BBC boss hits back at critics
BBC director-general Mark Thompson today launches a vigorous defence of the broadcaster as the chorus of criticism aimed at the corporation reaches almost unprecedented levels.
In a series of answers to questions posed by Western Morning News readers, and in response to growing criticism from Culture Secretary and Exeter MP Ben Bradshaw, Mr Thompson speaks up strongly on behalf of the BBC and its staff.
-
BBC director-general Mark Thompson
He is taken to task by angry WMN readers on everything from news coverage allegedly biased in favour of the European Union to the decision to show Strictly Come Dancing so that it clashes with rival ITV talent show the X Factor.
But he strongly defends the BBC's management and its programme makers and is particularly scathing in his comments about attacks from Mr Bradshaw and the Labour Government.
The latest of those attacks from Mr Bradshaw, made in Saturday's edition of the Times, came after the replies to WMN readers had been penned.
In it, the Culture Secretary strongly suggests BBC bosses are showing bias towards the Conservatives in the run-up to a General Election that the Tories look poised to win.
Mr Bradshaw told the Times that Sir Michael Lyons, chairman of the BBC Trust, appeared to be far less concerned about radical Conservative proposals to cap the payments made to top BBC employees, but was very sensitive about Labour calls for the corporation to share some of its £3.6 billion in licence fee receipts.
"It would not be sensible for any organisation to give the impression that they are presuming the outcome of the next election," said Mr Bradshaw, on the eve of the Labour Party conference, which opened yesterday in Brighton.
The Culture Secretary, himself a former BBC employee, has been a regular critic of the BBC since taking up his Cabinet post in Gordon Brown's last reshuffle.
But at a time when the corporation is coming under attack from a number of quarters, including the Government, some parts of the commercial media sector and some licence fee payers, Mr Thompson shows little sign of conceding any ground to his critics.
Mr Bradshaw comes under fire from the director-general for his previous attacks on the BBC Trust and for suggesting the licence fee should be "top-sliced" to support other media organisations.
In answer to a question from WMN reader Helen Palmer of Liskeard, Mr Thompson chides the Culture Secretary for recently suggesting the abolition of the BBC Trust.
He writes: "The trouble with independent governing bodies is that they can be, well, independent.
"Threatening them with abolition when they take a different view from you is not in keeping with the tradition of political independence on which the whole of British public service broadcasting is based."
And he points out it was Mr Bradshaw's own Labour Government that set up the BBC Trust just three years ago.
Mr Thompson also speaks out against top-slicing the licence fee – another suggestion put forward by Mr Bradshaw – to help fund rival news organisations that would provide a different voice to that of the BBC.
The director-general says such a move would "erode the BBC's independence from the Government of the day" because it would turn the licence fee into something more akin to general taxation.
But he adds that just because the corporation does not want to share the licence fee does not mean it is opposed to sharing resources with other news organisations.
WMN readers put their questions to Mr Thompson after a request from the BBC for an opportunity to get more feedback from viewers and listeners.
The move is seen is part of a strategy of greater engagement by the broadcaster at a time when the media is at a time of great change and questions about the legitimacy of the licence fee has seldom been greater.
A number of questions put to Mr Thompson by WMN readers concerned the corporation's alleged bias in favour of the European Union and its failure to properly reflect anti-EU sentiment.
The director-general rejects the claim, pointing out that it was the BBC's Ten o'Clock News which had originally revealed fraud in the EU's accounts.
And he insists air time was given to political organisations in line with their level of representation among the electorate and that the United Kingdom Independence Party received fair exposure on TV and radio.
Mr Thompson does, however, concede there is some inconsistency in the BBC's use of metric and imperial measures in TV bulletins, partly because the matter is left to individual programme makers.
He tells David Challice of Newton Abbot: "I realise this is something that can irritate some viewers and listeners and we keep an eye on it. But on the whole, I think we do use miles rather more than we do kilometres on air."
38 Comments
View all
by Freethinker, Cornwall
Wednesday, September 30 2009, 11:31AM
“Thanks for your support Bob. It's very unfortunate that people like Henry Blince are utterly incapable of looking at the GW debate from both sides. It just proves how conditioned people are to believing what their told by those in control.”
by Chris, Cornwall
Wednesday, September 30 2009, 11:23AM
“Alec, im doing a biology degree and one module is based on looking at issues concerning conservation biology. So far it's predicted that 30% of all the worlds biodiversity is at risk of totally collapsing. This is'nt set in stone and the studies are still continuing but the biggest cause of this is man-made activity and not just in the prodution of carbon dioxide. As a species, we will be affected by this, no two ways about it. In our pockets, our food, water, fuel, pretty much every aspect of our lives will be changed. The global worth of this biodiversity to us is counted in tens of trillions of dollars, every industry on earth relies on this biodiversity. We are systematically shooting ourselves in every limb!
