Liberal Vision

BBC on drugs?

I don’t know quite what the BBC was on yesterday – but the excitement of the past 48 hours clearly got to them.

Whilst covering the emergency debate in Parliament – the BBC also felt it necessary to show images of a jet taxi-ing at Luton… with the dramatic headline “RUPERT MURDOCH IS EXPECTED TO LEAVE COUNTRY” ….

Is that really news? Still it wasn’t quite as mad as the earlier incident - when BBC News channel cut off an interviewee in mid-sentence to “cut to (equally un-)dramatic pictures of ……..David Cameron getting into a car ! – on his way to Parliament…..

Let’s hope the summer recess will allow all those BBC journalists to go and lie down in a quiet dark place for a while. And let’s hope that BSKYB don’t pull the plug on Sky News anytime soon if this is the best the BBC can do.

Tags: BBC, Hackgate, Rupert Murdoch

BBC ban on term “electoral reform” even more preposterous

As recently noted, the BBC powers-that-be have decided to ban the term “electoral reform” being used by its correspondents because the word “reform” sounds too positive (see previous post on why this in itself is preposterous).

But now it looks even more absurd!

The Prime Minister – who is standing with the NO campaign is still using that self-same term.  In his speech on Friday (and i will say this again!), arguing against AV, David Cameron himself uses the term “electoral reform” again and actually defines AV as a type of reform …quoted on the BBC website…

“(David Cameron) said he believed the Alternative Vote was “completely the wrong reform” and would be “bad for our democracy” – leading to unfair results and an unaccountable political system” (source bbc website)

If AV is -according to the PM – the “wrong sort of reform” ..then definition-ally it is “reform”. Any reason why we can ALL agree that this vote is about ELECTORAL REFORM – except the BBC? 

Surely there is something very odd going on…The Prime Minister of this country can make a speech against electoral reform in which he uses – once again –  the term ”electoral reform” … and in that speech define  AV as a type of reform (if the wrong one). That the BBC can report that speech, quoting the PM using the term “electoral reform” and showing the highlights of the speech in its website. BUT the BBC journalists are banned from using the term themselves? 

The dictat looks more preposterous and untenable with every day that passes. 

On a related issue – any reason why the main BBC News political story on AV runs with the title “Votes referendum: Cameron rejects Clegg AV call” . Is that really fair? to headline the story with reference to Cameron’s view (what’s wrong with “Clegg and Cameron go head to head over…..”) …. is it really impartial to list the PMs objections extensively at the top of the article and drop in Nick ’s arguments much further down the piece?  Maybe it doesn’t matter – but for a BBC that appears obsessive about impartiality this seems a tad..oh how can I say this…biased?

Tags: ban, BBC, David Cameron, electoral reform, Nick Clegg, no to AV, yes to AV

So why has the BBC banned the term “electoral reform” ?

About a fortnight a story emerged that BBC journalists had been sent an internal document from the top brass demanding that their staff stop describing “electoral reform” as “electoral reform”.

I raise it now (late) because having missed the revelation at the time I assumed “word had got out there” about it, so I let it pass. I am however surprised to find how few people who are usually “in the know” – don’t know. Here are the basics….

In an internal BBC memo leaked to The Independent, Ric Bailey, the corporation’s chief political adviser, said: “Please can we make sure that we don’t describe this – in our own scripts, headlines, etc – as the referendum on ‘electoral reform’. When the [BBC's] Guidance is published ahead of the referendum period, it will make clear that, in the context of the referendum, that is not an impartial term – ‘reform’ explicitly contains a definition of ‘improvement’.”

 So if “reform” is “not an impartial term” why is it that changes to the public services and laws of this country can be described in terms of “reform” by the Government – and parroted by the BBC…. NHS reform plans will strenthen NHS,says Government. BBC October 1st 2010. Welfare benefit reforms unveiled by Government. BBC October 2010. Government to press ahead with radical NHS reform plans. BBC December 15th 2010.  “When ministers drew up their plans for radical reform of the NHS, schools and the welfare system..” Norman Smith Chief Political Correspondent, BBC Radio 4 , February 2nd 2011. and so on……

Why is it that a term such as “electoral reform” causes such offence to the BBC but all other Government reform is OK?

You could argue I suppose that the reason why”electoral reform” is on the forboten list and “NHS reform” isn’t, is because there is to be a vote on electoral reform. But then surely that must mean that the BBC is openly admitting that it frankly doesn’t give a toss about the language it uses day-today, but does care when it comes to a vote.

Slack, lazy reporting on a day to day basis BBC? Maybe. But I suspect that it is not that. Could it be that the BBC is running scared of the Government? Could it be that the BBC has been got at by the highly influential No campaigners with their slick suits, armed with promises of who-knows what  post election by those in the corridors of power?  So BBC,  are you incompetent, lazy,or just plain “got at”. It doesn’t look good any way you look at it.

And here is why this is oh so puzzling.. “electoral reform” is a term that has been around longer than the BBC. It is part of the language of politics. Of democracy indeed. We all know what it means.

Significantly it was this Government  that made a pledge to introduce a vote on electoral reform. Not “electoral change”. Not “electoral alteration”.. It is there in black and white. A vote on electoral reform.. “We will bring forward a referendum on electoral reform” … (Coalition Agreement)… “Next May, there’ll be a referendum on electoral reform”; (David Cameron speech to Conservative Party) ..

