http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk SEPTEMBER 2019 HI-FI WORLD 71
/0)N)/N
O
f late I have been work-
ing in a technical capac-
ity for the BBC – spe-
cifically, its R&D depart-
ment. It is an honour
to share lab-space with
the brilliant scientists and engi-
neers who have done so much for
broadcasting. BBC R&D sets global
standards, and has played a pivotal
role in technologies like Nicam,
teletext, RDS and digital radio/TV. It
designed loudspeakers, still sought-
after today, that are known by their
BBC internal reference numbers
- among them, the LS3/5a and LS5/9.
The BBC often had no choice but
to develop its own hardware, simply
because it didn’t exist.
The compact LS3/5a, for
example, fulfilled the BBC’s need
for a capable monitor that would
occupy minimal space within a
crowded outside-broadcast vehicle.
Designs are licensed to manufac-
turers, which supply external
customers as well the BBC, thereby
providing it with valuable income.
Broadcasting may be an
established industry nowadays,
but the BBC still has to originate
cutting-edge tech at times. Such
duties are written into Section 15
of the periodically-reviewed Royal
Charter, the ‘letters patent’ that
grant the BBC its unique status in
British life.
Recent blanket press-coverage
of the BBC concerns me - and I’m
speaking here purely as someone
who appreciates its services and
peerless public-service ethos
(these views are mine, and don’t
necessarily reflect the BBC’s).
First came the BBC’s decision to
means-test licence fees for over-75s.
Given that newspaper readers tend
to be older citizens, the resultant
‘reporting’ was distinctly-barbed.
Some of the anger generated by this
episode (and how it was covered)
contaminated unrelated BBC ‘Have
Your Say’ sections.
Adding to the BBC’s woes was
what one tabloid described as a
“wages scandal” - how “loopholes”
are used to “conceal millions...paid
to its biggest stars”.
Following the Tory debate, the
London Evening Standard published
an article that, to me at least,
seemed to gleefully-trash the BBC
while remarking how “streaming
giants” are “stealing the shows”. I
get the impression that its author
sees the BBC not as a public-service
broadcaster with a mission to
‘educate, inform and entertain’, but
as a mere purveyor of consumer-
product like Netflix (over $8bn
in debt last autumn, according to
Variety).
Indeed, the article didn’t
mention public-service broadcasting
once. Nor did it point out an
inconvenient truth - that the BBC
manages to churn out quality drama
and documentaries with budgets a
fraction of what said giant American
corporations – unencumbered
by common-good public-service
obligations – throw at their
programming.
I’ve concentrated on television
for a reason; the BBC’s radio
services, which I consider to be the
best in the world, were apparently
only mentioned so the author could
swipe at its ‘Sounds’ app.
Newspapers (not necessarily
those given away at Tube stations)
tend to be ‘consumed’ by groups
sharing their values. Readerships
overlook bias that infects their
news coverage, because it happens
to coincide with their own views;
these papers, and their associated
online portals, are essentially ‘echo-
chambers’.
It is no coincidence that the
BBC, which under the terms of theaforementioned Charter (section
6.1) must be neutral, is frequently-
slammed for biased news. The
right accuse it of being left-leaning,
while the left accuse it of dissemi-
nating Tory propaganda verbatim. I
interpret that as fair and balanced
coverage overall!
The Beeb gets far more ‘schtick’
than other media; can you imagine
the public outcry had the BBC been
caught hacking into the voicemail
of a dead child, paying people to
sift through celebrity dustbins or
buying snaps of bikini-clad royals
from shamelessly-intrusive paparazzi
photographers?
And that’s the point. The BBC
is, thanks to the way it’s funded,
accountable to each and every one
of us. Some may hate to admit it,
but deep inside we appreciate that
the BBC’s values are as sound as
those speaker designs.
It’s therefore correct to call the
BBC to account when necessary.
Jimmy Savile, ‘Sachsgate’ and (yes!)
the wages of non-staffers like Gary
Lineker spring to mind. The BBC
was arguably forced into a corner,
by the government to which the
Standard’s editor once belonged,
when it comes to licences for the
over-75s – ironically, those more
likely to enjoy BBC services. It could
however be argued that the BBC
is fulfilling its public-service brief
by directing the eligible towards
pension credits...and thus free
licences!
One-sided coverage of the BBC
from media outlets that are, after all,
‘the competition’ weakens what is
indisputably a national asset. Before
politicising or indulging in cheap
point-scoring we must, in the cliched
language so beloved of tabloids, be
careful not to ‘throw out the baby
with the bath-water’. If the BBC is
watered-down or disappears, the
UK loses something unique.Martin Pipe
"Newspaper readers tend
to be older citizens: the
‘reporting’ was barbed."