Remember that article by Sarah Bell that found that 6/6 voters in Richmond prefer her Lib Dem friend Susan Kramer? It also had a go at Ms Kramer's Conservative (if not 'conservative') opponent Zak Goldsmith. You would think that such an outrage would infuriate Mr Goldsmith. Not necessarily so, as you'll see from this article:
In Praise of the BBC by Zac Goldmsmith
18 February 2010
The BBC is one of the British institutions I am most proud of. It still inspires loyalty, respect and pride in so many people.
That’s not to say it’s perfect. There are any number of ways in which it could be greatly improved. The BBC has its biases on some issues, and for many people that is infuriating. It has been slow to provide balanced coverage on the EU for instance. The corporation also became far too expansionist, establishing superfluous websites and even acquiring the Lonely Planet book empire.
Instead of stepping into market gaps that commercial rivals could never fill, the BBC began competing against them. Given that it cannot go bust, this competition was always going to be unfair.
But these problems can be resolved, and the Director General is taking steps to do so. If at the end of the reforms, the BBC has fewer outlets, lower core costs and is able to invest more money in quality programmes, that’s a good thing. It doesn’t have to compete with its commercial rivals, and it shouldn’t try to. It should exist to raise the bar.
In theory, the idea of a vast state-controlled news service does grate. But the anti-BBC campaign isn’t an ethical one; it is largely driven by commercial interests whose agenda is not to confine the BBC to its core competencies but to undermine its very existence.
The end of the BBC would be a disaster. If anyone is in any doubt, I urge them to tune out for a month and rely entirely on commercial papers and broadcasters for their news and analysis. That’s more or less what I did during the US Presidential election, and that experience led me to believe, absolutely, that the BBC is worth taking to the streets to defend.
What would happen to politics in this country if the principal source of information – information on which voters base crucial voting decisions – all came from a small handful of media moguls? Would politicians be able to resist the pressure to conform to their demands? Would democracy prosper? I don’t think so.
The BBC is different. It is beholden to the license-fee payer, and while it makes mistakes – many of them - it is a good organisation, and it has integrity. If the BBC ever faced a genuine threat, I for one would stand up for it.
How typical is Zac Goldsmith? Is it the shared passion for Greenery and 'global warming' that makes him such an enthusiast for our biased, publically-funded state broadcaster? It seem to go far deeper than that, doesn't it?
Thanks to Hippiepooter for this article. It's another eye-opener.