BBC’s one-sided stagnation is a disaster
dmg media (UK)
IF THERE were a Right-wing Gary Lineker, we wouldn’t be having all these problems. Imagine if a figure of similar fame and clout, but in favour of migration controls, could confront Mr Lineker on Twitter or on a public debate programme. Then it wouldn’t matter that either of them used their BBC positions to push one side. But only the BBC could create such a figure. The national broadcaster is the only body which can lift people to such prominence. Mr Lineker’s huge Twitter following – which makes his opinions important – is the result of his broadcasting fame. It is true the BBC occasionally gives modest platforms to a few nominal Tories, or to confused, politically incoherent crowdpleasers such as Jeremy Clarkson. But the one opinion it veers violently away from is social, moral and political conservatism. Dominated as it is by urban radicals, it simply cannot bear to have such opinions around, nor the people who hold them. This is where BBC impartiality has gone wrong. For decades now, the BBC has recruited from people who actively like mass immigration because it makes the country more multicultural, and who are embarrassed and baffled by conservative Christianity or by people who believe in the punishment of crime. How would it now redress this balance? Parliament works, or used to work, because it was balanced between two genuinely opposing parties. Fleet Street was the same, as is our court system. Tough public debate is a good way of getting at the truth. The BBC’s collapse into onesided stagnation is a national disaster. If it won’t reform, close it down and start again. Yes, let’s have a national broadcaster, just not this one. When the BBC Charter next comes up, make it plain it will be awarded only to a body ready to allow voices from both sides of our society.