SIR,—Mr. Wiles believes the FO's denial that it exer- cises
any control over the BBC's External Services; Yet he accepts the existence of 'some influence.' It is exactly this kind of no man's land—ill-defined and im- Possible to control—which has caused the situation of Which your correspondents complain. The favoured
habit of avoiding exact definitions and delineations of responsibility has not served the BBC. or the country, particularly well in this instance. One of the chief complaints levelled by Mr. Wiles at the Russian Service two years ago concerned the BBC's failure to broadcast in any of the languages of the non- Russian peoples of the USSR. Perhaps someone in authority could tell us who makes the decisions about the languages used by the External Services—a clear reply to this question might help to reveal the real decision-makers.
Mr. Wiles feels that Yugoslav citizens ought not to be employed as broadcasters to their own country. They are perhaps suspect, but I don't believe that they hold positions of great responsibility. Whom would Mr. Wiles like to see in their place? Emigres. sonic of whom have axes of their own to grind, or nothing but Britons? Apart from the linguistic consideration, there are examples which prove that British birth is no safe guarantee of loyalty in the ideological struggle in which we are engaged. Perhaps the BBC's judicious mixture of all three types of employee does manage to preserve some kind of balance. It is really of little use to attack the man who actually does the broadcasting—much bigger fish must be tackled if policy decisions are to be discussed.
I support Mr. Wiles's call for an inquiry. In view of the expenditure of public money (some £5 million a year), a parliamentary inquiry would appear justified, and the BBC could hardly refuse to accept that.—Yours faithfully.
0. PICK
Belsione, Upper Warren Avenue. Mapledln•ham. Reading.
[This correspondence is referred to in a leading article on page 896.—Editor, Spectator.]
Previous page