The Hindu : Opinion / Leader Page Articles : Myth and reality

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, May 29, 2004

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Myth and reality

By Hasan Suroor

The BBC's strength lies not in the independence of its political journalism but in its public service output.

THE NEW Information and Broadcasting Minister, Jaipal Reddy's remarks praising the British Broadcasting Corporation for "standing up to No 10 Downing Street" over the Iraq war must have sounded music to the ears of the Corporation's bosses after the recent tremors, which shook it to its very foundations.

There is much about the BBC that it can be proud of — the sheer scale of its national and international coverage, its professionalism, stress on objectivity and its commitment to public service broadcasting — but, alas, "standing up to 10 Downing Street" is not something it often does. And, contrary to the impression abroad, it did not do so over Iraq either.

Indeed, claims about the BBC's fearless journalism tend to fall in the same class as the "slightly exaggerated" reports of Mark Twain's death did. Even within the BBC few have any illusions about the limits to its freedom, and it is widely recognised that there are "red lines" that it is advisable not to cross.

The fact that the Government has powers to renew its charter as a public broadcaster, entitled to licence-fee worth millions of pounds every year, gives it enormous clout in determining the direction of the BBC.

While recommending the BBC as a model for other state broadcasters such as Doordarshan, it is important to remember an important difference. Unlike them the BBC is not funded by the Government but by a compulsory licence-fee paid by ordinary public. So, theoretically the BBC is accountable to its licence-paying listeners and viewers and not to the state. But, in practice, this is not how it always works. There are myriad subtle ways in which the Government makes sure that it has a "line" to the BBC.

Its board of governors and the chairman and the director-general may not be brazenly handpicked by the government of the day but invariably they are people whom it trusts, politically; or at least does not distrust.

Both its former chairman Gavyn Davies and director-general Greg Dyke were Labour supporters who had donated to party funds — and when they were appointed, the BBC earned the nickname Blair Broadcasting Corporation because of their proximity to New Labour and Tony Blair. Indeed, they never gave the Government any cause for complaint and were it not for the row over the Iraq war (to which we will come later) the story would have had a happy ending.

For all its supposed independence, the BBC is not known to rock the boat and follows the broad liberal consensus on major issues. Like the New Labour, or the Congress party, it is a Big Tent accommodating people of diverse viewpoints, but what we get eventually is a collective, neatly-balanced, corporate voice.

BBC journalists are as likely to come from The Guardian and The Times as from The Telegraph and Spectator, but once they are inside the "tent" they are all Auntie's boys. After the Iraq episode, the BBC has become even more cautious, and there has been a clampdown on unscripted broadcasts — the sort that provoked a row with Downing Street after an early morning broadcast by its then defence correspondent Andrew Gilligan accused the Government of "sexing up" intelligence claims about Saddam Hussein's weapons capability.

Contrary to the widespread impression, the row was really a clash of egos between the top BBC bosses, on the one hand, and the Prime Minister's then communications chief, Alastair Campbell, on the other. It had nothing to do with "standing up" to No. 10. Indeed, the BBC heatedly denied pursuing an anti-war "agenda," and admitted that it made "mistakes" in relation to the Gilligan broadcast. Both its chairman and director-general were forced to resign — as was Mr. Gilligan.

Even if this were to be construed as the price they paid for "standing up" to No. 10, the episode only confirms how fragile the BBC's much-touted independence is. For all its initial sound and fury, the fact remains that in the end it took just one minion in the Prime Minister's office to cause an earthquake at the BBC.

The BBC's strength lies not in the independence of its political journalism, but in its public service output. Despite complaints of dumbing down, public service broadcast is what the BBC does best. With an assured income thanks to the licence fee it is able to produce a range of programmes on arts, culture, science and social issues which we do not get on commercial channels.

It is this aspect of the BBC that a broadcaster such as Doordarshan should emulate. Now that DD has ceased to be the only source of TV news and there are other — more credible — channels to choose from, it should try and build itself up as a serious but watchable public service network, offering an alternative to private channels, while continuing to be the official voice of the Government on the news of the day.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

RESPONDING TO MASS DEPRIVATION

STICKING TO MANDATE FOR CHANGE

Manmohan Singh's iqbaal

Myth and reality

A good beginning

Include senior citizens

Demoralising

Portfolio issue

Deplorable