It's Public, Until It's Not

The good thing about a campaign for abolition is that it figuratively separates the men from the boys on both sides of the debate about the BBC.  It’s odd that nobody has ever before campaigned explicitly for abolition and closure of the BBC.  We are the very first, and while we have received strong support from some, and equally strong opposition from others, there are large numbers on both sides who have been left confused by the concept of abolition.  Some anti-TV licence campaigners actually are in the BBC’s corner and, unable to support us, they will be exposed as wolves in sheep’s clothing.  Conversely, many defenders of the BBC will be faced with a difficult choice. 

If the BBC really is a public body and a public service broadcaster, then surely we, the public, should be able to decide to abolish it when we have no further need for it.  Yes?  From that perspective, abolition of the BBC would be the culmination of its mission.  Having fulfilled what it set out to do, and having no further useful function in society, it can be abolished.  As such, its assets must be realised and returned to we, the public.  Rather than allow the private sector to take over and benefit from 90 years (and counting) of public investment, we should have it placed into receivership and its assets (equipment, film archives, buildings, vehicles, etc.) broken-up and sold.  Its buildings can be sold or leased on the commercial market or to residential developers.  Its vehicles can be flogged to fleet owners.  Its back catalogue of ‘excellent programming’ can be sold to one or more other broadcasting companies, many of whom should be delighted to have rights to the archive.  And so on.

At this point, the BBC’s stooges protest that the BBC must go on!  Instead of returning the BBC’s assets to the public - where they belong, assuming the BBC is what they claim it is - they proceed paradoxically to say that the BBC can be commercialised or privatised, despite its functional redundancy.  Thus, the meaningless of all the ‘public service broadcaster’ fig-leaf hogwash is exposed, and the consistency that would require these people to side with us and call for abolition is abandoned.  As long as it suits them, they tell us the BBC is in the public service, and when it doesn’t suit them, it’s suddenly not a public service broadcaster after all.  The attachment is not to values and principles, but to an organisation that provides employment and support in a cultural struggle by the Left against the rest of the country.  This explains why the BBC, itself an anomaly in an era of digital technology, still stumbles on.  There are too many vested interests in it to face up to reality.  Instead, they will happily allow the BBC to transmogrify into the even deeper sham form of a private sector 'public service broadcaster' - despite the fact we already have a plethora of them already: mainly the ITV network.

The inexorable logic is for abolition, and a successful campaign for abolition is an essential chess move by those of us who genuinely oppose the BBC.  The BBC is the enemy and must be closed down for good.  Anything less plays into their hands.

Weasel Words of the BBC's defenders

The Left have gone through seventy-three years (and counting) of selective pressures that have brought them to the top of Britain's Establishment.  That means they are clever.  Many of them have high verbal intelligence especially.

Among the weasel formulations they use to give the BBC sentimental and emotional pull with the public are the following, all of which have been put to us:

"The BBC is the national broadcaster"

The BBC is a state broadcaster.  The difference is crucial.  The BBC is not this fluffy, harmless broadcasting organisation loved by the nation.  The BBC is owned by the state.  Furthermore, many of its directing Board are government appointees, its senior management appointments are approved by government ministers, the government sets its terms and the government settles the TV licence fee and awards it grant aid out of general taxation.  It is conceded that the BBC operates largely autonomously and has editorial independence, but political control of the BBC is undeniable and ineluctably leads to the government setting the political tone at the BBC and influencing its institutional culture and values.  Furthermore, there is a long and disreputable record of editorial interference and meddling from governments at key moments in history.

The BBC is a state body that is imposed on us and those who resist are bullied.  The funding of the BBC is ultimately enforced by the state - with the threat of court summonses and prison as the final sanctions.  No other broadcaster imposes itself on the public in this way.  If we decide we don't like Sky, we simply don't watch it, settle up our bill and we need have nothing further to do with that broadcaster.  If we decide we don't like the BBC, we must still fund it anyway, or ultimately face imprisonment.  That is outrageous.

"The BBC has nothing to do with the state.  It's a public service broadcaster"

This is the weasel formulation used by the BBC themselves.  Notice the fluffy, nice-sounding phrase, 'public service broadcaster'.  It's intended to trick you into not examining the true reality of the BBC, which we have already outlined.  These dishonest people want you to think that the state's ownership and control of the BBC are only notional, when the reality is a little bit more complex.  It is also intended to deter you from thinking any further about the matter.  For instance, you may wish to consider exactly what this phrase 'public service broadcasting' really means.

As we have explained elsewhere, if public service broadcasting means being impartial, balanced, diverse and upholding the highest production standards, etc., we have seen nothing to tell us that only the BBC can do those things, if it can do them at all, or that any decent commercial broadcaster cannot uphold such values to the extent that they are practicable.  In short, public service broadcasting is not the exclusive province of the public sector and the BBC is hardly doing a good job in what is supposedly its own specialist field.

