This is much worse than mere dumbing down. Belligerence is sought – bring on the alpha right wingers. Soon a Jeremy Clarkson mascot will replace Pudsy.
If right-wingers and right-wingery are no so prevalent at the BBC, why is it that every columnist who complains about it uses Clarkson as their illustration? If it really is so bad that you can't heave half a brick without hitting half a dozen scary conservatives with a secret agenda, why is it that the only example given is invariably Doncaster's finest?
The other thing that struck me is how sterile her argument appears to be.
Public-service broadcasters must make uncomfortable programmes on any group or on immigration – and there are excellent examples of responsible, critical journalism. But a whole series propagandising against multiracial Briton? To validate the race hate that sloshes all over our isles, from playgrounds to football pitches? Some researcher rang to discuss one programme "re-appraising" Enoch Powell. What's to reappraise? My money is being used to reassure people who hate people like me...
Simply because you disagree with an argument or a point of view does not mean that that argument or point of view should never be expressed. If, for example, you think that Enoch Powell should not be re-appraised and that he is still a toxic legacy for any debate on immigration (as I do
) then say that and explain why. There are opposing points of view
. Ignoring them does not make them go away.
There's a further interesting point as well:
The BBC we knew and trusted is no more. It is a player in the marketplace of nastiness, and I can no longer argue with any conviction for a licence fee.
The argument against a licence fee is that it is 'unfair' or 'infuriating' or whatever to be compelled to pay for programmes that reflect a specific political point of view that may or may not be shared by the viewer. Yasmin's swift adoption of this position rather suggests, however, that while she had no problem with the licence fee when it was subsidising programmes and opinions with which she, personally, agreed, she is opposed to it when it subsidises programmes with which she, personally, disagrees. And that's not terrible intellectually honest.
Labels: Media, politics