Master of Lies

I sympathise with the writers and performers of W1A, the BBC comedy drama which has just begun its third series. W1A is advertised as a satire on the BBC itself

This is an impossibility, for the BBC is beyond satire. How would you go about satirising a Corporation…

Whose economics and political presenters constantly bash the bankers and other fat cats but then pay some of the trashiest of their own staff hundreds of thousands of pounds?

Whose charter obliges it to “inform and educate” but which bans all discussion – a necessary part of informing and educating – of important subjects such as climate change?

Which is charged to be impartial but which blatantly and relentlessly takes sides on key issues – for example, its editors’ and presenters’ opposition to Brexit? (It was a BBC man himself who, on the morning after the referendum result, said he couldn’t find a single member of staff in Broadcasting House or the Television Centre in favour of Leave).

Which earns £billions from the worldwide commercial sales of its programmes and yet demands a massive annual subsidy through the universal tax misleadingly described as a “licence”?

Which announced the channel BBC Four with the slogan “a place to think” – and yet fills every Friday evening/night with six hours of rock music?

Which is staffed by illiterate presenters who say such as “I’m sat…I’m stood”; “Deteriate”; “Mitigate against”; “Refute” (for “repudiate”) etc ad nauseam.

Whose same presenters are emotionally incontinent and whose standard question is about feeling – for instance, “How did you feel when your mother died in that house fire?”

Besides, why is the BBC presenting yet another satirical show, W1A, when it already broadcasts so many other programmes which can only be described as satires, such as Strictly Come Dancing; Mrs Brown’s Boys;  Woman’s Hour; Songs of Praise; Celebrity Money for Nothing; The Andrew Marr Show; The Today Programme and anything fronted by Lucy Worsley?

6 Comments on Master of Lies

  1. In 1991 when the US invaded Panama, the BBC reporter there went around hoping to find locals to denounce the US action. He couldn’t. One English speaking guy was mad at the US but he was mad because the US waited so long before throwing out Noriega. Finally the reporter found a critic of the US: a Catholic priest from Ireland!

  2. Yes, the lack of knowledge of the English language and blatantly bad grammar, are an indication of a greater ignorance, which the public should not have to be subjected to.

  3. In my opinion the BBC has changed a lot since its inception and not for the better. I do not need conspiracy theories to tell me that the BBC is largely the enemy of the truth – all I need do is switch on and wait a short while.

    From news, education, current affairs, entertainment and sport; it appears this corporation is rife with lies and misinformation, the extent an increasingly number are simply switching off. I don’t blame them.

    So I detest what the BBC stands for, including the society it seeks to engineer. I detest being bombarded with fakery. I detest the omission of truth in order to satisfy the narrative. If the BBC disappeared tomorrow it wouldn’t come soon enough. The BBC is not an institution – it should be in an institution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.