And so, The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill 2010-11 has thus been called, ever since, as the “electoral reform bill” by all the main news sources in the UK – including the  BBC….. “Lord Falconer and Lord McNally debate whether the house of Lords should pass the electoral reform bill”  (source BBC)….  “Peers’ threat to AV voting reform referendum defeated” (source BBC)…

 So if the Prime Minister and the Coalition Government can and have promised this country a vote on electoral reform -and  the newspapers and broadcasters of this land have thus described it, and the bill that will enable it, as “electoral reform” / “electoral reform bill”, for the last 12 months, why has the BBC decided in its infinite wisdom to ban the term now?  On whose say so?

The BBC should not be allowed to rewrite history, or skew the debate. Nor should any shiny suited boys, with an eye to their own future prospects, be allowed to threaten or cajole the BBC into actions that suit them now.

 Yes to Fairer Votes are writing a letter to the BBC condemning this action, which you can sign here: Reform” isn’t a dirty word: Cosign our letter to the BBC.  It is a start but it is almost certainly not enough if what we get in May is a free and fair vote. We need more questions raised in every public place, and to the BBC at every opportunity. And frankly, a lot more answers…

Oh…. and if any BBC employee  out there is willing to spill the beans and tell us what is really going on – please email me – I will happily publish your post – anonymously if necessary. Surely one of you cares more about journalism than just plain self interest?

Tags: ban, BBC, coalition, David Cameron, electoral reform, Nick Clegg

Another bit of the empire crumbles…

I have always been somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of BBC World Service.

On the one hand it sounds like a marvelous idea – spreading the message of freedom to those that don’t currently enjoy it; dispensing ”truth” where news is otherwise suppressed or distorted; bringing the many joys of sport and culture to those currently deprived…

On the other hand – if the aim is to provide unbiased news, information and culture from the free world – why does America have its own world service (aka Voice of America)? Surely if this was just about getting accurate information into repressed nations, of getting banned literature, art and sport into countries where it would otherwise not be seen or heard, why isn’t there a more co-ordinated, joint effort from the free nations - say USA/UK/others ? Why the duplication? 

Presumably because a good deal of this is about BBC and Government egos? The former revelling in its revered status as broadcaster to the world (because only IT can do news properly) and British government seeking influence wherever it can find it – some throw back to its colonial past….. Jeremy Dear (NUJ) has today said as much “By cutting the service, the Government will cut British influence in the rest of the world, and cuts will also be deeply damaging for objective quality news services around the globe.” . Given how much trouble the desire for “British influence” has got us into in the last few years is it such a bad thing to curtail it somewhat? I doubt it.

One also has to look at the services to be cut … language services in Albanian, Macedonian, and Serbian, Portuguese outputs for Africa, and an English-language service for the Caribbean are those on the hit list. 

I am scratching my head somewhat. Albania, Macedonia and Serbia are all recognised as potential candidates for joining the EU. All these countries have good access to multiple media sources. Serbia has a several commercial TV stations (one was even set up by News Corp until they sold it a couple of years ago) , radio stations and wide internet access (over 50% ) with some 2 million on facebook. Albania and Macedonia both have media corruption issues ( neither as bad as Italy where the PM controls 90% it should be said). But, whilst Macedonia has three state channels it has a dominant commercial TV sector ratings-wise (and at least 50% of the population have internet access with no controls on access). Over in Albania, the national media is a bit of a mess (with business media and politics still too close for comfort), but then again many watch Italian and Greek TV via terrestrial reception or listen to Deutsche Welle, Radio France Internationale or Voice of America. There are also over 150 newspaper titles, including over 20 dailies. On top of that about 25% if not more regularly go on line.

It is still true that journalists face threats in all these countries but in all three the populations are not without options for their news whatever the NUJ in London chooses to think.

Moving the World Service out of the clutches of government (yes I know there was no “direct control” ) and into the public scrutiny of the taxlicence fee payer was an inspired move. Whether the BBC makes the right decisions on where it needs to cut is of course another matter. They look sound/overdue cuts but we all remember the BBCs’ utterly bizarre view that the radio service most deserving of cutting was 6Music.

So I am not going to shed a tear here. The World Service was created in 1932 to broadcast to English speakers in the outposts of the British Empire. Thanks to a world war and a bizarre funding system (which demanded that the people who paid for it (ie the foreign office) were kept at arms length from the operation it funded) , the World Service it has been allowed to grow unchecked into a huge monolith employing some 2,500 people, broadcasting in 32 languages, across all continents. But who has ever really scrutinised what it does, other than the BBC itself?  

I am not saying it’s all bad. Of course I am not. I am simply saying from where I am sitting it’s hard to see the good. And whilst the BBC World Service may remind some of some glorious past, when the map was pink and Britannia ruled the waves, this honestly looks like a dinosaur to me. Another part of the BBC empire crumbling? The heat under Mark Thompson has just gone up to gas mark 6.

Tags: BBC, BBC World Service cuts, Mark Thompson

So who is in charge of the BBC these days?

Just how many people does the BBC employ in its online business? A lot, it would seem.

Director-general Mark Thompson has announced that BBC online will cut 360 jobs, as its’ budget is cut by 25%.

What is baffling is Mr Thompson’s admission that BBC online had been allowed to grow “like Topsy”. So who, one wonders, was in charge? Not Mr Thompson by the sound of it.

Naturally the immediate reaction from the NUJ is one of rage at the BBC over the announced job cuts and the almost de rigeur talk of strikes. Sigh. I always rather welcome strikes at the BBC myself. No one really gets harmed (except those striking of course) and the prospect of the people of this nation waking up to the fact that life without the BBC is possible and that the licence fee is an odious tax, well past its sell by date. So NUJ – bring it on.

Tags: BBC, BBC online, Mark Thompson