Broadcaster’s new Line of Duty will put British values over New York ideology
The British Broadcasting Corporations’ role in implementing and then covering up its methods in obtaining its television interview with Princess Diana now severely damages its effectiveness in its role as the distribution hub for United Nations doctrines.
The BBC ability to diffuse the United Nations agenda and so without encountering contradiction until now has been based on the broadcaster’s reputation as the unchallenged standard bearer for truth and righteousness.
In effect the BBC has long acted as the curator and cheerleader for information favourable to United Nations values and notably for its current Agenda 30 scheme.
Its success as super aggregator for news favourable to the United Nations strategies rested on the BBC’s carefully-nurtured image as a purveyor of the received wisdom and this allowed it to shape output content in other state-controlled broadcasters notably in Australasia.
The methods revealed to obtain in the first place the interview with Princess Diana are more commonly associated with the techniques employed for example by elements of the Murdoch media.
Ever since it discovered satire under its defining director general Hugh Carleton Greene the BBC has known that as long as it projected modernity it would remain invulnerable to any serious politically-provoked shakeup.
Independent television operators might be quicker off the mark, even more entertaining, but in what must now be justifiably recognised as a bureaucratic tour de force the BBC retained its lynchpin role in being seen to hold the Westminster realm together.
It was this position that allowed any concerted attacks on it to slide away into irrelevance. The BBC’s role for example in showcasing national hysteria on the death of Princess Diana was dismissed even though questions were even then arising about the circumstances of the BBC interview only two years before.
This interview had protected the BBC’s vulnerable flank, the one that held that it was too slow, too ponderous, dithered. If it was an overweight bureaucracy, then it had with the interview proved that it was one that could run rings around the quickest and meanest members of its competition. Murdoch had been out-Murdoched, and classily so.
Every quarter century as if on some regal timetable the royal family is prone to an internal convulsion. This time around it was detonated by Harry.
Harry’s intervention induced a fresh and greatly compounded reassessment of his mother Princess Diana. On the Clinton scale Diana was Bill to the rest of the royal family’s Hillary. Diana’s common touch, charisma, and then the abrupt absence of it left a vacuum, a curiosity, a yearning, that no television drama could compensate for.
The BBC’s terrible mistake was now visible for all to see. It was a bureaucratic one. Time the BBC thought was on its side. Time was working against it. Pressure was building up instead of diminishing. Aggrieved peripheral contributors among its own employees of the time of the contrived interview should have been disarmed at that time. They obviously weren’t. Now they began singing. Those directly involved were clung to with sinecures or rather amazingly given still higher profiles and even ennoblement. Foolishly the BBC had made its past its present.
Hitherto often considered one of the great pillars of the Westminster realm, along with the monarchy, parliament and the Church of England, the corporation’s skill lay in the ability of its high command always to keep it above any battle. If anyone doubts their footwork then let them consider how the BBC flourished in modern times while that other pillar, the Church of England, drifted into irrelevance.
While fashionable society questioned the durability of the monarchy. Nobody in any position of influence at all dared to do the same thing with the BBC. Would-be critics knew that the consequences would at one and the same time be damaging and untraceable.
A generalised dissatisfaction within Britain’s governing Conservative party stemmed from the BBC’s constantly favouring the United Nations globalism this time in the BBC’s undisguised enthusiasm for Britain remaining in the EU. This meshed with the anger among households as to why they had to pay the BBC’s substantial and rigorously enforced licence fee on their television sets whether they actually used these same sets to watch the BBC or not.
The BBC believed that it was insulated from encroaching pressures such as the Diana one by its rigorous hewing to the United Nations line on anything and everything. The entire package was seen as a corporate bomb shelter made of reinforced virtue. Voguish themes ruled the airwaves such as diversity, equity, sustainability, inclusion, empowerment along with other UN compound description “journeys” such as peace-building and state-building, and net zero.
The forthcoming manoeuvring by the BBC will be based on retreat and advance and always seeking to recover more ground than it lost.
At first the retreat-and-recovery strategy will feature public dodging, ducking and weaving and recurring use of quasi penitent words such as governance, transparency, accountability. These will be coupled with inquiries, committees, probes, hearings, reviews and working groups providing insights of great clarity into the blindingly obvious. Until attentions everywhere start to wander.
Then will follow the real BBC campaign, the actual strategy, the ground recovery one, in which the BBC will deploy its influencers, its praetorian guard, who from their metropolitan strongholds will in this second phase campaign, the silent one, go out to bat for it with targeted lobbying.
During these early campaigns the BBC will seek to supress its more ardent activism on behalf of globalist modernity, or at least disguise partisanship. The corporation will now discretely open a fresh front, an insidious one. It will champion British values and British traditions over United States-inspired ideologies. At least until the flap does down. At which point normal service will resume.
