I was going to write a rebuttal of Nick Cohen's article in the Observer lamabasting the BBC for a dereliction of its duty to protect serious journalism. But I can't be bothered. I like Nick and enjoy reading him even when we disagree. But this is such an uncharacteristically sloppy and soft-headed piece, riddled with unsubstantiated assertions, that Im not sure it's worth the effort. I will simply point out :
1. The cuts Nick criticises the BBC for making were mainly in administration in order to put more money into content - the very thing he is arguing for.
2. There is no "class war" between managers and staff. Managers, who have nearly all come up through programme making, are motivated by the same aim as their staff - to get strong original programmes on air - and are struggling with the challenges of the recession and digital change in the same way as every other media organisation.
3. He seems to think if the BBC avoids difficult decisions about budgets and resources it will somehow be stronger. The opposite is the case. If we don't confront those difficult choices - including cutting some staff and budgets - the BBC will become as weak and poor an animal as he fears. In the 1990s the things he celebrates, extensive newsgathering, strength in frontline journalistic staff, the move into the web and more, were achieved through facing the difficult decisions of the time, making changes and moving money into those strategic priorities. The same is true today.
He finishes by saying the BBC has a public duty to invest and broadcast the journalism others cannot afford. That would be why we maintain the biggest network of correspondents and bureaux of any broadcaster or newspaper and why today more money goes into journalism than at any time in the BBC's history.
But to discover that, Nick might have had to do some research.
Are you aware of this, Richard?
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/3997
Quite a rant!
Posted by: John Connell | March 31, 2009 at 04:19 PM