Aunty and me

A wee while ago I noticed that a lot of what ends up here is about the BBC.

No real surprise: as my national broadcaster, and the entity I co-fund with the rest of the country, I end up watching its output a lot as it is pervasive (I really do not like ads ruining programmes, despite being one who has/does created/s them), I'm 'used' to it and, self-evidently, what Aunty says and does interests me. It is, for sure, my primary source of news, if not entertainment.

And I actual wrote what was a pretty long essay on how I felt about her, pro and con. It was frank, honest and I thought it fair. Then Blogger went and eat it. I was livid. So livid I did not return to try again until, well... now.

I do so because more water has passed under the bridge, and while most of it is higher and murkier, I feel I owe it to a few to share that I appreciate what they do, and have often done for me.

I just wish I could remember all the points that I made, but here goes....

Some have called for Aunty to be abolished. I think this is silly. And unnecessary.

Though I do not pretend to be well-versed is the details of politics, I do have a fair grasp of how unique the British Broadcasting Corporation is, and how it is integrated uniquely (hold that word in mind) into the British public's psyche.

But let's also be pragmatic. It's a £3.5B, publicly-funded, multi-x0,000 public paid & pensioned-servant strong quango behemoth, spanning the whole country and the globe.

They are not going anywhere in a hurry, if at all. It would make a lot of figures look bad, in every sense of the word, at home and abroad.

But let's use that sentence above to look at some detail.

£3.5B is a lot of wonga. And it comes from thee and me, in the form of the licence fee. Whether we like it or not. That, for a 'service', is... cute. And we're not talking essentials here, like the bins or even the DVLA. This is a TV and radio station.

Yet the accountability is near zero. As you go up the chain, from the laughable Newswatch, through the template-cranking complaints procedure to the mis-named on every level Trust, there are a bunch of folk who get to play with our money and yet brook, because they don't need to, any accountability, responsibility or oversight.

And that was OK for a while, because they had some sense of ethics and moral values and professionalism.

Now, however, the guys at the top are greedy, career-driven, and infected with an odd sense that the power they have unwisely been bestowed allows them to pursue agendas they see as god-given to promote by being gifted with being 'right', and without the curse of anyone needing to vote them in or out to do what they do if this notion is not shared.

And that... trust... has for too long been totally abused and corrupted, time and time again.

Which brings me to the money. If you have an open chequebook, you will write cheques, over and over again. Yes, there is a budget, but it seems to be so elastic as to require rubber cheques to cover it. Now, there may be checks and balances, but when I see overspends in areas running to tens of millions without consequences bar a nasty Daily Mail headline, I do have to wonder if the lunatics in charge of the asylum have been caught in bed with a goat by the BBC, who has the pictures.

Like most, I sort of tolerated this whilst it was 'nothing really to do with me'. And even when my sense of balance and professional rigour with such as science-based objective reporting was being affronted, contented myself with a snarky post here or elsewhere, to go 'Yer... guys, they are awful, eh?'.

However, as my money seemed being hoovered into commercial entities that ended up competing with me (BBC Green), like others (Lonely Planet) I started to wonder what the heck was up with that. And still do.

The BBC is, currently, a mess. It does make the odd nifty programme, but that's it. The news agenda is, IMHO, hopelessly corrupted by agenda, as are too many areas of social importance, especially the environment. The lure of ratings, which serve only as a measure of worth to justify 'industry-standard' (sans pension and job-for-life perks being factored in) salaries has led to talentless business makeweights taking the easy option on dross and the pay of 'celebrities' without whom I am sure many could do if given the option. This is a vehicle that exposes those on it to 60M folk. Many would kill to get a chance to show what they can do to this audience. If Jonathan Ross can get it from ITV... feel free. If he moves, what, people will stop watching TV?

And then there is the rise of the commentator. On broadcast, and more recently on blog (though oddly posts online are deemed personal, despite being headed 'BBC' and don't count if wildly partisan...apparently), we are served the personal opinions of folk who matter not a jot, save for the kudos being seen on TV gives any human being. They are there only by the grace of a long, noble, and trusted brand, The BBC. That is a calling card whose value is eroding very fast.

I'll wrap up here. One important thing is the fact that I, as do others (including those within it, I suspect), refer to this entity.. 'the BBC'. It is a convenient description, to be sure. But, as acknowledged above, it is an entity of many tens of thousands of individuals.

They cannot all be tarred with the same brush, nor should they be. I have met, talked to and dealt professionally with many over the years, and like any segment of humanity, or business, you get all sorts. From the senior editor who was polite and helpful, to the local reporter that thought the sun shone out of the exhaust pipe of her company radio car.

Those that care still, more power to you. Those who have sold out to a very worrying, selfish, deluded group think, be worried... be very worried.

I had an Aunty once who, when I was young, I respected because of her age and reputation. Then I got older and wiser, and when she tried it on without anything to support her attempt, she regretted it.

Addendum:

I have of late been a bit concerned, and vocally opposed to folk 'speaking for me' when they don't.

As a behemoth the BBC obviously does not 'speak' for all those within it as one, any more than it should for me.

However, that word 'British' does add a quirk to the mix, especially with a large % of its vast output going overseas. Even more so when I am cofunding it, albeit reluctantly. That is not a distinction that may often be made when one of Aunty's sons or daughters comes out with something that may not play well in Preoria... and she does nothing about it if unwarranted.