{"id":3219,"date":"2020-03-26T12:54:35","date_gmt":"2020-03-26T12:54:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/?p=3219"},"modified":"2020-03-26T12:55:40","modified_gmt":"2020-03-26T12:55:40","slug":"in-times-like-these-what-is-the-future-of-the-bbc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/?p=3219","title":{"rendered":"In times like these, what is the future of the BBC?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

We need a reformed and bigger BBC putting\ninformation engineering in the public interest at the centre of a new vision\nfor the UK. We are in the middle of an information war and we need policy based\non the national interest, not narrow commercial competition. Coronavirus has\nsent the government scurrying back to the BBC (and experts) to combat the real\nharm inflicted by malicious destabilising of information at a time of\nemergency.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nevertheless, in the longer view \u00ad\u00ad\u2013 unlike most of\nthe institutions we might turn to manage our relationship to information \u2013 the\nBBC is also maestro of emotion. This combination of expertise in assessing evidence\nand brilliance at helping us express, shape and master sentiment makes it uniquely\nwell placed for the contemporary communicative world. British values of\nfairness, inclusion, daftness, empiricism and romantic imagination run through\nevery aspect of the BBC. Global Britain has an already global BBC: it just needs\nto let its power and creativity be unleashed in ways that fit the new world of\ncommunication. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The future of the BBC license fee<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Yet Number 10 says \u2018Out with the BBC licence fee! Off with its head!\u2019 as if it were a public enemy. The licence fee needs re-imagining. But \u2018abolishing\u2019 it without thought appears to be related to the petty will to tame the BBC and subordinate its separate power. Of course, destroying great complex things like the BBC is ridiculously easy. Like the sixth century Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan or the sixteenth century Babri Masjid mosque in Ayodhya \u2013 once gone, they are indeed gone. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Do you want corrupt local government? Then sell off\nBBC local radio. Brexit has shown how communities suffer when they have no\nmedia to represent them to themselves or others. The local press has\ndisappeared. Without scrutiny local decisions will inevitably be captured by\nbusiness interests. BBC local reporting is the last coherent public reporting\nforce left locally, it ought to be grown. Lose it and you lose the local, the\nregional, and the corporation\u2019s unique capacity to push issues up and down the national\nagenda and the political machine. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

You want to diminish the nation\u2019s capacity to\nunderstand itself and listen to other points of view? Stop it celebrating its\npast, not as a set of rhetorical fabulations, but the real, shared, nasty and\ngreat past. Wreck children\u2019s capacity to identify with the values and temper of\nthe nation they belong to? Stop the BBC innovating, diminish it further till it\nis a rump, slice the resources, respond to the twenty-first century and its\nchallenges and opportunity with short-term, narrow spitefulness. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

You want to diminish our role in the world to\nweaselly propaganda? Slash and burn the BBC but leave something called the\nWorld Service in place. The World Service ought to be bigger, it is vitally\nimportant in a news-impoverished world, where information is distorted by\npolitical interference, business interests and where journalists are attacked\nwith impunity. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But\nwithout the mothership of values and heft on the world\u2019s stage of an\nindependent BBC, proud and sufficiently financed to back up its robust voice,\nthe World Service could mutate into a government poodle. That will do us and\nthe world no good at all. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The mood around the BBC licence fee has shifted in\nthe twinkling of an eye. To abolish the licence fee is to abolish the BBC and\nno one has actually wanted to do that before. For very good reasons. The full\nextent of this casually applied yet bizarre and dramatic turnaround is hardly\nappreciated in the storm of \u2018change\u2019 and dissolution we are in. Yet institutions\nlike the BBC are very hard to build: they take long term, assiduous care. They\nare the product of the development and application of principles. In the case\nof the BBC, these were, first, protection of independent editorial judgement\n(the kind that made the BBC a world phenomenon during the second world war);  second, impartiality so that everyone can be\nan informed citizen; third, imaginative boldness (the kind that made Fawlty Towers<\/em>, Fleabag<\/em>, The Thick of it<\/em>\nand Strictly<\/em>); and fourth, the\naccuracy and breadth of information and tone that made the World Service the\nstation of the sound of freedom for audiences in the closed, un-free, world\nbehind the walls of the Cold War. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Good institutions<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Good institutions keep us safe. They create a\nsecure place for individuals and societies to flourish. In the case of the BBC\nit has created a public space of the mind for the nation and the world. Change\nis good. The BBC needs a direct connection to the temper of the epoch. But it\nis also there as an anchor to decency. Do you want to lose part of the nation\u2019s\nconscience?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There have been arguments about the licence fee. A\nsense that politicians never wanted to raise it when it was needed, worry about\nequality. Though it is an anti-BBC urban myth that people get imprisoned for\nnon-payment (unless they are multiple debtors who the courts determine are well\nable to pay). People like to moan about the BBC as people relate to it and it\nhas \u2018celebrities\u2019 you can always take a pop at. Then a vast lobbying industry\nhas constantly attacked the corporation in their own interests. Attacking the BBC\nknocks other things off the front pages and puts politicians on the side of the\n\u2018public\u2019. Yet in the end the licence fee has always emerged as the best way of\nsupporting the BBC as a public service.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pious\nsuperiority<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

