As a potential prime minister, it is right that Jeremy Corbyn should be open to high levels of scrutiny, including, especially, by a free and independent media. I know how ridiculous that sentence sounds, particularly the bit about Corbyn being a “potential prime minister”, but please bear with me. It seems to be more than a coincidence that in a speech today, at a time when Corbyn has been under more scrutiny than ever, he has called for radical reform of the “failing news media”, adding that “Most citizens think newspapers churn out “fake news” day in day out”. The leader of her majesty’s opposition? It could be Donald Trump saying this. But then, as I never tire of saying, there always comes a time when the far left meets the far right.
Most people, at least in the UK, are not fooled by Donald Trump’s constant undermining of the mainstream media. It’s what tyrants do, it’s what dictators and fascists do. I am of the view that Trump is all of these things which explains his unprecedented attacks on the media. We know what he is trying to do: he wants to muzzle the free press and suppress free speech. Corbyn undoubtedly wants to do the same thing.
I am among the first to admit that our free press is anything but. Only the Guardian is not owned by billionaires and large companies. The newspapers are free to write whatever they like, but that in itself does not mean we have a free press. For example, the Sun, Mail and Express have a hard right agenda. These newspapers reflect the views of their proprietors and/or their all-powerful editors. They choose who writes what, they determine the political line. There is nowhere to go for those of a more centrist or left wing viewpoint.
I have mixed feelings about the regulation of the press because that’s what dictators do. I do believe they should be forced to print retractions and apologies in prominent places, but I would be loathe to see the government interfere, directly or indirectly. Corbyn clearly does want the government to interfere.
Corbyn suggests allowing journalists to “elect their own editors”. But what if they refuse? Is he going to make them? He wants to tax Facebook, Google, Netflix, etc to subsidise the BBC. But why? We already have the license fee which works perfectly well. He would like to see the public elect BBC directors which he says would reduce political influence. He wants charitable status for not-for-profit new outlets, presumably meaning the wing nuts at the Canary or SKWAWKBOX. He wants a new fund for independent journalism, paid by tech firms. Finally, he expects the BBC to reveal the ‘social class’ of its staff. Now there’s thing. The leader of the Labour Party, a grammar schoolboy just like many of his colleagues including John McDonnell and Diane Abbott who also sent her son to a private school, and his top table private boys including Seumas Milne, Andrew Drummond-Murray, Jon Lansman. Plenty more posh boys and girls are available in Corbyn’s Labour. Talk about social class, eh?
It would not require the brains of a rocket scientist to work out that rather than seeing to reduce political influence at the BBC, his proposals would dramatically increase it. Those of us with trade union experience know how these things work. Journalists electing their editor is an interesting example. The hard left and hard right groups would soon have their ‘slates’ with their preferred list of candidates. Exactly the same thing would happen with BBC directors. Imagine license fee payers being confronted with a massive ballot paper including the slates from Nigel Farage, the Socialist Party (Militant), Tommy Robinson, the Socialist Workers Party and every fruitcake on the fringes of British politics, all trying to be elected en bloc. This is democracy hard left style, but the hard right would love it too.
There is no doubt that we need a more diverse media but Corbyn’s crude politics will not bring it about. In any event, printed newspapers are dying out. Only older people (like me) buy and read newspapers. The vast majority of people do not buy or read the newspapers. Most people source the internet for news and maybe therein lies a better way.
I have this blog through which I can reach literally millions of people. Sadly, my work is rarely read by numbers in three figures, which probably tells you something! Thousands of people do the same with blogs, usually with a far greater number of hits. As well as representing the place we currently access news, the internet will eventually become the only significant place we reach for news. We will still continue to get our news from trusted brands like the BBC, Sky and CNN to name but three and the internet will expand to take into account change.
Corbyn has no real wish to democratise the BBC. When the hard left say such things, they mean they want to control it. The hard left in the PCS union always talked about ever more democratisation by electing almost everyone every single year but what has ensured is a union run from top to bottom by the hard left, with paid and lay officials in almost every position and not a single centrist or mainstream left wing person anywhere to be seen. And the results of this year’s annual elections? The hard left beat the hard left on a 7.5% turn out. You couldn’t make this stuff up.
I don’t trust Corbyn to force change on the media anymore than I trust Rupert Murdoch or Lord Rothermere to open up their newspapers to views other than their own. Evolution will eventually begin to level the playing field as us older folk die off and no one buys a newspaper. And the BBC remains the finest and most trusted media organisation on the planet. It will still be there long after the written press is gone, when Corbyn’s disastrous Labour leadership with be a sorry footnote in history.
