Something for the BBC to Bragg about

Melvyn in the 'In Our Time' studio just prior to going on air each week

As regular readers will probably know I'm a massive fan of Melvin Bragg's magnificent In Our Time (with or without the mumbling). 

His Lordship is quoted in The Times today (via The Radio Times) ascribing the popularity of his programme (including with the young) to our becoming "a more serious country", partly thanks to the recent huge spread of university education...

...a contention which might well call for that most traditional of university essay question closing commands: "Discuss". 

The Times goes on:

Of course, it's not "a week" from Friday to Monday, and In Our Time isn't a "Monday morning live show", being broadcast on Thursday, but otherwise The Times is (probably) spot-on. 

Long may 78-year-old Lord Bragg of Wigton continue to spend less than a week boning up on Bonhoeffer, Brunel, Bruegel, bird migration, black holes, Beowulf,  blogs about BBC bias, behavioural ecology, and the Boxer Rebellion, among other B-related topics (not yet including Billy Bragg) - and all subjects under every other letter of the alphabet too!

More on John Simpson

For those who would like a little more John Simpson, here's the opening of his Radio Times piece (no link available, so I'm transcribing it directly from the magazine, £2.80):

'The BBC hasn't changed'

We're not biased - it's our job to give people arguments they hate

I'm getting really fed up with the complaints and criticisms being directed at BBC News at the moment. Not so much from our usual critics, the hardliners on the left and the right, who habitually claim we're biased because we're not actually biased in their favour. No - it's middle-of-the-roaders who are doing the complaining now. 

The great majority of moderate-minded British people have always been the BBC's strongest supporters. They back us because we try to give them a balanced, unexcitable, honest view of what's going on.  

But now I find myself reading article after article in the newspapers by people who start off, "I've always been a supporter of the BBC, but...". The basic idea is that the BBC has changed. Once it was even-handed, and now look at it.  

Well, I promise you, with the perspective that 52 years of working for it gives me, it's not the BBC that's changed, it's them. Maybe it's because they're so used to social media, and hearing only the kind of views they like, that they're enraged by having to listen to arguments they hate.  

At present it's Brexit. Before that it was Scottish independence. People have allowed themselves to be persuaded that there's something wrong with being given open and unbiased information from BBC journalists. Well, I'm sorry, but I don't think any subject is too important to keep our minds closed about it.

"Well, I'm sorry, but I don't think any subject is too important to keep our minds closed about it", says the man who isn't remotely open-minded when it comes to the subject of BBC bias.

Funny old world! (updated)

Here's something we posted earlier today...with a substantial update:

The BBC is very aware of its role in shaping people’s consciousness: this is the story you should hear about, these are the people worth listening to. It’s manipulative and deeply political.

Many of us might say 'Well said!' to that. 

Who said it though? Well, it was a director who the Guardian says "has had a long and fruitful relationship with the BBC" and whose latest film (which he's presently promoting) was "made in partnership with BBC Films". 

Yes, it's Ken Loach. He wants the BBC to do more "socially conscious" TV drama - meaning, of course, more of his kind of "socially conscious" TV drama. 

(The BBC surely already does more than enough "socially conscious" TV drama of their kind?).

Well, that's how the Guardian tells it, making it mainly about him criticising the BBC.

The BBC News website also has a report on Mr Loach' comments in the Radio Times and it has a different take to the Guardian's (to put it mildly!). The BBC News account makes it sound as if Mr Loach is mainly criticising ITV (over Downton Abbey) and broadcasters in general rather than launching an onslaught against the BBC in particular.

If you have a spare few minutes, please just read the Guardian report and the BBC report side by side. They are shockingly different in where they suggest Ken Loach is laying the blame...

...and the BBC article fails to quote what I quoted at the top of this post (taken from the Guardian report) about the BBC's manipulative, political agenda.

So who's right?

Well, I've got a copy of The Radio Times and its headline is "At 80, Ken Loach is still the angry young man of cinema...and he's gunning for the BBC".

And when you read the Radio Times interview it becomes clear that the Guardian version is the correct one and that the BBC website article's version is simply a ludicrous whitewash (one so extreme it might almost make Shami blush). Red Ken really is mainly gunning for the BBC in that interview.

Here's just one example. The Guardian writes:

[He] said there was a need to “democratise” the corporation. “Diversify it so that different regions can make their own dramas. And its notion of news has got to be challenged,” he told the Radio Times.

The BBC writes:

The filmmaker also said broadcasters should "diversify" so regions could create their own drama...

The Radio Times says:

So what should be done with the BBC? "Democratise it. Diversify it so that different regions can make their own dramas."

The BBC News website certainly hasn't reported this in an impartial or accurate manner. It's remarkably, blatantly biased reporting.

"Well, George..."

And talking of the BBC News at Six...

The Radio Times 'Feedback' page has been discussing the programme's comparative merits, prompted by a 'Letter of the Week' from a couple of weeks ago (with which I strongly agree):

I would like to raise a banner for ITV News. After comparing "the Six" with the ITV 6.30pm news over many months, I am consistently staggered at how very poor the BBC news service is, and what an extremely high standard ITN offers me nightly. 

ITV News usually has more stories, much better covered, with a very high-quality team of reporters, whereas the BBC News too often comprises BBC people interviewing (or speculating with) other studio-based BBC pundits, and far fewer real newshounds filing reports, with interesting pictures, from all over the planet. Sky News and Channel 4 News - which tends to cover fewer stories, but in greater depth - are are hugely better than the BBC. (Jonathan Hewat, Wiltshire)

Gone are the days when the Radio Times 'Letters' page was a largely tepid affair, consisting of praise for BBC programmes and only the mildest of criticism (often instantly rebutted). Since the magazine became completely independent of  the BBC in 2011 sharper strains of criticism have been allowed and even courted. 

The Radio Times asked its readers what they made of Mr Hewat's comments and this week they published some of the responses - and they won't make Paul Royall's day. Though some people, in passing, said nice things about George Aligiah, Huw Edwards and BBC4's World News Today, the answer the Radio Times received could basically be summed up as 'Anyone But the BBC'.

Here's a flavour:

I've switched to ITV News. The BBC, especially at lunchtime, uses a soft, conversational delivery but I prefer a factual reading. And I don't like all the BBC's interviewing of their own colleagues. Give the top reporters time to report stories in detail, please. We're not five. (Neil Gough, Anglesey)

The excellent Sky News has much wider, deeper coverage, more professional presentation and is less parochial than the BBC, providing me with more news beyond the UK. (Chris Heane, Northumberland)

I prefer Sky News's foreign coverage. As an example of precision: the Sky News reporter from the Bo Xilai trial told us that information was coming out of the court on a Chinese feed similiar to Twitter, and named it. The BBC reporter merely said it was coming out as tweets. (Georgina Baldoun, Milton Keynes)