Questions for the BBC
Posted on May 30th, 2007 by Jackie Danicki
I know some Beeb execs read this blog, so maybe one of them can answer my question:
How much have license payers (we are forced by law to fund the BBC if we wish to own a television in the UK) shelled out for this bit of political propaganda being foisted upon children?
Blue Peter and kids’ news program Newsround have long been useful tools of indoctrination for the BBC (see but two more examples here and here), but I cannot believe they are allowed to so brazenly proselytize to children.
Which leads me to another question which I hope one of my BBC readers can answer: How exactly does your organization get away with this? I ask this with the utmost sincerity and seriousness.
Filed under: Life
I can’t tell you how much this cost I am afraid Jackie. Not very much I would think as it appears to be a simple flash animation.
I would however question your assertion that this is “political properganda”. There is now a broad consensus in the UK among all political parties that climate change is real and that something should be done about it. Educating children about the issues is not “political properganda”. Neither is educating children about Fair Trade as long as it is done in a neutral and impartial way. Of the examples you link to, the second is perfectly fine - a neutral reporting of what the Fair Trade movement claims. The first does go too fair, in that it explicitly tells children to do something. This is a mistake. However I would point out that both the examples you link to are several years old.
I suspect you have not actually looked at the Green Peter site itself. Here is a link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cbbc/bluepeter/greenpeter/
I’d be interested to know what you think after you have had a proper look.
Thanks for your response, Nick.
“There is now a broad consensus in the UK among all political parties that climate change is real and that something should be done about it.”
Who cares about what political parties think? I’m more interested in scientists, frankly. My question is not whether climate change is happening - it is the very nature of climate to change, so that’s a no-brainer - but whether the BBC should be proselytizing to children on the human response to it…something about which there is MUCH debate, if you hadn’t noticed.
“Of the examples you link to, the second is perfectly fine - a neutral reporting of what the Fair Trade movement claims.”
But where is the counter-point to answer and debunk those claims? Where are the accounts of farmers whose operations are deemed too small to qualify for Fair Trade? Where are the economists pointing out that countries actively participating in Fair Trade remain impoverished, while countries embracing free trade lift millions out of poverty every year?
The fact is that, alongside whatever fine work the funded-by-force organization has done, the BBC also has a proud history of boiling rather complex issues down to very simplistic, dumbed-down ‘news’ that can be digested and understood by the simpletons who do not have the urge to dig deeper and ask questions. To see this same offense being practiced on children is disgusting and scary - even more so when intelligent people like you see it as harmless. (I linked to two stories from a couple of years ago because I remembered them distinctly, and was able to search them out specifically. I have no doubt that there are more recent examples, as I find my blood boiling whenever I see how the BBC’s children’s programming presents political issues to children. Scientology has nothing on the Beeb.)
I have no idea why you assume I hadn’t seen the Green Peter site. My question remains: How much did it cost us? More to the point, how much did the surrounding PR cost us (I read about Green Peter in many traditional press outlets as well as online)? There should be a very easy way of those of us who fund the BBC finding out precisely how our money is being allocated.
I’ll try and find out what it costs for you Jackie, but that information may be confidential.
But you claim this is “political propaganda”. President Bush now appears to believe that climate change is real and something should be done about it. There are a small minority of people and scientists who don’t believe its real and their views have been heard on the BBC. Here’s an example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/4105327.stm
But it’s becoming an issue which all mainstream political parties agree on worldwide and certainly all political parties in the UK agree on it. So explaining it impartially to children is not “political propaganda”.
Have you looked at the Green Peter site? Can you show me examples of where it proselytizes to children? The BBC should not be proselytising to children, but I would be surprised if we are. Show me.
As for fair trade and free trade - well here is a link to a BBC piece defending free trade - admittedly from 2003
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/533208.stm
Nick, please re-read my comment once more. I said: My question is not whether climate change is happening - it is the very nature of climate to change, so that’s a no-brainer - but whether the BBC should be proselytizing to children on the human response to it…something about which there is MUCH debate, if you hadn’t noticed.
Also: Why on earth should information about how an organisation funded by force spends our money be confidential?
Honestly, this is beyond ridiculous. Imagine if everyone in the UK who wanted to own a computer had to pay a license fee to the BBC in order to “ensure quality programming” or whatever other claim you’d like to make. People would be up in arms. (Or, rather, I hope they’d be. Considering how eagerly people condone the funding by force model the Beeb currently uses to steal from us, I would not be entirely surprised if they bent over and grabbed their ankles.)
It’s hilarious - but not surprising - that a piece “defending” free trade (you know, because freedom is something dangerous and to be debated…sigh) is harder to find from the Beeb than one extolling the virtues of ‘fair trade,’ which keeps people in poverty.