided, and that I

should expect nothing else. On balance, over the years, I felt I had a fair run, even though some programmes were far more uncomfortable than others. But I wonder — for how much longer? The

challenges to impartiality have accelerated, through a combination of long-term changes and sharper, more recent ones. The BBC’s contribution to balance in an increasingly belligerent

political environment risks being lost, at our peril. The advent of local, then talk, radio and the expansion of television channels increasingly pitted people, regardless of their

background knowledge, representative entitlement or political affiliation, in an adversarial contest against politicians of every rank. This created a sense that, whereas the politician

always had a vested interest, the representative of the people never did. Authority is thus undermined, and “impartiality” is no longer a search for truth. Instead, it becomes an insistence

that an opposite view, however ridiculous, is given equal time. Secondly there has been a steady increase in the personalisation of life. During the long post war period, we all watched,

listened and debated the same things. Now, contemporary culture allows us to be entertained or informed purely by what we want, to the exclusion of any opinion or belief that we do not want

to hear. This has resulted in the creation of news channels which reinforce certain views with few or no legal constraints about balance. The people who control the content, and the

political interests to which they are attached, are able to manipulate the public and impartiality to become irrelevant. Why should I care that another view does not get a look in, asks the

viewer? I am content with what I am seeing and hearing. And it’s right anyway. Isn’t it? The combination of these longer-term trends with the increasingly hostile polarisation in politics

makes the possibility of losing the BBC a very dangerous prospect. For those advocating the abolition of the licence fee and the break-up of the BBC on the basis that we can all choose now

to watch what we want — be careful what you wish for. The close connections between media giants and politicians worldwide are not designed to bring you the next “Game of Thrones”. They are

manipulative relationships of science fictional dimensions, and you will not like the world they build, particularly if you suddenly find that it’s your opinions that become the targets of

mass messaging campaigns. For those who do not believe this will happen, and that the BBC will retain sufficient goodwill, as it always has done, watch out. While many licence fee payers

both agreed with Emily Maitlis’s recent editorial messages and her right to give them on Newsnight, many — and far from the usual suspects — did not, and urged caution. With all the

competing pressures, the impartial broadcaster/reporter has got to continue to watch their own boundaries, and not add to the headlong rush to the free for all. Personally I do not want a

world of Fox News, Russia Today, Press TV or CCTV to be unchallenged by the BBC. If that is to be the case, then it is time to acknowledge the real risks of that happening, and for all of us

to agree what an acceptable impartial broadcaster looks like again.