Fi­nally, the BBC says it is guilty... of not be­ing Left-wing enough!

The Mail on Sunday - - Comment - Peter Hitchens Read Peter’s blog at hitchens­blog.mailon­sun­day.co.uk and fol­low him on Twit­ter @clarkem­icah

THE point of Left- wing pro­pa­ganda is to make us feel pow­er­less. Garbage of all kinds is con­stantly stated as fact on the air­waves. We know it is tripe, but we can do noth­ing about it. By sub­mit­ting to it, we are de­mor­alised and weak­ened. I learned this dur­ing years of vis­it­ing and liv­ing in Com­mu­nist coun­tries, where lu­di­crous ban­ners and ly­ing me­dia pro­claimed wicked false­hoods and dared you to protest. The tiny few who did ended up be­ing dis­missed as of­fi­cially crazy by shame­less toad­y­ing psy­chi­a­trists, ex­iled or locked up in camps.

It was only when, glo­ri­ously, enough peo­ple found the courage to defy this that th­ese regimes came to an end, of­ten very rapidly.

But in our squelchy Left­ist State, there seems to be no es­cape. The BBC in­creas­ingly func­tions as a sort of Thought Po­lice. Even its com­plaints sys­tem has been turned into an arm of con­form­ist re­pres­sion.

One of the ar­ti­cles of faith of the new despo­tism is that cli­mate change is caused by hu­man ac­tiv­ity. It has to be an ar­ti­cle of faith be­cause there is no ob­jec­tive testable proof that this is so, the nor­mal re­quire­ment in sci­ence.

We are told in­stead that there is a ‘con­sen­sus’ or a ‘vast ma­jor­ity’ in favour of this be­lief. But sci­en­tific ques­tions are not de­cided by ma­jori­ties. They are de­cided by hard ex­per­i­ments, re­peat­edly ver­i­fied.

Pre­cisely be­cause it is a faith rather than a fact, a spe­cial in­tol­er­ant fury is turned on any who pub­licly doubt it.

HERE is an ex­am­ple. Last week, the BBC’s own ‘ Ex­ec­u­tive Com­plaints Unit’ (ECU), with which I have had many deal­ings, con­demned Ra­dio 4’s To­day pro­gramme. This is some­thing I have been try­ing to get it to do for years. I have many times bat­tled my way through the fu­tile outer de­fences of the Cor­po­ra­tion’s com­plaints sys­tem. This was long ago out­sourced to an out­side con­trac­tor, Capita.

I get the strong im­pres­sion that Capita is there solely to soak up the anger of view­ers and lis­ten­ers. I can get no straight an­swer from t he BBC about whether com­plaints made to it are even passed di­rectly to the pro­gramme-mak­ers in­volved. You have to per­sist might­ily to get past this to reach the ECU, which most com­plainants never man­age to do be­cause they don’t even know it ex­ists.

To­day is an over­rated, in­creas­ingly dull and badly bi­ased pro­gramme which re­peat­edly gives a free run to pro­pa­gan­dists for the de­crim­i­nal­i­sa­tion of dan­ger­ous drugs, a cause mys­te­ri­ously pop­u­lar among BBC per­sons, among whom drug abuse is to­tally un­known.

Ill- in­formed pre­sen­ters lis­ten obe­di­ently to this bilge, and re­cently (for ex­am­ple) al­lowed a guest to broadcast the street prices for co­caine, which it is a crime to sell or buy, with­out re­buke or in­ter­rup­tion. It gives no match­ing pub­lic­ity to op­po­nents of this mad cause, who are lucky if they get on the air at all.

But the ECU some­how can­not see that this is a bla­tant breach of the BBC Char­ter and Agree­ment, which re­quires im­par­tial­ity on is­sues of pub­lic con­tro­versy.

Con­trast this with its right­eous re­sponse when a lis­tener com­plained that Lord Law­son, who had ex­pressed doubts about the claims of the cli­mate change lobby, was not prop­erly chal­lenged by the pre­sen­ter in­volved. In fact, this claim had some merit. Lord Law­son’s state­ments about global tem­per­a­tures were open to chal­lenge. I would not my­self have made them.

But while my com­plaints about pre­sen­ters’ fail­ure to in­ter­ro­gate the claims of drug le­galis­ers, or to be im­par­tial on the is­sue, are re­peat­edly flatly re­jected, this com­plaint was up­held and re­sulted in a for­mal apol­ogy.

This is straight­for­wardly un­just. Com­plaints against the BBC are only up­held when it is not Leftwing enough.

There are only two re­sponses to this. One is fury, and the other is laugh­ter. But is there any es­cape from the web of in­ces­sant lies in which we are now en­tan­gled?

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.