However, this is still a prediction and i hope it's wrong. I hope we are all wrong but the signs are'nt looking too good. I dont have a closed mind Alec, we have to produce balanced and reasoned arguments over these issues for our work, we have to look at every scientific opinion. Those first two websites are interesting but we have to reference from scientific journals, so we cant use them. As for the Heartland Institute, well, lets just say if you are looking for conspiracies concerning climate change, look no further. They will be making a fat pile of cash out of droughts, extinctions, water level rises, ocean acidification, you name it. If you want to side with people like that, be my guest (Henry). Better the devil you know I guess...”
by Alec Yates, Colyton, England
Wednesday, September 30 2009, 9:14AM
“Can I suggest that Chris broadens his studies and looks at the following websites.
Watts up with that
Dr. Roy Spencer
The Heartland Institute
You cannot study for a degree with a closed mind, these may help him to see the other side of the argument.”
by henry blince, devon
Wednesday, September 30 2009, 6:50AM
“"Well Chris, all I can say is that these scare stories of GW and the ocean acidification are created to apply pressure on humans".
yawn, broken record, etc.”
by Bob, North Devon
Tuesday, September 29 2009, 9:53PM
“Well put Freethinker.
Healthy sceptcism is no bad thing unless you happen to be one of those who push the Anthropogenic Global Warming nonesense!
The trouble is these people simply cannot accept there are perfectly rational arguments which defeat all their hype and hysteria!
And the more they protest their righteousness the more hysterical they become.
Thus their hysteria feeds upon itself.”
by Freethinker, Cornwall
Tuesday, September 29 2009, 8:25PM
“let me tell you now Chris, I'm not against all scientists. The issue of climate change is real, but when it comes to GW I will never be convinced. I clearly see a naturalized global cooling occuring. The science is not set in stone and yes, it's going to take more research to ncover the truth, but I'm certain that we have many scientific climatologists in sheeps clothing producing falsified data that delivers exactly what the globalists want. The UN IPPC is one such committe that has been accused of creating false data on GW. We need a independent climate body that is seperate from the intervention of big business and has the ability to access data freely about climate changes, natural or unatural. I'm afraid that an independent body just wouldn't happen now in the science of climate. Too many powers have interfered with science itself. The need to control scientific opinion is too great Chris. I supported your common sense approach towards badgers and BTB though.Unfortunately Chris, I must run the gauntlet of being called paranoid, conspiracy theorist and a tin hat nut for my beliefs, so be it. Sometimes it takes a few steps back to look at the bigger picture. Often, we miss it completely. Best Freethinker”
by Chris, Cornwall
Tuesday, September 29 2009, 7:40PM
“Maybe I only see things from a scientific view but the evidence for climate change is all too real. Im reading for a degree in environmental biology and one of the main modules is dedicated to climate change and its implications. We are wading knee deep in peer-reviewed papers that outline a bleak future for many species on this planet, including our own, and this is largely down to the huge impacts of man-made pollution and not all of that is carbon. Now I freely admit that some of this science is still in its infancy yet the same results are coming in from around the world, the message is getting louder. I'll also freely admit that the governmental response to climate change, and not just in this country, is woeful, piecemeal and in some cases downright idiotic. Some of the initiatives laid down by Brown have been, quite frankly, embarrasing to whats needed. And of course some people stand to make a fortune out of climate change, whats surprising about that? Greed has no bounds, not even the destruction of the natural world gets in the way of making a quick buck.
But do not think for a minute that these people speak for the vast majority of scientists who see their work pilloried, mocked and for the most part, subverted. I am not in science for the money, nor are my peers or lecturers. We are just highlighting whats happening, arguing over motives or political stances is irrelevant and pointless. At this moment in time the outlook is bleak but not set in stone. Doing nothing will cost us a thousand times more than we will ever know.”
by Freethinker, Cornwall
Tuesday, September 29 2009, 7:19PM
“Well Chris, all I can say is that these scare stories of GW and the ocean acidification are created to apply pressure on humans. They will either tax us with carbon taxes or push for de-population. Too many people in the world breeding and producing CO2, which in turn, is contributing to the earth's ultimate downfall. Maybe it's time to think about all the pollutant's and deforrestation occuring around the world, due to global corporations. Who might I ask Chris is clamping down on them. No one. Why?, because Governments and global business go hand in hand together. The thought of taxing the air that we breathe for the purposes of saving the planet is irrational and totally unacceptable. The only people laughing all the way to the bank are the bankers who fund the scientific institutions who produce this propaganda. You've been taken for a ride Chris, it's just a shame you can't see it, because you don't want to.”
by Ted, West Cornwall
Tuesday, September 29 2009, 7:02PM
“Remember 'Not the Nine o Clock News?'
...I would gladly pay six hundred pounds!!
Get off the BBC's back - they are still the finest broadcasting service in the world by a country mile.”
by Chris, Cornwall
Tuesday, September 29 2009, 6:11PM
“Freethinker, I wish the widely recognised 30% drop in world biodiversity due to climate change was a scam. That and ocean acidification, collapse of food webs and the systematic destruction of a natural world where important stuff like, our lives, takes place. Ok you pesky little scammers, enoughs enough. You got us good.”