Double delusion of the public as shaky Conservatives move to purge the BBC and noble liberals rush to defend it. – News Block

The announcement by Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries of the upcoming end of the BBC’s license fee is an obviously cynical effort to divert attention from its now utterly disgraced leader and a government in growing crisis.

But those who are quick to defend the BBC as a bastion of ‘balance’ and ‘fairness’ are also serving to enlighten and deceive the public hiding essential truths about the state broadcaster.

The claim that the BBC is being punished by Johnson for “holding him and his government to account” is absolutely ridiculous. The BBC has not played a major role in exposing this corrupt and criminal administration. On the contrary, as Jonathan Cook shows, their top ‘correspondents’ have consistently failed to reveal the deeply known truths about their tasteless and illegal conduct while keeping ‘access journalism’ privileges safe.

Liberal-minded objections to Tory Party pressure on the BBC not only overlook these serious journalistic failures, they also overlook the much more essential role of the BBC as protector of the systemnot only of this or any other government.

This includes the BBC:

• The defense of all state and political structures as fundamentally adequate, democratic and decent. BBC Question Time is itself a respectful ‘mirror’ of Westminster’s weekly ‘show’ of ‘democratic accountability’. The suggestion that we actually live in a state of oligarchic the rule could never be aired or entertained by the BBC.
• Reverential promotion and cultural reinforcement of British militarism. In his report and characteristics on UK armaments, the BBC acts as an effective mouthpiece for the Ministry of Defense and a public relations platform for the corporate arms industry.
• Solid support for all wars, ‘interventions’ and hits, especially in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. as historian mark curtis grades: “Many intelligent people still believe that the BBC promotes ‘fairness in news and current affairs’, and not just those who personally make millions from it. The reality, that in UK foreign affairs, the BBC is basically straightforward propaganda, easily provable, shows we have a ways to go.”
• Unlimited reverence for the institutions of the monarchy, promotion of the royal family and mitigation of its crises. Anti-royalist and republican sentiment, though pervasive, is routinely excluded as a valid public point of view.
• Default punishment of all official foreign enemies, from the ‘threat/threat’ of Russia, China and Iran, to the denigration of anti-neoliberals. state like Venezuela and Cuba. The BBC’s current amplification of UK, US and NATO talking points on Ukraine is a key example, highlighting Russia’s “aggressive intent”, leaving out vital context and giving prime airtime for western support commentators and ‘think-tanks’ such as RUSI.
• Soft dealing/selective reporting from official allies. Compare the kind of deferential coverage of Saudi Arabia and other brutal Gulf states with that reserved for North Korea. were being “info-bombed” about Russian ‘aggression’ in Ukraine, but not about the British/Saudi bombing of Yemen. Similarly, BBC North America’s correspondents may publish reports on social dislocation and violence in the US, but they will always hold their system, leaders and ‘Shining House on the Hill’ in mystical awe. The revelation that BBC executives “wait in fear for the phone call from the Israelis” tells a similar story about states that need to be “treated more carefully.” And never forget the BBC’s shameful refusal to air the Gaza Appeal.
• Leading role in removing any serious domestic political threat to the established order, the most infamous example being the BBC’s key role in the brutal stains and the removal of Jeremy Corbyn, an effective British coup.
• omission and marginalization of radical voices, such as in the BBC’s general silence on the prosecution and persecution of the real journalist Julian Assange.
• Rear-line response to any threat to the Union, as seen in the BBC’s charged coverage of the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum.
• Very belated efforts to acknowledge the climate emergency and the continued failure to address the real forces behind it. Why is there still no serious discussion about corporate-driven capitalism as the root cause? This massive omission takes us well beyond any notion of the BBC as a ‘neutral observer’.

The paradox of this latest Tory assault on the BBC is that it is trying to draw attention to the flagship institution that helps preserve the main ideas and interests of the ruling class. However, while Johnson and others they can consider themselves Etonians born to rule with deep roots in the establishment, their first and most selfish concern is political survival.

While much of the liberal left seems reluctant to join any Tory kicking of the BBC, all those blue-tick liberals and big-paid BBC employees now rushing to the barricades in their defense have very little incentive to see the real purpose of the body that rewards them so heavily.

Such defenders insist that as the BBC receives complaints of bias from both the left and the right, or any other opposite side of an issue, “it must be doing something right”; that is to say, cannot be partial. This easy ‘logic’ amounts to ‘proving’ a proposition by measuring relative claims about it, rather than any rational evaluation of the proposition itself. Sayso to speak, that the BBC is not institutionally biased, but at least tries to do so with real arguments and rigorous evidence.

These lines of defense also do not explain the wide differences in influence that the main lobbying forces exhibit in contrast to standard public complaints. The pro-Israel lobby maintains relentless pressure on the BBC to defend their views and interests. Does this show, in any meaningful sense, that the BBC is somehow anti-Israel? Or could it more obviously mean a level of pressure and intimidation designed to ensure that you never really does go against the interests of Israel?

Tory attacks on the BBC amount to the same kind of preemptive calculation: we are very attentive to your case and can cause you pain, why risk bothering us?

Other liberal warnings about the conservative attack on license fees reduce us to a depressing situation. ‘choice’ between ‘Murdoch or the BBC’, as if the only possible provider of our daily diet of news and information could come through the corporate or state media. Where, in this ‘debate’ about the BBC and the ‘new future’ of public media, do you find the broader options for truly independent journalism and possible funding?

With dark irony, the very liberal class that so eagerly sided with the BBC to destroy Corbyn’s left now seeks the support of that same left in saving the bbc It is understandable that it is not easy to get.

It is profoundly revealing how those who now call for the ‘rescue’ of the BBC, while proclaiming its ‘inherent values’ of ‘balance’ and ‘fairness’, seem so comfortably contained in their liberal bubble. As How many will know, or have ever consulted, the academic studies that expose the BBC’s support for establishment interests and positions? How many will have read or invoked critical writers such as MediaLens about such matters? Deeply conditioned and dependent on his career, would anyone contemplate calling the BBC, like John Pilgrim so incisively, “the most refined propaganda service in the world”?

It is much easier to live in a state of passive compliance, shielded from uncomfortable exploration and self-reflection. This ‘learned restraint’ from even daring to imagine the BBC as anything more than a ‘benign aunt’ demonstrates its very efficiency as an established institution, serving to quash ‘abnormal’ thinking, encourage conformity and displace uncomfortable questions.

Fortunately, many still see through the posturing and deceit, resiliently raising the real questions. Like MediaLens concisely ask here: “Save the BBC? In whose interest?”