There's a new series by BBC Earth called Regeneration: Food, and as with most BBC content, it looks pretty swich. For those that are still not as interested in reading about issues of the environment or more specifically climate change as I am, the format, as with most BBC broadcasting is tailored to speak to a mainstream audience.
It's super simple, very uplifting and positive which is probably what people need right now. It's easy to switch off from the climate conversations because the narrative can be negative, but the BBC airs time on small things that we can control in daily life, like food waste, tips for making your salad last longer, using carrot tops to make pesto, cooking with brocoli stalks etc.
The BBC have had 30 years to do this though. They literally shut the door on a bunch of environmental journalists decades ago and told invetsigative journalists trying to educate people on climate change there was no market for this.
I can't highlight the positivety in the series Regeneration: Food without highlighting the 30 years of neglect. They are doing something now, yes but they could've done a lot more and sooner.
So, you have to question their agenda, you have to question why now and not before? The BBC are smart, they are full of educated, talented people so the content they produce is clever, it is beautiful, and they have worked hard at creating a BBC tone that addresses a mainstream audience. Whatever they create is probably going to look pretty damn good, and come off as relatable, but imagine the power they holds, the reach of people they hit, the conversations these viewers then have: 'hey did you see that thing on BBC last night?". For all their smarts, they chose not to broadcast these issues. They made that choice to keep climate change out of the narrative for 30 years, dismiss it's importance and make environmental journalists feel like they were silly for talking about something that people didn't want to talk about.
The media create the narrative. The media create the fuss. These are our gatekeepers of information and they have chosen to keep us in the dark. Should we not expect a lot better from them seeing as we do pay for it? I don't want to repeatedly bash on the BBC, but t's important to recognise that the most important information is not going to come from the mainstream media organisations, it never has. If you have children, show them that there are a breadth of other outlets, show them that there are other sources, other sides, other stories. The BBC and Channel 4 are finally allowing documentaries on environmentalism to be made, but that does not mean we should automatically forget or forgive them for the absolute and total failure of not allowing the informaiton to sit on these platforms before. And that's not only about climate change, but all investigative journalism. I'd like to know I'm getting the best for my money and seeing the content that matters. I don't need to be cotton balled, and wrapped in a blanket with an increasing stream of shows like Top Gear or the British Sewing Bee; if I need to watch something light hearted, I can easily find it elsewhere.
The British Broadcasting Corporation has a responsibility. It is a public service broadcaster.
The great communication is going to come from independent sources. Podcasts like So Hot Right Now, The Guardian, Youtube videos and various places on Social Media (there's too many to name) because you have to recognise that there has been a long history of failure in broadcasting the issues that matter on the main media channels. Do you realise the audience that terrestial TV, particularly Channel 4 and the BBC has? It's insane. They could've done a lot more and a lot sooner.
Defunding and degrading a public service is not uncommon. The people give up and we know it's an important institution and I wonder wherre we would be if we didn't have the BBC? But I'm not standing by an organisation that continues to keep us in the dark about the things that matter, becasue it is exactly this that protects the corporates, protects the oil companies, and protects all those bad people doing bad things in the world.
We need investigate journalism, we need voices to be heard, we need to be able to trust that wrong doing and unethical practise will be exposed, and we need to find our own independent sources of information.
Comments