State control of the media has to be one of the most abhorrent characteristics of any government. We gasp in horror when we hear that Somalia has banned radio stations from broadcasting music, that Turkey is prosecuting an author for "anti-Turkishness" or that China has starting vetting foreign news reports. State control is a symbol of growing oppression, of withdrawal from the international community, of a distrust of one's own citizens.
How come, then, that in Britain we have the BBC? The BBC is a state-funded media giant. It accounts for 26% of all television viewing and 47% of all terrestrial television viewing. The BBC also accounts for 55% of all radio listening, national and local - more than all the hundreds of commercial stations put together! It is an affront to our media's liberty and our citizens' liberty. If we want to watch TV, we have to pay for a licence and fund the BBC, whether we want to use the BBC or not. It is an embarassment to this country's values. Any self-respecting liberal democracy should jettison it immediately.
How come, then, that in Britain we love the BBC? You never hear anyone call for the BBC to be disbanded. We grumble about our licence fees, but we love radio stations with no commercials. We love to watch Match of the Day or the latest dramatisation of Jane Austen. We love the BBC news website, and we know that people all over the world love it too. I am no exception. My radio consumption is split between BBC Radio 2, Radio 3, and Radio 4 (BBC comes up with the best station names, too!). I watch Newsnight, the Daily Politics and Question Time (I know, I know...). How do I square this with my views on the role of the state?
This is one of the great paradoxes of politics. If I lived in a country with no state media, and the government said, right, we're now going to tax you £100 a year and start making our own broadcasts, I would be horrified. No-one would want it. But now that I do have the BBC, I wouldn't want rid of it ever. I can understand why Americans value the right to carry arms for self-defence. I can understand why that's an important expression of their liberty. But even though I live in a country where that liberty is denied, I don't want it - we seem to get along fine without guns.
Does this mean I am inconsistent? I don't know. All I know is that given the choice between the BBC and guns, I'd choose the BBC every time. And I'll still think of myself as a champion of civil liberties.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment