Does the BBC have much to say about the digital revolution?

The BBC is making a documentary on the digital revolution.  Surely, that's a bit like asking the Vatican to provide the commentary on the Reformation?

A big, mid-twentieth century corporation, the BBC's outlook is inherently corporatist.  From Orla Guerin's overseas reporting to Robert Peston's economic analysis, from politically correct storylines in their drama output to the very notion of what constitutes public policy, there's an unyielding corporatist streak running across all that this broadcast monolith does.

The idea that it's in any position to shed light on the democratisation of communication and opinion, or on the dissemination of knowledge, is fanciful.  Just look at the broadcast aristocracy that the BBC has lined up to lecture us on this bottom up revolution.   

The makers of this new documentary offer to let you and me have a direct say in the production (Good).  But on their terms (Very analogue).

The premise of popular participation in this programme is that it's the add on - the professionals doing most of the doing (reminicent of government "online consultation", with similar levels of take up, perhaps?)  

Surely if the BBC really understood Chris Anderson's Long tail point about the transformative impact of the web, they'd grasp that the wisdom of the crowd comes first.  The filtering must be done on their terms, not that of the BBC experts.

The digital revolution will smash hierarchy and diffuse power - in politics (see here or here) and public services, as much as retail.  It will strip away the barriers to entry and cut out the middle man. 

That's all bad news for princely quangocrats like the Beeb, the aristocracy of commentators and the priesthood of politicians who today preside over us.  But it'll be good news for the rest of us.

Posted on 12 December 2009 by Douglas Carswell

Comments

I doubt that the point of this documentary is to seek truth and disseminate it.

I suspect it will be another exercise in trying to alter our perceptions of just how useful and important the digital revolution is to each of us.

It will be, without doubt, a tool of the BBC to further its preferred "narrative".

Posted on 12 December 2009 17:38 by http://faustiesblog.blogspot.com

I have no doubt that the digital revelution will in the future, as it has already, made massive leaps in communication (see also comments on how the internet and politics).

However, lets not forget that far from the BBC leading the way, you'll find it was Rupert Murdoch and Sky who digitised television.

The BBC are a pompous self gratifying organisation who are out of touch with a modern society.

Thats why we have a licence fee which discriminates against the poor and costs millions of pounds just to collect.

I have often wondered why we have to pay for DVDs of Only Fools and Horses when we paid for it in the first place!

Dave

Posted on 12 December 2009 19:12 by David Filce

Orla and Peston, the gang of three would be perfect with heffer. I cannot believe the bbc has not employed him already as the loathsomness for anything outside his own thoughts (bbc speak for hatred of David cameron) is perfect for them.

Posted on 12 December 2009 20:19 by ex telegraph

I see no reason for the renewal of the BBC. It is full of Islington liberals who preach socialism and redistribution from the comfort of their Hampstead townhouses and Italian villas. It blindly follows the anthropogenic global warming myth, rarely giving airspace to the sceptics like Professor Ian Plimer, or the 700 scientists who signed the Manhattan Declaration. And it has Alan Yentob, the perfect representative of the liberal elite who preach multiculturalism, mass immigration, state control over the economy and high taxes, let he dosen't have to live on the council estates which have been torn apart by multi-culturalism and mass immigration. Has anyone ever noticed that places like Islington and Hampstead are not immigrant hotspots. If these hypocrites believe in the greatness of mass immigration, they should come and live on my council estate. The BBC and the Guardian are one of a kind. It propagates anti-Semitic propaganda, and all of their main economic commentators are on the left e.g. Peston, Pym (stood as a Liberal Democrat in 2001) and Flanders.

If our political elites decide to keep the BBC, it should be operated on a voluntary basis. People who do not wish to view the BBC should be able to avoid payment. Those who want the BBC can pay for it. I'd go further and do this for all public services. Privatise them and give the people their money back. Politicians love to talk about 'investment' and spending increases, yet it is our money!!! We have worked for it. The politicians take it from us in the name of 'fairness.' People work hard for their money, and should therefore be allowed to spend it as they choose. If we get rid of all taxes and have a local sales tax to fund local services for those who are unable to provide for themselves (mentally and physically disabled). We would attract billions of investment from abroad because of a very generous tax system. More charitable giving will ensue. There was an explosion in charitable giving during the Reagan years, increasing over 50% during his terms in office. Just imagine people being allowed to choose their own healthcare. Instead of some faceless bureaucrat deciding what is best for us, we can decide. People power. The Left like to claim they represent working people, but they oppose all measures that will give working class people a chance to better themselves. But the Left sneers at aspiration, because they have never had to work for their wealth, they inherit it. One last point... Tony Benn is the ultimate hypocrite. He preaches redistribution of wealth and the abolition of private property, yet he is a multi-millionaire who hasn't redistributed a single penny, yet he could do so voluntarily. He also owns a country estate in Sussex called Stansgate Estate, and a 40 room mansion in Holland Park, one of the most exclusive districts in London. Not exactly a man of the people is he.

