From: dghjkgqi@jruwhako.com   
      
   Telegraph   
      
   Caring and sharing - is this what the BBC is really for?   
   By Tom Leonard   
   (Filed: 01/07/2004)   
      
   Think of it as a bit like The Lord of the Rings," said the BBC   
   director-general Mark Thompson, as journalists filed into the launch on   
   Tuesday of the corporation's "manifesto" for the renewal of its royal   
   charter.   
      
      
      
      
      
   Observers assumed that he was referring to the inordinate length of the   
   pitch - two and a half hours of presentations, including two long speeches   
   by the chairman and D-G, a short film and, for the hardcore media   
   masochists, an accompanying 135-page document.   
   But, with hindsight, perhaps Mr Thompson was referring to the epic struggle   
   between good and evil. There was certainly a messianic feel to the BBC's   
   latest campaign to safeguard a licence-fee funded future for the next 10   
   years.   
   Michael Grade, the corporation's chairman, invoked the belief of the BBC's   
   founders that broadcasting could make the world a better place as he   
   unveiled the new buzz-phrase that must now shape the corporation's   
   thinking - "public value".   
   It is still unclear exactly what this means but a party political   
   broadcast-style film delivered large clues by focusing on the corporation's   
   good deeds - a little blind boy being helped by its internet site, the   
   success of the BBC's "action line", and so on.   
   Since EastEnders featured a key plotline about domestic violence, more than   
   17,000 phone calls had been logged by the "Hitting Home Helpline", we were   
   told.   
   Then it was Mr Thompson's turn to explain how the BBC is not just a   
   broadcaster but a social force in the land.   
   The corporation, he said, believed it was an "important builder of social   
   capital, seeking to increase social cohesion and tolerance by enabling the   
   UK's many communities to talk to themselves and each other about what they   
   hold in common and how they differ".   
   Furthermore, the BBC planned to "foster audience understanding of   
   differences of ethnicity, faith, gender, sexuality, age and ability or   
   disability, by accurately and sensitively reflecting modern Britain's   
   diversity across our programmes and opening up the BBC itself to talent from   
   every community".   
   The corporation was aware that "modern diversity isn't about political   
   correctness or narrow categories", he added. "It's about a public who are   
   eager to discover and celebrate their identity and to fully realise   
   themselves."   
   This strain of thinking was highlighted in April when the BBC produced its   
   annual statement of programme policy. For the first time, it included a   
   section entitled "The purpose of the BBC" - a mission statement that went   
   well beyond Lord Reith's guiding principles to "educate, inform and   
   entertain".   
   Its five aims are to "underpin active and informed citizenship"; "enrich the   
   cultural life of the nation"; "support the UK's role in the world"; and   
   "help to make the UK a more inclusive society".   
   All of which sounds pretty uncontentious, laudable even. Some insiders say   
   that the BBC is simply attempting, in a multi-channel age in which its   
   audience share will inevitably decline, to emphasise the social benefits of   
   its output. But sceptics both within the BBC and outside are uneasy about   
   the corporation talking up such responsibilities.   
   What, for instance, does "social cohesion" mean in practice? No dramas about   
   difficulties caused by asylum seekers? No interviews with Far-Right   
   politicians, regardless of the size of their vote? No critical coverage of   
   Islam? Would it be incohesive to show programmes that highlight the growing   
   gap between rich and poor - or would these engender jealousy and social   
   upheaval?   
   The BBC, of course, is still recovering from the most damaging row in its   
   history - a dispute that critics claimed was rooted in the fact that the   
   corporation had become too politically engaged. Of course, there is a   
   difference between the "hard" politics of the Iraq war and the "soft"   
   politics of domestic violence and multiculturalism. But critics have often   
   argued that the corporation's bias is primarily a cultural one.   
   One prominent BBC journalist said yesterday: "Where is it in the   
   corporation's remit that it must, for instance, 'help to connect the people   
   of a multicultural UK to their international roots'? This is loaded   
   language.   
   "Even Trevor Phillips, the head of the Commission for Racial Equality, has   
   said multiculturalism is 'out-of-date' and should be abandoned." Rod Liddle,   
   a former editor of Radio 4's Today programme, has in the past accused the   
   BBC of "institutionalised political correctness". He said that he was less   
   surprised by the sentiments of the BBC manifesto than by the fact that it   
   has committed them to paper.   
   "At least it's now a stated policy rather than just something we suspected   
   went on," he said. "The BBC has taken upon itself to impose upon the rest of   
   the population the views of the metropolitan elite."   
   He blames the BBC's over-weening self-confidence. "They really believe that:   
   a, they are apolitical and neutral, and b, they are doing good. And they   
   won't brook argument from those who say they're making too many political   
   assumptions."   
   David Elstein, the former Channel 5 chief and BBC executive who led a Tory   
   study into the corporation's future earlier this year, dismissed the "public   
   value" issue as "meaningless mumbo-jumbo" designed to win the BBC "political   
   brownie points". He said: "It's an improper use of the licence fee and has   
   nothing to do with broadcasting. And it's all rubbish, and quite dangerous   
   rubbish at that.   
   "If programmes are made to be socially inclusive, does that mean, for   
   instance, that England Expects - the BBC1 drama about the BNP earlier this   
   year - would have to end with blacks and whites hugging each other?"   
   Elstein argued that it was the job of broadcasters, particularly the BBC, to   
   make the best programmes they can, rather than to see them as vehicles for   
   certain social values. "The notion that the BBC thinks it is best placed to   
   do all this is absurd," he said. "These are not universal values but quite   
   judgmental ones."   
   It was no coincidence, he believed, that Ofcom, the media super-regulator,   
   had expressed similar priorities. Of Ofcom's four "core purposes" of public   
   service broadcasting, one is to "support a tolerant and inclusive society".   
   "The BBC is just recognising that, under New Labour, this sort of language   
   goes down very well. Who knows - it may go down well with the Tories, too,"   
   said Elstein. "But it's a political language and should have nothing to do   
   with broadcasting." Another senior broadcaster was more positive. "The BBC   
   has rather sensibly borrowed the rather grandiose language of Ofcom, which   
   it took in turn from the Communications Act. It's rather a smart move," he   
   said.   
   He conceded that it would be "wholly inappropriate" for any broadcaster to   
   say that it was going to forge a more tolerant society, but added: "I don't   
   think the BBC is taking on a massive social agenda so much as looking for   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)