The broadcaster's governance must be totally overhauled if it has any hope of recovering its reputation, writes former BBC producer and journalist Patrick Howse
Patrick Howes, I agree with all of this. The problem however is the elephant-in-room you do not mention, i.e. the BBC's connivance in the defamation of the Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters, particularly on trumped-up charges of antisemitism. This not only suited the ruling Conservatives, but the right-wing and now dominant faction within the Labour Party, the state of Israel and other interested parties. You don't have to be a Corbynista to see this (I'm not for one), but you need to be willingly blind not to see it. If Byline Times wants to provide an honest alternative to the mainstream media, it must talk about these things without fear or favour - or else it becomes part of the problem.
If the Tories wanted to destroy the BBC they are going the right way about it. Hollowing it out from the inside and claiming falsely that it is too woke and too liberal in order to galvanise their right wing followers and the anti BBC media should convince everybody who values the BBC and who wants it properly funded to fight even harder to keep it as a national broadcaster.
The BBC is capable of producing the very best television in the world. Sharp must go and government should not be allowed to put their stooges in such a position. The BBC can be great again when it produces honest and unbiased reporting. News night, for example, is a very bad joke.
Sharp should resign! as the corporation needs it impartially back and as we know now why these politicians are not being held to account when on any of the BBC programmes. He’s had an influence over it all get rid now!
This is the dilemma that all Public/State broadcasters have. They are funded by the public, so are accountable to the public. They are controlled by the Government, so they are accountable to the present government in power. So there's a balancing act the BBC must perform. Be a mouthpiece for the public, but also be a way for the government to talk to the public. The BBC rarely gets it right and so the pendulum swings from one side to the other.
Jeremy Corbyn got it right when he proposed that BBC be governed by an independent body. But, because he was deemed a stinking Jew hater, no-one listened. Sigh.
The BBC needs taking away from the hands of government altogether. It should be run by a chair and board selected by a citizens' assembly which represents and reflects the licence fee payers. That assembly will also decide the licence fee levels, which must be graded fairly according to income and not be a poll tax, as now. It could be collected a bit like NI contributions. The BBC is a community institution, paid for by our citizens and all its considerable intellectual property should be owned by the community, so it cannot be bought by Murdoch or anyone similarly inappropriate.
The Tory strategy in relation to any institution they do not like is clear - undermine its effectiveness and reputation to the point where the general public will acquiesce meekly when the institution is privatised. Clearly the BBC is one such, as is the NHS - the Tories perceive both as being at least tinged with the socialism that they hate. How far down this slippery slope has the BBC already descended? Is the situation already past the point of no return? And at what point will the Tories make the moves required to finish the privatisation process? Will the BBC receive the same strength of support enjoyed by Channel 4 in their resistance to the Tory attempts to sell off that successful broadcaster? These are the questions that should be addressed.
Sure, but the fault lies firmly with the government and the popular press who have been pressing for the BBC's demise for years. But the BBC is so much more than News which hasn't been its strongest suit for years. Richard says that he's fed up with their news reporting - because it costs more than Amazon Prime and Netflix combined. Yet to my knowledge neither of these organisations do news at all, nor do they do vast amounts of music of all sorts, or radio or local radio, or programmes for the OU, or wildlife. And even BBC drama can be first rate (You only have to try the current Happy Valley) The list of what the BBC does spectacularly well is endless. Let's certainly shout for an overhaul of its governance and its effect on News coverage. But it's just another grave attempt to subvert our democracy on the part of the Government, It doesn't seem to me to be unreasonable that an organisation whose very existence is threatened should seek to preserve itself by any means it can and by so doing keep that which is good.
100% Agreement with Johnathan Coulter. His comments regarding the BBC treatment of Jeremy Corbyn. HIs Vision for the country represented real hope for the future of the many not just the few. When did the BBC. provide him and his followers with a platform to discuss his vision. The issue (non issue) of anti semitism aways prevailed.. Open letter signed .Thank You.
As far as I can see, the problem for Sharp is not that he's a tory, but that by not fully declaring his involvement in Johnson's finances and being open about all his contacts with the PM, he broke the T&C's of the application process.
