Over the next few months, people with vested interests and fierce ideology will argue that the BBC has 'become too big' or 'distorts the market'. What they mean is that their friends – such as Rupert Murdoch – want a greater slice of that 'market' to extract higher profits from it and exert more power over the media landscape.
Don't be fooled: if we allow this government to diminish the BBC, they will chip away at it until it is nothing more than another 'service provider' run along commercial principles, forced to 'compete in the market' for advertising revenue and thus finding itself at the whim and mercy, and playing by the rules, of Big Business: exactly where they want it to be.
The BBC is without parallel anywhere in the world. It took some 90 years to get to where it is today – without a doubt the most respected independent public sector broadcaster there is – and it will take the Tories less than a decade to tear it apart, if we let them.
This is, very sadly, a time of high stakes and so, yes, another signature, another tweet, another email is required, urgently.
And if you balk at the licence fee: please be serious. Even if you never watch TV, the BBC is still the best 50p you're likely to have spent today. Or yesterday. Or will spend tomorrow. Even if you never listen to any BBC radio station and don't ever use the iPlayer. As a cultural asset, as a rich layer in the fabric of social coherence in this country and as signal emitter of benign, broadly enlightened 'soft power' globally, a publicly funded, independent BBC is still worth a lot more than your fifty pence a day. The world really, genuinely, is a better place for the BBC. Those that tell you it is not so do not have your, or the country's or anybody else's other than their own, interests at heart. They simply want something they cannot have, and rather than not have it, they would destroy it. Don't let them: the BBC is a global beacon and a national treasure. Stand up and fight for it!
There's a petition that you can sign to start with right here.
We know it is hard for you to consider that there is a world outside the USA, and harder still to believe that it matters. But every once in a while, give it a try. The opening of an Olympic Games, for example, would be a perfect opportunity for you to just ever so slightly widen your horizon.
Because imagine it had happened the other way round:
New York wins the bid to host the Olympic Games. The New York Organising Committee (probably spelling itself with a 'z'; we forgive you for that) appoints a director who may not be to everyone's taste but who is highly respected in your country and has many admirers across the world, say Stephen Spielberg, to direct the Opening Ceremony. He does so and includes in the ceremony a segment to honour the victims of 9/11.
And now the BBC (that's our British Broadcasting Corporation, in case you wonder) decides: 'Actually, that slow moment there, where nothing really happens except somebody's singing a hymn and there are some dancers doing their thing, and pictures of some dead people are shown, that's just some boring stuff about a bunch of murdered Americans and not really relevant to our British audience, we'll cut to an interview with Rebecca Adlington instead'.
The more sensitive among you might find this a touch upsetting. But rather than apologise, imagine now the BBC turning around, saying: 'You know what, it's a credit to this "producer" [by which they mean the director] that we only had to cut such a small bit. Well done, Mr Spielberg, you nearly managed to give us exactly what we think makes a for good Opening Ceremony.'
Now do you see how preposterous that is? And how wrong? Because of course 9/11 affects people all over the world. Just as 7/7 does. It's only the order of magnitude that's different. And that isn't even the point. The point is that anyone, anywhere can relate to a moment of reflection for fellow human beings who cannot be with us when we celebrate. And it is not for you to decide what's relevant to this ceremony, or the people watching it, and what isn't. That's not good programming, that's just arrogance.
So please do the decent thing and apologise. To Danny Boyle, to the artists and performers, to London, to everyone who has lost friends, family, loved ones anywhere in the world who was being remembered and honoured in the 'dull bit' that you felt would best be replaced by an interview with Michael Phelps, charming man though he may be (I don't know him personally, and I have no cavil with him).
And please: try not to be so unbelievably patronising. As you can tell from reading this letter, it's deeply annoying. And whether you think we matter or not, we - the 6.7 billion or so people in the world who are not Americans - exist and your attitude on an occasion like this is just breathtakingly offensive to us; and really quite insulting to your 'American audience' too: because not only will you find that many people living in your country are really from somewhere else, you're also implying that all Americans are as ignorant and crass as you are. And we all know for a fact that that's not the case. So even if you can't bring yourself to give us a second thought, at least show your own audience some respect.
