PLEASE help save the BBC, the world's last, best news source!

[snot]

I am posting regarding this very important topic for the last time.

Many of you have cited or relied on stories from the BBC regarding a variety of very important issues. Imagine the fix we'd be in if the BBC came under Blair's control and all those interesting stories never came to light. (Even if you're resigned to getting all your news on the 'net, we're a long way from replacing the BBC's large number of high-quality reporters scattered over the globe.)

That terrible scenario may be about to become fact.

Pending changes at the BBC would, among other things, replace the BBC's governing board in charge of assessing BBC "performance" with a group of trustees selected by Tony Blair. Also planned are cuts of 3,800 - 4,000 jobs and privatization of parts of BBC operations. More details are set out below.

I'm not sure what we can do about this, but I think it's extremely important that folks the world over who care about news should at least understand the implications of what's happening and raise an outcry AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

My review of the pending changes at the BBC has been superficial, but still better than what I've seen in any reports. I looked at the BBC "Green Paper", the most detailed description I've found on the 'net of government plans for job cutbacks (3,800 - 4,000) and privatization of portions of BBC operations. The Green Paper can be downloaded here: http://www.bbccharterreview.org.uk/have_your_say/green_paper/greenpaper_home.html#1 .

I noted a number of features that raise troubling questions for me:

1. The BBC's current governing body is to be replaced by a Trust. The trust members are to be recommended by the Prime Minister. The reason given for establishing the Trust as the BBC's governing body is supposedly that the old Board was both the management and the body in charge of assessing BBC performance, and that this involved a conflict of interest.

This sounds reasonable, until you consider that the Prime Minister has been in direct conflict with the BBC over its reporting on him; so putting him in charge of selecting its trustees would seem merely to be replacing one conflict of interest with another one of much more serious import.

2. More programming is to be privatized. C.f. the U.S. use of private contractors in Iraq, or in electronic election technology--by no means perfectly similar, but illustrates the dangers. To me, looks like maybe they don't trust BBC staff to make programs that suit them, so by outsourcing to their buddies, Blair et al. can both enrich the latter and ensure coverage that's more favorable, conservative, or at least innocuous to Blair et al. (Would some reporter pls look at how many new little production companies are being formed in the U.K. right now and by whom?)

3. The Trust is supposed to be made more responsive to the desires of the public. The public's wishes are to be assessed through research. The paper doesn't address who does the research or how. (C.f. Tomlinson’s use of pollsters in the U.S. re- NPR.)

4. The justification for the staff cutbacks is that funds are needed in order for the BBC to take the lead in bringing about a "digital switch-over" accessible to "have-nots" as well as "haves". I'm no geek, but off-hand, it seems arguable that this means cutting back on news staffing in order to ensure future HDTV sales, or something like that. But someone who knows better than I can perhaps explain.

I simply don't have the time or expertise to do the kind of analysis that needs to be done, but I am truly horrified that no one else seems to be noticing what's going on.

The unions affected by the job cuts have been striking, but last time I checked their sites, perhaps understandably, the focus was entirely on those cuts--whether they're justified, how remaining staff will be stretched, etc. I’m not sure they can be expected to fully represent all of the public’s interests at stake. Nonetheless, it would probably help to express our support. Peace Patriot compiled some contact info here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=375492&mesg_id=375724&page= .

Please also express your objection to the changes at the BBC website here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ifs/hi/newsid_4000000/newsid_4000500/4000545.stm .

However, I feel it's also extremely important that we try to raise awareness of this issue through other outlets. I've blasted the media and my friends (including my sole friend with contacts in Britain), but please lend your voice to mine!

And please help spread the word in every other way you can think of!

Thanks.

[snot]

1. Just searched live threads for BBC and found 114 hits.

So I replied to the first twenty BBC citers giving you a link to this post.

My apologies if I got any of you more than once.

Clearly, the BBC is a crucial resource for DU'ers -- please help!

[burrowowl]

2. The BBC

has been going down the tubes for over a year, their privatized rail system preceded them.

[helderheid]

3. but they are still 10000000 better than what we have so

a well deserved kick

[Peace Patriot]

7. Well, I don't know what you mean by "going down the tubes," but I do...

...know that the Blair-Bush Cartel has been trying to destroy BBC News ever since the BBC's Andrew Gilligan reported weapons inspector David Kelley's whistleblowing on the fiddling of Iraq WMD intelligence. Kelley ended up dead (whitewashed as a "suicide"--utter nonsense!). That's where all this started. And, funny thing--Gilligan and Kelley were right on target. They WERE fiddling the intelligence, in major ways, long, long before the invasion.

This assualt on BBC News workers is unconscionable! Write to them! Support BBC News and its journalists! Don't take this downer attitude that it's "going down the tubes." Fight back!

[emad]

4. Thankx. Poodle aintgottaprayer. But defending the BEEB is

honorable and your post much appreciated.

[snot]

5. Thanks, all. Pls help keep kicked; w/o info, we've got nothing. (n/t)

[Peace Patriot]

6. I got a reply from the Scottish BBC workers' union, as follows:

"thank you for your support, it is most welcome. Rest assured we will be fighting to retain jobs and quality of public service broadcasting in the BBC. We are campaigning industrially, politically and publicly on a great cause and it is great to know we have backing abroad.

