The recent furore over Gary Lineker likening the Tory Government's language over migrants has highlighted the impossibility of the licence fee.
The BBC has an impartiality clause in contracts because it has to be seen to be above politics, to be impartial. That way, it is (in part) seen to be for everyone, and not favouring one person or another or one ideology or another.
The reason for that is everyone, regardless of political viewpoint, race or religion has to contribute towards the BBC in the form of the licence fee.
I mean, if they stopped making programmes for a certain demographic, or started espousing political viewpoints against a certain demographic, then that demographic would quite rightly feel a bit hard done by to put it mildly. (I'm talking about old white working class men here of course).
They might wonder why they are contributing to an organisation that doesn't cater for them in the first instance and even worse, actively opposes them on screen.
In that instance that demographic might wonder why the hell are they paying money to the BBC to be abused? I mean, some of us might be phycological masochists, but the majority aren't.
So impartiality has to be the bedrock of the BBC, in output, in opinion on and off the screen.
If Gary Lineker likens the people paying his wages (The government following public opinion and therefore the public) to Nazis, then maybe he should rethink taking money from the public if they offend him so much? Or is it just the people that offend his virtuous sensibilities but he's quite happy to keep taking their money?
In that case, hypocrisy is very much at the fore.
It seems to me that either BBC presenters stay ideologically neutral in their public opinions, or we scrap the licence fee and then you can decide if you want to fund their opinion if it conflicts with yours.
Posts
