There's nothing like defacing a portrait of a living dictator, whom dismantles ethical schemes by starving them with designated funds. The result entailing youthful dissidents to deface depictions of the rich and powerful ----- to be frank, I'd done far worse against the ornamental stone-masonry on a Saturday night and it was quite acceptable - alas, you'd be correct to concur we've entered into another realm of stiffened sensitivity and that's partly to do with the failure of right-wing Conservatism. Slowly and surely the public are catching on to the fact that our grandiose public institution (the British Broadcasting Company) is extraneous.
Naturally, there's a hardcore fraction of society who'll announce the BBC is an impartial service through and through and regardless of research will continue to believe in the BBC mantra or shall we say: Charter ---- I tend to adopt to a simple prose to start the ball rolling; by i.e. referring to their website: "Impartiality lies at the heart of public service and is the core of the BBC's commitment to its audiences. It applies to all our output and services - television, radio, online, and in our international services and commercial magazines. We must be inclusive, considering the broad perspective and ensuring the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected." Why this Charter has zero influence on BBC can be witnessed by watching 'Newsnight' -- there's always no government representative to discuss internal matters, and indirectly there's no need for one either, purely of the understanding the BBC are the substitute governance representative. If it wasn't, every news item affiliated to Westminster's internal affairs would breach the Charter of Impartiality. Effectively the 'Newsnight' presenter works on behalf of the incumbent administration - often giving a better journalistic account than a real parliamentarian. This should make you wonder; 'oh hold on, the BBC aren't elected by the public so where's their mandate?' Yup, they don't have one. But await, it gets far more juicier; there's a fundamental conflict of interest that dissolves our national democracy and it automatically disenfranchises the BBC's public institution entirely.
Their broadcasting 'license' per se, is underwritten by the governance of the time and it's done so by the public broadcasting Charter and 'Agreement;' oddly enough, in tandem - one document doesn't exist independently. Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Director General of the BBC sign off a declaration of intent which allows the BBC to be 'independent' -- underwritten by the term --- public service. In regards to 'intention' this is perfectly coherent in a free society, hence, in practice it's totally non-viable. To claim anyone has no political persuasion while working under the umbrella of the BBC is implying everyone is dehumanised, degenerative of human traits and individualism. They're merely slaves to a broadcasting system and programmed to abide by the rules of the Charter and 'Agreement,' led by Her Majesty's incumbency. The human leniency of this 'all minds are cloned to one theme' (ideology) rests in one part of the 'Agreement' -- it Introductory states: 'The BBC must define whether an activity is to be carried out as a public service, a non-service activity, a trading activity, or a commercial activity.' Strange really why the Secretary State has to be involved at all in such a document, of the premise they're notoriously political and you could profoundly surmise their influences could damage broadcasting impartiality. The main three factors the BBC and HM Government abide by are: (1) funding (2) regulation duties (3) constitutional document. Again it appears plausible on the surface till a member of the public actually views the document - no sign of the locus sigilli seal; just (L.S). Indirectly making the BBC neither a public service nor independent.
For the record, prior to the 20th century the judicial system only recognised red wax seals; naturally time has elapsed and it became a simple circle of red and nowadays a circle containing 'L.S' is quite sufficient - albeit, the BBC's 'agreement' with HM Government just contains the letters without a circle! -- Leaving enough wiggle room for political alignments to make a travesty of broadcasting impartiality. And there's a loophole within the agreement too which proves they're in the erudition of knowingly deceiving the public: "controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality in our news and other output dealing with matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy. But we go further than that, applying due impartiality to all subjects. *However, its requirements will vary*." Furthermore, the 'agreement' outlines the concept of 'balance' between opposing sides as being not necessary on every issue - thus, leaving those decisions up to the broadcasters themselves to make hay over.
What is remarkable is this is deemed a basic democratic principle within the 'agreement.' In reality, this isn't news, the BBC propaganda machine has amiably been disproportionate since inception - in the BBC's broadcasting infancy it chose to during the 1926 General Strike to make a statement. Director-General John Reith (1889 - 1971) openly claimed: "the government know they can trust us not to be really impartial." BBC's ethos remains the same, broadcasters avidly spoke about discussing who or what to report on with governance and security services; their aim to keep plutocracy at the heart of the BBC, why 'Lefties' have effectively been silenced; unceremoniously taken out of the equation by default. Slowly and surely social media will be regulated to silence Marxist views, I've seen it in action.
Part of the Hutton Report (2004)investigated into how the Press sourced out data - ref: Death of Weapons Inspector Dr David Kelly; gave the impression the BBC is not deemed an autonomous organisation which expresses public service broadcasting for and on the license-fee payers behalf. Instead, the media animal abides by state corporation and that entails and waves on political party interference. One of the indicators of suchlike is how the Conservatives are now the only self-professed party to deliver on EU negotiations in regards to Brexit; without even relaying any planning or economic platform.
Fundamentally, the BBC are proven alliances with the surge of nationalism which in turn will rewrite our laws post-Brexit; the very laws that offer us libertarianism. Indeed, the BBC are complicit to the ideology of right-wing protectionism and it'll become tomorrow's reality, notably being Incorporated is a worrisome value of BBC / Governmental led 'civilizing' of the public's thought-processes via over-endorsing the BBC 'Impartiality Card' - alas, doing the exact opposite. For evidence, look no further into whom resides at the Editorial Offices? Something to which the majority are blinded to or have no interest of; if I'm allowed I'll express immense concern over our misguided trust in regards to governmental intrusion into future generations... the massive onslaught of regimenting the minds and attitudes of school children through 'educative' curricula, whereby new media exposes the verification of state interference, oddly under the Agreement of permissive content.
Again, this isn't new; the Hutchins Commission of 1946 claimed the freedom of press portrayed a warrant for enabling private enterprises through the State to control the great mass media, hence, why MPs can be on boards of pharma-corporations peddling health-care en masse. This alignment should threaten our state / democratic constitution, purely on the nefariously tainted BBC value the TV license holder buys into the 'impartial' service as enveloping an 'environment of vested beliefs' - to put a finer point on it, we allow the BBC to enter homes, thinking that the information is securing a possession of liberalism - generic prose from a wide lens outsource. Ultimately, this isn't the case, the BBC are happily miss-selling 'Impartiality' knowing full well their crop of Editors are plucked from Right-Wing Press circles; James Landale the BBC Diplomatic Editor is from 'The Times' and is in cahoot with Nick Robinson. Furthermore, John Curtice the BBC's Election Guru knows the ex-Chancellor George Osborne personally, you could easily compute Curtice's political pendulum sways to the right by this simple conflict of interest ----- there are many other examples.
Peculiarly the 'Leveson Inquiry' Part Two was on its way to gift the public ultra-transparency, yet our elected lawmakers rejected such an inquiry very recently. It was spun that the Data Protection Bill was venturing into intrusive waters... and minor non-binding legal issues between the State and the BBC will create an environment of BBC perfidy, which'll inadvertently make youthful minds turn to social media as the valid hub of information under the umbrella of truth. Now this means the State and the BBC will actively seek 'regulations' to stem the momentum away from 'dangerous' social movements. You couldn't believe it happens in a democratic state, albeit, historically the BBC is an expert in the ultimate Great British Public Service Hoodwink. I'll doubt they'll turn that into a show.
Comments
Post a Comment