On Criticism Of The BBC's Coverage Of The Queen's Diamond Jubilee
As one of the probably very many British people whose daily routine is blithely unimpaired by the fact that Elizabeth II has now reigned for sixty years, it's been fascinating to see the venom heaped on the BBC for its coverage of some of the Jubilee celebrations.
Whiel I suspect that in some cases this may represent a form of payback for coverage of assorted appearances at the Leveson Enquiry which may, rather subjectively, have been perceived to have been unfavourable, the question 'What was the BBC supposed to do?' springs to mind. Did they organise any of the celebratory events, some of which appear to have been mind-numblingly fatuous? That whole business with the barge was strikingly late medieval, the sort of thing you'd expect to read of in a life of Elizabeth I, not see live on TV during the reign of Elizabeth II.
Did the BBC book Gary Barlow and Cheryl Cole to sing in front of Buckingham Palace? I don't think so. They can only report what's put in front of them.
The question that kept running through my mind as I tried to avoid any coverage of the event from any source was that when the North Koreans organise celebrations centered around their head of state for life, it's somehow deemed to be a bad thing, but when we do it it's somehow supposed to be a good thing. For sure, although a few children might have been emitted screams of protest when dragged away from the XBox in order that they might stand in the street for hours waving small plastic flags, nobody celebrating the Jubilee was compelled to be there at gunpoint; although I am sure that the level of security around the events was such that they might have risked getting shot if they were perceived to be getting out of line just as surely as a pro-democracy demonstrator would do at a North Korean military parade.
That being the case, does that mean that some North Koreans might turn out to support their head of state for life willingly?