Paul Dacre had an interesting rant against the BBC in yesterday's Guardian, based on a lecture he gave at the College of Communication. As he says, the BBC is ideologically biased. But then, so is the arts establishment. And British academia. It's not specific to BBC staff, it's general to the cultural elite of this country, for reasons which Dacre doesn't attempt to examine.
Although his article is worth a quick read, there are a couple of supplementary points that could be made.
1) Dacre fails to mention that the Daily Mail has itself contributed to the rot. The Mail is far more mediocratic than it was ten years ago. It's more sympathetic in many of its articles to the pro-statist perspective, and it's definitely more dumbed down.
2) To describe the state of the British newspaper industry as "journalistic pluralism" seems a tad exaggerated. The vast majority of journalists subscribe to the standard belief system of the il-liberal elite: the supposed benevolence of the welfare state; the importance of "social cohesion" (whatever that's supposed to mean); the admirability of contemporary culture; and so forth.
3) Dacre claims the BBC is sympathetic to "minority rights" and "progressiveness in the education and the justice systems". You really shouldn't use those phrases without qualifying them, otherwise you fall straight into the left wing trap: believing the rhetoric that their interventions are really all about "rights" and "progressiveness". The il-liberal consensus is not about genuine rights. And it's not progressive, it's regressive.
4) Dacre predicts that if the BBC continues with its "abuse of trust, then the British people will withdraw their consent and the corporation will fall into discredit." Wishful thinking, Mr Dacre, assuming you even believe that. The British government, the state education system and the NHS have continued with their abuses of trust for many years, but consent has not been withdrawn. Now that a majority of British people are educated in comprehensive "schools", the capacity of the average citizen to question ideology handed down from above has become too weak to generate meaningful dissent among more than a minority.
The online comments on Dacre's article, predictably, are mostly of the "bog off, you right wing hack" variety. However, I found this one interesting.
4 comments:
It's funny, every time there is a tabloid manufactured scare, the size of the state increases.
Whether it's paedophilia, escaped prisoners or Victoria Climbie, the tabloids always demand government action.
You are right, the Daily Mail is statist. Every time it screams "something must be done" someonehas to do it and that person is usually another civil servant. Then it complains about tax increases!
I have pretty mixed feelings about the Mail by now. I think the Mail must have mixed feelings about the Mail by now, given its ambivalence about the state! Still, it is the only mainstream British publication which is not afraid to highlight PC madness. This seems to be the real reason it is despised by "right-thinking" folk. I therefore tend to be automatically suspicious of anyone who rubbishes it. It's just too easy and handwaving a thing to do, as a way of establishing one's membership of a supposedly enlightened elite.
I think Melanie Phillips epitomises the Mail and gives me similar feelings of ambivalence. She is brave enough to censure ideology in education etc; on the other hand, is she really a right wing authoritarian? She talks a lot about "morality" which I think is a bad sign.
Still, it is the only mainstream British publication which is not afraid to highlight PC madness.
Hurrah!!! I'm not terrifically keen on The Mail, but I'm heartily sick of smug, deluded fashion-victims snorting in derision at the mere mention of the paper. What a welcome change to hear it applauded for its steadfast anti-PC stance --- and by an ex-Oxbridge don.
Do you realise how rare you are?
..You really shouldn't use those phrases without qualifying them, otherwise you fall straight into the left wing trap: believing the rhetoric that their interventions are really all about "rights" and "progressiveness"...
Have to agree again. And the thing about not speaking on the state system until you've experienced it. Why do I keep thinking of The Wall?
Post a Comment