The World Outside
The BBC knows what is good for us
Faced with the bile of Murdoch and a preying public, what can the history of the BBC tell us about defending its role in modern Britain?
John Reith and the BBC Control Board of 1933
The BBC was founded in 1922 by John Reith, a strict Presbyterian from Aberdeen and former Major in the Royal Marine Engineers. He had a deep scar below his left eye from a shrapnel wound suffered during World War I, and uncompromisingly paternalistic views about the role of culture in a society. In other words, he was about as different as you can imagine from those arts graduates who now inhabit the corporation, armed with black rimmed glasses and trendy politics.
It was John Reith who devised the BBC’s motto: ‘Educate, inform, entertain’. This remains the institution’s motto to this day, but one gets the impression that current employees at the BBC are a little less willing to espouse it. Such unwillingness explains the serious difficulty that the BBC has developed in justifying itself to aggrieved licence payers and the contemptuous private sector. The BBC’s fundamental role is out of kilter with contemporary values, and it can no longer find the words to defend its existence. However, this is the fault of contemporary values and not the BBC. To stop this magnificent institution from withering away, we must revive its original ideal.
John Reith saw the socially “improving” role of the BBC as a necessary corollary of Britain’s emerging democracy. His no holes barred way of expressing this belief makes him sound ultra right-wing to the modern ear, but in the context of his time he was nothing of the sort. Reith believed that culture was a “healthy agent of repression”, and claimed that “the best way to give the public what it wants is to reject the express possibility of giving the public what it wants”. Therefore, he aimed to pitch the output of the BBC consistently above the intelligence of the average viewer, in the hope that ‘the supply of good things will create the demand for more’. This ethos defined the BBC in its early years, and a favourite boast of its early publications was of the sighting of an errand boy who whistles Bach.
This uncompromising ideal was undoubtedly taken too far by Reith, and he earned the scorn of the tabloid press for the BBC’s dry output. However, when applied in moderation, these so called ‘Reithien values’ are absolutely vital. There is no doubt that the BBC still fulfils them admirably. A host of its shows such as Newsnight, Planet Earth and Question Time would never survive on commercial television, but it would be devastating if they disappeared. The BBC’s trouble is not so much its output, but its self-defence. It is still a bastion of education and information, but the parameters of public debate do not allow it to justify itself as such for fear of coming across as ‘preachy Aunty Beeb’. In an age of egalitarianism, cultural relativism and intellectual freedom, the idea of a public service broadcaster knowing what is best for us simply does not hold.
However, I cannot help but believe in what Reith stood for. Mind you, I would not want to admit this in front of a thick-necked Sun reader with a crew cut by telling him that “you should pay your licence fee because high culture and informed debate should be kept on the airwaves”. Nevertheless, I do believe this to be true.
The BBC is an odd ideological hybrid. Its public funding is often characterised as ‘left-wing’, but its paternalistic aim to provide culture and information untainted by the philistinism of the private sector is undoubtedly conservative. To survive the onslaught of Murdoch, the BBC must once again defend itself as a bastion of civilised values. In keeping with Reith’s vision it should scale back its costs and operations away from competing with the private sector. The likes Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand have very little place at a Public Service Broadcaster. Many of its problems could then be solved by scrapping the hated licence fee (which is increasingly groundless in the age of iplayer) and running the BBC on government and lottery funding. Thus, the BBC could become smaller, but far better geared towards its original intentions.
If you have ever switched on the television during a bored moment whilst on holiday abroad, you will know why the BBC is the envy of the rest of the world. Gaudy programmes, endless adverts and lowest common denominator junk dominate commercial TV. When it comes to culture, we rarely know what’s good for us. That is why we need the BBC.
Topics: BBC, Culture, Media, Politics
Good point. The BBC seems stuck in a vicious cycle: if it pays large sums for popular shows (Ross, Match of the Day, Mad Men) it’s criticised for wasting money; if not, people are paying the licence fee for something they don’t watch. Perhaps it should go down the same route as universities and just say “Fuck it, this is good for you.” Huzzah for elitism?
I second that. I think the BBC is, in all seriousness, quite possibly Britain’s finest national treasure. Mistakes have been made recently with regards to wages dolled out to on-air talent and its armies of executives and middle-managers. However, let’s not throw the baby out with the non-compostable goods. If you need proof of the need for the BBC in these turbulent modern times, just turn on ITV for FIVE SECONDS. The licence fee is £142.50 a year; that’s the best bargain since the Earl of Elgin turned up in Greece and took a shine to a load of marble friezes.
If the BBC is allowed to dwindle away into insignificance it will be a fucking tragedy.
Hmm that’s interessting but to be honest i have a hard time understanding it… wonder how others think about this..
we rarely know what’s good for us. That is why we need the BBC.
If the BBC is allowed to dwindle away into insignificance it will be a fucking tragedy.
OH MY GOD, I always wandered why people treat the BBC like a water (basics of life) providing company. (water charge £4.00 per week with no obligation – the BBC charge £5.50 per week with obligation, with out the government funded part)
I congratulate the BBC for its PR ability (thanks to the 8 billion) to manipulate (make them think like they need it like water)but I also wish I was an animal, rather than having to engage with such littlens.
i am still shocked by how people perceive the institute, but i forgot, that an income of 8 Billion, allows you to spend 7 Billion in indirect advertising and promoting, manipulating and creating an atmosphere.
that i forgot, hence please ignore my mail above, not that there will be any reasoned reader out there by the looks of it.
If the BBC knows what’s good for us, there’s clearly something I’m missing on BBC3.
John Reith founded the BBC when it was the only broadcaster in the country. The public service argument worked when people were forced to watch or listen to a documentary on Byzantine history for lack of available alternative, but not when they have the choice (and more often than not, the inclination) to switch over to Hotter than my Daughter. As it stands, the BBC merely duplicates programmes made in the private sector, and uses the surplus it gains from such an advantageous monopoly position to subsidise the viewing and listening habits of a minority of individuals.
The BBC at present is a self-serving institution; it is restrictive, regressive, moralising and anti-competitive(only the BBC, at its peak, could have afforded to pay Jonathan Ross £12m),. Programmes akin to Blue Planet and newsnight ARE produced in the commercial sector: the only difference is that people have a choice as to whether they pay to watch them or not. If the BBC is the envy of the World, then why is it that the best drama of recent years has been produced by HBO, a subscription television channel?
The argument for forcing every TV watcher in the country to pay a license fee is no-more convincing than that of a forced national museum subscription. Even if the museums began to offer free beer (or sweets) to get people through the doors and claim everyone got value from their subscription, the high art viewed by those who went for the cultural value would not justify a forced nationwide subscription.
The truth is that museums offer a useful template for the provision of that minority of BBC programming such as Radio 4 and the World Service which would not be offered by the private sector – a mixture of donations, lottery and if necessary, government funding will be enough to ensure that our output is the envy of the world, whilst retaining a much fairer system for the average TV viewer.
Obviously the best programs are HBO because it is American! Did you expect BBC to hire American writers, directors and actors and go and film in America?
In fact, a lot of those American shows actually are coproduced by the BBC (Band of Brothers etc). HBO relies on the BBC more than you think.
The public service broadcasters (BBC and C4) regularly get nominated for the best miniseries Emmy (as our series are so short compared to theirs).
Public service broadcasting in this country *is* the envy of the world. Compare programs like Newsnight, Louis Theroux, Unreported World with their ITV/C5 counterparts – the public ones are thoughtful and educational, the private ones are sensationalist at best and libel at worst.