Posted on 12 December 2009 21:47 by Josh

I've given up on the BBC blogs and 'discussion' forums.

Unless you make posts that fit in with their beliefs you are moderated off the forums.

I used to post on their 5Live forums. You used to be able to start your own topic for discussion. After they got so many threads that were critical of the dumbing down going on they decided to change their policy.

After 'consultation' they decided that only the moderators would be allowed to start a new topic for discussion. Within weeks, what was once a lively board became a ghost town - exactly what they wanted to happen.

Posted on 13 December 2009 10:18 by John C

Have you seen this? The correct headline would have been 'Speaker to propose re-introduction of traditional rotten borough system'

Mr Bercow suggested giving the Speaker 'a separate constituency, known as St Stephen's, representing a small area around Westminster'.

The Speaker's original constituency would hold a normal election and choose a new MP, he explained.

'The Commons can always decide to do that if it wants,' he told Total Politics magazine. If MPs supported such an idea, he would not oppose it. Ordinary members of the public would not be allowed to be 'constituents' of the Speaker's St Stephen's seat.

Any Election challenge would have to be made on an individual - not a party - basis, making it harder to unseat the Speaker.

Mr Bercow said: 'It is both possible and necessary for the Speaker to continue to be a highly active constituency MP.

I suspect I won't face major party competition - but I will face opponents.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235365/Speaker-sack-official-MPs-expenses.html#ixzz0ZYyueTnf

Posted on 13 December 2009 10:26 by thedarknight

I find it repulsive that we have this so called convention that the main political parties do not challenge the speaker in his/her constituency.

So, 80000+ voters don't matter because the MPs decide that one of their member should become the speaker. I'm sure that the UK is the only country that would put up with this nonsense.

If it happened in my constituency, I'd stand on principle! Fat chance as Ed Balls would never become speaker. He's not even liked on the Labour benches and will be history once Brown is seen off next year.

Why don't we have the following system (not ideal but better).

Elect a speaker. The speaker then becomes speaker until voted out (and shifted to the Lords no doubt). However, there should be an immediate by-election in that constituency. In the next general election all constituencies are treated equally. Once there is a new parliament, there is a new election for the speaker. If the speaker wins all is hunky dory. If he/she loses they are booted to the Lords and the process starts again.

OK, we have one more MP but at least that is better than disenfranchising 80000+ voters, surely.

Posted on 13 December 2009 18:02 by John C

John, we don't even really have the convention. Labour have stood against Tory speakers inthe past, as have the SNP. It is all a load of cobblers. They're just finding ways to expand the continental empireof sinecures onto the home territories.

Posted on 13 December 2009 22:55 by thedarknight

So the BBC is an old-fashioned, centralised, corporatist dinosaur of an institution. Its notions of hierarchy and authority make it unable to talk credibly about the democratic groundswell that is the modern internet.

And the person telling us this is a member of... the House of Commons?

An MP cannot seriously pretend to be on the side of those who would "smash hierarchy" and "diffuse power". A frankly corrupt institution that has ruled over us for hundreds of years cannot seriously claim the moral high ground over one that merely produces content and has been around for less than a century.

Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to wake up, to be quite honest. MPs who try to lecture us about the decentralisation of power are nothing but rank hypocrites.

Posted on 14 December 2009 11:59 by A dissenting voice

@A dissenting voice: You sound incredulous that an MPs should want to diffuse power and break down hierarchy.

Try reading the best selling book I wrote about it called The Plan.

Posted on 14 December 2009 22:40 by Douglas Carswell MP

I see that in the Digital Economy Bill, going through the Lords, the Government is going to try to establish powers to deny complete households access to the internet on mere suspicion that they may have downloaded files for which they have not paid.

I hope the Lords throw it out - will you speak against it when it comes back to the Commons, Douglas?

Posted on 15 December 2009 23:07 by John

Make A Comment