Shut Down the B.B.C.

Shut Down the BBC

Me? Yes

It is a biased organisation
It actively promotes a political philosophy
It is morally corrupt.
It censors by deed or inaction.

The BBC was once a force for integrity, for objectivity, for the highest of standards in broadcasting. Not any more!!

We anticipate, no expect that the BBC will present us with an objectivity that helps we, the public to analyse any given situation for ourselves. For many people the BBC is the only source of direct information and therefore feeds into their belief system. The objectivity and integrity of reporting is thus critical to allow an unbiased opinion to be formed.

In recent months the BBC Director General, Mark Thompson, has accepted that it is ‘massively’ biased. It really doesn’t matter if the bias is to the left or right in the political spectrum, by accepting the charge of bias the BBC is acknowledging that propaganda was being disseminated by the Beeb. That surely amounts to endorsing a political philosophy, as well as implementing direct/indirect censorship.

This is not the house that Reith built.
‘The impartial voice of news’

“The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities, and gay people. It has a liberal bias, not so much a party- political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias”.

Andrew Marr, Oct: 2006

In 2004, in his book: My Trade: A short history of British Journalism. He speaks of remaining impartial and “studiously neutral” in news reporting, and goes on to say that reports should “convey fact, and nothing more”.

I would agree with the sentiments above to convey fact and nothing more; that is the essence of good reporting. However, I would take issue with his analysis of BBC bias, to attempt to whitewash the bias as a cultural thing, and in a sense not that important is a big disservice to himself and to everyone else. If people have a bias then that bias informs most of their thinking, and therefore has a powerful impact on their reporting, or programme making. It’s a pity he skipped “convey fact, and nothing more”, on this occasion.

I would also like explained the term ‘urban organisation’. Is Marr, implying that because the BBC is ‘urban’ there is a built in demographic bias? That the BBC is London centric? That outside of that central area there exists a different political outlook, and that that outlook is not being catered for? Is, Marr, inferring that there are several biases at play in the BBC?

As a public body the BBC has to uphold the most stringent code of certitude. If not, the broadcaster becomes a lackey for the state or a propaganda machine for a political elite; or for both.

It is well known that the BBC operates a policy of ‘positive action’ or as the Americans call it, ‘affirmative action’, in that it promotes the standing of black and ethnic actors. There is no relevance as to how you wish to view such a policy; that would be a political stance. A government, if it passes a law can pursue such a course but an independent broadcaster should not. Was the BBC forced to implement positive action or did the corporation make a conscious political decision? Social engineering should not be the prerogative of a public communications network to distil. This is the U.K. not the N.K. – North Korea.

Moreover, there have been a number of stories whereby the BBC has instructed writers to include a black or ethnic character in their script. Does this not go beyond positive action in to the realm of ‘placement’? In such circumstances ‘placement’ becomes direct discrimination and that would be illegal. Furthermore, ‘placement’ is akin to subliminal advertising and that would be illegal. Certainly, ‘placement’ breaches the Equality Act of 2010.

Who gets an actors part is inconsequential, unless, of course that decision is by diktat. That opens up a whole new kettle of fish. Even if a government approves of positive action or affirmative action that still constitutes discrimination by decree. To pass such a law or to abide by that law is disingenuous on several grounds.

• It’s discrimination as a conscious act (direct discrimination)
• The inherent suggestion within the law is that a black or ethnic actor cannot get employment any other way. It requires big brother assistance e.g. a leg up.
• That hitherto the industry was essentially racist or backward in thinking. Thus a senior decision had to be taken to override that view point.

No matter from which angle you view positive action 1, 2, or 3 it is discriminatory on all counts. A number of other points can be garnered from the latter, point 3:

• That management had a political agenda which they were keen to implement
• They considered their viewpoint as superior and thus had to be introduced top-down
• Management held contempt for its workforce. That the workforce needed to be chivvied along.

A third area of concern regarding the BBC is the tax scandal that burst on to the headlines during 2012. Whereby, prominent personalities at the BBC were ‘encouraged’ to set up personal service companies (PSC) and thus pay less tax. There is a disclaimer on both sides of this argument; the BBC say they never forced anyone to take that route, while some of those presenters argue that they were instructed too or they could find themselves out of a job. The stink requires an army of cleaners to mop up the puke.

Below the surface of the tax scandal lays another, perhaps more intriguing one. As leading presenters were ‘encouraged’ to go independent, the BBC would not have to pay the National Insurance contribution of said presenters and others. The BBC thus saved a considerable chunk of money. How much we don’t know but it was loads of money.

What did the BBC do with this (manufactured) windfall?

1. Cut the licence fee?
2. Inform the public?
3. Use the money to promote young, up and coming broadcasters with a grant?
4. Allow the public to make suggestions?
5. Provide grants for specialist shows produced by students at media or art colleges?


What the BBC did was to squirrel the monies away into their already vast coffers to be used on expenses and other such things.

To force people to accept a diet of biased reporting and a set political agenda is nothing short of a scandal for a public corporation. Those who tune in to the BBC for its reliability and its impeccable source of information have been treated little better than imbeciles.

To fail to treat the dissemination of information with objectivity or by omission is by conscience, censorship. Objectivity can to some extent be subjective when the bias is ingrained; all the more reason then, for a procedure of clarity to be uppermost in the thinking and presentation of material.

In that the BBC cannot be trusted to be objective it should shut down. The BBC should no longer be paid from the public purse.

A contrite corporation should at the very least clean house. That would entail the whole of the top management being pushed out. The present management cannot be left in situ because their actions in office have overseen all that has gone wrong at Broadcasting House. Their bias cannot change colour overnight. The management team, over a considerable period, have perpetuated a fundamental breach of contract with the viewing public. The viewers have been little other than number fodder.

Allowing the management team to remain in place would be analogous to giving Sweeney Todd, a new set of razors and telling him to get on with the proper job.

(Over to you – what can you come up with?)

A ditty:-

Probity, O probity,
You have left and gone to sea.
We need you to come back home,
And be captain at the B.B.C.