STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Defund the BBC?
By Staff News & Analysis - March 02, 2015

Why the BBC doesn't deserve to have the licence fee increased … BBC executives may be relieved at the latest Parliamentary report on funding but the Corporation needs to put its house in order … There was doubtless a sense of relief in the executive suites on the upper floors of New Broadcasting House this week as BBC bosses digested the contents of the latest Parliamentary inquiry into its operations. The Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee (CMS) had undertaken a prolonged investigation and at the end of that process what emerged was …. something not very radical. On the licence fee – that goose which lays an annual egg stuffed with £4 billion for the Beeb to gorge on – the committee pronounced that there is "no better alternative for funding the BBC in the near term". What a relief. Trebles all round! – UK Telegraph

Dominant Social Theme: So long as the Brits have BBC, England will have its voice.

Free-Market Analysis: Once one understands how much of the information band British media promotions occupy, it is difficult to watch the BBC for any length of time. Watch the Beeb for a day and be educated about how to believe and what to say.

  • ISIS and Al Qaeda are shadowy Islamic terrorist groups that want to take over the world.
  • Central banks: Large and in-charge and let's keep it that way.
  • The British Empire is fallen. Britain and its City have no real power these days.
  • Large corporations are the fulcrum of the market and the predictable outcome of capitalism.
  • If wars must be fought, England will fight them and win, usually because of a certain "special relationship."
  • Scotland Yard and all the other intel agencies that swarm around Downing Street are the bitter fruit of perilous times. They are necessary and there will be more of them.
  • Global warming is the most pressing threat of the modern day.

The Beeb is a prime exponent of dominant social themes. Each finds space for elaboration on news programming. These themes, in our view, have only one aim: They promote more centralization. Centralization of money, power, health care, media, etc.

The centralization being sought is worldwide. Britain is an epicenter of globalism, a cynosure of the internationalist movement. To some degree it is an occupied country, with its "plebes" struggling along, torn by poverty and tortured increasingly by Britain's authoritarian mindset.

More:

Among the BBC top brass there is a perennial anxiety about a perceived threat to its funding. And who could blame them? Consider this: unlike any of its media competitors the BBC is able – give or take a few million – to predict what its income will be next year and the year after that. Now think how much of an advantage that gives the Corporation.

… The CMS committee went some way to acknowledging these new realities … Furthermore, the committee floated the idea that other outfits should be able to bid for some of the licence fee revenue ("top-slicing" is the ugly neologism coined for this) and suggested that BBC should cooperate with local newspapers rather than crush them with its superior financial firepower. Will all this send a shiver down the spine of Lord Hall, the Director General, and his minions, or is that the sound of a can being kicked down the road?

There is, in my view, little real chance of any government of any stripe taking an axe to the roots of the BBC. There is no doubt that BBC has real political enemies – some of whom have genuine cause for complaint about their treatment at the hands of an organisation which at heart still maintains a left-of-centre ethos.

The article goes on to inform us that the BBC is indeed "loathed" but that a lot of British citizens enjoy its social programming, which produces some splendid sitcoms and historical dramas. We also learn that, "A truly national broadcaster can and should be a unifying influence." And that in an "increasingly fissiparous" time, the Beeb has a job to do unifying the country as only it can do.

We're not so certain about this latter point. If there is any country that has been responsible for significant misery in the world, Britain ought to qualify. From its drugging of China to its rape of India to its vast and ruinous economic interference around the world via its influential Bank of England and Bank for International Settlements, Britain can hardly claim to be an unadulterated force for good.

The article does have the grace to admit that the BBC itself has come on hard times. "When I joined the BBC back in the 1970s it was taken for granted – pretty much by everyone – that the BBC was a very good thing. Almost above reproach. But that was before the blatant anti-Thatcher bias of the eighties, before the grotesqueries of the Savile revelations and – the journalistic nadir – the libellous attack on Lord McAlpine. It is clear now, to more or less everyone, that the BBC has feet of clay, just like the rest of us."

After this criticism, the article is prepared to forgive the BBC. "The BBC knows, in its heart, it has done wrong. To some extent it is a chastened institution." Lord knows where this metaphorical "heart" is located, but its continued beating is sound enough to warrant an upbeat conclusion. The article optimistically suggests that the BBC should concentrate on impartiality and on moving past the paternalism and cronyism that have marked its conduct in recent decades. The article concludes, "Well…. we can but hope."

In fact, it is difficult to see much hope unless the BBC is axed altogether. That would solve the problem of the Beeb's endlessly misleading programming. But the axing would have to be carried out by the same elite groups in Britain that have made the Beeb a household word, and its funding a mandatory provocation.

Those who derive the most advantage from the Beeb's incessant warmongering, credulous reports on the benefits of economic centralization and monetary monopolies would have to participate in the demise of their creation.

After Thoughts

"Well … we can but hope."

Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Impending Sky

    ‘ “A truly national broadcaster can and should be a unifying influence.” And that in an “increasingly fissiparous” time, the Beeb has a job to do unifying the country as only it can do.’

    After all of the crimes that have been committed in the name of cultural nationalism, the concept continues to be trotted out as an essential force for good. Why do individuals need a ‘unifying influence’ projected by elites? Are our individual identities somehow insufficient? It is plain to see that it is not the tax paying individual who benefits from these national services. But at least they get a few laughs from a sitcom distraction….

    Yes, it is a farce all around. To think that a government still steeped in landed gentry and aristocratic titles would have an interest in disassembling its manipulative institutions is absurd. The same can be said for the elected politicians. Why would they willingly relinquish power of propaganda, when they are better served by squabbling over how to best implement it?

