The BBC, Trump and the destruction of trust

 Back in the period 2010-2015, when the Barnet bloggers were at the heart of the fight against the One Barnet Capita outsourcing project and major news networks would court us as it was deemed newsworthy, there was a conversation that was had dozens of times in the pub, when I spoke to sympathisers. It went a bit like this "I've had this brilliant idea, why don't you write a blog saying [SOME BONKERS MADE UP STORY THAT PORTRAYS CAPITA/THE BARNET TORIES IN A BADLIGHT]. Everyone trusts you and it will do untold damage". My answer was always the same. Absolutely no. I will pass my opinions, but when it came to facts, I never, ever printed something I didn't have the evidence to support. Why? Because as soon as you are caught telling porkies and fabricating the truth, you are done for. 

What has this got to do with the resignation of the boss of the BBC Tim Davey and Donald Trump? Well everything really. Write this date in you diary. 9th November 2025. In the UK it is 9/11. It is the date that Donald Trump won the culture war. It is the day that the BBC admitted it had deliberately misrepresented Donald Trump. You can be blameless all of your life, but if you are exposed as a liar just once, no one will ever really trust you again. Trump will now (rather dishonestly, as differet rules apply to him) dismiss everything the BBC say and no reasonable person can disagree. The BBC can change its chairman, its board, its charter, its name, but it will never be trusted again when it comes to political comments against Trump. I don't really think anyone has taken the enormity on board. What is the point of BBC verify, if they can't even verify Panorama?

I have been the BBC's biggest supporter in the face of what I have always considered blatently ignorant criticism from extreme right and left commentators, out to destroy a trusted news source. How ironic is it that the BBC has done their work for them? I feel sick to my gut. This does not mean that the BBC has no role to play. I am 100% sure it's content is more reliable than organisations such as GB New 99% of the time, but the trouble is, there is the 1% where they have been caught with their pants down.

Trump has all the evidence he needs to shrug off any revealation from the BBC, no matter how well sourced. I started writing this blog at 10.45am. I got so far and then I got to the question "what does the BBC do now to regain the faith of its viewers and listeners?". The more I thought about it, the more I realised it is like asking how can I regain my virginity. It has gone. I can repent my sins and live the life of a Saint and when future generations look at my life, they may well decide I was a saint, but I will not get my virginity back in my lifetime. The same is true of the BBC's News organisations trust. 

Of course there is more to the BBC than just news. There is the light entertainment. Shows such as Traitors and Strictly that are top of the viewing figures and we all talk about. I listen to giants of local radio like Robert Elms and Gary Crowley, but even they cannot feel as proud of their employer as they did last week. Even broadcast giants such as David Attenborough, face having their work distrusted as a result of Panorama going bad. They have all been thrown under a bus by bad journalists.

If the BBC is to survive it needs to do something, it needs to do something radical. Something I never thought I'd say. It needs to split off its news organisation into a separate entity. It needs to be lead by professional journalists who are beyond reproach and be taken out of the control of the current management, who have clearly totally failed. This will damage the BBC severely, but without trust it has no purpose. The BBC has a world beating network of journalists and researchers, this must be preserved, but it simply cannot be in its present format. I personally would merge Channel 4 and BBC News into one organisation. I would take it out from the remit of the main BBC, with a completely different management structure. I would compel the BBC to buy news coverage from them, but renew the franchise every seven years. I would run it on a commercial basis, selling news stories to other organisations. I would make it part of the licence that they must employ a well staffed news team.

I hate saying all of this. It feels fundamentally wrong. But once an organisation loses your trust, then it needs change. It may well be that the bosses can find a way to recover trust, but I cannot see how. The BBC has been synonimous with truth since its inception. It has lost this and I do not believe that the current organisation can regain it. 

