Whither the BBC, whither NPR?

Peter Hitchens, delightfully addressing "sensible reactionaries" everywhere (sign me up), has announced his support of the BBC, defending the embattled left-wing bastion from the libertarian conservatives who want to "marketize" (and hence euthanize) it. He notes: Those who would abolish the BBC also need to recognise that without a licence fee it is difficult to see who will pay for a broadcasting network, especially speech radio on which intelligent thought, good manners, culture and morality will get any sort of hearing at all. Without the BBC, the British public would be left with Rupert Murdoch soft-porn and dumb-as-the-day-is-long American programming. The Corporation should also realise that there is, thanks to the failure of schools and universities, an increasing hunger for radio and television programmes that treat us as intelligent and seek to inform us and uplift us. It should say openly that its licence fee allows and obliges it to ignore ratings and that it will pursue quality without compromise. Where are the educated and curious to turn?

For all my loathing of National Public Radio (correctly labeled "grindingly liberal" by Hitchens), PBS, the NEA, and NEH, I am sympathetic to this line of argument. Civilized states throughout history have always acted as patrons of the arts and humanities, but today the patrons have lost control of their assets or are unwilling to tell those who take public money how to use it. "Use it" not in the sense of what opinions to hold ("agree with me or else"), but in seeking a balance of opinions, a search for knowledge in intellectual combat, and fair play in guests, shows, and commentaries so sensible liberals and reactionaries have a venue to make their case.

As it is now, both the BBC and NPR are determinedly anti-conservative -- listen to either in the morning and there is no need for coffee because their distemper enrages you. The other morning BBC interviewed a British professor in "peace studies" as to how the war in Iraq was progressing, not a prof. of international relations, military history, or political science; you can imagine what was said. Is the solution to pull the plug and force them to compete on the open market, a fight they will lose to Fox-TV in a day? Or to reform the institution as a true patron would, reminding the artist that with public money comes responsibility to the public that gives it, asking only for balance and intellectual pluralism rather than radio's equivalent to a one-party state?

Hitchens makes a valid point, that libertarian-conservatives will "throw the baby out with the bath water" in killing the BBC. Will they complain or rejoice when Sister Wendy is replaced by "Temptation Island?" Can they?