Media
Our most trusted institution deserted in its time of need
Published 04 December 2006
New Statesman leader on the state of the BBC
A thief has run off with the crown jewels and a nation is in shock. Michael Grade's dramatic departure from the BBC to ITV, from the custodian of public-service broadcasting to a channel synonymous with tat, says everything about the power of money and the absence of principle - two features that define much of our public life.
Grade leaves an organisation that struggles to justify its unique status, is challenged by technology and deterioration of taste, and is rarely defended by those with influence. The BBC will almost certainly fail to convince ministers - led by a particularly sceptical chancellor - that it deserves a sustained and heavy increase in the licence fee. A settlement below inflation is on the cards. In truth, it would not have succeeded even if Grade had remained. No company would impress consumers and shareholders by spending millions on works of art, for new headquarters whose construction is years behind schedule and way over budget, while laying off 3,000 workers and awarding its executives lavish bonuses scarcely merited by their performance.
For more than a decade, the corporation has been poorly run. From the aloof managerialism of John Birt to the matey populism of Greg Dyke and on to the earnest but uninspiring present tenure of Mark Thompson, the director generals and their accompanying chairmen have failed to chart a coherent vision. In inefficient practices, the BBC bears an uncanny resemblance to British Leyland. At other times it follows the shallow dictums of the consultancy culture. Some staff are feather-bedded; most are undervalued. Many of the most creative minds, particularly in television (less so in radio, as there is virtually no competition), emigrate to independent companies.
Grade and Thompson's most hapless act during their duopoly was their overreaction to the Hutton affair. It is seldom mentioned inside the corporation, but seldom forgotten outside it, that it was the government that did most wrong by falsifying and exaggerating the weapons threat in the run-up to war in Iraq. The BBC made mistakes, in its lack of editorial rigour and the flawed investigation that followed, but it need not have caved in to ministers. The corporation's news outlets retreated into their usual mode of "safety first", sensing that robust, risk-taking journalism was best avoided. Caution became cowardice. Channel 4 now specifically commissions programmes it knows the BBC is too frightened to make. A modicum of courage has been shown in recent months, but much more needs to be done.
Thompson has been more impressive in putting the BBC at the forefront of technological change. From an early stage, it was clear consumers would expect to get to content in various ways, through the internet and other portals. Multi-channel TV is becoming the norm for households ahead of digital switch-over, but still not enough profile or funding is given to BBC4 and the more challenging end of the market.
It is only by promoting intelligence that the BBC can hope to sustain a funding formula that it has become fashionable to attack. Sometimes, whether over poor cost control or skewed priorities such as the salaries paid to the likes of Jonathan Ross, the corporation's friends struggle to defend it. Yet struggle they must. There may be a superficial attraction to ring-fencing "high-end" programming - documentaries, radio sequence programmes, Radio 3 and outlets such as the Asian Network - but therein lies the path to the dismantling of the BBC. One need only look to the US and PBS, dependent on sponsors while the main channels serve up pulp, to see the future.
This is one area where our politicians should unite. Gordon Brown and David Cameron, as is argued on page 12 by David Puttnam (an excellent candidate for the vacant BBC chair), should seek consensus on media cross-ownership. There are points to be scored in the short term by currying favour with moguls, but this will cause long-term harm for our country. If we want informed debate, we need to encourage inquiry. The BBC is Britain's top international brand. It is the institution most trusted by voters. We must fight for its health and, possibly, its future existence.
Last refuge of the conspiracy
Almost drowning out the heart-warming announcement that Princes William and Harry are planning a concert to mark the tenth anniversary of the death of their mother is depressing news that yet more theories are emerging about how she died. Lord Stevens, the former Metropolitan Police commissioner, has submitted a draft report on the death of Diana, Princess of Wales and her lover Dodi Fayed to Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, appointed to oversee an inquest into the 1997 tragedy.
Will this finally quench conspiracy theories surrounding the car crash in Paris? There seems little likelihood, as Dodi's father, Mohammed Al Fayed, owner of Harrods and sincere believer in outlandish theories about the crash, is already reported to be considering legal action because he was not given first sight of the report (and maybe because, it is said, Lord Stevens dismisses many of the theories).
Only many? Which of them survive? That Prince Philip ordered the murder of the princess because of fears she would marry a Muslim? That she was pregnant (choose your assassin)? That she is not dead, but seeking refuge from the press? Or, the latest, that Dodi and not Diana was the target - of Arab arms dealers?
Our favourite is that she ill-advisedly got into a car with a drunk Frenchman who drove his vehicle into the wall of a nearby tunnel. But that, we concede, looks increasingly fanciful.
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
