To my mind, the BBC has for some time been one of the very few non-'net sources of real news (e.g., where would we be without its attention to the Downing St. Memo?). The BBC is currently suffering an extremely serious top-down attack: cuts of 3,800 - 4,000 jobs, privatization of parts of BBC operations, and replacement of the BBC governing body.
I'm not surprised that the MSM have ignored this development, but I'm somewhat surprised at the lack of interest here at DU. (I posted most of this info in the Media forum a few days ago, and no one seems to have noticed it there.) I'm not sure what we can do about it, but I still think it's extremely important that folks the world over who care about news should at least be aware of and understand the implications of what's happening. We'll never get real media reform if the public remains ignorant of the extent of the problem.
My review of the attack on the BBC has been superficial, but still better than what I've seen in any reports. I looked at the BBC "Green Paper", the most detailed description I've found on the 'net of government plans for job cutbacks (3,800 - 4,000) and privatization of portions of BBC operations. The Green Paper can be downloaded here:
http://www.bbccharterreview.org.uk/have_your_say/green_paper/greenpaper_home.html#1 .
I noted a number of features that raise troubling questions for me:
1. The BBC's current governing body is to be replaced by a Trust. The trust members are to be recommended by the Prime Minister. The reason given for establishing the Trust as the BBC's governing body is supposedly that the old Board was both the management and the body in charge of assessing BBC performance, and that this involved a conflict of interest.
This sounds reasonable, until you consider that the Prime Minister has been in direct conflict with the BBC over its reporting on him; so putting him in charge of selecting its trustees would seem merely to be replacing one conflict of interest with another one of much more serious import.
2. The Trust is supposed to be made more responsive to the desires of the public. (Nevermind that 3/4 of the public were perfectly happy with the BBC sans any of these changes.) The public's wishes are to be assessed through research. The paper doesn't address who does the research or how.
3. The justification for the staff cutbacks is that funds are needed in order for the BBC to take the lead in bringing about a "digital switch-over" accessible to "have-nots" as well as "haves". I'm no geek, but off-hand, it seems arguable that this means cutting back on news staffing in order to ensure future HDTV sales, or something like that. But someone who knows better than I can perhaps explain.
4. More programming is to be privatized. C.f. the U.S. use of private contractors in Iraq, or in electronic election technology--by no means perfectly similar, but illustrates the dangers. To me, looks like maybe they don't trust BBC staff to make programs that suit them, so by outsourcing to their buddies, they can both enrich them and ensure coverage that's more favorable, conservative, or at least innocuous to them. (Would some reporter pls look at how many new little production companies are being formed in the U.K. right now and by whom?)
I simply don't have the time or expertise to do the kind of analysis that needs to be done, but I am truly horrified that no one else seems to be noticing what's going on. (The unions affected by the job cuts have been striking, but last time I checked their sites, perhaps understandably, the focus was entirely on those cuts--whether they're justified, how remaining staff will be stretched, etc.)
Please help call this situation to the attention of media persons or outlets, or any media analysts who might be able to help analyze or publicize this, and post/send the info in any appropriate forums or to friends who might be interested.
Thanks.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
