THE BBC: GETTING UNDER CONTROL?
The media: Paul Johnson
welcomes the new director-general and hopes for the best
THE decision not to transmit as planned the `Secret Society' series is the first sign that a more sensible regime is now in charge at the BBC. I certainly wish it well. The Left in the media is furious at the appointment of Michael Checkland as director-general. They sneer at his accoun- tancy background and are preparing to subject him to a long course of bullying patronage. But they may be in for some surprises. Checkland got the job primarily because his tough-mindedness had im- pressed the governors during his spell as acting DG. He was clearly the best bet in an undistinguished field. Left-wing produc- ers within the BBC may find him more difficult to coerce than they think. Indeed his appointment probably means that the days when producers could do more or less what they liked, and the chief function of the DG was to defend them when they got the Corporation into trouble, have gone for good.
It is said that Checkland has compared critics of the BBC to football hooligans. That sounds like a piece of mis-reporting to me. Responsible critics would like to see the BBC back on its pedestal as a national institution. They have four quite simple aims, which ought to be almost beyond argument: (1) that the BBC should observe the terms of its Royal Charter, in the letter and in the spirit; (2) that the BBC's own internal rules should be scrupulously observed, and that any official who flouts them should be brought to book; (3) that the BBC, being a national corporation financed by the public, should be particu- larly careful to avoid malicious and inaccu- rate attacks on individuals, as occurred in the 'Maggie's Militant Tendency' affair, and when a mistake is made, should be quick to recognise it and apologise; (4) that all concerned with the production of prog- rammes should remember that the reputa- tion of the BBC rests on its accuracy, objectivity and fair-mindedness. There has been a serious falling-off, under all three heads, in recent years, and it is now up to Checkland to ensure a rapid and complete return to the exemplary standards the BBC observed in the past. • The above points are, or ought to be, uncontroversial, but I would like to add two more complaints, which I recognise are more debatable. Can we have fewer political messages in plays and serials? Recently a leading busybody urged that an episode of EastEnders should be devoted to 'getting across' the Government's advice on Aids. This suggestion, which I find repellent, was received almost in silence, so used are we becoming to the practice of inserting propaganda of one kind or another in television drama. There ought to be an absolute distinction between fact and fiction on television — akin to the distinction good newspapers were once careful to observe between news and com- ment. The BBC is quite legitimately em- ployed, from time to time, in giving the public counsel, but this ought to be direct and above board. Even in a good cause, the Corporation should never hand over its fictions to the hidden persuaders.
Secondly, the BBC should stop giving the impression that it regards everything British as disreputable, and Britain's past history as an unending saga of cruelty, aggression, racism, rapacity and shame. Few want the BBC to beat the patriotic drum. But in recent years it has equated `Britain' and 'British' with infamy. What is required is a sense of proportion, a recog- nition of Britain's acknowledged achieve- ments and merits, as well as our failures, and — not least — a close attention to the plain, historical facts. Let us have no more nonsense about 'the greater truth' and other euphemisms for falsehood.
There is no reason at all why Checkland should not make a first-class director- general. In the present circumstances, his financial, as opposed to production, ex- perience is probably an advantage. He has made the valid point that the BBC, with a guaranteed inflation-proof income of ab- out one billion pounds a year, is by no means poor. If Checkland succeeds in making an effective use of these vast resources, imposing a much-needed finan- cial as well as editorial discipline, there is no reason why the BBC should not trans- late the myth of 'the best broadcast service in the world' into a reality again.
The days are clearly over when the governors left the director-general to run the show, theoretically as an autocrat, in practice as a mere chairman of a manage- ment board, or even as a front for a production-level junta. From now on, at any rate until the BBC regains its reputa- tion, the chairman and his deputy will need to be closely associated with all key policy decisions, forming with the DG a sort of troika, possibly with a programme supre- mo making a fourth. Checkland will also need to devise an early-warning system, so that all programme projects likely to be contentious are referred to him at a very early stage in their planning, and their progress monitored. But if he displays the necessary control and prudence, he will have no difficulty emerging as the leader of the consortium. Marmaduke Hussey and Lord Barnett have no desire to get in- volved in the day-to-day running of the BBC. All the same, the board of governors will now continue to exercise the regular supervision and authority one would ex- pect from the directors of a large public company.
Attention will soon shift to ITV and in particular to Channel 4. Jeremy Isaacs is not due to leave until his contract expires in 1988 but speculation about his successor will mount. What this channel needs is a course of de-politicisation. It has a record of political bias, most of it to the Left, as the first Media Monitoring Report makes clear. The latest example is the further publicity it is planning to give to the anti-Zionist vehicle -Perdition. This is bound to cause the greatest possible off- ence to the Jewish community and indeed to many other people, who believe that the memory of six million dead should not be politically exploited by the far Left. I would like to know what possible justifica- tion Lord Thomson and his colleagues on the IBA can have for allowing this prog- ramme to take place. Maybe we need a change of leadership here too.
Previous page