But there is a new unbridled savagery. Somewhere in\nthe early 2000s, fuelled by social media, public life began to be conducted in\nterms of angry righteous indignation. It is an unrewarding form of discourse \u2013\nwhich starts from the assumption of pious superiority.  It developed nasty tone which had migrated\nfrom the tabloid press out into every day and social media. The BBC became the\nperpetual butt of this. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

What makes the current argument more surprising is\nthat the BBC is not <\/em>in the middle of\nany great scandal. Yes, equal pay was nasty but on the scale of BBC crises it\nwas not major. Tony Hall took over during Savile affair and that was a beast of\na crisis, putting the BBC at odds with audiences. Hall dealt with it\ncompassionately and properly. He steadied the corporation, was adroit, clever, and\ntransformed the BBC so that it looks more like the UK, as it is. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

One lesson of the 1980s, when the BBC was\nstruggling with a hostile government, against the background of an intractable\nconflict in Northern Ireland, is that while the BBC must, gloriously and\nbravely report power as it exists, it should not appear to \u2018be\u2019 the Opposition.\nThen BBC governance matters. One of the unique aspects of the BBC is that it\nhas an identifiable leader in the DG. Tony Hall is retiring when Sir David\nClementi (the Chair) can independently appoint a new DG before the government replaces\nClementi. Hopefully this will be done not against<\/em> government but in\ninvolving and yet robust negotiation with it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A refreshed argument for the BBC has to be made:\nthe public needs to articulate what place it has in their lives. Many groups\nneed to bring pressure in ingenious ways to support the rational and creative space\nthe BBC offers. This is not a flummery from our past \u2013 it is one of the ways we\ncan shape the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Twenty-first century information wars<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

For there is a bigger picture. We are in the middle\nof world war three: an information and cyber-attack conflict, much of which goes\nunder the radar. To combat it we need a fit-for-purpose BBC as much as we did\nduring the Blitz. Any defence review must put information in the forefront. Hostile\nnations are attempting (quite successfully) to destabilise democratic\ninstitutions including elections in Europe, America, India. The insidious\nspreading of uncertainty and exploitation of the social media de-stabilises the\nnotion of evidence itself. Misinformation sincerely shared and disinformation\nmalignly spread are not trivial. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The BBC is the perfect vehicle for spearheading the\nresponse to this. Not because it is perfect, but because it is dedicated to trying\nto get things right. It is a tool of the enlightenment that can operate in the\nmodern world if only it is given the space.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With friends\nlike these\u2026<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The alarming thing is the inadequacy of the BBC\u2019s\ntraditional protectors at this crisis. An impartial civil service, whose\nmembers looked sideways at an institution whose core principles they understood\nhas often secured it. Can it still perform that role? Traditionally the opposition,\nto whichever party is in power, has defended the BBC. But we do not have a\nfunctioning opposition, and are unlikely to have one for years. Meanwhile the\none nation conservatives within the Conservative party who have traditionally\nprotected the BBC lost their seats in the strange election of 2019. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Put the BBC\nat the heart of a new vision for the UK<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Yet argument for the BBC cannot continue on the\nsame merry-go-round. The BBC faces a far more competitive market than ever with\nthe vast media platforms dominating people\u2019s lives. It has been shorn of some\nof the capacity to engage with people where they now are as financial and\nindustrial interests have determined policy. Now is the moment to change all of\nthat. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The BBC used to be run by engineers who set the\nworld\u2019s standards. We have never needed information engineers working in the\npublic interest more. The BBC \u2013 a locally based, nationally embedded and\ninternationally effective institution \u2013is a perfect tool for a new vision of\nthe nation. All around the world people are worrying about how to manage the\nwild west of the internet. Well, we have the institution that could do\nsomething about it. The BBC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You want to take back control? After getting Brexit\ndone, what makes us more distinct, more ourselves? The BBC is your tool. Make\nit bigger, don\u2019t bully it. Trust it. The BBC makes the public space of our\nnational imaginations bigger and more generous. And in the end, that is what\nBritain is. <\/p>\n<\/span>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

We need a reformed and bigger BBC putting information engineering in the public interest at the centre of a new vision for the UK. We are in the middle of an information war and we need policy based on the national interest, not narrow commercial competition. Coronavirus has sent the government scurrying back to the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":202,"featured_media":3221,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[1394,1408,1396],"tags":[2558],"coauthors":[2557],"class_list":["post-3219","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-long-reads","category-media-and-culture","category-uk","tag-bbc"],"amp_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/In-times-like-these-what-is-the-future-of-the-BBC-annie-spratt-FLY7CEwbJsg-unsplash-scaled.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3219","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/202"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3219"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3219\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/3221"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3219"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3219"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3219"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcoauthors&post=3219"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}