The Unbearable Immortality Of The BBC
In the wake of previous issues with the BBC, the last one of note being the departure of Gary Lineker, we have been as much scandal focused (Hugh Edwards), as much as editorial focused. One could argue that celebrities have always had their issues, we won’t mention those who operated in the late 20th century. However, even as the double lives of stars rolled on without public knowledge, it was the case that there was one thing you could rely on the BBC for: impartiality. Indeed, it was the finest use of the English language combined with a “on the one hand, one the other hand” narrative, that made even the worst third world dictator tune in to find out what was really going on it his country. What has been interesting in terms of the decline of the BBC’s sense of balance is actually when this started. Indeed, the questioning of the state broadcaster’s impartiality has only really been a relatively recent thing.
But the reaction against it has really strengthened in recent years. The basic cause for ire may have stemmed from the arrival of TV streaming services, which then make most of us question why we should be paying just for the honour of watching live TV? But of rather more significance in addition to the BBC being a poll tax on viewing, is the change in the political spectrum. The BBC did well when left and right really were on the one hand or the other, and in a time of consensus, when the differences did not seem so great. The BBC even managed to negotiate the difficulties of the Thatcher era, when she was such a polarising figure. But it has been the age of woke, effectively starting in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis in 2008, that has polarised views in a much more intense way than previously. While this seems counterintuitive, there is no way that before 2008 anyone in the BBC, or other national TV companies would ever consider doctoring a speech by a politician, or anyone else. This has been added to subsequently by controversy over bias in Gaza and over climate change. So basically, a big chunk of the so-called Liberal Metropolitan Elite agenda. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own view. Oh, hang on, they are not. The difference between the BBC, say 30 years ago, is that it would report views, but it would leave the listener to decide which ones to go for. This was even if the reporter / journalist in question was against that view. Those of a certain age will remember a time when even if one would never know the true opinion of a newsreader / interviewer / broadcaster. Indeed, it was inappropriate for them to offer one.
But the latest Trump speech edit is not only in the Orwellian / North Korean mould of delivering news, it is another blow for the BBC. The motivation is clearly those who work at the BBC and think that Trump has to be stopped at any cost. If portraying him in the worst light possible is the way to do it, then so be it. Ironically, when Trump says “fake news” it is not usually fake. On this occasion he is actually correct.
That said, the nitty gritty of a edit by those who hate someone they see as being far-right is one thing. The normal rule in life as far as failure is concerned is from between one and three strikes and you are out. In the case of the BBC, it is dozens of strikes over the years, and it is never out. For some reason, UK governments seem to need a state broadcaster, and the state broadcaster is too scared of losing its dominance should the license fee go. It really is high time that the BBC just became another streaming service. Who knows it could do better than all the others, if it did not have its charter – a license to print money, and apparently propagate views from a certain side of the political spectrum. While there are calls for the Director General Tim Davie to resign, there is absolutely no him resigning if he is simply going to be replaced by someone of the same Liberal Metropolitan Elite, who will be even more desperate to serve up the all the centre – left agenda we have seen in recent years. They cannot help it, and while Trump is in office it would appear that we are in a broadcasting war zone. It would appear that the BBC is immortal, and the more it does to stir up its agenda, the worse the battle is becoming.
Migrants On The Run
Did he fall, or was he pushed? This is an age old analytical question, usually applied to solving crimes. That said, it would appear that this could be applied to the fiasco surrounding the release of migrants. Of course, as we remember the fallen on Remembrance Sunday, we have the spectacle of over 500 new migrants making the trip across the English Channel. This reminds us that we there is no conclusion to draw other than have open borders for foreign nationals, and have now had them for many years. One of the main points of fighting a war is to keep your borders closed. But once these migrants arrived, and are housed, there is the other eye opener we have been treated to. Those who have been sent to prison have a tendency to be released by mistake. Does this mean that we have to adjust our understanding of what is currently going on with the prison system?
As well as accepting we have open borders, should we also accept that we have open prisons, or at least that the powers that be are not that bothered whether such people are incarcerated or not? The number of those released is high enough to allow us to think that this may either be deliberate on the government’s part (if only on the basis of a lack of resources), or more likely that those working in the prison service are happy to release prisoners as a form of protest or lack of interest as to whether the system is doing its job properly or not.
