One reason we emphasise here and here the reality that the BBC is a state broadcaster is because it is important not to fall into a discussion framework set down by the BBC, in which they are merely a 'public service broadcaster'. They are also a state broadcaster. Part of resisting the BBC properly is refusing to accept the lingo and conceptual reference points they and their stooges impose on us. Thus, we reject assertions that the BBC is a 'independent public body', or similar. Whatever the textbooks, the glossy brochures and the university professors may say, we know that the BBC is, in reality, a state broadcaster. For all effect, they work for the state and their service is imposed on us.
This point is also relevant to discussion of strategy and tactics against the BBC. Anti-TV licence campaigners assume that if the TV licence becomes unsustainable, then so will the BBC, but we reject this logic because it doesn't follow. In fact, it would be much easier for the BBC and the government-of-the-day to maintain 'public service broadcasting' simply by funding the BBC through general taxation, as happens in Australia and a number of other countries. And even if all public funding options are rejected, we do not see how commercialisation of the BBC would represent any improvement. Surely that makes matters worse, as it would make the BBC's position unassailable given that there would no longer be a controversial funding system in place to support it. Commercialisation will turn the BBC into an LBC/Channel Four-style left-wing media conglomerate writ large, the only moderating influence being the Royal Charter.
Thus, we are singularly unimpressed by UKIP and its policy of abolishing the TV licence and switching the BBC to subscriptions. While UKIP, like most in the anti-TV licence corner, are not exactly apple polishers for the BBC, they are helping the Corporation when they should be calling for it to be dismantled for good. Commercialisation plays right into the BBC's hands. It would allow the BBC to become profitably self-sustainable while continuing to pursue its damaging agenda.
We can only imagine that UKIP's cop-out is due to a sense of political caution and, especially, a fear about how they will be treated and portrayed in the media, especially at Television Centre, should they say they want the BBC abolished as policy. We think this fear is misplaced. The difficulty with any sort of political timidity is that it plays into the hands of opponents. We know the BBC will treat UKIP and its candidates like dirt anyway. Why not fight back? Why not put some fear into the BBC for a change? A policy of abolishing the BBC would be truly radical and ground-breaking, and could be a populist rallying point around UKIP, showing that the party means business in dismantling the enemy bureaucracies of the Establishment.
A related question to ponder is why the TV licence fee is maintained, when it is self-evidently ridiculous. The plain oddity of the imposition is normally skirted over in public discussions, with acknowledgements that it is a bad system but the least worst option. But why would the BBC itself want to maintain such a system? We think it's not really the BBC that wants to keep the TV licence. It's the political class. The TV licence is a method of political control over the BBC, in addition to the Royal Charter. If one looks back into the history of the BBC and the reasons for its existence, it has always been about political-state control of broadcasting - its raison d'etre. The more astute people within the BBC and among its defenders realise this and would see the BBC commercialised in some way, as that would assure the future of the BBC as a so-called 'public service broadcaster' and allow it to continue poisoning and undermining the country with its subversive agenda without the same level of state oversight. Conversely, there will be others within the BBC who are tribally affiliated with the state and who may resist further moves towards independence.
Politicians quite like the TV licence system because of the leverage it gives them over the BBC. They set the amount of the licence fee each year and can exercise influence over the general direction of the BBC and the tone it sets. A tax-funded system would, we suppose, have similar attractions, and for that reason, we do not hold out much hope that anti-TV licence campaigns on their own could bring about a desirable outcome. An Australian-style system looks more likely, which would lumber us with the BBC forever.
The real solution is abolition.
No comments:
Post a Comment