> Begin forwarded message: > > The BBC Is Struggling to Survive the Era of Fake News > Tuesday, 22 December, 2020 - 05:45 > Max Hastings > https://english.aawsat.com/home/article/2696831/max-hastings/bbc-struggling-survive-era-fake-news > > <https://english.aawsat.com/home/article/2696831/max-hastings/bbc-struggling-survive-era-fake-news> > > A group of Zurich University researchers this year published a study > comparing the vulnerability of 18 advanced societies to online > misinformation. The best defended, they concluded, were the Nordic nations, > led by Finland, with a resilience score of +7, followed by Denmark with +5. > The UK ranked fifth, with +4. > > > Much more credulous were the southern Europeans. Greece was marked as -6, > Italy as -5. To some of us, however, the most dismaying conclusion of the > survey was that the US, the world’s largest economy, ranked last, with a > marking of -11. > > > Americans, say the researchers, are most likely of all developed democracies > to believe fake news, to swallow conspiracy theories. The country has > “conditions that favor an easy dissemination of and exposure to online > disinformation.” > > > We shall not here discuss manifestations of this phenomenon, related to > “rigged elections” and such. My focus is on why these findings should be as > they are, by considering an institution the UK possesses, but the US lacks. > The Zurich study found a common strand among the best-informed, least readily > deceived societies: All have strong, responsible public broadcast services. > These make them far less vulnerable to mendacious social media and partisan > news sources, of which Fox News is the most conspicuous. > > > The UK, of course, has the BBC. Beyond its domestic audience, it boasts a > global reach of 426 million viewers and listeners, for whom its World Service > is among the most trusted of all news sources. > > > Many Americans believe that BBC is a state broadcaster. Not so. It is, > instead, a curious hybrid, funded through a compulsory license payment for > the right to view and listen, topped up by a government subsidy toward the > costs of its World Service output. It is controlled by the BBC Board; while > the prime minister selects its chairman, it displays an independence that > often enrages Downing Street. > > > The British Broadcasting Corporation was founded in 1922 as a private > company, then five years later turned into a public institution, governed by > royal charter. Today it has one of the largest international news > organizations, with 2,000 journalists, 50 news bureaus and a budget > approaching half a billion dollars. > > > In a 2019 survey by Ipsos MORI that invited British people to choose a single > source to which they would turn for impartial news, 44% chose the BBC; 3% > favored the left-leaning Guardian newspaper; just 1% each, right-wing Daily > Mail and Sun newspapers. During the Covid-19 pandemic, BBC audiences have > soared. > > > And yet, amazingly, the corporation trembles on its foundations. It is > besieged by formidable forces: right-wing politicians who now govern Britain; > competition for audience share from streaming channels such as Netflix; and > declining revenue — in real terms, its income has fallen by one-third over > the past decade. > > > A new book by two British media researchers, Patrick Barwise and Peter York, > “The War Against the BBC,” asserts that Prime Minister Boris Johnson is “the > most hostile prime minister the Corporation has ever faced.” Beyond > ideological objections, he has personal grievances, deriving from its past > reporting of his extravagant love life. > > > You might suppose that, when a towering national institution is imperiled, > cavalry would be riding to “the Beeb’s” rescue. This is not happening, > however. A range of rivals, headed by organs controlled by the Murdoch > family, which has controlled both Fox and Sky, bays for BBC to be vastly > downsized. They cite unfair state-aided competition, left-wing bias, wanton > extravagance by an institution that employs 22,000 full-time staff, and still > has an annual income of more than $5 billion. > > > James Murdoch, the younger son of media empire-builder Rupert Murdoch, has > compared BBC to Pravda. In a prominent 2009 lecture, he said: “As Orwell > foretold, to let the state enjoy a near-monopoly of information is to > guarantee manipulation and distortion … Yet we have a system in which > state-sponsored media — the BBC in particular — grow ever more dominant.” > > > Many of the elderly viewers and listeners who increasingly dominate its > audiences moan about the BBC’s alleged surrender to woke culture. It is > certainly true that its bosses, goaded by anxiety to woo the young and > minorities, have shown a politically reckless disregard for the sensibilities > and interests of their traditional audience. This is symbolized by BBC’s > recent announcement that it plans to spend $124 million on racial and gender > diversification. Grumpy pensioners complain that this is not what they pay > their license money for, and they have a point. > > > Ah yes, the license. This is a concept so alien to other nations, that it > bears explanation. Some 95% of British households pay an annual charge of > $204 for the right to watch the BBC’s 10 national TV channels and listen to > its 11 domestic radio stations. The poor and those over 75 have since 1998 > been spared license payment. > > > The latter exemption was introduced at government behest, as a sweetener for > older voters, and paid for by the Treasury. But five years ago, the burden > was transferred to the BBC. As the population ages, it is costing the > corporation almost $500 million a year in lost revenue. Amid rage from the > elderly, echoed in their name by political leaders and newspapers, the BBC > has insisted on withdrawing the over-75 concession. > > > The row is absurd, of course. The average British person accesses one or > other of BBC’s outlets for two and half hours a day, for which they pay > little more than 50 cents. For that, they get a stunning range of news > programs, together with drama of Jane Austen and Charles Dickens quality, > soaps, quiz shows, comedies such as “Fleabag” (and, in past days, Monty > Python and “Fawlty Towers”), “Strictly Come Dancing,” history documentaries, > the obsessively watched “Great British Bake Off,” the best children’s > programing in the world, and much else. > > > Stop there, say the corporation’s critics: Most of this can as well be done > by commercial channels or streaming services. If the BBC is to be allowed to > survive, it should relinquish its role in everything save genuine public > service broadcasting, and be funded by subscription or advertising. > > > Bloomberg >
_______________________________________________ Infowarrior mailing list Infowarrior@attrition.org https://attrition.org/mailman/listinfo/infowarrior
