I hate the BBC.
I hate it for its political correctness. I hate it for its bias. For its constant, unbalanced criticisms of Israel. For its anti-Americanism. Its smug self-righteousness. For these things and a hundred things more. And yet. And yet.
I have just finished listening to "The Larkin Tapes" on Radio 4. An hour of subtle and thoughtful analysis of the work of a magnificent poet, featuring commentary from the very best possible observers, interspersed with some of Larkin's readings discovered on said tapes. It was tremendous.
I think that it's important for credibility reasons that those of us who hold deep concerns about the political content put out by the BBC acknowledge that some of its material is simply first class. Now: those that support the Beeb tell people like me that such high quality programming would not be produced without its unique status. I have never believed that. I have always been convinced that such work can be produced by high quality providers in the free market; that the cultural output of other nations features works just as good or better than the Beeb's; that the very success of Radio 4 and co show that an audience can be found for such things, and that the minor inconvenience of advertisements would be easily borne; that the uniquely privileged and cosseted status of this bloated organisation cannot be justified. All this, I and the opponents of the Beeb often say.
But what if we're wrong?
What if the Beeb (in its current form) were abolished, and - rather than continuing, or flourishing, as I believe they would - such programmes thereafter become an aspect of history?
It would be terrible, would it not?
[Secondary theme: those of us who call for fundamental change in the Beeb must think about this particularly carefully, it seems to me, as we would rightly be condemned for that result - and it would also blunt any ability we would have to comment on British culture more generally in the future.
If it doesn't seem too strange an analogy, let me try to put it this way. Some years ago I wrote a piece for the Daily Mail. Spicing up my verbiage a bit, a sub-editor slipped the word "chav" into the article. I make no criticism of him; it certainly illustrated the point that I was seeking to make and the choice to approve the final piece was of course ultimately mine. Anyway, it was a terrible mistake, I have been rightly criticised for it and it will, I think, come back to haunt me in years to come. I loathe the way that the white working class, who have suffered greatly under so many of the societal changes of the post-war era, is a group of people in this country at which the commentariat (not least, the BBC) seems to feel it is acceptable to sneer. But in a small way I contributed to that; not only do I regret that for the reasons I've given, but also my ability to comment on it now is blunted by the use of that term in that old article.
What if my criticism of the Beeb, and the criticisms of my fellow, um, criticisers, is a kind of uber-example of my "chav" slip? In years to come, those taking my position would find that our ability to comment on what we perceive to be our nation's degrading cultural output is terminally blunted. End of secondary theme]
So - for the first time in years, I am less than solidly certain about my position on the Beeb. Am I allowing myself to be absurdly swayed by one programme (and what it represents)? Is the Beeb actually the unique provider the traditional defenders suggest? What do you think?