    I am no fan of empire, but I do think the reference to the UK’s imperial past could be a bit more even handed. The regimes that were replaced by the colonies were far from idyllic freedom loving governments. George MacDonald Fraser provides an entertaining indictment of both sides in his Flashman series.

    http://libgen.org/search.php?req=George%20MacDonald%20Fraser&column%5B%5D=author

  • Dr Ronen Bergman in his book ‘The Secret War with Iran’ writes: “Another propaganda tool for Khomeini was none other than the Persian-language broadcasts of the British Broadcasting Corporation. The channel gave him a platform. His regular broadcasts made him the unchallenged leader of the Iranian revolutionary movement.”
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/10123267/how_the_bbc_helped_bring_the_ayatollah_to_power/

    Bergman draws the excusing conclusion that “Every time there is a person who is fighting ‘royal’ forces, in the sense of their being autocratic, the BBC gives them a free hand and carte blanche, without trying to understand what their views are.” and that the “BBC did not realise Khomenei’s true nature”.

    I draw the conclusion that the BBC is the tool of, amongst others, the M16 and the CIA, both of whom now admit to fomenting the 1953 Iranian coup d’état which first put the Shah into power http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat but who then progressively and sequentially became intractable to their conniving demands. (Same old story).

    • Q46

      At that time the BBC World Service, which operated a Persian language service, and which he must mean, was not part of the BBC but funded and run by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, of which it was a tool of course, from Bush House in Aldwych. Since 2012 it no longer does so having been absorbed into the BBC and resident at Broadcasting House in Portland Place.

      This has been no secret so it is surprising that Dr Bergman was not aware of it and perhaps cast light on how well he researched his book and whether his statements and conclusions generally in it are reliable.

      • To suggest that the BBC World Service ‘was not part of the BBC’ because it was funded by the Foreign Office is ridiculous, most disingenuous. If you are really stating the WS was not part of the BBC then it sailed under a false flag. I say it is indicative of the opposit – that the whole BBC is nothing less than one propaganda machine, sewing into the fabric of British life a false perspective that suits: the state, the forces behind the state and the socialist cabal that is allowed to grind the handle for the government’s selected tunes to which the public, the simians, dances.

  • The subjects of Airstrip One Colony of Oceania must ignore these proles voices, who promote the illegal “Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism” as opposed to the best interests of the colony. The BBC is a trusted division of the Ministry of Truth, under the guidance of the Inner Party, INCSOG and our fearless leader Big Brother. Oceania has always/never been at war with Eurasia/EastAsia, but once this conflict is resolved….the “Daily Bell” will be silenced and it’s readers punished.

    “Opium Wars, Britain Invades China” at researchomatic website on the 1760 to 1940 UK drug trade

    BBC Live Coverage of the Fall of WTC-7 started 20 minutes before the implosion, youtube.com/watch?v=-tGOt9f3gKk

    What part of Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-four” do you NOT see in place for the plutocrat dystopia today ? ? ?

  • AB Roadwarrior

    If only we could look forward to defunding the CBC ….

  • Bill Ross

    Defund (REFUSE to contribute to) everything that does not contribute to “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” using peaceful division of labor AKA: civilization

    http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/c1/34

    All else, BBC included is intended to provide coercion to the benefit of our owners / controllers

    and, we do not and have never needed the state to do this. Deal with your own predators (according to their chosen “moral paradigm”, what they consider “just” for you), in your own ‘hood. Like it, or not, the prey (productive) are tapped out and our organized predators / parasites will “follow the money” and war on (destroy) each other, AGAIN creating a power vacuum in which the civilized / productive can ad-hoc organize jump-starting the “next civilization” until vigilance is again lost.

    After all, History is just a litany of barbarians preying upon and collapsing civilizations. The next chapter is imminent.

    Canna hold it Capt’n – She’s gonna blow. Scotty

  • If the British government were to axe the funding for BBC, The City would, without any doubt, step up and “save” it.

  • Praetor

    Lord Reith, another fascist. Look him up, see what he had to say about Hitler! Tells you what you need to know about the B B C, and Britain.

  • Q46

    The simple solution is to privatise it, as has always been the case with State monopolies. The BBC will then have to sing for its supper like everyone else.

    The ‘unique way it is funded’ lays in the myth that absent commercial and populist pressures, instead of having to produce crowd-pleasing trash for the majority, it could produce quality stuff for minority interests. In the past it did just this and ironically, some of the quality, minority stuff turned out to be big ratings winners with the majority.

    However over the last twenty years, BBC output has turned to ratings war with ITV and Sky in the dross and trash market sector, with the BBC clearly able to out-dross and out-trash its rivals to become top of the bottom.

    The argument for its protected monopoly status, if ever it were valid, certainly is valid no more.

  • gordon

    The biased broadcasting corporation aka the bbc is long past its use by date. The was a time when it endeavoured to live up to its mandate which was (more or less) to report the news in an unbiased fashion. Not any more. Its blatant propaganda and bias in reporting world and UK news is evident even to a 5 year old. The corrupt tax dodging activities engaged in by many of its senior staff aided and abetted by the bbc are legend. Their arrogance in using taxpayer funds to feather their nests and enjoy a life style well beyond their means or ability are breathtaking, witness the 200 staffers sent to Brazil last year to “report” on the football, what a jolly that was. The million pounds plus spent on travelling (first class of course to their Manchester studios) annually because the staff refuse to leave their comfort zones in Hampstead or Islington are classic symptoms of their elitism. The time is long overdue when UK taxpayers should refuse to pay anymore fees to this deadbeat organisation.

loading