Pls help save the BBC, one of our last, best media outlets!

[snot]

(I am re-posting this here at the request of Nothing Without Hope. The original thread is at: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=376080 . Please see esp. Peace Patriot's post # 6 for some union contact info plus my post # 9 for a form letter you can use.)

Many of you have cited or relied on stories from the BBC regarding a variety of very important issues. Imagine the fix we'd be in if the BBC came under Blair's control and all those interesting stories never came to light. (Even if you're resigned to getting all your news on the 'net, we're a long way from replacing the BBC's large number of high-quality reporters scattered over the globe.)

That terrible scenario may be about to become fact.

Pending changes at the BBC would, among other things, replace the BBC's governing board in charge of assessing BBC "performance" with a group of trustees selected by Tony Blair. Also planned are cuts of 3,800 - 4,000 jobs and privatization of parts of BBC operations. More details are set out below.

I'm not sure what we can do about this, but I think it's extremely important that folks the world over who care about news should at least understand the implications of what's happening and raise an outcry AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

My review of the pending changes at the BBC has been superficial, but still better than what I've seen in any reports. I looked at the BBC "Green Paper", the most detailed description I've found on the 'net of government plans for job cutbacks (3,800 - 4,000) and privatization of portions of BBC operations. The Green Paper can be downloaded here: http://www.bbccharterreview.org.uk/have_your_say/green_... .

I noted a number of features that raise troubling questions for me:

1. The BBC's current governing body is to be replaced by a Trust. The trust members are to be recommended by the Prime Minister. The reason given for establishing the Trust as the BBC's governing body is supposedly that the old Board was both the management and the body in charge of assessing BBC performance, and that this involved a conflict of interest.

This sounds reasonable, until you consider that the Prime Minister has been in direct conflict with the BBC over its reporting on him; so putting him in charge of selecting its trustees would seem merely to be replacing one conflict of interest with another one of much more serious import.

2. More programming is to be privatized. C.f. the U.S. use of private contractors in Iraq, or in electronic election technology--by no means perfectly similar, but illustrates the dangers. To me, looks like maybe they don't trust BBC staff to make programs that suit them, so by outsourcing to their buddies, Blair et al. can both enrich the latter and ensure coverage that's more favorable, conservative, or at least innocuous to Blair et al. (Would some reporter pls look at how many new little production companies are being formed in the U.K. right now and by whom?)

3. The Trust is supposed to be made more responsive to the desires of the public. The public's wishes are to be assessed through research. The paper doesn't address who does the research or how. (C.f. Tomlinson’s use of pollsters in the U.S. re- NPR.)

4. The justification for the staff cutbacks is that funds are needed in order for the BBC to take the lead in bringing about a "digital switch-over" accessible to "have-nots" as well as "haves". I'm no geek, but off-hand, it seems arguable that this means cutting back on news staffing in order to ensure future HDTV sales, or something like that. But someone who knows better than I can perhaps explain.

I simply don't have the time or expertise to do the kind of analysis that needs to be done, but I am truly horrified that no one else seems to be noticing what's going on.

The unions affected by the job cuts have been striking, but last time I checked their sites, perhaps understandably, the focus was entirely on those cuts--whether they're justified, how remaining staff will be stretched, etc. I’m not sure they can be expected to fully represent all of the public’s interests at stake. Nonetheless, it would probably help to express our support. Peace Patriot compiled some contact info here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... .

Please also express your objection to the changes at the BBC website here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ifs/hi/newsid_4000000/n... .

However, I feel it's also extremely important that we try to raise awareness of this issue through other outlets. I've blasted the media and my friends (including my sole friend with contacts in Britain), but please lend your voice to mine!

And please help spread the word in every other way you can think of!

Thanks.

[candy]

1. Maybe it's Al Jazeera's turn---everything cycles-always has,always will

.

[madrchsod]

2. bad bbc links

[snot]

3. Updated BBC links

To view the Green Paper: http://www.bbccharterreview.org.uk/have_your_say/green_paper/greenpaper_home.html

To comment, try here:

http://www.bbccharterreview.org.uk/have_your_say/green_paper/greenpaper_home.html#2

[davelyoung1]

4. Comment on Foxnews

I tried to listen to all news programs to diversify my opinions. Then I found myself being divided among lines of hate, by people who were reporting the news, who were acting as dictators and politicians. With every one wanting to be judge and jury for America, I was watching not news but a raunchy talk show of sneers and innuendo, each one trying to outdo the others putdown. They were reporting actors who use intimidation and harassment because a jury’s decision did not mirror their choice. Who decided on their own, stated that a country was an enemy and needed to be punished. Who on their own, without physical evidence (like Newsweek was supposed to do), reported gossip to inflame its audience. What Americans were traitors and who were true saints. To dramatize stories into a feeding frenzy by putting on, so called experts; seldom balancing them in equality. The color of diversity can be easily seen in the makeup. Anyway, news is not a propaganda machine, like that of a communist nation, but a free press just reporting the facts in the truth without comment, to let the viewer decide what to think.

Part of poem and comment "Compassion Of Uniting Upon Blood" about the need to moderare upon the bloods of equality.