If we destroy the BBC we'll kill the UK's role as a world centre of creative excellence

I am increasingly alarmed by the mounting attacks on the BBC in the press and from members of the government. Whilst it is clear that the attacks from the Murdoch owned press are purely motivated by commercial considerations (mainly that the BBC do a better job than Sky and have a far higher degree of global trust), the attacks from the Conservative political establishment are perhaps harder to understand. Whilst a naive view may say that the Conservatives are basically "anti public sector" as a default setting, this ignores the fact that people such as David Cameron and George Osborne are not stupid and cannot possibly not be properly briefed on the benefits which the BBC provide to the economy.

As many readers will be aware I run a studio complex in Mill Hill. I am running a campaign called Save London Music to try and preserve studios and music venues in London, as these are vital to preserve the leading role London plays as a creative centre in world music. We have a constant stream of well known artists passing through the studio. Just to name a couple, Martin Fry of ABC and Lee Thompson of Madness were in during the week, working on various projects. Our studios have also been used by many productions. Last year we even had Josh Homme from Queens of the Stone Age filming in Studio 1 for an episode of Toast of London. I started my career in the arts as a four year old child actor, appearing in a Tizer commercial, so have a long association with the creative industries.

I've  heard many people defending the BBC, but few make have made the most compelling arguement. This is that the BBC has made the UK develop into a world beating centre of creative excellence. Despite the fact that the UK economy and population is dwarfed by the USA, we punch way above our weight. Creative industries add £8 million an hour to the UK economy. The BBC is at the heart of this. I've heard siren voices saying "The BBC should not be playig pop music or showing programs like the Voice". Hello? Wake up and smell the coffee. How do these voices think new artists get their breakthroughs. On BBC London radio we have shows such as Gary Crowleys "BBC Introducing" which gives new artists an opportunity to be heard. We also are lucky to have Robert Elms, who regularly gets unknown artists in to play live. The Jools Holland show on BBC TV has helped launch many great artists. Perhaps the closest to my heart is Amy Winehouse, a good North London Girl and studio customer, who had her first break on Jools Holland. Many of these artists, go on to become international stars, which adds immeasurably to the UK economy and builds our national prestige. The Voice also gives unknown artists a chance to shine and build a career. As a country where music makes a huge contribution to our GDP, how can this be a bad thing.

Hosting popular shows such as Eastenders keeps the channels in the public eye. If all they made was worthy documetaries about pengiuns, the channels would soon be relegated to the outer reaches of satellite TV. The channels need prestigious shows. The likes of Sky and ITV claim the competition is unfair as the BBC are funded by a taxpayer. They should think again. Many of the most highly skilled technicians, who make their programs, start at the BBC. There is a huge well of talent in the UK, supported by the licence fee. Without this, the likes of Sky would most certainly struggle to maintain the high production standards. There is absolutely no evidence that the BBC is broken. The only argument against it is that it makes life a bit harder for foreign media moguls such as Rupert Murdoch to make huge profits. Does anyone seriously believe that Rupert Murdoch is interested in the wellbeing of the UK creative industries when he gets his papers and TV channels to attack the corporation?

The Murdoch press use the petty minded beancounter argument to attack the BBC. They suggest that because people have to spend a few pennies a day to fund the corporation, it is in some way unfair. They never mention the fact that the BBC generates perhaps 20-30 times the amount of economic benefit to the country. They never mention the fact that the BBC can promote new talent in a way a commercial venture simply couldn't afford to. They never mention the thousands of highly trained technicians who owe their careers to the BBC and then move on to private companies to ensure the UK has a huge pool of talent.

There are many reasons I write blogs. In this case it is to make sure as many people as possible understand that these attacks are not just about us being forced to pay for a few programs we don't watch. What we must understand is that these attacks are a concerted campaign by people who are not in the slightest bit interested in keeping the UK at the heart of the worlds creative industry. They are motivated by a short sighted desire to "kill the competition". Don't get me wrong, I think Sky and ITV are provide great TV. Both are excellent at what they do, but I believe that without the BBC, the UK creative industrys would wither. New artists would have no outlets to be heard on. The pool of excellent technicians would dry up and eventually we'd end up as just another third rate nation, languishing with bland radio playing old tunes and imported US TV shows. Ultimately our taxes would rise as we'd lose the £8 million an hour we get from creative industries, our studios would shut and we'd be a much poorer nation in every sense of the word. Is that what you really want?

