Vote! On the BBC/First Minister spat

Another Saturday, another tale of nonsense from the BBC.

This weekend, the state broadcaster has given us two upon which to grind our teeth.

First, the astonishing decision to axe the Janice Forsyth show from Saturday morning schedules.  Now, I would admit that I only occasionally listen to it   It’s on at an awkward time for me, I’m usually out the door by then, busy with bairns’ stuff.  But when I do get the chance, well it’s pretty much perfect Saturday morning listening.  Great choons, a witty and articulate presenter, interesting guests, good chat.

But the Saturday morning schedule does seem a bit jumbled.  News review followed by sport review followed by a magazine show.  The mix doesn’t quite gel, although maybe it doesn’t have to.  Maybe if BBC Scotland was thinking about the diverse needs of its potential audiences, the mix hits the mark.

And it’s this issue that bothers me most about the decision.  Where is the diversity in BBC Scotland’s approach?  The plan is shockingly two-dimensional:  chat through the day, music at night.  Anything falling between those stools will be jettisoned.  Our brains are so unsophisticated it would appear, that unless the BBC helpfully puts everything into wee boxes for us, we cannot cope.  Words fail me.

I also can’t help suspecting that the BBC is guilty of some pretty unsophisticated thinking of its own – and it’s also fairly unsavoury.  What kind of chat are we likely to get on a daytime schedule that is already dominated by sport – football in particular – and male voices?  Hmm?

More innane wittering on about football?  More blokes gathered in a cupboard joshing and puffing themselves and their opinions up?

Don’t get me wrong – I like my football, I love pottering about on a wet Saturday with my radio tuning in to matches.  It is not unknown in my house for all the radios to be tuned to different matches simultaneously – it can be exhilirating if also confusing.

But that isn’t the point.  It is simply unacceptable for the state broadcaster, paid for by the public purse, to exclude one half of the population from its daytime Saturday schedule.  There are few enough female voices on Radio Scotland these days – even though there is no shortage of excellent female journalists and broadcasters in this country – without a whole day being allowed to become male dominated.  Moreover, since when did the whole population “like” sport and only want sport from one half of the weekend schedule?

I may, of course, be getting ahead of myself.  Maybe the slot will be filled by a chat magazine show that discusses “women’s issues” – a kind of Caledonian women’s hour.  Now that would be interesting.  Or a politics discussion show with only women participating – again, an interesting concept.  Or at the very least maybe it will be a show fronted by a woman talking about stuff other than sport.  But I hae ma doots.

In any event, this, and the storm of protest on Twitter this morning, is a shot across BBC Scotland’s bows.  If the plan was to fill the Saturday morning airwaves with more innane football drivel and remove a woman from the slot and replace her with a man, well they might want to tear it up and think again.

But this is not the only example of bizarre BBC-ery (it almost deserves a noun in its own right;  for meaning, think fuckwittery).  After arranging for the First Minister, Alex Salmond, to appear on its big build-up to the Calcutta Cup match this evening, the BBC has pulled the plug.  Apparently, it’s too politically sensitive a time, too close to the local government elections (still more than three months away) to have a Scottish politician on the telly talking about rugby and what the match means to Scotland.

Now, those who object to any politician getting involved in talking about sport or muscling in on any big sporting occasion have a point.  There is a principled case for keeping it all very separate and therefore, avoiding the possibility of stumbling into delicate territory.  But a blogpost on the pros and cons of the relationship between sport and politics is for another day.

And this would be fine if the BBC was in any way principled about this but it isn’t.  There have been plenty of times when politicians have been allowed, nay encouraged to be involved in big sporting occasions.  Olympics anyone?  Indeed, it’s not just politicians:  look at how fawning everyone is when a Royal deigns to mix it with the hoi polloi on mass participation activity.  Just like the Royals, politicians do this cos it’s populist and popular.  And the BBC has always enabled it – until now.

The final point is that Alex Salmond is not just any other politician.  He is the elected First Minister of Scotland, our highest public representative and it is entirely within his job description to appear on the telly on the day of a big sporting occasion and talk about his hopes for a Scotland win but probably – as he would have done – about what such an occasion brings to Scotland and means economically and socially to Edinburgh, in particular.  Some may not like it because it’s Alex Salmond getting to comment on all of this, but that is his role, just as it would be Johann Lamont’s if she were First Minister.

The excuses trotted out by the BBC are paltry and small-minded and belittle Scotland.  There is a place for our First Minister, whatever his or her hue, to be part of the coverage of today, until and unless it changes its policy and produces a blanket ban on ALL politicians and public figures (including Royalty) appearing on its platforms in connection with big sporting occasions.

But maybe, you don’t agree?  Then vote!

