2. Where is Society going?
Reform    Society
You can click this!                   To print this side of the screen, click on this side and press Print. 
------------- It is hard to see any real attempt to stop society continuing to depreciate.
Governments pour more money into crime prevention, health service, education and even perhaps railways.
But what is there to stop the development of the power of the stock exchange and the media both of which are making an essential contribution to our well being but which need to be trimmed. The stock exchange continues to encourage greed by insisting on more money, more money, without the tempering of moral standards so much needed.
What Edward Heath called 'the unacceptable face of Capitalism' in the 1970s is probably now the way Capitalism is expected to be run.
While the Media is unfettered by realistic control or censorship it only has to bow to its sponsors, the Stock Exchange, by maintaining the best circulation figures and audience ratings. It does this by pandering to human beings demands for the sensational and for sexual exploitation.
We are not against Capitalism and the Media, both are the best way yet devised by man to govern countries and manage economies. We would like to see some moral standards re-introduced into these activities. We see no sign of that, rather the reverse where laws are still being made, and are in the manifestos of the parties to widen the acceptability of lower moral standards.

On BBC Radio.  Sue MacGregor was being interviewed on  Desert Islands Disks by Sue Lawley.
Sue Lawley insisted that Sue MacGregor should feel guilty that she worked for South Africa broadcasting when it supported Apartheid.  But they did not feel guilty that they both work for the BBC, who must have done so much to destroy Society in the UK as perhaps the South African broadcasting  had done in that country.
Sue MacGregor felt that male female equality should mean that a female interviewer should be thought to be as aggressive as a male interviewer.  Otherwise she was not equal to men.   What a distorted view of female equality!  Female equality means that women are as good as men, as able as men, as clever as men.  But not that they are the same as men.  Women have different qualities but that does not make them inferior or superior.  (Personally I hate aggressive interviews anyway!)
My wife is a doctor and is better than I am in medicine!  But I am an better engineer that she is!  That does not make either of us superior or inferior to each other.

And yet I feel sorry for the BBC!
The BBC launched a new digital channel BBC 4 on 2 March 2002 with a blaze of publicity that it will feature Sex.  Of course the BBC are not worried that this will extend the rate of immorality in the country resulting in more destruction of family life, divorce, uncared-for children, more single parents, more housing required, more Social Security payments, more teenage crime, more drug taking.  All they care for is audience ratings.  Can you blame them for that?  How could the BBC maintain the pre-war standards of broadcasting when they have the unfair competition of the commercial stations?  It must be the governments at fault for not enabling the BBC to be free from being judged by it's audience ratings being compared with those of commercial stations.  Commercialism in TV has bowed to human frailty and weakness.  But the governments over the years have not cared about the well-being of people in society or about the divorce rate with the resulting lifestyle problems.
So how then should a national broadcasting station be judged if it cannot only be on audience ratings?  Here are some suggestions!  The more answers 'yes' the better.
Accuracy:  Is the  reporting true?   Are documentaries unbiassed?  Is it honest?  Has it integrity?
Loyalty:  Does it support loyalty to the nation?  Does it give fair support to the elected government of the country?
Comprehensive:  Does it cover all the issues of  life that need to be publicised?
Lifestyle:  Does it help people to live satisfactory lives?  Does it support family life, morality, honesty, ethical living?  Does it encourage a moral and healthy approach to sex, crime, drugs?
Ratings:  Accepting that the above are most important, are the audience ratings acceptable?

If, in 1940, the media had been like it is today would Churchill have been able to whip up enthusiasm and action for us, a weak nation, to be able to fight off the Nazis?  Would the media have destroyed the sense of loyalty to the nation by it's scepticism and negativism?

Portsmouth Football Club have not been winning matches.  The chairman says he will not pay them because of their poor performance!  What a way to manage people.  Talk about Management by Aggression!   Surely  people  respond better to an understanding management style that would get alongside the players and discuss their problems with them?  See Article 5 for more on Management Style

End of article 2  .........   March 2002