Ruth's right

Of all the (largely-unhelpful) pieces welcoming Tim Davie to his first week as BBC Director General, one by former leader of the Scottish Conservatives, Ruth Davidson (seven years with BBC Scotland), has some common sense. Unfortunately, it's in The Telegraph. 

Here are the key bits: 

In a culture war where the UK feels fractured, how does the same broadcaster speak for (and have a sense of ownership by) young, urban, black Britain at the same time as white, elderly suburbia?

The current funding round lasts until 2027, but it’s an open secret that enforcement will move from a criminal to a civil matter in short order. Mr Davie’s first job is to bring forward a funding model that works for the BBC and then sell it to the politicians – otherwise he’ll likely face a plan being forced upon him.

If Gary Lineker is getting paid £1.75 million a year to front BBC football coverage (as he was from 2018 to 2019), is it right that he’s moonlighting for BT Sport doing the same? Presenters are self-employed, yes, but if the BBC isn't paying for exclusivity and to protect its investment, why is it making him its highest paid presenter?

The BBC has rules about political campaigning. Its guidelines state that: “Political activity by individuals, including on-air talent on long-term contracts, must not compromise the BBC’s impartiality or undermine public confidence in the BBC.

When I was a BBC journalist (only joining the Conservatives on the day I handed in my voluntary redundancy request, as I took my obligation to impartiality seriously) that meant being careful about being seen on protest marches or using BBC resources to promote your chosen party.

However, despite a number of colleagues being active political campaigners during my time in the BBC, I never heard of anyone being pulled up for it. It’s time Mr Davie sat down with senior producers, presenters and staff and worked out where the line is in the digital age.

That doesn’t just mean arbitrating on Ed Murrow-style on-air speeches, such as the one Emily Maitlis was reprimanded for on Newsnight, but also the social media activity of top BBC talent. If a star’s online following is built on the BBC’s programming reach, then their pronouncements do reflect on their employer.

I believe all organisations benefit from a range of voices and backgrounds, and that any public offering is made better by being regularly challenged to stop the laziness of orthodoxy.

It is right that presenters, reporters and actors look and sound much more like the Britain they represent – and the work the BBC has done to recruit and support black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) talent should be recognised.

But if that talent is coming from the same urban strongholds, the same socio-economic backgrounds and the same universities as those already populating the studios and newsrooms, that challenge is blunted and orthodoxy baked in.

We don’t just need BAME voices, we also need the voices of more than half of the country who aren’t degree educated, the voices of rural Britain, voices from outside the middle class and outside the M25. “Woke backlash” spats such as the recent outcry over singing Rule, Britannia at the Proms are not going away anytime soon. Greater diversity of talent and background will help the BBC to make the right call more often.

Finally, a well-organised, self-confident BBC that is comfortable with its offering locally and nationally, both on air and online, will be a much more attractive prospect to viewers and in a much stronger position to push back against politicians who want to give it a kick.