1

BBC Dilemma

28/03/09

Is the World Service making a ghastly mistake?

I was put onto this by a Russian friend who is concerned – as many people seem to be – that the BBC World Service’s policy of relocating journalists for the Russia and Asia services closer to their countries will lead to a reduction in quality, because in many cases it simply won’t be safe for journalists and editors to speak the truth. [OpenDemocracy][moreOD][expressindia] 

The BBC argues that it’s about getting feet on the ground. It’s notable that there’s a reduction in cost for the Beeb in doing things they way they’re doing them.

I don’t know enough about this to be sure what’s going on. Several things occur to me:

I have always assumed that the BBC World Service was an invaluable tool in putting our point of view to the world at large. I have also been told that the World Service was the only source of reliable news in any number of countries where local news was controlled by the state, and that this is still the case.

It may be that it’s increasingly tricky for our government to deal with countries whose leaders the BBC World Service takes to task on Human Rights and so on, because the Beeb is a state broadcaster. The President of Bastardistan may not be too impressed to hear he’s been described as a bloody handed tyrant on Desert Island Discs just before he has a meeting with our ambassador. And it’s not always easy to explain the concept of a free press. In a more media-conscious world, foreign leaders may be waking up to this situation and making pointed remarks about it. Possibly the government would rather this aspect of the Beeb faded away.

(If so, I’d say it was a bloody shame and they should grow a spine. Anyway.)

If this is a deal that’s been done, we should know what we got in return, because I doubt it’s worth it.

If it’s cost cutting, well, it’s not a great place to cut costs. We really do want to be offering our point of view to Asia right now, all things considered.

Belike, it’s a stubborn, bureaucratic cockup.

Anyway, there’s a petition here, although I’m not crash hot keen on the adversarial tone; I think the first thing I want is for this to get covered and discussed so I can figure out what’s going on. However, it may be I’m just ignorant. 

I reckon you can make your own judgement.

One Comment to “BBC Dilemma”

  • Matt Keefe said on March 29th, 2009:

    On balance, I’ve decided not to sign the petition, Mr. Harkaway, sir, though I find the issues raised both fascinating and troubling and thank you for the post.

    I agree with everything you say about the World Service being the only reliable source of news in many parts of the world; I have heard much the same view expressed by those who would know and who have had to rely upon it for that very reason. The difficult part for me is when it comes to ‘putting our point of view to the world at large’. Here I worry whose view is actually put forward – the World Service isn’t funded out of the licence fee pot, it’s paid for by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office. It has statutes intended to ensure editorial independence, but they’re not quite (so far as I know) identical to the editorial standards of the BBC at large. I don’t therefore know whether ‘our point of view’ boils down to being a typically-BBC assessment of the world – one therefore grown out of some very high journalistic standards, some very moral guidelines on impartiality and fairness, and some highly knowledgeable reporters – or one just a little bit more shaped by the diplomatic stance of the British government. I’d have concerns over the latter; I’m sure it’s not strongly in evidence, but is that funding link a weakness in the good the service is doing? I don’t honestly know.

    That’s perhaps not of central relevance to the issue raised in your post, but it is one reason I’ve decided not to sign the petition – I’m concerned by the changes you report, but I’m not entirely certain what the status quo, or alternative change, that is being petitioned for actually is.

    I actually think the broadcasting of the World Service is at least as important as its reportage. One of the demonstrably great things about the BBC is its rapid adoption of viewer comment, and that means viewers from all over the world – the ‘Have Your Say’ section on the website regularly reveals contributors from all over the world (including many of the countries where the World Service may be an almost lone beacon of freedom), and I think of programmes like Question Time Extra on the BBC News channel, which follows up panellists’ answers with comments texted or emailed in by the public, are immensely democratic. I think it’s functions like those which could take the World Service’s reportage and make it genuinely a tool of freedom. Free reporting is, of course, an absolute prerequisite for this kind of viewer-involvement to begin, but I think a great many of the problems surrounding that could be allayed by the World Service broadcasting the comments of local people. The identities of those commenting in such countries could easily be protected (they essentially are already – it’s why the internet is so feared by tyrants), and hearing such voices would allay various dilemmas about the service, I think. So the Bastardistan government takes a dim view of the World Service’s coverage of their ‘anti-terror investigations’, and makes it known to Her Majesty’s Most-Grey-Suited that they do, but what answer do they have when its the Bastardistani’s themselves texting in to say that ‘President Bastardyev is a nyezakonnorozhdyenniy’?

    In short, I’d like to see the World Service protected, and indeed improved upon in some ways – in the end, I’m not quite sold on that petition as the way to do it, I’m afraid.

    Can I also just quickly say that you’ve got the most demanding anti-spam device I’ve ever encountered. This time it’s asking me to input ’3¼ issuing’. I’ve had to open a MS Word document specially so I can cut-and-paste the correct character for the quarter into the filter.

Add your comment: