![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
7/7, the BBC, and Cultural Warfare
Jul. 10th, 2015 10:01 pmThis past week saw the tenth anniversary of the suicide attacks on the London transport system. People are wont to recall 'where I was when...'; I'd never have guessed, while sketching tall ships from the West Vancouver seawall, that in ten years I'd walk past one of the affected stations every time I went in to work.
In that funny way causality has, how I got to where I am now is directly linked to the 7/7 attacks. Shortly after the day itself I grew dissatisfied with the news coverage I was getting and decided to act on a friend's recommendation and try Radio 4. I don't know where I'd be, or indeed who I'd be, if I hadn't clicked that link, but here we are today, all thanks to violent jihad. It's a funny old world.
Ten years on, Radio 4 and 7/7 are bound up again. The anniversary of the attacks coincides with the announcement of substantial budget cuts, layoffs, and reorganisation at the BBC. I've read about it and listened to half an hour of debate on the subject and still can't parse whether it's awful news or surmountably bad. Despite the rational gymnastics employed by some parties to turn bad news into good, I don't like the smell of it.
The juxtaposition of the news and the date invite a peculiar train of thought: In response to terrorist attacks, officials love to trot out assertions about values and culture, how committed we are to them, and how a few violent extremists won't take them away from us. Seeing the wantonness with which governments first in Canada and then in Britain have slashed at their public broadcasters, though, I have to wonder: Who poses more danger to our precious culture? Could a terrorist attack do more societal damage than would hobbling the BBC? As far as a tool for promoting British values and goodwill around the world, you'd be hard-pressed to find anything more effective than the BBC. If a bomb went off in Broadcasting House with 1,000 casualties, officialdom would fall over itself to voice its support for this vital, iconic, and world-renowned institution. Those same officials, though, are the ones whose pressure will put enormous stress on said institution. Prior to this news, the BBC announced it would cut 1,000 jobs in response to a shortfall of £150 million in licence fee income: the government's plan would see a loss of £650 million. It's difficult to see it as anything but crippling, and this blow is dealt by our own side.
Pointing out the hypocrisy of politicians is an easy pastime, but this seems to be on another level altogether. Is it OK because white men in suits are doing it, and no one has died? Do we realise what's at stake? Has no one noticed?
In that funny way causality has, how I got to where I am now is directly linked to the 7/7 attacks. Shortly after the day itself I grew dissatisfied with the news coverage I was getting and decided to act on a friend's recommendation and try Radio 4. I don't know where I'd be, or indeed who I'd be, if I hadn't clicked that link, but here we are today, all thanks to violent jihad. It's a funny old world.
Ten years on, Radio 4 and 7/7 are bound up again. The anniversary of the attacks coincides with the announcement of substantial budget cuts, layoffs, and reorganisation at the BBC. I've read about it and listened to half an hour of debate on the subject and still can't parse whether it's awful news or surmountably bad. Despite the rational gymnastics employed by some parties to turn bad news into good, I don't like the smell of it.
The juxtaposition of the news and the date invite a peculiar train of thought: In response to terrorist attacks, officials love to trot out assertions about values and culture, how committed we are to them, and how a few violent extremists won't take them away from us. Seeing the wantonness with which governments first in Canada and then in Britain have slashed at their public broadcasters, though, I have to wonder: Who poses more danger to our precious culture? Could a terrorist attack do more societal damage than would hobbling the BBC? As far as a tool for promoting British values and goodwill around the world, you'd be hard-pressed to find anything more effective than the BBC. If a bomb went off in Broadcasting House with 1,000 casualties, officialdom would fall over itself to voice its support for this vital, iconic, and world-renowned institution. Those same officials, though, are the ones whose pressure will put enormous stress on said institution. Prior to this news, the BBC announced it would cut 1,000 jobs in response to a shortfall of £150 million in licence fee income: the government's plan would see a loss of £650 million. It's difficult to see it as anything but crippling, and this blow is dealt by our own side.
Pointing out the hypocrisy of politicians is an easy pastime, but this seems to be on another level altogether. Is it OK because white men in suits are doing it, and no one has died? Do we realise what's at stake? Has no one noticed?