He ought not to remain in post.
I've been increasingly unhappy with the standard of BBC news reporting over the last 10 years or so. They've been as careful to conform to Government diktat as they were in the 1950's, as far as I can see. All the progress towards being more appropriately balanced reporting that was made between the war & 2010 simply vanished, although much of the factual program making has continued its good work. Think of the "File on Four" series, for example.
The change in the BBC's news coverage since Sunday has been fascinating - they've been all over the current crop of Government embarrassments, and kept up with other sources for a change. Do they see the writing on the wall for Sunak's merry crew?
The BBC has been guilty of support for the undermining of the country's political system since it has existed.
On the other hand its contribution to incidental education and then its involvement with the deliverance of the OU speak volumes for it usefulness.
Since the ineffectiveness of the political representation of the country has become so obvious since 1979 its reporting via its News Department has become severely limited to almost an Establishment propaganda Department aided and abetted by the links to the Murdoch empire via ex-staff of the latter being appointed to Editorial positions. Its involvement with the Media Storm against Jeremy Corbyn and its silence over the destruction of the Labour Party under Starmer's anti-Socialist and his unreported support for the Apartheid State are both appalling events for which a root and branch reform of the staff employed so that real journalists should be able to work rather than those who toe the Marr, Neal and Kuenssberg line.
Sharp failed to provide relevant information and on this alone his appointment should be reviewed and if then the friendship with the worst PM ever to live in No 10/11 Downing Street is then felt to be a step too far then he should be replaced.
I’m utterly fed up with the BBC’s biased reporting and the fact that i am legally obliged to subsidise this government mouthpiece - it costs more than Amazon Prime and Netflix combined!
Oh Nelson that’s brilliant to have this comprehensive list. Thank you so much. Have saved to use as ammunition next time someone tells me the BBC should not be publicly funded. Altho - like Richard - I deeply resent paying for the shocking editorial decisions taken by the BBC which has been lying by omission since 2016.
Patrick Howes, I agree with all of this. The problem however is the elephant-in-room you do not mention, i.e. the BBC's connivance in the defamation of the Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters, particularly on trumped-up charges of antisemitism. This not only suited the ruling Conservatives, but the right-wing and now dominant faction within the Labour Party, the state of Israel and other interested parties. You don't have to be a Corbynista to see this (I'm not for one), but you need to be willingly blind not to see it. If Byline Times wants to provide an honest alternative to the mainstream media, it must talk about these things without fear or favour - or else it becomes part of the problem.
If you are concerned about the BBC’s misrepresentation of events in the Labour Party, I recommend signing the Open Letter mentioned here: https://www.campain.org/post/support-our-open-letter-to-the-bbc
If the Tories wanted to destroy the BBC they are going the right way about it. Hollowing it out from the inside and claiming falsely that it is too woke and too liberal in order to galvanise their right wing followers and the anti BBC media should convince everybody who values the BBC and who wants it properly funded to fight even harder to keep it as a national broadcaster.
The BBC is capable of producing the very best television in the world. Sharp must go and government should not be allowed to put their stooges in such a position. The BBC can be great again when it produces honest and unbiased reporting. News night, for example, is a very bad joke.
Sharp should resign! as the corporation needs it impartially back and as we know now why these politicians are not being held to account when on any of the BBC programmes. He’s had an influence over it all get rid now!
This is the dilemma that all Public/State broadcasters have. They are funded by the public, so are accountable to the public. They are controlled by the Government, so they are accountable to the present government in power. So there's a balancing act the BBC must perform. Be a mouthpiece for the public, but also be a way for the government to talk to the public. The BBC rarely gets it right and so the pendulum swings from one side to the other.
Jeremy Corbyn got it right when he proposed that BBC be governed by an independent body. But, because he was deemed a stinking Jew hater, no-one listened. Sigh.
