BBC and Sceptre

If there's one thing the BBC does well (and the BBC still does many things well) it's covering major royal events - despite the glaring exception of the BBC's 2012 Diamond Jubilee coverage, which was widely considered a fiasco. 

I agree, for example, with what seems to be the general sentiment that their coverage of the Harry-Meghan wedding was excellent. None of my royalist friends at work found anything to object to, or even thought of finding anything to object to. I can well imagine that 18 million of HM's UK subjects watched it, someway or other, mostly on the BBC.

Republicans (of the anti-monarchy rather than the elephantine US kind) accuse the BBC of "fawning" and being "sycophantic", and are doing so again tonight as BBC One marks 65 years since Her Majesty's coronation by re-broadcasting an hour-long programme called The Coronation (see here) soon followed by a Countryfile 'Royal Special' from Windsor.

This is an odd one as far as BBC bias matters are concerned. You wouldn't expect left-liberal metropolitan BBC types to be royalist - and the BBC Twitter accounts I follow show that many if not most of them are deeply cynical about the monarchy (just as expected) and enjoy cheerily quipping at the monarchy's expense.

But I also see BBC people - often including the self-same cynics - then exulting in just how good the BBC is at covering such events and sounding as if they're cheerfully getting caught up in the royal event themselves.

So, adopting a hand-wringing pose, should the BBC be biased in favour of the British monarchy when a small but not negligible proportion of the population is in favour of abolishing the monarchy? 

Well, we are a constitutional monarchy, and most people still seem to support the monarchy. (Declaration: I'm an arch-royalist). The BBC must reflect that and play its constitutional part. If sentiment changes and we become a republic then the BBC should support the new republic and play its new constitutional part.

As they say on exam papers, discuss (if you want to)...

One who looks on and watches

My copy of The Spectator awaited me when I got home from work last night and, beginning at the beginning, it was interesting to note just how much 'BBC stuff' there is in it, starting with Justin Webb's 'Diary' in which Our Justin pays a handsome tribute to his friend John Humphrys, describes his (partial) fondness for his  regular Twitter critics - especially the astrology correspondent of The Lady - and talks about CNN's Christiane Amanpour, who (as you may recall) recently co-hosted Today. Our Justin deliberately let slip an interesting nugget about the CNN star: "When she guest-presented the Today programme recently, she came with a helper who carried her jacket to the studio". As Justin said, she's now "terribly grand".

Then came Charles Moore writing about Sunday evening's The Coronation on BBC One and how "it never explained or even mentioned that the ceremony in which the anointing and the putting on the crown were framed was the communion" and didn't tell viewers that the Queen's taking of communion during her coronation was considered "too sacred a moment for the cameras to film", thus meaning that "the shape of the service could not be understood". Why did the BBC omit those facts? Mr Moore speculates that one reason could be that "the wholly Christian (and specifically Anglican) nature of the entire thing" might have been "considered a slightly tricky subject" by the BBC - which, if true, would be quite something.

And then came Ross Clark registering some qualms about the possibly highly dire unexpected consequences of concerted action to tackle "the great plastic panic" - a 'panic' provoked by distressing scenes involving albatrosses and whales on Sir David Attenborough's landmark BBC One series Blue Planet II. If nothing else this demonstrates the remarkable power of a BBC programme to rouse certain sections of the public (including me via Springwatch) - and, even more so, politicians (following those sections of the public) - into a determination that 'something must be done' and that 'lots must be said' about doing it. 

And finally (so far, as I've not finished reading it yet) came Rod Liddle discussing BBC Women, via a brief review of a science fiction BBC drama called Hard Sun "where the head of MI5 is a Nigerian woman and everyone else in it lives in a mixed-race family". Rod says this is typical BBC "PC social engineering". Worse, it has an "imbecilic plot". He's not tempting me to watch it. As for those revolting BBC Women, he hasn't any kind words for them either, particularly for the way they tried to get John Humphrys sacked. 

Listen, very stupid BBC Women: simply because you believe something, it doesn’t make it the truth. Other people are still allowed opinions, even if they dare to counter your own. My view about people who work for a news organisation yet have a totalitarian approach to diverse opinions is that they should be sacked immediately. That probably includes one of the leading lights of BBC Women, Jane Garvey. It is fine for Ms Gravy to subject the nation to the outdated, boring, misandrist, middle-class moanfest of Woman’s Hour (which she does on those days when her domestic schedule allows), but heaven forefend if someone challenges the tendentious victimhood rot her show puts out every day. Sack him!

Isn't "the outdated, boring, misandrist, middle-class moanfest of Woman’s Hour" such a good way of describing it?