BBC Action Network
I'm not sure whether anyone from one of those blogs which, like mine, take an interest in the BBC have commented on this in much detail, but I've discovered that the BBC website has an "Action Network" section. Hmmm.... Strange that a public broadcaster, which aims to be "impartial", to "inform, educate and entertain", should regard giving succour to a generation of do-gooder nimbys as one of it's aims. And, broadly speaking, nimbyism is essentially what the Action Network seems to be about. What doesn't fall under the heading of nimbyism can usually be categorised as platitudinous poseur politics - Cambridge Women in Black for example (a bunch of sanctimonious preening know-it-alls who get a kick out of displaying their collective moral conscience) or the frankly ridiculous - don't attempt to read the "windfarms kill birds" page with a mouth full of cereal.
Most amusing is the rules page. "We want Action Network to be challenging and provocative as well as safe, civil and constructive" says auntie. One wonders whether it's crossed their minds that being truly provocative and challenging quite often means putting safety to one side. (See the glut of articles about Ayaan Hirsi Ali over at LGF for a recent example of what being truly provocative and challenging is all about).
This is strikingly reminiscent of New Labour's "Big Conversation". It's a sort of half-baked attempt at letting people think their opinion has value [is "challenging and provocative"], but without the risk of it actually having any effect [i.e. making sure that it is "safe"]. Forgive the broad brush approach here, but doesn't history teach us that progress is only made when conventions and beliefs are challenged, and that quite often brings about violent confrontations. Would America be an independent country without having fought for its independence? Would we have freedom of expression without brave men having challenged the authority of the Church?
I'm not sure whether anyone from one of those blogs which, like mine, take an interest in the BBC have commented on this in much detail, but I've discovered that the BBC website has an "Action Network" section. Hmmm.... Strange that a public broadcaster, which aims to be "impartial", to "inform, educate and entertain", should regard giving succour to a generation of do-gooder nimbys as one of it's aims. And, broadly speaking, nimbyism is essentially what the Action Network seems to be about. What doesn't fall under the heading of nimbyism can usually be categorised as platitudinous poseur politics - Cambridge Women in Black for example (a bunch of sanctimonious preening know-it-alls who get a kick out of displaying their collective moral conscience) or the frankly ridiculous - don't attempt to read the "windfarms kill birds" page with a mouth full of cereal.
Most amusing is the rules page. "We want Action Network to be challenging and provocative as well as safe, civil and constructive" says auntie. One wonders whether it's crossed their minds that being truly provocative and challenging quite often means putting safety to one side. (See the glut of articles about Ayaan Hirsi Ali over at LGF for a recent example of what being truly provocative and challenging is all about).
This is strikingly reminiscent of New Labour's "Big Conversation". It's a sort of half-baked attempt at letting people think their opinion has value [is "challenging and provocative"], but without the risk of it actually having any effect [i.e. making sure that it is "safe"]. Forgive the broad brush approach here, but doesn't history teach us that progress is only made when conventions and beliefs are challenged, and that quite often brings about violent confrontations. Would America be an independent country without having fought for its independence? Would we have freedom of expression without brave men having challenged the authority of the Church?
posted by Henry at
1:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home