BBC 6 Music and Asian Network for the chop

The BBC has dismissed a newspaper report that 6Music and the Asian Network are to be closed as “speculation” - but speculation is often rooted in truth.

Last week 6Music was told to grow it’s audience. This week rumours fly that it will be axed as the BBC looks to cut costs.

BBC 6Music is a digital radio station broadcasting everything that Radio1 and Radio2 won’t. It offers a valuable leg up to younger and often more vibrant broadcasters. It deliberately strays away from the mainstream of 1 and 2. It is, by its nature, less popular – alternative (arguably defined as “not mainstream”) always is. By growing it’s audience, does this mean selling the soul of 6Music?

If 6Music and the Asian Network were axed under the guise of cost cutting, I would be angered at the continuation of paying Chris Moyles £650,000 a year for presenting a breakfast radio show.

If the taxpayer is looking for justification, why don’t we start with Moyles? This isn’t a personal attack. I catch his show sometimes and find him quite amusing - but no more so than listening to George Lamb on 6Music. Moyles' salary is sickening. What are the chances of most of us being able to pull in that kind of money doing a ‘normal’ job? And that’s not bitterness. If the BBC were commercially funded, I wouldn’t have a problem with Moyles earning that much. Radio 1 can only pay it’s presenters this kind of money because it isn’t commercially funded. It doesn’t make business sense does it? (See how you feel when a license fee hike is announced and you find out how much Jonathan Ross pulls in).

Between Moyles and Ross, the BBC is wasting money on superficially ‘talented’ individuals who are part of teams that make great radio and TV shows. Let’s not forget the producers, assistants and sidekicks that make the shows humorous, engaging and witty. Radio and TV presenters are not a one-man-band.

So BBC, listen up. We admire you for allowing the development of alternative radio stations. Don’t pull the plug when things get tough. Don’t lose respect because it’s what you think you should do.

Show support for the underdog and save Radio6.

Steve McNeill

"57 Channels and nothin' on"

On his 1992 album Human Touch, Bruce Springsteen included a swipe at the new couch potato, TV addicted generation that was growing up in America with the song "57 Channels (And Nothin' On)".

I was reading an article in The Independent a couple of weeks ago about a controversial billboard campaign by the news channel Russia Today (RT). The network was advertising in the UK and US with a poster of President Ahmadinejad and President Obama morphing into one under the words "Who poses the greater nuclear threat?"

I decided to investigate this RT network a little further. I find it mind-boggling that we have so many channels at our disposal on digital TV and still don't know what is at our fingertips. It turns out RT is owned by the Russian state. "Biased! Biased!" I hear you cry. Well, only as much as FOX News is in the US. When i was revising for my A-Level exams (the memory is getting ever more distant) i used to watch FOX while eating my lunch. Why? It was different from BBC News (bored me at the time) and not quite as tacky as SKY News (prior to the poaching of BBC news anchors). I can therefore vouch that FOX was as pro-Republican as RT is pro-Russia.

So can news ever be free from bias? The BBC has an obligation under OFCOM to produce news that is "free from political bias." Respected all over the world, i think it does a pretty good job.

RT's manifesto is to provide "an unbiased portrait of Russia". That's about as believable as Britney Spears claiming her recent album is an accurate portrayal of American life. What is does do is puts Russia's opinion forward to the west in the medium that we all now live with - digital TV. China (CCTV), The Middle East (Al-Jazeera), Europe (EuroNews), France (France 24) and the US (Fox News, CNN) are all represented by a 5-0-something channel in our homes. Russia needs to be there fight it's corner.

I have just finished an article examining the Russian government's tactics with regard to RT. The article discusses the poster campaign and the reasons behind the state owned TV station making it's presence so controversially felt in the West. I hope to post it here soon. An extract runs below.

One broadcaster, Russia Today, (RT –Sky Channel 512) has recently launched an advertising campaign across the UK and US. This has featured a poster of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad morphing into President Obama questioning, “Who poses the greater nuclear threat?” It has been banned from US airports and caused quite a stir wherever it has been displayed. Margarita Simonyan, the editor-in-chief of RT says the station’s intention is to present “an unbiased portrait of Russia”. RT is sponsored by the state owned Russian news agency RIA Novosti.

Phillip Hanson, Professor of the Political Economy of Russia at Birmingham University, fails to see what the controversial poster will achieve. “Maliciously linking Ahmedinajad and Obama doesn't fit Russian foreign policy. The Putin team is ambivalent about both of them, but at least seems currently to be cooperating with the US over sanctions on Iran.” RT can however guarantee that the head-turning billboards will get people discussing the channel and will bring the station to more prominence.

So are we a soft touch for allowing this kind of advertising on our streets? Such a poster featuring Prime Minister Putin would never be allowed in Russia. Professor Hanson believes that being a soft touch on issues such as freedom is expression isn’t such a bad thing, “…freedom of speech should be restricted only by a prohibition on incitement to violence.” Perhaps by banning the posters in their nations airports – spaces where sensitivity towards terrorism and patriotism are magnified – the US considers these an incitement to violence? More likely it is their own self-censorship that means they’re thrown in the can.

If Bruce Springsteen was writing his Human Touch album now, 57 Channels (And Nothin' On) might not be quite so true.

Accountability

Do we live in an age where no one is accountable for their actions? Can we simply do what we please without fear of facing the consequences? Is it OK for innocent, law abiding and honest people to continually get caught up in the web of misery that others have spun?

I had a great night out last Wednesday with a good friend of mine Ian and his cousin Dan who i hadn't met before. Ian played the usual devil's advocate (he loves sitting on that fence) the beer was flowing and the debate was getting lively... just how i like it. RBS bonuses were my tipple for the evening. They were getting me quite wasted in fact, like I'm sure they do for the thousands of employees that benefit from them - or taxpayers money - that is. How can we live in a country that shafts it's citizens left right and centre (more money on the price of beer) and then pays out state owned bank bonuses in the billions? Lest we forget our economy is in crisis because of these careless morons?

I'm not against the government bailing out the banks. I'm against the continuation of a system (in bonuses) that doesn't fit with the times of hardship so many are going through. My grandfather would never have believed such a think could happen under a Labour government. Who is accountable for allowing this to go on?

This week The Independent reported on a British company that sold a "bogus bomb detector" to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon and Jordan. All these countries have suffered deadly suicide bomb attacks at checkpoints where this detector had been employed. The device is basically a piece of plastic with a metal aerial coming out of it. It's bomb detecting credentials are as laughable as watching Liverpool defend a corner. The head of the company who produced these "devices" and sold them for £45,000 a piece has been arrested. Is he going to be held accountable?

Now to the money question. "The War on Terror" (as FOX news so glamorously put it) and the enquiry as to who's fault it actually all was. Tony Blair is under question from the investigating committee as we speak. He ultimately made the decision on the British side. He acted on the evidence supplied to him. There are plenty of branches on the tree that should be accountable for all that has happened. Let's not pretend we can simply blame one person. 

Shakespeare's tragic Lady MacBeth could never wash her sins from her hands. I wonder if Mr Blair knows the way to the river of redemption or will the blood remain stained? He is not alone in the valley of mistake. The parents of the soldiers killed are not alone in the towns of grief. The innocent Iraqi's are not alone in the bombed out cities that are home to widows and bastards because of our mistakes.

Are we not all accountable for our countries actions? Maybe all we can do is try to find our own justice. That's what I'm accountable for.