barry_x's review
informative
medium-paced
3.0
This was okay I guess.
I'd been quite looking forward to reading this, having had it on the 'to-be-read' pile for some time and often seeing it referenced elsewhere. However, after reading it I am left with the notion that I haven't learnt anything particularly new or enlightening.
The book's premise is that rather than the BBC being impartial and independent, it is in actuality inextricably entwined with the Establishment, power and the state. I don't think anyone who has been playing attention can say that it is anything but? The book was published in 2016 so some of the references are new enough to be familiar, and in many respects since then the BBC has been exposed time and time again - particularly in relation to it's revolving doors between the BBC, the City of London and Westminster and the Civil Service. In many respects the findings have been accentuated since then, with the assassination of Corbyn, the ridiculous close relationship to the Tory press office and even today the line the BBC has taken on Israel's genocidal attack on Palestine.
Some examples - in the 2019 general election when there was the story of children lying in corridors in hospital that was building momentum, the BBC led on a story about the hospital were the Health Minister was attacked outside. It was proven false, but the political narrative over the night was on this assault rather than the NHS in crisis. What became evident was that the attack story was leaked by the Tory Press office and ran with without validation. Job done.
And then we had the 'antisemitism' crisis which dominated the news. We soon learnt that Margaret Hodge, one of Corbyn's biggest opponents had a daughter heading up BBC news. The nepotism and closeness of power to the BBC makes it very hard to consider it as impartial.
But of course we are describing recent events and not those of the book. The book generally provides an overview of the BBC and looks at points in it's history to show it's closeness to power. So there is documented evidence of it's taking the government line in the General Strike of 1926 - again, nothing new. There is a long chapter about vetting by M15 and how the BBC rather than being asked by M15 to monitor it's staff, actually asked for far more than what M15 offered. I was reminded of the Noam Chomsky interview with Andrew Marr and...
Marr: “How can you know I’m self-censoring?”
Chomsky: “I’m not saying you’re self-censoring. I’m sure you believe everything you say. But what I’m saying is if you believed something different you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.”
By this, suggesting that the range of opinion and political views allowed at the BBC means that they filter out anyone remotely espousing anything other than establishment values. Of course, those who get in, may not think that is why they are there, but that feels beside the point.
There are chapters on the Miner's strike in 1986 and the cooked up weapons of mass destruction dossier, but again they don't go into to much depth, and again, anyone paying attention knows the truth now about the doctored footage and bias. The old, 'we talk to industrialists and politicians more than ordinary people and trade unionists' argument has been told for decades.
There is an interesting chapter about the attempt to liberalise and introduce competition into the BBC and how this marketisation actually led to lots of additional costs. It reminded me of the New Public Management which wrecked a lot of the public sector at around the same time and what we are still trying to unpick. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so damaging.
The most interesting chapter is the one about the growth about business and economics news since the 90's and how it was a concerted effort, from 2 minute slots at the end of the news to full hours of TV per day. The explosion in the number of business journalists and funding since the 90's seems completely disproportionate to the interest in it, and it is clear (like big business love to have) is that lots of public money has been spent not only to provide a small minority with 'business news' but also the BBC took it upon them selves to push a neoliberal agenda and a pro-business agenda on the public - which we did not ask for, nor want.
The book occasionally references those who claim the BBC is left-wing and tries to prove otherwise but I kind of see this as wasted effort. Only idiots believe this. But what I am struck by is that the BBC is very much like the Labour Party. Both ingrained with the establishment - both carry on moving further and further right wing to prove they are not left, whilst all along the right sets the narrative. As the window carries on moving rightward, the 'impartial, central space' moves with it.
The book can be quite dry at times, but is interesting enough. I guess for some there will be a lot of eye-openers in here, but really it wasn't so much for me.
I'd been quite looking forward to reading this, having had it on the 'to-be-read' pile for some time and often seeing it referenced elsewhere. However, after reading it I am left with the notion that I haven't learnt anything particularly new or enlightening.