And in the interests of fairness, here is the question framed differently

Few gain, more pain – it must be the budget

Hardly worth the bother really.  And certainly not worth the hype, the pomp, and the acres of news coverage it will engender over the next few days.  No doubt there will be details buried behind the headline announcements whose significance will only become clear with close analysis.
 
But this is about first reactions so let me start with this:  you mean, people who owned private jets didn’t pay passenger tax before now??  And how kind of those non doms who have lived here for 12 years or more to give us £50k of their income.  Before you think that this is a generous bounty and give George a round of applause, here’s the reality check.  Someone earning £32,000 will pay nearly double that amount in tax and National Insurance in the same twelve year period. 
 
Scotland got what it had stamped its foot for - a fuel duty cut and a stalling of the escalator but what’s this?  A massive leap in taxes on the profits from North Sea revenues to pay for it all.  Ahh, a little bit of hypothecation goes a long way and suddenly, all those threats from Tory Ministers about Scotland having to share the benefits from oil and gas with the rest of the UK become real.
 
For those of you who cannot wait until 2012 to work out whether or not you’ll be worse or better off as a result of this budget, those nice BBC people  have got a calculator to help you.  Enter in your details and bingo.  So the burd did just that.  My income, my circumstances, my spending and lifestyle habits and guess what, I’m a winner!  Because I don’t drive a car I’m actually better off.  A whole £9.25 a year.  Wow!  Suddenly that £300 council tax saving from the Scottish Government seems a lot more generous….
 
Will it make up for all the hits me, and families like mine, are about to take this April through increased National Insurance contributions, loss of child tax credit and the all important childcare element, combined with the impact of the VAT rise and the freezing of child benefit? 

Eh, no.  In fact, most families do drive a car, so most will be worse off by over a hundred pounds from next year, on top of the 10 – 15% reduction families on average incomes will face in 2011.  More pain and still very little gain. 
 
But let’s not look a gift horse in the mouth: let’s work out which shop to spend my bonus in.  I can afford a trip to the cinema but no popcorn.  Nine singles from itunes but no album.  A couple of extra bottles of wine a year.  Two swimming trips for me and the chicklet, but no hot chocolate afterwards.  Three daysaver tickets for the bus.  Gosh, working out how to spend it is going to take an age.
 
Actually it won’t, because I’ve already decided to give it to a charity.  Good causes were one of the few gainers from this budget with the proposed reform of the administration of gift aid.  If I give my £9.25 to charity, it will be able to claim the tax rebate, at less cost to the organisation than before and producing a nice double whammy hit for Westminster.  For good measure, here’s a third.  I’ll also be able to offset my generosity against my income for tax credit purposes.  Do you know, I might just have hit upon a brand new tax avoidance wheeze:  it’s one I’d heartily recommend to others.

Eastenders’ obscene plot achieves its purpose but denigrates women

A disclaimer or two: 

I gave up the soaps a couple of years ago, and only ever watch Eastenders when my maw is around or as happened on Monday, I switched the TV on and there it was.  I couldn’t help myself:  it was classic car crash TV.

I have the flu.  There are eminently more complex things to be blogging about but the burdz brain isnae up to the task currently.

For all those who pretend to eschew popular culture, allow me to enlighten you.  On Hogmanay, Eastenders began a plotline that involved the almost simultaneous birth of two babies on the Square.   One died within 24 hours, the distraught mother swapped her dead baby for her neighbours’ living one.   The parents of the supposed dead baby, as you can imagine, are in bits – and in fact are acting all of it superbly.  The father of the supposed living baby was away when his wife gave birth so is oblivious but worried about his wife’s inability to bond with their baby, or feed him, and her baby blues.  Said mother is in meltdown, as you can imagine.

The storyline has caused an outcry – Radio 5 Live, Mumsnet, Loose Women and the Daily Mail have all had a pop this week.  Now, Samantha Womack (nee Janus), the actress at the heart of the plot, has announced she is leaving the soap, with some reports suggesting it is because of this storyline.

Nearly everyone agrees that it is a good thing for soap operas – or serial dramas as they like to call themselves – to cover social issues.  Most agree that in general, Eastenders has a good track record here.  Most also agree that creating a storyline whereby one family lost their baby through sudden infant death syndrome would have been appropriate:  the preposterous bit has been the baby swap angle.

Keeping up?  Good.  Cos here is the nasty bit – Eastenders and the BBC have got what they wanted.  Everyone is now talking about the plotline:  it will be a ratings winner, which was the purpose, and no doubt champagne corks will be popping.  Which just adds to the burdz’ flu-induced queasiness.

