Times have changed since the first BBC Director General banned the playing of jazz on the grounds of taste and morality. John Reith's approach to public broadcasting adhered to a particular sense of fairness and universally applicable morality, and gave birth to the concept of Reithianism. One can only guess (although probably with some degree of accuracy) what he would have thought of "Apparitions", a new BBC show that, according to recent reports, "depicts a man possessed by the devil and being skinned alive in a gay sauna."
According to its present charter, the BBC has a duty to "represent the
That recognised, at a more basic level, the BBC still promotes a conventional morality that offers society a fundamental cohesion. It assumes that justice, equality and lawfulness are moral and that cruelty, oppression and discrimination are not. A list of basic virtues underlies all editorial decisions: assuming that viewers will feel positively about courage, selflessness and fidelity, and concerned about dishonesty, corruption and violence.
So there is a basic orthodoxy, one that extends to all mainstream media. It rightly treats racism and criminality in a negative light, and a corresponding set of virtues positively. No mainstream medium could report discrimination in a positive light, or portray discriminatory views, such as those of racist or anti-Semitic groups, except with the utmost caution and heavy qualifications.
This orthodoxy is crucial in promoting ‘the basics’ of what is acceptable. But saying what falls in and out of these 'rights' and 'wrongs' is often difficult. The legitimacy of stem cell research, euthanasia, adoption legislation, and the nature of criminal justice is open to considerable debate within the mainstream. On such issues, those who ascribe to the rightness of 'equality', 'justice', etc. may be in reasonable disagreement with one another.
The BBC can no longer appeal to the same clear-cut, Christian moral outlook it once could. Not only is there an increased scepticism towards authority, but also a far greater number range amongst the population’s moral positions. What may be taken for granted about free-market trade or immigration in one group may be subject to a very different set of assumptions in another. Whereas the Government once appealed to the British 'moral majority' in rejecting the Wolfenden Report in 1957, it is highly unlikely that any government today could make such confident and sweeping assumptions.
As with the government, so with the BBC, which faces a particularly acute version of this dilemma. Whereas I am free to choose between the Guardian and The Daily Mail every morning, if I wish to watch television at all, I am compelled by law to pay for the BBC. The BBC must surely therefore represent the full panoply of individuals' and communities' views – within those basic limits – no matter how distasteful some find them.
The Corporation thus finds itself in the unenviable position of balancing sympathetic programmes about gay life alongside open-minded portrayals of conservative religious communities. That may be challenging but at least it knows that this tension mirrors that of the society in which it is situated.
Perhaps, then, if it cannot lead, still less dictate public morality, the BBC's size and prestige do grant it another, different 'leading' role. The very act of bringing together diverse or conflicting views is highly significant. It stimulates discussion and argument, and challenges our assumptions. The BBC is uniquely well positioned to do this.
We should not be naïve. Hardliners, be they secularist or religious, generally dislike such challenges and often simply look the other way. The act of bringing together diverse opinions will not breed moral conformity or social harmony. We should not expect the BBC to be a catalyst for making society more homogenous.
But if the BBC’s presentation of different opinions on complex moral issues is well executed and enables us to realise the complicated nature of making ethical decisions, it will have been worth it.
