James Purnell, the BBC’s Director of Radio and Education and a former Labour Cabinet Minister, announced the other day that the Corporation’s primary educational “mission” was to be on “improving social mobility across the UK”.
The BBC’s significant track record on producing valuable educational content – from its collaborations with the Open University to programmes such as Kenneth Clark’s Civilisation, or indeed whole channels, such as BBC Radio 3 or CBBC, which Ms Rock used to run – shouldn’t alter the fact that the “mission” of education is education. In other words, to instruct and inform, to teach and to train.
However valuable it may be to the individual and society as a means of improving income, productivity, personal choices, social mobility or a whole host of other desirable things, the provision of education is not, and should not be, affected by these considerations, but by the quality of the education offered.
As a contrast to the BBC's supposed educational function we have this from the BBC itself.
MPs have demanded an end to the UK's "poisonous air" in an unprecedented report from four Commons committees.
The Environment, Health, Transport and Environmental Audit committees want a new Clean Air Act, and a clean air fund financed by the motor industry.
They are also demanding a faster phase-out of petrol and diesel cars - currently set for 2040.
The government said air pollution had improved significantly since 2010 but there was "more to do".
MPs have been frustrated by the response from ministers, who have promised to publish a comprehensive clean air strategy later this year.
Their report says: "Air pollution is a national health emergency resulting in an estimated 40,000 early deaths each year, costing the UK £20bn annually.
"It is unacceptable that successive governments have failed to protect the public from poisonous air.
So much for education. The BBC could have pointed out that our air is obviously not poisonous in any rational sense of the word. Cities may in certain locations and at certain times of the day have unacceptable atmospheric pollutant levels. These levels may or may not have health consequences - it isn't easy to tell let alone quantify.
If the BBC had a spirit of education for its own sake it would be more honest than this report indicates. It would identify rhetoric, uncertainties and pressure groups involved in the debate. It would not quote Greenpeace as an authority on any environmental issue.
But it doesn't identify environmental rhetoric and it does quote Greenpeace and this is why it may as well be closed down.
But it doesn't identify environmental rhetoric and it does quote Greenpeace and this is why it may as well be closed down.
3 comments:
Excellent point. The BBC is far more about training than it is about education. What it is doing is attempting make us think things that we ought to think; it has a blueprint, and its job is to nudge us towards becoming that blueprint. If it were truly educational, the process would be far more open-ended, and we could choose our own outcome.
To be fair, there is a lot of this about. "Education" is a far gentler and more civilised term than "training". It has connotations of liberal excellence and freedom, whereas training conjures up images of the army or grim tech colleges. It's flattering thinking that you have been educated, especially when your mind is full of stuff about Greenpeace, gender equality, and the immensely important social contributions of gays and trannies.
I couldn't possibly comment, we haven't heard any of the 'mainstream' news from the BBC since September last year!
If I can't sleep, I'll listen to some Radio 5 Dead bulletins, but as the delivery is gabbled in an odd fashion, I usually forget what they're on about!
Sam - good point. I suppose I was educated in the sciences but over time was trained to be something else. Causes conflict.
Scrobs - we don't miss it either. BBC news seems odd now - property millionaires reading out stuff I've already come across on the internet.
Post a Comment