In the Olympic Spirit, from London
Sebastian Michael
The cut segment (not best quality - if you know of a better clip, please let me know)
this is amusing, but also a touch troubling. it's probably not quite as troubling as it is amusing but it's early days and if nothing else it makes you wonder what goes on in the man's head.
the man in question is guido westerwelle, leader of the german liberal democrats who have just effectively won the german general elections together with the much bigger CDU/CSU combo (the christian democrats with their bavarian counterpart), headed by angela merkel. what's likely to happen is that westerwelle's party will form a new coalition government together with angela merkel's and at the moment it seems everybody's assuming that he himself will therefore get the job of foreign minister.
now watch (below) what happens when the man from the beeb asks him a question in english at his very first press conference, even before he's got the job. sadly, the video clip is not subtitled, but i can tell you: the correspondent introduces himself and announces he's going to ask his question in english and could he, westerwelle, please answer in english. westerwelle promptly raps his knuckles by telling him that as they are at a german press conference, he should ask his question in german. so the bbc man says, fine, may he then ask the question in english and westerwelle can answer in german. westerwelle uses a phrase that's roughly the equivalent to the english 'with all due respect' which normally means the direct opposite and so the journalist's translator steps in and says: 'we'll translate'. before she gets around to doing so, westerwelle drones from the podium that 'just as it is the done thing in great britain to speak english, so it is the done thing in germany to speak german'. so finally, the bbc man gets to ask his question which his translator then poses in german and westerwelle answers by telling him that he's just asked the same question as his german colleagues had asked and that the answer is still the same: he won't go into any speculation about cabinet posts (even though he clearly wants one, everybody agrees.)
then comes the icing on the cake: just as the chair or master of ceremonies or whatever his title would be at a press conference is about to go on, westerwelle says: 'to make it absolutely clear: we can certainly meet up for a fabulous cup of tea some time outside a press conference, and then we'll speak nothing but english, but... - this here is germany.'
all of which suggests that the man widely tipped to become germany's new foreign minister in what's supposed to be a 'centre-right' government either:
a) doesn't speak english (bad news if you are foreign minister of any country in today's world)
b) does speak english but is unwilling to use it when somebody who doesn't speak his language asks him a question, and then doesn't even want to listen to the question when it is suggested to him that he may reply in german, which means he is simply rude (bad news if you are any kind of diplomat)
c) is so much of a nationalist that he won't tolerate any foreign tones being uttered at his german press conference in his german fatherland, because "this here is germany", jawoll. (bad news. full stop.)
whatever the answer, it doesn't bode well. of course, the point has been made already in various comments and blogs, and it keeps being made, that nobody would expect david miliband for example (the british foreign secretary) to field questions in german (or spanish, or italian, or french, for that matter) at a press conference in london. but it's a mute point. because the fact is that the lingua franca of our day is not portuguese, or mandarin, or french, italian, spanish or esperanto. the language everybody speaks is english. it used to be french, in diplomatic circles; and a long time ago it used to be latin. and maybe in a few decades' time it will be german, who knows. or hindi. but for the time-being it's english, like it or not. so for the foreign-minister-to-be of any country, let alone the biggest economy in europe, to refuse to answer a question in english is at best embarrassing, at worst a throwback to awful extremes.
we used to fall about laughing as kids in switzerland, because our grandparents told us how their german neighbours across an increasingly anxiously watched border started referring to the banana as 'schlauchapfel' (literally 'hose apple') in a drive to rid the german language of any un-german elements. but clearly, while highly amusing, the thinking and mentality behind this was anything but.
