At the suggestion of Peacepatriot, I am reposting this with a few changes and a more attention-getting title. You can find the original thread at:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=375060#375482 .
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. I hope we all understand how crucial the BBC has been in bringing to light David Kelly's allegations, the Downing St. memo, etc. etc., and how much Tony Blair might like to suppress such reporting. Also pending are cuts of 3,800 - 4,000 jobs and privatization of parts of BBC operations. It appears to me that the pending changes have the potential to destroy the BBC as we know it. 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.
My review of the attack on 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_paper/greenpaper_home.html#1 .
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. The Trust is supposed to be made more responsive to the desires of the public. (Nevermind that 3/4 of the public were perfectly happy with the BBC sans any of these changes.) The public's wishes are to be assessed through research. The paper doesn't address who does the research or how.
3. 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.
4. 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, they can both enrich them and ensure coverage that's more favorable, conservative, or at least innocuous to them. (Would some reporter pls look at how many new little production companies are being formed in the U.K. right now and by whom?)
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.)
You can express your objection to the changes at the BBC website here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ifs/hi/newsid_4000000/newsid_4000500/4000545.stm .
However, I feel it's important that we try to raise awareness of this issue through other outlets. I've blasted the U.S. media with this info, and also tried sending a general comment to the Noam Chomsky site.
Obviously, the bigger the outcry, the better. Please help spread the word in every way you can think of!
Thanks.