Paul Dacre on the BBC and cultural Marxism
The speech by Paul Dacre, editor of The Daily Mail, about the BBC is outlined in Press Gazette (the full text is only in the print version) and there’s an edited version on The Guardian’s comment pages. He accuses the BBC of liberal bias and “cultural Marxism”. There’s a short response from an actual Marxist — Andrew Murray of the TGWU — in The Guardian’s G2.
Paul Dacre is right in some ways. For example, if journalists in the BBC are protected by the licence fee then this will naturally influence (and you could therefore say “bias”) how and what they present. Also, the BBC’s tentacles spread further than you might suppose would be necessary for a national broadcaster — they go international, and they do more than broadcasting.
But still it’s hard to see how his arguments hang together. As Political Correspondent says over on Lloyd’s blog, “It’s hard to know where to even begin”.
If the source of funding influences journalists’ outlook, then surely the same can be said of the journalists on the Daily Mail. If the BBC’s journalists are “crushing journalistic pluralism and imposing a monoculture” then so are those of the Daily Mail. Indeed, so are the journalists of any single organisation — it’s only a plurality — sorry, variety — of journalistic outlets that ensure a variety of views and culture.
Dacre’s use of the phrase “media market” suggests journalism should be driven by market forces, which is doubtful. He speaks in disparaging terms of journalists at loss-making papers (which is almost all of them):
When the Times’ Miss Sieghart — the very embodiment of modern free-thinking woman — holds forth on feminism, she does so courtesy of the topless girls in the still vastly profitable Sun.
When the Guardian’s Mr Kettle vents his spleen on the excesses of the free market he does so courtesy of the fat profits made by that fine example of the free market — the Guardian-owned Autotrader.
Shouldn’t journalists be able to report and comment within the law without external influence or fear of consequences?
Paul Dacre speaks out very rarely. As a result I’ve previously given him the benefit of the doubt, and put the rantings of his paper down to his canny awareness of what people want to hear. But now it’s sounding as if he actually believes this stuff, and that’s really disappointing.
