Attitudes to the BBC often divide along political lines, particularly in relation to news and current affairs. Overall, the Left is kinder. After all, the BBC is a publicly owned organisation, something which accords with its general philosophy. However, in recent years at least, the Left has often seen the BBC as insufficiently critical of the government (which has been exclusively or predominantly Tory since 2010) and some even regard particular correspondents, such as Laura Kuenssberg, as biased against the left wing of the Labour Party. The Right, in contrast, views the BBC as too ‘woke’, too much in thrall to what it views as the unreasonable political obsessions of the time, such as racial and gender equality.
It has often been said that if Left and Right are both criticising you, then you must be getting the balance about right. This applies in the present case to an extent, as the BBC’s overall stance might be described as ‘centrist’. But it does not follow that there is no room for improvement. In fact, I would give the BBC’s coverage of current affairs about a C- or even a D. Worst of all are the regular news bulletins on BBC1 such as the Six O’clock News. These are little better than tabloid offerings, in which many reports seem to be following familiar templates with just the names changed. Radio 4 news is a little better, with more depth provided. On television, Newsnight is satisfactory.
Then there is the vexed question of funding. How can it be right to finance a broadcasting service by a flat rate fee payable by anyone who owns a TV set, irrespective of whether they use that particular service? Perhaps it could be argued that even if you don’t yourself watch BBC programmes, you benefit from their existence, since society generally is better of as a result of there being many people who are well-informed, even if you aren’t one of them. But this argument would only work if the BBC’s current affairs output were much better than it is.
So I have some proposals. Reduce the regular TV news bulletins to brief programmes of about five or ten minutes each, giving the key news of the day but without much attempt at interpretation. Supplement this with more in-depth current affairs programmes like Newsnight but representing a wider range of political opinions. Include less well represented perspectives, the kind that rarely find expression as things stand. Show people debating these ideas and involve viewers in this (like ‘Question Time’, but with more light and less heat). Outside the realm of current affairs, continue the tradition of producing accessible fact-based programming of which David Attenborough’s documentaries have been perhaps the most impressive examples. For light relief, include intelligent comedies, especially satires. However, I draw the line at Strictly and Mrs. Brown’s Boys. Such things can be produced in the commercial market.
No doubt this would all be very expensive. However, a service of this kind, by getting people better informed would arguably help to create a wiser electorate less prey to demagogues. That would benefit us all, even those who do not watch the programmes. It would therefore be more justifiable to finance it through contributions from every citizen in proportion to their ability to pay. This could still be done via the TV license, but it would surely be more efficient to use general taxation, which is already progressively structured.
Needless to say, our current masters would have no interest in such a proposal. They would prefer a BBC that says just what they want it to say. But any political party which did back this approach would be a strong contender for my vote.