"Paul Holleran
"NUJ Scottish Organiser"

---------

Write to the BBC, and then cc the workers!

BBC webform for public comment:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ifs/hi/newsid_4000000/newsid_4000500/4000545.stm

---------

National Union of Journalists in Britain and Ireland (NUJ)
Web site: http://www.nuj.org.uk /
(Lots of info there about the strikes and impacts on BBC news quality.)

Direct contact info for NUJ:

National Union of Journalists (NUJ) - Main Office
Headland House
308-312 Gray's Inn Road
London
WC1X 8DP

tel: [phone]
fax: [phone]
email: [e-mail]

---

Irish Office
Liberty Hall
Dublin 1

Phone 00 353 (0)1 8053258
Fax 00 353 (0)1 8749250
e-mail: [e-mail]

---

Scotland office:

Scottish Organiser: Paul Holleran, [e-mail]
Assistant Organiser: Angela Austin, [e-mail]
Secretary: Alice McCarney, 0141 248 6648/7748, [e-mail]

3rd Floor, 114 Union St, Glasgow G1 3QQ

---

Manchester office:

Organiser: Miles Barter
Tel: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Secretary: Sue Orton
Tel: [phone]
E-mail:[e-mail]

Assistant Organiser: Jenny Lennox
With responsibility for online journalism sector and for North Wales.
Tel: [phone]
E-mail:[e-mail]

Postal address:
NUJ, 5th Floor, Arthur House, Chorlton Street, Manchester M1 3FH

---

Chief officials of the union:

General Secretary
JEREMY DEAR
020-7843 3709, fax [phone]
Mobile [phone]
Email [e-mail]

Deputy General Secretary
JOHN FRAY
020-7843 3746
Mobile [phone]
Email [e-mail]

------------

Write to them! Thank them! Support them!

[snot]

8. Thanks! n/t

[snot]

9. Here's a form letter you can use

as a basis for e-mail blasts to the media and also to send to the BBC and the union representatives listed in Peace Patriot's post above. You'll need to adapt it somewhat for the different target types.

Gentlemen and Ladies:

You’re probably aware of the attempts by the Bush administration to undermine news coverage by NPR and the CPB. I fear a similar top-down attack on the BBC is now taking place, in the form of changes described the BBC "Green Paper".

The BBC news is far and away the best news organization that history has ever seen. It is, almost literally, a critical component in the consciousness and conscience of the planet. It's not broken; but this "fix" may do the job.

As I understand, the pending changes include the following:

1. The BBC's current governing body is to be replaced by a Trust. The trust members are to be recommended by the Prime Minister. The reason given for establishing the Trust as the BBC's governing body is supposedly that the old Board was both the management and the body in charge of assessing BBC performance, and that this involved a conflict of interest.

This sounds reasonable, until you consider that the Prime Minister has been in direct conflict with the BBC over its reporting on him; so putting him in charge of selecting its trustees would seem merely to be replacing one conflict of interest with another, much more serious and important one.

2. More programming is to be privatized. C.f. the U.S. use of private contractors in Iraq, or in its electronic election technology--by no means perfectly similar, but illustrates the dangers. To me, what if someone doesn't trust BBC staff to make programs that suit them, and decides instead to push for outsourcing to their buddies, so as both to enrich the latter and ensure coverage that's more favorable, conservative, or at least innocuous to that somebody? (Would somebody please investigate how many new little production companies are being formed or qualified to operate in the U.K. right now, by whom, and with whose funding?)

3. The Trust is supposed to be made more responsive to the desires of the public. The public's wishes are to be assessed through "research". The paper doesn't address who does the research or how.

4. The justification for the staff cutbacks is that funds are needed in order for the BBC to take the lead in bringing about a "digital switch-over" accessible to "have-nots" as well as "haves". Does this in effect mean cutting back on news staffing in order to ensure future HDTV sales, or something like that? If not, what does it mean?

I am appalled at the lack of news coverage of the pending changes, let alone analysis. I am doing everything I can to help raise awareness of these changes and their potential import, and I urge you to do the same.

Thank you for your time and efforts.

[Ifonly]

10. I agree

It is, almost literally, a critical component in the consciousness and conscience of the planet.

I agree completely. I was just thinking something similar, that the BBC is the conscience of America, after having seen "The Power of Nightmares" and now the following:

Why We Fight

Interested in how the Military Industrial Complex works? See this film. It's incredible!

[Nothing Without Hope]

11. This is very important - please consider reposting it in this Forum:

Free Speech, Press, & Internet Forum
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=319

I spearheaded getting this forum set up, but then I have been involved in other projects and let it languish, I'm ashamed to admit. We need to get it up and vital, a place to share information and organize action.

If the free press is taken away, the slide into fascism will be soon completed, in my opinion.

With the US press in the pockets of the fascists, the BBC is more important to us than it ever has been before. Thank you for posting this. And please do repost in the forum which was set up for exactly this kind of issue - we have to get it moving.

If there is still time, I will recommend this thread - it's important!

[tommcintyre]

12. kick

[Peace Patriot]

13. Kick for the BBC! n/t