BBC Deserves What It Gets

'It's not a crisis at the BBC. Not yet, anyway' ... Staff at the corporation are frustrated at the way the management has handled the Jimmy Savile allegations and the contentious 'Newsnight' report that never aired George Entwistle: BBC insiders paint a picture of a director-general who seems, at times, lonely and backed into a corner. – UK Telegraph

Dominant Social Theme: These are sad times for a noble organization.

Free-Market Analysis: The BBC is nothing that the market itself would ever create. At once vindictive and sanctimonious, BBC culture is that of entitlement: Every Briton is forced to pay an annual stipend for the privilege of viewing the BBC.

It is held up as a beacon of good taste and broad culture but much of what is on the BBC is merely meant to reinforce ruling prejudices and to confuse those who feel resentment about where the blame lies for the current recessionary misery.

Most media purveyed by the power elite functions as a wrapper for newscasts, where a worldview is distilled and information is packaged in an advantageous way. The BBC is no exception. Beyond the news itself, the BBC is utilized to aggrandize functions that British Money Power wants perceived in a certain manner.

The Olympics were just such an event. The entire resource base of the BBC was mobilized on behalf of the Olympics, though as has been pointed out elsewhere, the games were used as a way of further militarizing British society and glorifying military involvement in civil policing.

This is always the way it is these days, or so it seems. Every part of Western society is bent toward the task of authoritarianism, and these authoritarian ways are in turn meant to reinforce the meme of robust globalism. The elites will not rest, apparently until there is formal world government.

Within this context, any setback to the BBC is a setback for this internationalist agenda and is mourned, therefore, by other mainstream media resources – also controlled by the powers-that-be. Here's more excerpted from the Telegraph article above:

This was not meant to be a difficult time for the BBC. Barely two months ago, the corporation was basking in the glory of the London Olympics, with huge public approval of its coverage. The outgoing director-general, Mark Thompson, left on a high – and the announcement of his replacement, George Entwistle, enjoyed widespread support both inside and outside the BBC. Auntie has even been starting to plan modest celebrations for her 90th birthday next month.

But then ITV had to go and spoil it all, by broadcasting a documentary about allegations of paedophile assault against Jimmy Savile. Even worse for the BBC, it turns out that a Newsnight investigation along similar lines was pulled in December of last year – before two tribute programmes to Savile were broadcast on BBC TV at Christmas.

The storm started to break just 11 days into Entwistle's tenure, as newspapers began to preview the allegations in the ITV programme. The ensuing baptism of fire for the new D-G has led to many BBC insiders expressing – in the words of one – "genuine sympathy" for him. Yet many BBC staff none the less see Entwistle's response to the allegations as slow, inadequate and, at times, panicky.

"I'm really angry about the way our bosses have handled it, and that feeling is shared across the newsroom," says one BBC journalist, pointing out that it took a full week for Entwistle to issue any kind of public response (in an email sent to all staff). "The bosses just don't seem to care about the corporation."

True enough. Those who put together the BBC care about it not a bit. If another way of promoting the aims of globalism were to prove more effective, they would discard it in an instant.

That's not the tack the Telegraph article takes, of course. It is, as to be expected, a sympathetic look at an embattled British institution. There is no attempt to cover the reality of the BBC – its endless distortions and cover-ups of any truths inimical to Britain's ruling class.

What is perhaps worst about the BBC (other than its fawning over the Royal Family) is its calculated coverage of Britain's endless warring. Its futile reporting on Britain's recession/depression comes in a close second. A third plank of the BBC is the affection of its staffers for the European Union.

Criticism of the BBC is so widespread these days that Wikipedia devotes a whole entry to it separately from its larger profile. Here's how it begins:

The British Broadcasting Corporation began in 1922, when its first General Manager was John Reith (knighted 1926, created 1st Baron Reith 1940), who stated that impartiality and objectivity were the essence of professionalism.

Criticism of the corporation's perceived lack of impartiality and objectivity have since been made by many observers. Due to the corporation's self-professed high standards of programming, and the its self-proclaimed aim to be impartial and unbiased in its reporting, whenever the corporation is perceived to be falling short of these high expectations, or their reporting is viewed as more sympathetic with one side of an argument, criticism may be levelled at the BBC.

Another key area of criticism is the mandatory licence fee, as competitors argue that this means of financing is unfair and results in an inability to compete with the corporation. Also, any accusations of waste or over-staffing causes significant pressure from viewers, who are paying for this coverage. In addition, there is uncertainty to what extent the BBC is allowed to compete with other organisations and to what extent they can have a commercial presence in world markets.

Conclusion: The Telegraph article closes by observing that the BBC, like so many other entities in Britain, is being squeezed by ongoing financial constraints. One can only hope.