The BBC needs to start broadcasting for the public

There seems to be a growing sense that the BBC no longer possesses the consent of the people.

As a public broadcaster, the BBC is failing its duty miserably. Unfortunately, I have a natural tendency to defend the BBC, as I grew up on many of their stellar television shows, such as Fawlty Towers, The Good Life, Hancock’s Half Hour, Dad’s Army, and Blackadder – not to mention countless great documentaries. But it is the very creator of this cultural legacy which attacks and smears it regularly. For the modern BBC is not the BBC of old, it is an institution corrupted by metropolitan liberals who are out of touch with (if not ignorant of) British culture. Just recently an episode of Fawlty Towers was removed from UK television, as well as BBC-owned streaming services. The much-loved comedy was accused of being racially insensitive; the context of the episode all-but forgotten. Such an occurrence is commonplace now, with many rushing to denounce the irreverent and the antiquated; there is no room for the ‘old-fashioned’ in this day and age, unless it is branded with a trigger-warning.

Whenever the spotlight is cast upon the BBC for controversies like this we are reminded of how the institution has taken shape in the past. It is not merely a broadcast news service, but has shaped itself into Britain’s culture, too. But with great power comes great responsibility, so they say. If the BBC can indeed shape British culture, then it can surely change it too.

That is what I fear is happening at this moment. One need not go any further than the recent BBC Proms row to see this in action. The idea that British anthems like Land of Hope and Glory could be removed from the Proms would’ve shocked most people only a few years ago. And nothing has changed. People were shocked when the BBC proposed dropping this celebratory relic. In a period of much furore precipitated by the Black Lives Matter movement, the public mood greeted the proposal with indignation. Recent YouGov polling found that only 11% of British citizens would want to drop the patriotic anthems played at the Last Night, while a resounding 69% would keep them.

So why, in an institution characterised by serving the public, do we see such a discrepancy between public opinion and the BBC’s decisions? It is, I believe, because the BBC is populated by metropolitan liberals; the types who are educated in an insular inner-city atmosphere. Of course, most of Britain isn’t metropolitan or liberal, and many are quick to reject the cultural radicalism that is taking place on sects of the left. Places like London (for better or for worse) have become global hubs and cultural melting pots, and naturally that shapes the way people think. The city is so prone to the forces of globalisation that it forgets which country it belongs to, creating a cosmopolitan culture that rejects the reality of the toiling Midlander or the Northern farmer.

So forceful is this culture that it seeks to impose itself on the rest of the country, telling ordinary people who they are, what defines them, and how to think. This is where the discrepancy arises. And as long as the BBC fosters this kind of atmosphere, it will seek to change hearts and minds through what it produces. It has already made its mind up on some of the cultural debates which have defined our time: the legacy of the British Empire, the transgender issue, Black Lives Matter and many other lingering topics. Instead of inviting open debate on issues that many Britons disagree on, the BBC seeks to impose its vision onto the public, in the hopes that it’ll change the discussion; a job much less suited to a public broadcaster than it is to activist media.

What must be done when a public broadcaster fails to broadcast for the public? The language of the Royal Charter which binds the BBC to its duty evokes the spirit of the public. It stipulates that content must be produced in the public interest – the importance of public value is also stressed. Since the BBC is losing the respect of the public, it is time to ask if and how the institution can be reformed.

There seems to be a growing sense that the BBC no longer possesses the consent of the people. Even key figures at the service are plagued by animosity from both the left and right – Emily Maitlis being a clear example – while noble figures like Andrew Neil are unceremoniously cast aside.

In order to remedy this issue of consent, people have called for the BBC to be democratised, wherein the public decides who runs the ship. Given the BBC’s insular culture and apparently stiffened approach to reform, the democratic route may be the most desirable one. A vision of a more democratic BBC may look something like this. At the beginning of each new Charter, the public should be given a vote on who makes up the key roles on the BBC board; the CEO, chairman, and directors should all be held accountable to the public. This would ensure that the shows produced (on all levels) will be more in line with public demand and public opinion.

The other option is to defund the BBC. But this act would be more punitive than prescriptive, opting for a scornful blow to the liberal establishment rather than a sensible remedy. In order to bring back the BBC many once loved, it is time to assess legitimate options for reform. Seemingly, the most viable option is to democratise the service and leave it in the hands of the people. It is time for the British people to take back control of the British Broadcasting Corporation.