One might suggest that the qualities of excellence and impartiality are both difficult to attain; and that they are only ever realised in subjective terms. However, the BBC is straying so far from impartiality and excellence in its news coverage that I don't think anyone can claim I am being harsh in my appraisal.
This week, I watched moments of parliamentary debate televised live, only, seconds later, to be appalled by journalists, staring directly into the camera, recreating the scenes as dazzling fictions. Facts were mixed with gossip; interpretation and analysis were mixed with reportage.
The saga surrounding Michael Martin's resignation reached its nadir yesterday morning, when hours were spent reporting an event that had yet to occur. On BBC News 24, a panel of guests and journalists speculated about a resignation that had been reported but had not, in fact, happened. The very word 'news' surely precludes journalists from reporting and interpreting the future. News should, at the very least, have already occurred.
It is in no way novel to note the prevalence of opinion and analysis within contemporary news-casting; however, I take severe issue with the notion that replacing impartial reporting with speculation constitutes a public service. This is a serious problem for me as a television-owner who pays a fee, demanded by law, to the BBC.
It is true that in a social democracy we must often contribute funding for things we neither use nor value; however, the legality of the TV licence depends entirely upon the broadcasting institution's ability to fulfill its remit. The BBC has not proven itself to be impartial, excellent, or accurate in terms of the information with which it attempts to educate and entertain me. Nor does the institution appear to be consistently good value for money. Last week a BBC newscaster was cajoled into admitting she earned £92,000 by the Labour peer Lord Foulkes, who was quite right in saying that she was spouting nonsense about the distribution of government finances. Surely misinformed, blonde TV presenters can be procured for less than £92,000 a year.
Within the BBC's mission statement, there is the claim that trust is at the heart of public service broadcasting. Establishing just how important trust in an institutional brand might be for consumers is vital in judging the public value of the BBC for citizens. After this week, I don't trust the BBC to do what we are paying it to do. Beyond this fact, I know that whilst the BBC funds the creators of good content, it is the content itself, and not its association with the BBC, that I admire. I use the BBC frequently. My life would be less rich without the content provided by the institution. However, there is a difference between the content the employees of an institution create and the institution itself. Without the BBC, David Attenborough, Louis Theroux, Andrew Davies, Ricky Gervais, Mark Lawson and many others would find opportunities to create good work. Indeed, with the possible exception of David Attenborough, I believe they all have.
One might argue that the BBC bankrolls quality programmes with fairly limited audiences; a practice that has always been recognised as the heart of good public broadcasting. However, the internet is providing more and more platforms for content as interesting and esoteric as the most niche programming found on BBC radio and TV. Yesterday afternoon, I listened to four episodes of Philosophy Bites with Nigel Warburton. I downloaded the episodes for free from itunes, and they were every bit as thoughtfully created and researched as In Our Time or The Moral Maze.
Of course, we cannot demand that broadcasters give away content for free, but we can note that the model of itunes provides users with the opportunity to pay for programmes on demand. It seems to me that such technology spells the end for the BBC's right to receive the licence fee as a provider of a public service. When content was limited by the constraints of a limited schedule and limited channels, it was perhaps right to create a publicly accountable arbiter for content. However, through the internet, we can have practically limitless access to all kinds of digital content.
Public service in broadcasting can no longer be primarily realised though the selection and creation of content. Instead, the focus of public broadcasting must be on the creation of access to information and content. The funded institutional monopoly of the BBC cannot compete with the internet at large as a point of access or platform for information and entertainment. It is true that I might choose to provide funds for an organisation such as HBO or the BBC to develop talent and content for me to watch; however, it is only logical to make this choice as a consumer and not as citizen.
I am no longer comfortable with the notion that the BBC, as a public institution, should choose content for me. Part of this discomfort is dictated by developments in technology, which allow me to locate and choose exactly the kind of information by which I might be educated, informed and entertained. The need for a gatekeeper is gone. However, the larger part of my discomfort is found in my belief that the BBC no longer really has my trust as the world's best and most unimpeachable broadcasting network. For me, HBO creates the best TV drama, free podcasts from the New Yorker and beyond are a match for Front Row, and BBC journalism is not necessarily better than the journalism provided by many other reputable broadcasting corporations. The tendrils of BBC News may reach further than those of other British news networks, but this is only because of its monopoly over the funds generated by the licence fee.
I propose a vote of no-confidence in the BBC as a public service. In a world without the licence fee, I might well choose to pay for BBC programmes; but with the internet as my oyster, I might send some of my £142 Nigel Warburton's way.
No comments:
Post a Comment