The truth is that the BBC is flawed.  We think it should be abolished.

State Broadcaster or Public Sector Broadcaster?

Our critics and opponents – the defenders and stooges of the BBC – have various tricks up their sleeves.  One of them is pedantic word-play in which they draw us into arguments over distinctions which, while of some importance in certain contexts, are of little relevance in the overall scheme of things.  One such distinction is between state media and public sector media.

The BBC’s defenders argue that since the BBC is operationally autonomous (a bit like an English local council or, let’s say, the Bank of England) and not under the direct editorial control of any arm of the state, this means it is not a ‘state broadcaster’, but a public sector broadcaster – or, to use the BBC’s own self-flattering jargon, a ‘public service broadcaster’. 

The reason this point is so important to the BBC and its defenders is because it allows them to claim that the BBC somehow serves the public interest and so abolishing it would leave us without an important public institution and amenity.  A subsidiary reason it matters to them is that it allows them to set up ‘Gotcha!’ moments in debates over the BBC.  Most normal, plain-speaking people are not very well informed about these little distinctions and differences, which means that the BBC and its stooges can easily make critics look ignorant.  It’s still just word-play and settles nothing in terms of the actual questions facing the BBC, but the perception is that the critic doesn’t know the subject and this helps the BBC avoid justified criticism.

The way to combat word-play like this is to look at the reality of the situation. 

We must be clear that the distinction between state broadcasting and public sector broadcasting isn’t terribly important from our point-of-view – we oppose both in Britain and we just call the BBC a state broadcaster, because that is what it is in plain-speaking terms.  But it is a distinction that the BBC’s apologists and defenders like to emphasise, so let’s look into this a bit more closely and see if there’s any substance to it.

Some facts about the BBC’s origins and history and how it operates today:

(i). The BBC (as the then-British Broadcasting Company) was established in the early 1920s as popular radio broadcasting technology began to emerge.  The first BBC was a conglomerate of various interests in the radio and communications industry - so originally, the BBC (or its immediate precursor) was a private enterprise. However the government intervened early on and started meddling in the running of things to allow for ‘remote state control’ of broadcasting (a phrase used at the time).

(ii). The BBC was soon turned into a statutory Corporation by Act of Parliament, and re-named the British Broadcasting Corporation - operating under Royal Charter, and run by government appointees. 

(iii). State editorial control of the BBC has happened recurrently.  The obvious example is during the Second World War.  The Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s 1948 novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, was based on the BBC.  A more recent example is the BBC’s policy on coverage of the Invasion of Iraq in 2003.  The BBC’s senior management wanted to adopt a critical editorial line, and the BBC’s defenders often use this affair as an example of the BBC’s independence – often mentioning the Gilligan Affair - but this was soon put a stop to and in the event, the BBC’s coverage of the Iraq War was bland and conformist.  The truth is that the BBC folded like wet cardboard.

(iv). The BBC has failed to cover other wars in a critical way on numerous occasions.  Another example would be Britain’s military intervention in Libya in 2011, in which the BBC’s coverage was mostly bland and supine.  These examples illustrate the dangers of having a broadcaster under state influence and control.

(v). Today, the senior managerial and executive tiers of the BBC are thoroughly politicised, much like the Senior Civil Service.  The BBC is formally accountable to government ministers for its operations and ministers decide the terms and parameters for the operation of the BBC.  The government awards parts of the BBC grant-aid out of general taxation and even settles the TV licence fee each year.  This political control will inevitably have a broad influence on the BBC's editorial direction, its institutional culture and values, and its editorial narratives concerning key issues and controversies.

(vi). Five members of the BBC Board - its governing body - are appointed by the state, including the chairman and one non-executive member for each of the Nations (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland).  Members of that Board are analogous to shareholders in a limited company, thus state appointees strategically direct the BBC.  It is the case that a majority of the Board are appointed by the BBC itself through its nominations committee, but it would be naive to assume that there is no government influence in these appointments.

(vii). Furthermore, all senior management appointments at the BBC must be approved by government ministers.

(viii). It can be added that the TV licence fee is officially regarded as a tax, and payment is ultimately enforced by the state with the assistance of the police (albeit the police only assist passively), the courts and prisons.

Taking all of the above points together, our position is that the BBC is state-owned and, in its essentials, a state broadcaster.  We’re cutting out the flowery rationalisations and distinctions that are there to trick you and take you round in circles and we’re saying that ultimately it is the state that runs the show.

We furthermore reject assertions that the BBC is either impartial or independent, whether of the government itself or of the wider Establishment.  It is manifestly neither.  While we do not suggest that any arm of the state exercises detailed editorial or other operational control over the BBC, we do assert that public service broadcasting, as defined by the BBC, is largely a fig-leaf concept in Britain and in reality is pretty much non-existent.