The BBC needs taking away from the hands of government altogether. It should be run by a chair and board selected by a citizens' assembly which represents and reflects the licence fee payers. That assembly will also decide the licence fee levels, which must be graded fairly according to income and not be a poll tax, as now. It could be collected a bit like NI contributions. The BBC is a community institution, paid for by our citizens and all its considerable intellectual property should be owned by the community, so it cannot be bought by Murdoch or anyone similarly inappropriate.
The Tory strategy in relation to any institution they do not like is clear - undermine its effectiveness and reputation to the point where the general public will acquiesce meekly when the institution is privatised. Clearly the BBC is one such, as is the NHS - the Tories perceive both as being at least tinged with the socialism that they hate. How far down this slippery slope has the BBC already descended? Is the situation already past the point of no return? And at what point will the Tories make the moves required to finish the privatisation process? Will the BBC receive the same strength of support enjoyed by Channel 4 in their resistance to the Tory attempts to sell off that successful broadcaster? These are the questions that should be addressed.
Sure, but the fault lies firmly with the government and the popular press who have been pressing for the BBC's demise for years. But the BBC is so much more than News which hasn't been its strongest suit for years. Richard says that he's fed up with their news reporting - because it costs more than Amazon Prime and Netflix combined. Yet to my knowledge neither of these organisations do news at all, nor do they do vast amounts of music of all sorts, or radio or local radio, or programmes for the OU, or wildlife. And even BBC drama can be first rate (You only have to try the current Happy Valley) The list of what the BBC does spectacularly well is endless. Let's certainly shout for an overhaul of its governance and its effect on News coverage. But it's just another grave attempt to subvert our democracy on the part of the Government, It doesn't seem to me to be unreasonable that an organisation whose very existence is threatened should seek to preserve itself by any means it can and by so doing keep that which is good.
100% Agreement with Johnathan Coulter. His comments regarding the BBC treatment of Jeremy Corbyn. HIs Vision for the country represented real hope for the future of the many not just the few. When did the BBC. provide him and his followers with a platform to discuss his vision. The issue (non issue) of anti semitism aways prevailed.. Open letter signed .Thank You.
As far as I can see, the problem for Sharp is not that he's a tory, but that by not fully declaring his involvement in Johnson's finances and being open about all his contacts with the PM, he broke the T&C's of the application process.
He ought not to remain in post.
I've been increasingly unhappy with the standard of BBC news reporting over the last 10 years or so. They've been as careful to conform to Government diktat as they were in the 1950's, as far as I can see. All the progress towards being more appropriately balanced reporting that was made between the war & 2010 simply vanished, although much of the factual program making has continued its good work. Think of the "File on Four" series, for example.
The change in the BBC's news coverage since Sunday has been fascinating - they've been all over the current crop of Government embarrassments, and kept up with other sources for a change. Do they see the writing on the wall for Sunak's merry crew?
The BBC has been guilty of support for the undermining of the country's political system since it has existed.
On the other hand its contribution to incidental education and then its involvement with the deliverance of the OU speak volumes for it usefulness.
Since the ineffectiveness of the political representation of the country has become so obvious since 1979 its reporting via its News Department has become severely limited to almost an Establishment propaganda Department aided and abetted by the links to the Murdoch empire via ex-staff of the latter being appointed to Editorial positions. Its involvement with the Media Storm against Jeremy Corbyn and its silence over the destruction of the Labour Party under Starmer's anti-Socialist and his unreported support for the Apartheid State are both appalling events for which a root and branch reform of the staff employed so that real journalists should be able to work rather than those who toe the Marr, Neal and Kuenssberg line.
Sharp failed to provide relevant information and on this alone his appointment should be reviewed and if then the friendship with the worst PM ever to live in No 10/11 Downing Street is then felt to be a step too far then he should be replaced.
I’m utterly fed up with the BBC’s biased reporting and the fact that i am legally obliged to subsidise this government mouthpiece - it costs more than Amazon Prime and Netflix combined!
Oh Nelson that’s brilliant to have this comprehensive list. Thank you so much. Have saved to use as ammunition next time someone tells me the BBC should not be publicly funded. Altho - like Richard - I deeply resent paying for the shocking editorial decisions taken by the BBC which has been lying by omission since 2016.