The BNP on the BBC - An apology

I think I owe you all an apology. The whole concept of Nick Griffin of the BNP on question time was a concept I found to horrible to contemplate, so I ignored it. I went to the pub. This morning I woke up and I was confronted with the reason that I should have said something. You see when I got up at 6.45 am, I was confronted by the scene in our front room of my son, who is 9 years old, playing on the Wii with his best mate, who was having a sleepover. You may ask what all of this has to do with Nick Griffin? Well My son's best mate is 1/2 Chinese and 1/2 Croatian. If Mr Griffin had his wicked way, my son's best mate would be deported (or worse). I suddenly felt like a shabby, cowardly, good for nothing, who just hid my head in the sand. We can't stand by and give people like Griffin a platform, any sort of platform at all.

The BBC's justification for giving Griffin a platform? He's the Leader of an organisation which quite a few people are members of. So what? I read that there are more paedophiles in Great Britain than there are BNP members, but nobody would suggest for one second they should get a slot on question time, do they? Much of what the BNP advocate is illegal, many people have suffered violence at the hands of its members.

As I didn't watch his performance (why would anybody want to?), I can't comment on it, but I will say this. If he has to be on Question Time, I'd have liked to see a panel of good, solid working class Socialist activists. I sometimes think that the BBC just doesn't realise that "normal people" can and do have brains and can and do know how to get their case across. The likes of Griffin don't do irony and they don't get sarcastic. I'd like to get a few guys from the RMT down to have sorted him out.

If you talk to the chattering classes about the BNP, they fear that the great unwashed British public will be seduced by this bunch of numpties. They won't. You see the British working man views all politicians with deep suspicion. They quite rightly see the BNP as a bunch of nasty, vicious oddbods, best to be avoided. We have a tradition of live and let live. What is the best supported Football league in the World? The Premiership. What is the fourth best supported? The Championship. Teams brim with players from around the world. When someone such as Thierry Henry signed for Arsenal or Didier Drogba signed for Chelsea, did the British working class shun the teams? Of course they didn't.

Take music. Where did Jimi Hendrix, Bob Marley, Sade, launch their career? In Great Britain. We love Music of Black Origin.

Take food. If you tell the British working man, he can't have curry, chinese or a Kebab, he'll tell you to get stuffed.

I once listened to a BNP councillor saying that Muslims had contributed nothing useful in the history of the planet. This was sadly not corrected by the presenter. I was amazed that nobody saw fit to point out that Arab scholars invented mathematics and the numbering system we use. Without it, there would be no science, engineering or anything else. Of course I wouldn't expect a BNP numpty to understand that.

I see from the press that Nick Griffin is going to complain to the BBC that he was bullied. Let me tell you what bullying is. In the heyday of the National Front, which Nick Griffin was a member of, I arranged to meet a mate of mine in Ladbroke Grove for a pint. He never turned up. In those days we didn't have mobile phones. The reason? He'd been severely beaten up by a bunch of National Front supporting skinheads, for having the audacity to wait for a bus. He spent the night in casualty and the incident completely changed his personality.He ceased to be a happy go lucky, carefree soul. He became sullen, withdrawn and started smoking far too much ganja. All because some numpties didn't like the colour of his skin. That is why I hate the BNP.

So what should I have written in my blog. Well it seems that 8 million people watched the vile circus. I'd have urged everyone to :-

a) Lobby the BBC to ban Griffin.
b) Urge everyone you know to not watch the show
c) Protest outside television Centre so they get the idea that it just ain't worth it

I'm sorry.