It would be comforting to discover that the public arena is becoming less weird and more rational. Sadly it isn't so. A recent example has been this silly issue at the BBC.
On Wednesday, presenter Munchetty was found by the BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) to have breached the corporation's guidelines by criticising US President Donald Trump's motives after he said four female politicians should "go back" to "places from which they came".
Part of the BBC response was -
The email from the BBC's Executive Committee - which includes director general Lord Hall and director of news and current affairs Fran Unsworth - tells all staff: "You will have heard a lot of comment over the past few days about the BBC and the reporting of racism.
"The BBC is not impartial on racism. Racism is not an opinion and it is not a matter for debate. Racism is racism."
The email from the BBC's Executive Committee - which includes director general Lord Hall and director of news and current affairs Fran Unsworth - tells all staff: "You will have heard a lot of comment over the past few days about the BBC and the reporting of racism.
"The BBC is not impartial on racism. Racism is not an opinion and it is not a matter for debate. Racism is racism."
Suppose we amend that last sentence to something less controversial.
Theft is not an opinion and it is not a matter for debate. Theft is theft.
No that won't do. It may be less controversial but is still too rigid. In many situations theft is certainly a matter for debate. Going back to the original issue, Trump's comment may be seen as nationalist or merely patriotic rather than racist. It doesn't matter, the point is that political labels are almost always debatable.
Calling Trump's comment racist isn't a fact but an opinion and obviously a matter for debate, but of course that's the point. The BBC chooses not to debate certain debatable issues. Yet again we are confronted by its creepy lack of social and political courage. It really is a useless outfit.
4 comments:
Naga was a shoo in from the start it seems, even though there were much better presenters around.
We never did like her delivery anyway, and were hoping for someone much better at interviewing subjects, but like most of the BBC these days, it's a shadow of its former self, and using lightweights like her only makes matters worse.
We only watched about half an hour of the 'news' recently, when we thought there might be an election, but after that gave up. It's now two years since we stopped watching the regular breakfast slot, and life is much better for that!
Alongside "facts" and "opinions", I think it's useful to have a third category: "argument stopper". To say something is racist is not to describe it objectively (as the BBC claim to do) and it is not even to evince an opinion or emote about it. It's just to shut down debate, in most cases by excluding the thing labelled from polite circles or civilised discourse. It acts as a sort of prison-guard for the BBC. Inmates are warned that they are straying dangerously close to the boundary fence. You'd better turn back, because outside that fence are beasts and monsters and forces we can't control.
As doubtless you know, Trump was quoted out of context. Here's the full thing:
So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run.
Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1150381394234941448
Scrobs - I don't think I've ever seen her except momentarily while checking Teletext. Sounds as if you drifted away from the Beeb as we did.
Sam - yes it is about shutting down the debate. The BBC has backed itself into a corner with such issues because people interested in edgy debates go elsewhere. It isn't easy to see why the BBC thinks there is a future in this approach unless it believes that debates will eventually be brought under wider control.
Sackers - yes and the context is where the BBC absolutely will not go. It would generate debates which it is poorly equipped to handle and does not even think it should have to handle. Yet the context of Trump's comment will not go away.
Post a Comment