| |
| |
You are here: Frontpage > Issues > 2477 >
|
|
Working on the solid nonviolent principle that we should transform our enemies, PN brings you a
slightly tongue-in-cheek column dedicated to getting to know our "enemies" better.
LOVE YOUR ENEMY ... EVERYONE CAN CHANGE
Toby Blunt
The enemy, this time, is the Beeb. Known worldwide for its fairness, its accuracy, its high standards
of journalism; known at home for its current willingness to follow the government's lead on any significant story, its
post-Hutton flaccidity, and for its paternalistic tone of voice.
Its intellectual conservatism can be ascribed to its status as one of Britain's leading institutions, after
the city banks and the FCO. To a large extent it is staffed by people who will never see any flaws in the BBC brand, who
joined in order to have one of those good careers that other people, mere mortals, envy, and who never have any intention
of rocking the boat, no matter how bad things get.
Subservience and flattery
Good journalism is crippled by a lust for access to the very people whom the journalists should be investigating. Of
course access is necessary, but not when, as now, it is characterised by subservience and flattery.
Impartiality is its watchword - and that is both meaningless and patronising. No thinking person who takes even a
moderate interest in world affairs would conclude that the BBC's coverage is impartial. From the moment they put their
bids in to the White House or the Knesset, their muchavowed impartiality is doomed.
What they call news is most of the time a cocktail of diplomatic or parliamentary tittle-tattle, followed by the
weather. They have learnt there is a world beyond Whitehall. They have yet to learn there is a world beyond the White
House. Ordinary folk get a look in rarely, usually only when their mangled corpses, rotting in mass graves, are tastefully
edited for the pre-watershed viewer. It's a shame.
Pulling faces
At least they're fond of recycling. Sadly it is usually programme ideas they choose to recycle. Then they "cherry-pick"
ideas from other networks, that are already bad, and make them rather worse.
It's a shame they waste their resources on news when it's so often apparent that the correspondents diligently
picking their way through the rubble or the floods have little real knowledge of where they are or why. Shouldn't blame
them. It's in the studio where things get bad, as women in ridiculous makeup, or men in bright ties and bad suits, make
their sad or happy faces to guide the viewer through the minefield of world events.
Time to tune out
So what's there to love? Possibly nothing, other than potential. And that's not such a bad thing. Imagine what even a
little bit of creative chaos would do? Imagine what would happen if journalists insisted on telling their stories,
whatever the lobby groups say, whatever the government line is.
Now its main function is chaining people to their sofas so they can be told what to think and how to feel by
"People Who Know" - but that can change. How do we show this petulant paternalistic love of ours how we feel? We switch
off. Tough love, you might say, but it's the only way. Then, eventually, they'll realise that their audience has better
things to do with their time, like living life, and acting in the world to make things better, rather than sitting around
waiting for "The Truth" to be revealed ... just before the sports results and weather.
Suggestions of candidates ripe for redemption should be sent to editorial@peacenews.info
|
|
|
|
