Morning:
8°c
There has been some sniffiness about Jeremy Paxman's assault on the state of television. Filmmaker Stephen Frears called him a "vandal" who "should be taken out and shot", while former Today editor Rod Liddle also registered his lack of support and, like Frears, indulged in some absurd ad hominem remarks. I also spotted a cartoon showing Paxman biting the hand that feeds him.
None of the criticism came close to dealing seriously with the points made by Paxman, which surely deserve proper consideration, in part because of who he is and his lengthy experience as a BBC staffer, but mostly because there was so much sense in his argument.
If he was sitting at my shoulder now he would be pointing out that he was speaking about television in its totality rather than the BBC.
He seemed to go on rather a lot about that fact during his knockabout interview with John Humphrys on the Today programme following his MacTaggart Lecture in Edinburgh.
I'm not sure why he bothered to make the distinction, because what counts are his views on his employer. I don't really care if ITV, GMTV and Five have gone off the rails, and I suspect that audiences don't much either. To that end I plan to substitute BBC for television when quoting Paxman.
He is aware that the public has to have trust in our unique publicservice broadcaster. It sets the standards.
It must be squeaky clean. It has to be better than its rivals. Its news and current affairs output has to be honest and fair.
It is a national institution with an international reputation that, incidentally, is the single most powerful iconic symbol of Britain in foreign parts. Therefore, if the BBC's reputation is lowered, the status of this country will be lowered too.
Within this country the BBC is by far the most dominant media organisation. In ways that many people do not consciously grasp it reaches beyond its regular viewers and listeners into the lives of the vast majority of the population.
Nowhere is this clearer than in the widespread usage of its websites. The BBC has to exhibit, as Paxman said, "some higher moral purpose than mere commercial return". That, in essence, is what distinguishes the BBC from all its rivals. I should say, what should distinguish it, of course, because the fear is that it has bought a oneway ticket on a perilous trip down the road of commerce.
In Paxman's view, the BBC exists to "open people's eyes, to enlighten them, to create an informed democracy, because an informed democracy is a healthy democracy. It is to enable people to make judgments about the sort of lives they wish to lead, about the sort of governments they wish to have." I doubt that anyone could disagree with that, but there is no harm in restating it as often as possible. It is, however, easily said. Putting that noble aim into practice in a world where everything has a price and profit is considered the only virtue is another matter.
Underlying all that Paxman said, about what he called "the commercial amorality of much of the worldwide media", is the belief that public service, in all its forms, is a redundant concept. The market is lauded now as the best expression of democracy. Elites that do not subject themselves to the supposed rigours of the market are regarded with suspicion and Paxman, as both a BBC employee and a journalist, is a member of two elites. This raises any number of questions.
For example, should we abandon any attempt at setting ethical standards by allowing a crude form of democracy the numbers game to impose its will on the minority.
It's noticeable that Liddle's criticism of Paxman was based on his belief that the audience should hold sway.
What Paxman is advocating instead is a return to traditional values without falling into the trap of claiming there was ever a "golden age". He wants to ensure that the BBC and, most importantly, the BBC's journalism, regains the trust of the nation.
Rightly, he warned against the danger of doing so by retreating into "a mind-numbing literalism".
He wants the BBC to inform, not to bore. He isn't against change. Independent producers are welcome. Restructuring at the BBC is fine.
Staff cuts are not so good in his view, though I think I detected a little special pleading there. The central point he has made is, however, hugely relevant.
It isn't too far-fetched to claim that the BBC is one of the pillars of Britain's democracy. We would do well to recognise that fact and find ways to ensure that it does better than merely survive. First, it must rediscover its raison d'être. Then it must put that into practice.
