The future of the BBC World Service as a credible and independent news organisation hangs in the balance (BBC plans TV and radio services for Russia and North Korea, 5 September). It is surprising that the BBC would wish to single out particular countries, rather than languages, that it wishes to target, thereby conceding ground to its critics around the world who view the World Service as an instrument of British propaganda. These decisions imply that the service is connected to a political agenda – something that the organisation, and the World Service in particular, has vigorously avoided since its creation.
Most worrying is director general Tony Hall’s claim that the BBC has “a strong commitment to uphold global democracy”. The BBC has no such commitment, and nor should it. The BBC World Service has one commitment only: to provide timely, impartial, and accurate news and information for its listeners around the world. It is a model of journalism that is the envy of news broadcasters across the globe.
Tony Hall has tried to rationalise these proposals in terms of competition from other international broadcasters, such as Russia’s RT and China’s CCTV. The director general is conferring on these stations a level of credibility they do not deserve. Polling data suggests there is no correlation between expenditure on soft power, including international broadcasting, and positive changes in attitudes towards China or Russia. In fact, the polls reveal a reversal of fortune despite the huge investment in public diplomacy. In terms of credibility neither RT nor CCTV are the equivalent of the BBC. Tony Hall is worrying for no reason. In the competition that matters, the BBC is streets ahead.
Professor Gary Rawnsley
Department of international politics, Aberystwyth University
The news that the BBC World Service is to expand its output in Arabic, and develop services to North Korea and Russia, is a welcome development in its promotion of British values overseas, especially in the light of increasing international broadcasting competition from Russia, China and others. I wonder how many licence-fee payers remember or realise that they will be paying for this work, formerly funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and paid for out of general taxation? Money we might have expected to be funding future episodes of Cash in the Attic, Poldark, and (insert your favourite BBC programme here) will in future be providing entertainment and news to the citizens of Novosibirsk and Pyongyang
It was a shameful and cynical move when, in 2014, the coalition government forced the BBC to take on these commitments, thus creatively “saving” the FCO £255m a year. In his announcement, Tony Hall said: “The World Service faces a choice between decline and growth. If the UK wants the BBC to remain valued and respected, an ambassador of Britain’s values and an agent of soft power in the world, then the BBC is going to have to commit to growing the World Service”. It is time to right the wrong and for the FCO to accept its responsibility to fund this treasured and respected organisation.
Terry Hazzard
Kingston upon Thames, Surrey
Jolly unfair of that Sue Perkins to attack culture secretary John Whittingdale for acting like he “owns” the BBC (Tories’ BBC plans are half-baked: Perkins turns up the heat on minister, 28 August). He does “own” it – just as much as Sir Horace Walpole owned the press in the early 18th century.
By today’s reckoning, Walpole returned an estimated £4.5m of taxpayers’ money to toady editors in the form of bribes and was thereby the press’s ultimate paymaster. Whittingdale is, of course, above reproach as far as bribery goes but he is also the ultimate BBC paymaster as the politician most directly able to influence the level of its licence fee. State-funded, truly independent media do not seem possible on paper, however hypothecated the money stream supposedly is. Despite its efforts over the last 88 years, the BBC has shown how difficult it is to live as such a beast in practice. Endlessly debating the renewal of its charter and agreement will not fix this, any more than will giving the minister a piece of your mind.
Perkins should read the agreement. In the current edition, Whittingdale appears 78 times (as culture secretary) in its 61 pages, doing everything from appointing the BBC trustees down. He owns the BBC – get used to it. Or better, let’s have a grown-up debate on how to fix it for a second century.
Professor Brian Winston
University of Lincoln
I am in shock on reading that John Whittingdale is warming to the idea of paying the BBC licence fee “council tax style” (Report, 9 September). When council tax was first instituted we were assured there would be regular re-bandings – but none have taken place and because of this many premises continue to be wrongly banded. After a huge struggle (where I was helped by people living in other retirement blocks of flats) I was finally able to get our Band E flats brought down to Band D, although this is still too high! It is bad enough overpaying for council tax but to have this banding used as a basis for another tax is farcical. Council tax is not fit for purpose and certainly is not a fair way of allocating payment for any other tax.
Brenda Banks
Teignmouth, Devon
