The future of arts broadcasting

Under the stewardship of John Reith, the BBC was godlier than it is today. In fact, when Broadcasting House was first opened in central London, Director General Reith made sure to dedicate the whole thing to Him up there. An inscription was chiselled into the wall of the building’s foyer, which began: ‘To Almighty God, this shrine of the arts, music and literature is dedicated by the first Governors in the year of our Lord 1931’. The words that followed included ‘decency’, ‘peace’ and ‘good harvest’. It’s not really the sort of epigraph that Auntie would put her name to now.

But, reading that inscription again, it’s not so much the G-word that stands out as the A-, M- and L-words: arts, music and literature. After all, people are currently questioning the BBC’s commitment to those ideals. Stand outside any gallery, concert hall or library, and sooner or later someone will waft up to you to complain — through a cloud of cigarette smoke and indignation — about the recent decision to move The Review Show from its weekly slot on BBC2 to a monthly one on BBC4. The box, they groan, just doesn’t have much space for arts programming these days.

It’s easy to sympathise with these critics. Whenever there are cuts to television budgets, the arts always seem to lose out, while reality teevee and cookery programmes continue to dominate the schedules. And this isn’t something I say out of snobbery. No, I am an eager fly-on-the-wall for reality shows such as Keeping Up with the Kardashians. And while I’d rather eat a steak than watch Jamie Oliver slaver over one on screen, millions clearly feel otherwise — and why should they be denied? Television is a stunningly democratic medium. It generally gives us what we want, and we duly devour it.

But are the same critics overdoing it when it comes to the arts? I spoke to Mark Bell, the BBC’s head of arts commissioning, and (I know, I know, he’s hardly an impartial observer, but…) he put up a solid defence of his corporation.