Admin

The ‘question’ over the BBC is not an issue of are they, or aren’t they? It’s a matter of do they, or don’t they? It’s the nub of the controversy about its mandate, and what it actually does.

It’s like a bad employee that has a great-sounding job title but returns to the office with sushi at lunch. It’s the best glimpse you’re going to get of him, and the work isn’t forthcoming.

As far as it goes, it’s difficult to see where the BBC serves these days. It’s in the interests of someone, for sure, but exactly who? It doesn’t feed needs we have as a state, polity, or culture.

Take the news offering. It’s there, sort of, but much of its subject matter suffers in some way. It doesn’t take a deep, ethical interest because it’s considered uncouth in other quarters.

There are pressures, of course, on the lucrative business of broadcasting, but what about manners – and the necessity of sharing information we have as widely, and as far, as possible?

It seems odd that organisations, companies, and charitable groups are providing their own news service. It’s in the public interest and more of a service to the public than a bulletin at 6.

The essential data – or the exact updates we need – seems all but impossible to get out of the BBC with any degree of importance, and it’s superfluous to expect it anytime soon.

It may be the time we’re in, and the notion of serving a purpose is not necessarily old fashioned, as if outdated or redundant, but it’s just not what 90’s kids do, or 00’s for that matter.

This is where the rubber hits the road, and it needs to be realised even this is a purpose to be served. It’s time we let each other know what matters now, and why, before it’s too late.