it may be going too far to draw the parallel between that kind of thinking and westerwelle's desire for german purity at a german press conference. maybe he's just not that confident when it comes to foreign languages. but then why not say so: 'sorry, mate, i really don't speak your language very well, can you talk to me in german please.' and who could be offended? but 'this here is germany': what that implies is 'this here is germany, either be german yourself and speak german, or get out.' and that from their foreign minister. that's troubling. amusing, yes, but troubling...
what with the US elections, the country sliding into recession, and the ongoing general climate angst, it was only a matter of time before something truly noteworthy would happen.
and it's happened. this week, our little island has finally been shaken to its core. what two world wars, the suez crisis, the thatcher years and a decade of new labour couldn't achieve has suddenly come about, all by itself and without warning: we've suffered a collective sense of humour failure.
it's a truly apocalyptic state of affairs: we've started to take ourselves seriously.
if you don't know what this is about and have - like the vast majority of people, including myself - not heard the original broadcast on radio 2, here it is.
be warned: it's funny. it's also mildly rude, very puerile, somewhat ill-judged maybe, and largely unnecessary. but it's funny. even if you don't find it funny, it's fun. fun in bad taste? absolutely. so is an awful lot of good comedy. but it's not malicious and it's not cruel and it's not anything really even worth writing about. the fact i'm writing about it here is already giving it far too much significance. it's two blokes making phone pranks. granted, they're doing it on public sector radio, they're extremely famous and they're paid excessive amounts of money for it. but it's still two blokes being silly on somebody's answerphone. using the word 'fuck'. it's hardly the end of the world as we know it.
yet a martian landing in britain today might think the country is in its greatest crisis since the norman invasion. the prime minister has spoken on the matter, and the director general of the BBC is conducting, and awaiting the result of, an investigation. meanwhile brand has resigned from his radio show and ross remains suspended. tens of thousands of people are complaining to the beeb and presumably to the broadcasting standards authority, voicing their 'outrage' at roughly eight minutes of air time they would know nothing about if the daily mail hadn't picked it up and turned it into a 'story'. now the story is running, it's gone out of all proportion, and it is truly shocking. not because of what brand and ross did, but because of how many people are over-reacting to it, and just to what degree.
but most shocking of all is that nobody - at least nobody 'important' - has yet stood up and said: get a grip: it's russell brand and jonathan ross. it's jest. it's what this, our great nation, is supposed to be famous for and proud of: our ability to have a laugh.
yes, for andrew sachs it was unpleasant and offensive. for this russell and jonathan apologised both privately and in public, and the apology was accepted. end of the matter.
ah, but there's the 'issue' of sachs's granddaughter, georgina baillie. is it fair on her to be telling her grandfather via his answerphone - and letting the whole nation know in the process - that one has had sex with her. wearing a condom. well: i haven't slept with russell brand. after a couple of guinness and with an hour to kill i would probably think nothing of it. but i would know it was russell brand. i would accept that even just going by my extremely limited knowledge of the gentleman, i should anticipate that his behaviour post encounter may potentially be less than gentlemanly and maybe not altogether discreet. i would not come over all surprised and indignant if he was seen the next day on the rooftop of broadcasting house, shouting it from there loud and proud, with a live-relay to a worldwide webcast. (and i would, in truth and in spite of myself, be ever so slightly chuffed that he felt it was worth shouting about). but it's russell brand. it goes with the territory. or so i would assume.
so no, maybe it isn't fair on georgina. but please: was it the romans who said, if you lie with dogs you must love fleas? or the greeks? no matter: you know what you're letting yourself in for when you get into bed with russell brand. the man is not a cad. he may be a clown and a braggart, he may be infuriatingly entertaining and willfully sub-iconic, but neither is he evil nor is he devious nor does he leave you - or the rest of the world - in any doubt what he's mostly about: himself.
and why shouldn't he be? make of him what you will, at least he and his mate jonathan still have what the rest of the country on far too vast a scale appears to have abandoned altogether: a sense of humour.
Posts