Because one has to wonder what kind of planet TV executives, controllers and writers are living on when they think it is okay to traduce and denigrate women in such a callous and contemptuous fashion.   For make no mistake, the plot centres on the actions and reactions of the women who gave birth:  the blokes are bit part players. 

The story suggests that women who lose a child are mentally unhinged, will readily become criminals and are a threat to other babies.  It taps into our most primal fears and suspicions about women and childbirth.  Moreover, the rantings of the apparently bereaved mother – “this is not my baby” – are ignored and pitied.  She is reduced to swinging aimlessly in a playpark in her pyjamas.  The very idea that a mother suffering a traumatic homebirth would be admitted to hospital while her baby would be left at home is in itself nonsense (though the likelihood of mother being admitted to one hospital and baby to another several miles apart is all too real).  The midwife too does not cover herself in glory – apparently, a newborn baby showing 20 ounces of weight loss in a single day merits merely a frown,not an immediate admission to a neo natal unit. 

And because politically and practically, this is a health issue which has little priority – precisely because it is one which primarily affects women - our public service broadcaster feels it can get away with it.  Here are some unpalatable facts about neo-natal and maternal health issues in Scotland:

• The numbers of babies who die at birth, or in the first week or month of life – known as perinatal and neonatal deaths – in Scotland has risen from 441 in 2002 to 493 in 2008
• women in Scotland are more likely to die in childbirth than in any other country in Western Europe
• rates of death from conditions like pre-eclampsia remain stubbornly high, with little reduction in the last 20 years
• the numbers of women in Scotland breastfeeding their babies beyond six weeks has increased by 0.2% in two years;  in areas like Ayrshire and Lanarkshire, less than one in five women breastfeed their babies

The figures for the UK as a whole are little better.  Maternal and neonatal health are very much Cinderella services, requiring much more political and public attention and investment than they currently receive.  Eastenders could easily have created a much more realistic and topical social issue story around these two babies’ births: the shortage of midwives which causes a lack of appropriate through and aftercare care for mothers and babies;  the difficulties around breastfeeding, particularly culturally in certain communities and in public;  the risk that conditions like pre-eclampsia and diabetes pose in pregnancy and childbirth;  the continuing lack of support for mothers experiencing post natal depression.  All of these issues could have been explored in sensitive and helpful ways, contributing much to public knowledge and awareness. 

Or if the programme makers had really wanted to be “edgy” they could have promoted childbirth as a positive, life affirming event which it is for the majority of mothers, parents and children.  Instead, they went for the cheap thrill and in the process have offended many. 

But complaining and talking about it simply serves the BBC’s purpose.  Turning off and shutting up is likely to be far more effective in registering our message of disgust.

UPDATE:  A friend who had her own very traumatic birth experience, who has spent much of the last few years in and out of hospitals with one of her children and whose bravery and dedication as a mum shames the burd did in fact complain to the BBC.  This was the response received.  As she points out “this will definitely widen your eyes at how they justify this completely sickening ploy of upping the ratings”.

“Thanks for contacting us.

We’re sorry if you’ve been offended or upset by the current storyline in EastEnders. The high volume of complaints we received about this reiterate the same points and so a generic response was deemed the most effective way to respond on this occasion. We have however, approached the production team for a response to the concerns raised and they’ve supplied us with the following statement:

We appreciate this is a particularly emotive storyline and as with all such sensitive subject matters, we approached it with great care and attention, seeking guidance and advice from a number of experts in this field in order to ensure as realistic a portrayal as possible.

EastEnders has a long history of exploring difficult issues, and the storyline regarding Ronnie and Kat follows in this tradition.

We acknowledge that for some members of the audience this storyline will have particular resonance and significance, however we can assure viewers that it’s not our intention to cause distress or upset, and we have ensured that key episodes are supported by the BBC Action Line in order for those affected by the storyline to be able to obtain information regarding sources of further help and advice.

It’s important to note there is absolutely no inference that Ronnie’s actions are in any way typical of a bereaved mother of a newborn baby. In her grief and desperation at the discovery that her much longed for baby has passed away, and finding herself in the exceptional circumstance of being alone with her neighbour’s newborn son, Ronnie acted on impulse in the heat of the moment, without really knowing what she was doing, or considering the consequences or repercussions. On a wider sense, we were careful to select Ronnie, who we felt was the only character capable of acting in this way in a believable manner, following all the difficulties she’s experienced in her life and the emotional toll this has put on her.

Over the coming weeks, we will see Ronnie and Kat each coming to terms with the loss of their babies, and explore how they re-build their lives in the wake of such tragedy. Viewers will see the situation resolve itself over the coming months.

We were careful to signal the nature of the content of the episodes to the audience in advance through publicity, programme billings, and continuity announcements.

Thanks again for contacting us.

Kind Regards

BBC Audience Services”