THE BBC ARE ABOUT to spend £2.1 million on a scheme
they refer to as a “diversity creative talent
fund”, in order "to do more"
to increase the presence of ethnic minorities in front of and behind the
camera: and of course, being a public institution, it has to set up a committee
to look into the matter. And it has just been announced that Lenny Henry has
been appointed to the panel to, "advise and support the BBC on diversity".
It
was Mr Henry you may remember who kicked up a fuss earlier this month with his
criticism of the BBC's policy in the area of employing minorities[1]. I
must say watching as I do the BBC's World News channel at two o'clock most
mornings, there appears to be a more than an adequate supply of ethnic
minorities living off the public tit than suggested by Mr Henry.
So
if you are a black/Asian, feminist, and gay invalid; Lenny's committee would
like to hear from you. In all walks of life outside of the public sector gender
and race are not and should never be of significance when an employer
interviews a candidate. Private sector employers (if only for the sake their
companies ) seek out the most talented individuals who can advance his company
and add to its profits. In this endeavour, ethnicity of a candidate means very
little. If he/she wishes their businesses to prosper, then only the best and
most talented will be employed; and if a single white candidate is selected
over seven 'diverse' ones on the strict basis of qualifications and superior CV
- then it is as it should be. And if the balance between candidates was the
reverse - then it is also as it should be.
It
is only in the public sector were ethnic percentages and targets matter more
than ability. What the BBC are about to do is put at a disadvantage talented white
indigenous people in order to up the quota of ethnic minorities; and doing it
in a bureaucratic and almost sinister fashion. Soon, once the committee is
bedded in, the political correctness surrounding employment at the BBC will
become perfunctory.
The
BBC continues to rub the public's noses in the dirt that is their political
correctness. I cannot help but think that the director general of the BBC, Lord
Hall, is tormenting the majority of his tax-payers, in the same way that a
child is driven to pull the wings off flies; for the shear enjoyment and
pleasure it gives.
No
longer do the BBC profess objectivity in its news reporting. In fact, I think
it is seeping through to the corporation that taxing the public to the tune of
£3.5 billion annually can no longer be
sustained.
Sky
is superior in every field of entertainment and news coverage to the BBC. Even
many liberal actors, and other arty farties, who once despised Rupert Murdock,
are now tempted to take his shilling, by appearing in many productions on the
Sky Arts channel.
Sky
drama is superior to anything the BBC can come up with; it has even created a
series of plays that (like, for those of you who are old enough to remember,
the BBC Play for Today in the 1970s) are truly original. Liberal arty types in
ever greater numbers are subscribing to Sky. Even in the field of Opera and
ballet, the BBC are a meagre presence in comparison. It is about time the BBC
was allowed to float alone in the highly competitive private sector, without
sponging off the taxpayer. They have bragged often enough about being the
finest broadcaster in the world. Now let them prove it where it really matters -
not tied to the public purse.
THIS LATEST endeavour by the BBC is as antiquated in
its procedure as the Soviet politburo were in theirs - decision by committee is
indeed a strange, inefficient and
unworkable device for, in the BBC's case, further alienating its viewers. But
the committee will proceed nevertheless. Lord Hall has decreed that it should,
and so it will be done.
The
£145 annual tax we are made by the BBC to pay, in order to just watch a
television set, would be better spent, in my case, on Sky Atlantic (others have
their own preference - at least they would have a choice). All news and
entertainment produced by the modern BBC has to proceed through some
politically correct sieve before it is even considered.
Yet
the BBC still does not get it. It does just not register with them that there
is a new zeitgeist that is now challenging the 50- year-old hegemony of social
liberalism; which has seeded every disappointment in every social field it has
expressed itself in since 1960.
Since
the 1960s the BBC has been the popular fountain-head for delivering the social
liberal message among the imprisoned licence payers. Now it is different and
the BBC must release its 'subscribers' and let them choose for themselves what
or not to watch.
This
whole business is Lord Hall reacting to Lenny Henry's criticism. Now it seems that
to get anything done at the BBC, you have to be black or fit in with the BBC's PC
agenda. All this does is continue to alienate the BBC's viewers; and hopefully
hastens the corporation's reliance on the public tit.
[1]
Dare I suggest that this is the BBC's response to his criticism? If so, wish I
had his influence over the BBC.
No comments:
Post a Comment