Is the BBC Deliberately Avoiding NHS Cutback Woes?

Is the BBC no longer functioning as the primary conduit of information, and “interrogator in chief” on behalf of the British public?

However, the consistently inadequate coverage of major reforms to that other great British institution, the NHS, in my mind, raises this question. 

With the passing of the Health and Social Care Act, in March 2012, healthcare provision in the UK has undergone the most fundamental economic and structural change since the NHS’ inception in 1948.

The transformation goes to the very core of British society and culture and has been the subject of intense politicking from across the ideological spectrum.  The lead up to any legislation would have seen much in-depth debate and forensic critical scrutiny by our core public service broadcast network. Right? 

Well, perhaps not. The BBC has been criticised for systematic and willful avoidance of various strands of the issue: 
• lack of explanation regarding the influence of private companies in the reorganization
• question of how taxpayer subsidies undercut the Private Finance Initiative (PFI)
• alleged financial benefits to MPs with shareholdings in private healthcare companies
• absence of dissenting expert voices from professional organisations such as the BMA
• simple failure to register public protest.

But in many ways the specific details of the BBC’s failings are less important than the public perception and possible long term outcomes.

While live-tweeting Thursday’s Question Time (16 May) the palpable level of dismay at a narrow agenda was encapsulated by @bodnotbad who lamented:

“Every week on Question Tijme (sic), Europe, Europe, Europe… in the meantime our NHS is being sold out from under us. ‪#bbcqt‬‬‬‬”. ‬‬ 

Two days later (18 May) @PenguinGalaxy asked: “Hey ‪#BBC‬‬‬‬. Just to let you know, 7000 people marched through London to save the ‪#NHS‬‬‬‬ today.   That’s a good story for you, right? Right?” (retweeted 122 times). ‬‬‬‬ 

While these singular comments might not constitute a revolutionary groundswell of opinion, there appears to be a public sense that the corporation has been, at best, quiet on the issue, at worse, guilty of ignorance, manipulation and even collusion with the coalition.

The BBC, arguably more than any news provider, sets it stall out as the benchmark of unbiased objectivity. Yet it finds it increasing hard to maintain that ideal and level of editorial control in a much more chaotic news environment.

But the seemingly deliberate avoidance of a politically sensitive social issue undermines its often taken-for-granted ‘fourth estate’ role.

With its royal charter renewal up for discussion in 2015, perhaps the BBC will be the next British institution to undergo major surgery.