The dwarfs of Lime Grove
Sir: One is continually shocked by the humourless pomposity shown by members of the 'new establishment' when one of their sacred cows is subjected to criticism. Mrs Yvonne Brock (Letters, 16 May) does not attempt to defend the BBC against critics; she declares outright that all criticism is eo ipso impious and ill-intentioned. It seems that in an age when all can be called into question=healthy irreverence', as an in- house apologist of the BBC wrote—the BBC must remain above question.
The argument that 'public service' broad- casting is inherently superior to 'commer- cial' reminds me of the arguments used some years ago by Soviet representatives to the UN Commissions that publicly owned newspapers were inherently superior to com- mercially owned. Those of us who read Pravda and listen to Moscow Radio (or Havana and Peking) would differ. Similarly, I should say that American radio/Tv at its best is very good indeed. But the main weight of argument is not whether the sic should exist, or indeed whether it should be censored' but who should have the control of this powerful communications monopoly. It is the old question of quis custodies, and Mrs Brock's attempt to hide it behind a smokescreen of denunciation of 'commercial interests' (e.g. weeklies like SPECTATOR) and 'radical' libertarians as against right wing mystics and authoritarians is pure legerde- °lain- For one thing, there are rather more
authoritarians on the left nowadays, always ready to toady to dictators provided they are of the right colour—politically or ethni- cally—than on the right. Secondly, the ques- tion is not of choice between the BBC's being controlled or 'free' but of who controls this powerful instrument and how it is being used.
Now most of the sac's critics, who are concerned about certain kinds of bias, would like nothing better than a reasoned dialogue with the BBC and authorities concerned, in accordance with principles of public account- ancy and a spirit of give and take.
Instead of this, we are left with the im- pression that the Bac prefers to hide behind its appointees to façade-organisations like the advisory councils and let them bark at us. Now this is not really so clever as it seems. We are, after all, grown-up people who have been through life. No, on the contrary, the effect of putting Mrs Brock on to us is to force us to fight the Bac when all we really with to do is to engage in reasoned dialogue.
Just as we don't really want to waste our
time on the Mrs Brocks, I think Mr Curran and Lord Hill would be well advised to come forward and speak for themselves; it is in their interests as well as the country's that the BBC should take serious critics seriously. Let me add that I write from ex- perience of journalism and broadcasting in this country and abroad, in state and private media, far greater than Mrs Brock's, and with no attachment to political mystiques of any kind other than the belief that free discussion and human rights produce the best society in an imperfect world.
Alfred Sherman 15 Brookland Close, London Nwl 1
Previous page
