Dear Points of View, I have noticed BBC News has been ignoring shit. Could you please get them to stop ignoring shit? I’m starting to make shit up.
Am I a conspiracy theorist? I suppose I am. Most of us are. There is plenty of ‘theorising’ about conspiracy whirling around my mind, though I am not convinced by much of it. The nature of a conspiracy is secrecy, and err… conspiring, which usually results in any potential evidence being unavailable to the average John-and-his-blog. Yet, some things just nag and nag and nag. And the thing that is nagging me is the current status of the BBC’s supposed independence. In all my 30-odd years the BBC have always seemed to be fair and unbiased. Despite occasions of hyperbolic flag waving, in times of ‘altruistic’ conflict and Royal lavations, the BBC has supplied me with education and entertainment. So why is the independence of the BBC nagging me now? Well, maybe because it seems to have been perniciously compromised.
Let me just point out that it is specifically the televisual news broadcasting that has set the rat to gnaw at my skull. There has become a massive disparity between what is being televised on the BBC, and what is evidently not. In my recollection, from around the time of Occupy London, the BBC has purposely ignored essential stories of public interest that would reflect badly on government from a social position. The NHS’s privatisation, the removal of legal aid, the economic policy of quantitative easing, the economic pursuit of debt and speculation, financial corruption within the City of London, student loan sale to private investors, the misrepresentation of government figures, protest, ideological austerity, welfare reforms, workfare, lobbying, and the corporate vested interests of MPs and Lords are all cases and causes easily found and documented on the internet, but are seldom uttered, or are glossed over, on the BBC’s news. I will refrain from drowning myself in segues as the subjects above are already too big for my meagre commitment, and more would only result in incoherence.
The inner workings of the BBC are a void to me. Making a link to a nefarious power, or conflicts of interest that would explain the perceived disparity are beyond me. There must be good journalists and good people working at the BBC, but they have somehow been shut down. The previously outspoken sources on social issues have become either silent, impoverished, or emptied from the cutting room’s recycle bin. In these antagonistic times it seems inconceivable that the BBC can only find benign government friendly subjects to report on. Maybe the BBC is scared. Perhaps, they feel if they rock the boat the Tories will destroy their funding? Demanding silence with menaces. Swing the effigy of Jimmy Savile about and *BANG!*… the government can break the BBC up and sell it to their cronies at Sky (with a television licence fee inducement). That is just one of my dramatisations… There are more.
On the BBC’s public purposes the word ‘maintain’ appears so often that, in the light of my naked suspicions, it sounds like a cry for help “Please, we need to maintain and sustain.” It is the one occurrence of the word ‘truth’ that saddens me the most because it seems they have decided it is a subjective truth, not the objective kind, regarding political machinations that will be disseminated to the “civil society” they cherish. Whilst civil society has its prejudices massaged it is distracted from questioning those government ministers who grant financial subsidies to family members in the dismantling of our futures. There are many similar scenarios being perpetrated through sleight of mind. Perhaps, my questioning of fluency heuristics coupled with the lack of confirmatory reporting are the main players in my suspicions and fabrications. Regardless of my fantasy, it is hard to deny the BBC’s manipulations and inductions towards ignorance, through constraints on knowledge, and ideological indoctrination, through reduced narrative.
The plain fact is the BBC are an outlet that can influence what people think about. The passive nature of TV means they have more reach than any newspaper, or any of the sources of links above. If NHS privatisation does not appear on the news, then it follows that people do not think about the privatisation of the NHS. BBC News cannot escape the fact that their conceptual constructions and distributions render them a purposeful agent in the public’s ignorance and exploitation. If Britain finds its inhabitants being denied health care it will be BBC News that aided suffering’s emergence. If democracy is extinguished by corporatism it will be BBC News that helped its imposition. If BBC News is attempting to frustrate the populous to rebellion; then it is way too cryptic. It goes without saying, retrospective moral outrage in 10 years time will not be enough to redeem the BBC’s responsibility and trust.
“Hey BBC, just report the news… no picking the f#@kin’ cherries!”