Blogging the Beeb

Mark Mardell Explains Europe

Mark Mardell explains why he moved to be the BBC's European Editor in the current British Journalism Review.

This bit is curious:

I will doubtless have many problems of definition and explanation, but I think one of the difficulties is because the European Union is such a strange beast and one that is still evolving. Sometimes the argument makes me think of two people staring at an octopus in an aquarium. One is saying that the creature before them is clearly a spider because of the number of legs, the other that it’s obviously a fish as it’s breathing in the water. The twist is not simply that it is neither, but that, in reality, by force of will it can become either, or something in-between. Perhaps the British, citizens of a nation that’s an unequal alliance of three and a half countries and which grew out of an early English Empire, are well placed to understand the EU’s oddities and potential, for good or for ill.

He is of course right to say in the article that Europe has become one of the biggest political issues in Britain over the last fifteen years.  From John Birt's period as Director-General - possibly from his time as Deputy D-G before that - the BBC found itself having to devote greater resources to European coverage, and expanded the number of bureaux in Europe. But ‘Europe’ also became a focus of the BBC’s own corporate agenda, with new channels being launched in continental Europe. Increasingly decisions affecting BBC Corporate strategy were being taken within the institutions of the European Union, following the passage of the 1989 Television Without Frontiers Directive.

The BBC published a report on its European coverage earlier in the year, of course, and BBC News has responded to that. Any views out there?

After 7/7

OpenDemocracy has an article by Tariq Modood, Professor and founding director of the Centre for the Study of Ethnicity and Citizenship at Bristol University , reflecting on the complexities of multiculturalism, integration and Britishness post 7/7. Extract:

The argument against multiculturalism and for integration has....an even longer lineage in critiques from both left and right in the 1970s. But its post-2001 manifestation was new in a crucial respect: it came from the pluralistic centre-left, and was articulated by people who previously rejected polarising models of race and class and were sympathetic to the “rainbow”, coalitional politics of identity and the realignment and redefinition of progressive forces that it implied.

By 2004, it was common to read or hear that the cultural separatism and self-segregation of Muslim migrants represented a challenge to Britishness, and that a “politically-correct” multiculturalism had fostered fragmentation rather than integration. Trevor Phillips, then as now chair of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), declared that multiculturalism had once been useful but is now out-of-date, for it made a fetish of difference instead of encouraging minorities to be truly British (see Tom Baldwin, “I want an integrated society with a difference”, Times, 3 April 2004).

He criticises many on the left for:

the view that there is something deeply wrong about rallying round the idea of Britain, about defining ourselves in terms of a normative concept of Britishness – that it is too racist, imperialist, militaristic, and elitist – and that the goal of seeking to be British in the present and the future is silly and dangerous, and indeed demeaning to the newly settled groups among the population.

He argues correctly, in my view:

Perhaps one of the lessons of the current crisis is that multiculturalists, and the left in general, have been too hesitant about embracing our national identity and allying it with progressive politics.

Then he says:

The reaffirming of a plural, changing, inclusive British identity, which can be as emotionally and politically meaningful to British Muslims as the appeal of jihadi sentiments, is critical to isolating and defeating extremism.

I hope he actually means that 'a plural, changing inclusive British identity' can be more meaningful than 'the appeal of jihadi sentiments' rather than 'as' meaningful. However, he raises issues many on the left have run away from.

Putting the 'British' in the BBC

What does the word 'British' mean for the BBC today? How does the BBC reflect contemporary Britishness? What does Britishness mean after devolution, the enlargement of the European Union, the challenges of globalisation, 7/7, the current debates on multiculturalism?

This is a blog about a book - or rather, a blog in advance of a book.

I am writing from the perspective of someone who believes strongly in public service broadcasting, and the BBC being at the heart of that. I believe in an independent BBC, supported by the licence fee. However, I don't believe that the BBC is perfect. I think the BBC itself needs to avoid defensiveness, and engage with its critics. It needs to be alert to the dangers of its own internal culture dominating the way in which it covers the external world.

I want to hear from people with views on these subjects - either in comments on the posts here, or via email. I'm happy to hear from viewers, listeners, friends of the BBC, critics, members of staff, former members of staff, people in rival companies - anyone with something relevant to say on this subject.

All are welcome.