The book's premise is that rather than the BBC being impartial and independent, it is in actuality inextricably entwined with the Establishment, power and the state. I don't think anyone who has been playing attention can say that it is anything but? The book was published in 2016 so some of the references are new enough to be familiar, and in many respects since then the BBC has been exposed time and time again - particularly in relation to it's revolving doors between the BBC, the City of London and Westminster and the Civil Service. In many respects the findings have been accentuated since then, with the assassination of Corbyn, the ridiculous close relationship to the Tory press office and even today the line the BBC has taken on Israel's genocidal attack on Palestine.
Some examples - in the 2019 general election when there was the story of children lying in corridors in hospital that was building momentum, the BBC led on a story about the hospital were the Health Minister was attacked outside. It was proven false, but the political narrative over the night was on this assault rather than the NHS in crisis. What became evident was that the attack story was leaked by the Tory Press office and ran with without validation. Job done.
And then we had the 'antisemitism' crisis which dominated the news. We soon learnt that Margaret Hodge, one of Corbyn's biggest opponents had a daughter heading up BBC news. The nepotism and closeness of power to the BBC makes it very hard to consider it as impartial.
But of course we are describing recent events and not those of the book. The book generally provides an overview of the BBC and looks at points in it's history to show it's closeness to power. So there is documented evidence of it's taking the government line in the General Strike of 1926 - again, nothing new. There is a long chapter about vetting by M15 and how the BBC rather than being asked by M15 to monitor it's staff, actually asked for far more than what M15 offered. I was reminded of the Noam Chomsky interview with Andrew Marr and...
Marr: “How can you know I’m self-censoring?”
Chomsky: “I’m not saying you’re self-censoring. I’m sure you believe everything you say. But what I’m saying is if you believed something different you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.”
By this, suggesting that the range of opinion and political views allowed at the BBC means that they filter out anyone remotely espousing anything other than establishment values. Of course, those who get in, may not think that is why they are there, but that feels beside the point.
There are chapters on the Miner's strike in 1986 and the cooked up weapons of mass destruction dossier, but again they don't go into to much depth, and again, anyone paying attention knows the truth now about the doctored footage and bias. The old, 'we talk to industrialists and politicians more than ordinary people and trade unionists' argument has been told for decades.
There is an interesting chapter about the attempt to liberalise and introduce competition into the BBC and how this marketisation actually led to lots of additional costs. It reminded me of the New Public Management which wrecked a lot of the public sector at around the same time and what we are still trying to unpick. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so damaging.
The most interesting chapter is the one about the growth about business and economics news since the 90's and how it was a concerted effort, from 2 minute slots at the end of the news to full hours of TV per day. The explosion in the number of business journalists and funding since the 90's seems completely disproportionate to the interest in it, and it is clear (like big business love to have) is that lots of public money has been spent not only to provide a small minority with 'business news' but also the BBC took it upon them selves to push a neoliberal agenda and a pro-business agenda on the public - which we did not ask for, nor want.
The book occasionally references those who claim the BBC is left-wing and tries to prove otherwise but I kind of see this as wasted effort. Only idiots believe this. But what I am struck by is that the BBC is very much like the Labour Party. Both ingrained with the establishment - both carry on moving further and further right wing to prove they are not left, whilst all along the right sets the narrative. As the window carries on moving rightward, the 'impartial, central space' moves with it.
The book can be quite dry at times, but is interesting enough. I guess for some there will be a lot of eye-openers in here, but really it wasn't so much for me.
epellicci's review
A very dry historical account of the BBC. The book lacks the critical engagement and analysis I was hoping for.
brnineworms's review
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
3.5
The BBC: Myth of a Public Service manages to strike a healthy balance of being academic and being accessible. It is thoroughly researched (footnotes galore!) but, at the same time, approachably written and well explained. Mills provided some good insights (on the BBC’s reliance on the state/government, apoliticism and conservatism, capitalism and creativity, etc.) and he concludes the book with a call for decentralisation, democratisation, and diversity.
Despite my praise, it must be said that the book was quite dry at times. There really is no way around that. This isn’t really the author’s fault – rather, the subject matter just didn’t intrigue me as much as I thought it would.
In the end, The BBC: Myth of a Public Service was paradoxically interesting yet also failing to hold my interest. I wouldn’t necessarily recommend this book, but I’m sure others will enjoy it more than I did.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Police brutality and Racism
Minor: Addiction, Antisemitism, Cursing, Homophobia, Sexual content, Slavery, Suicide, Violence, and Xenophobia