CovOps
 Location : Ether-Sphere
Job/hobbies : Irrationality Exterminator
Humor : Über Serious
 |  Subject: The BBC's statist stance does not speak for us all  Sun Sep 20, 2020 1:44 am | |
| Ministers have been questioned on 'doing more', while questions about civil liberties or proportionality have been conspicuously absent
his week, Matt Hancock appeared on BBC Breakfast in what was subsequently trumpeted as a “car-crash interview”. As the Health Secretary, looking sleep-deprived, attempted to explain the rationale for new restrictions, anchor Naga Munchetty grew exasperated with his evasions, questioning him ever-more stridently.
“This is very worrying, isn’t it?”, she said, as if speaking for the nation, à la Emily Maitlis in her notorious Newsnight monologue. “We all know the rules now… but they’re not working, are they? This is why you’ve had to introduce more regional lockdowns… How prepared are you to impose a national lockdown if those regional measures don’t work?” Hancock’s awkward sign-off: “It’s very good to have me on”, triggered gales of laughter on social media.
Far more alarming than his slip of the tongue was the way Munchetty framed the debate. Baked into her statements and queries are questionable assumptions; a seemingly automatic conviction that lockdown measures “work” and should be followed up by further escalation.
Our broadcasters regularly champion such narratives. Their scrutiny of politicians often begins from the statist premise that they should be doing “more”; locking down sooner or more aggressively, perhaps, or spending more to “fix” problems. Spurred on by the additional demand for action created by the frenetic 24-hour news cycle, the idea that the Government might do less rarely seems to feature.
Radio 4’s Today presenters appear most comfortable challenging ministers on aspects of their response to the pandemic, such as PPE provision or test and trace. Despite highlighting contradictory messaging on liberty-sapping restrictions, very rarely do they question the principle of state control. When Mr Hancock appeared on Today last week, criticism focused solely on clarity over the rule of six, and outrage after Jacob Rees-Mogg characterised public concern over testing as “carping”. Questions about civil liberties or proportionality were conspicuously absent.
This week, Matt Hancock appeared on BBC Breakfast in what was subsequently trumpeted as a “car-crash interview”. As the Health Secretary, looking sleep-deprived, attempted to explain the rationale for new restrictions, anchor Naga Munchetty grew exasperated with his evasions, questioning him ever-more stridently.
“This is very worrying, isn’t it?”, she said, as if speaking for the nation, à la Emily Maitlis in her notorious Newsnight monologue. “We all know the rules now… but they’re not working, are they? This is why you’ve had to introduce more regional lockdowns… How prepared are you to impose a national lockdown if those regional measures don’t work?” Hancock’s awkward sign-off: “It’s very good to have me on”, triggered gales of laughter on social media.
Far more alarming than his slip of the tongue was the way Munchetty framed the debate. Baked into her statements and queries are questionable assumptions; a seemingly automatic conviction that lockdown measures “work” and should be followed up by further escalation.
Our broadcasters regularly champion such narratives. Their scrutiny of politicians often begins from the statist premise that they should be doing “more”; locking down sooner or more aggressively, perhaps, or spending more to “fix” problems. Spurred on by the additional demand for action created by the frenetic 24-hour news cycle, the idea that the Government might do less rarely seems to feature.
Radio 4’s Today presenters appear most comfortable challenging ministers on aspects of their response to the pandemic, such as PPE provision or test and trace. Despite highlighting contradictory messaging on liberty-sapping restrictions, very rarely do they question the principle of state control. When Mr Hancock appeared on Today last week, criticism focused solely on clarity over the rule of six, and outrage after Jacob Rees-Mogg characterised public concern over testing as “carping”. Questions about civil liberties or proportionality were conspicuously absent.
Presenters sometimes even adopt the Government’s own terminology. One BBC reporter this week described new regional restrictions, now a matter of law, as people being “asked” not to socialise. But they are not being asked – they’re being told.
Worryingly, I have yet to see any broadcaster query the decision to fine Piers Corbyn £10,000 for organising a lockdown protest, despite the use of emergency powers without parliamentary scrutiny. Given Today’s pivotal role in shaping the daily news agenda, these are grave sins of omission. Every morning, journalists from across the political spectrum tune in as they slug down their coffees and work out what to commission and whom to invite onto their shows.
In its statist framing of events, the BBC may well reflect majority opinion. As a libertarian, I certainly don’t expect everyone to view the world as I do. But I do expect the BBC to represent at least something of this sentiment. After all, it purports to be our national broadcaster, not just another wing of the state.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/19/bbcs-statist-stance-does-not-speak-us/
 |
|
