The UK would benefit from pledging more sustained and committed support in this age of disinformation and global turmoil.
Two years ago, BBC Arabic radio left the airwaves after decades. Soon afterwards, Russia’s Sputnik service began broadcasting on the frequency left vacant in Lebanon. That detail illuminates a larger picture. China, Russia and others see global-facing media as central to their global ambitions and are investing accordingly — pumping out propaganda to muddle or drown out objective, independently minded journalism. These outlets are state-controlled as well as state-owned.
Meanwhile, conspiracy theories and disinformation proliferate online, attacks on press freedom intensify and the administration of US President Donald Trump is dismantling media organizations, including Voice of America and Radio Free Asia (RFA), which have been essential sources of information for audiences under repressive regimes. Official Chinese media were gleeful at what RFA president Bay Fang called “a reward to dictators and despots.”
The BBC World Service, and its accurate reporting borne of deep knowledge of places, has rarely been needed more. At its best it is a beacon of truth in times of war and crisis, as well as life-transforming for listeners in a myriad of less dramatic ways. Yet it is already scrabbling to compete with lavishly funded foreign rivals for audiences and resources. The government boosted its contribution for this year and the next, but is now asking the BBC to identify tens of millions of pounds of cuts over the next few years.
Since 2014, the World Service has been primarily funded by the licence fee. However, the government contribution is mostly funded from official development assistance, which British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is slashing to increase defense spending. Even an alternative budget, with funding remaining flat in cash terms, would make deep cuts inevitable when global inflation is running at more than 4 percent.
The World Service faces tricky decisions, too. Most future users are unlikely to come via radio, but shortwave services remain central in some areas and can reach listeners even when Internet access is cut. The decision to axe Arabic radio services looked all the more ill-judged in light of wars in Gaza and Sudan. Bosses are struggling to balance the competing demands to constrain spending, ensure reach, and maintain standards of quality and depth. One pilot is a low-budget model in Polish, which would mostly repurpose existing BBC journalism.
In the long run, the BBC said that the government should fully resume World Service funding. That sounds more like a negotiating position than a serious prospect. What is absolutely clear is that it needs more money to compete, not less, and a long-term settlement. Its authority depends on the capacity and institutional memory it has established, and the fact that it is not seen to respond to the imperatives of the government of the day: it represents national values, not a politician’s fiat. Those are all imperiled when it must battle over money year by year. Once weakened, it would not easily recover.
Research conducted for the BBC found it to be the UK’s most recognized cultural export internationally — ahead of the English Premier League and British universities. Its hundreds of millions of users are more likely to favor the UK and more likely to support democracy.
The World Service is a precious and irreplaceable asset. Former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan once described it as “perhaps Britain’s greatest gift to the world” in the 20th century. However, the giver enjoys rich returns, and would be foolish to squander them.
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Mainland Affairs Council Deputy Minister Shen You-chung (沈有忠) on Thursday last week urged democratic nations to boycott China’s military parade on Wednesday next week. The parade, a grand display of Beijing’s military hardware, is meant to commemorate the 80th anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II. While China has invited world leaders to attend, many have declined. A Kyodo News report on Sunday said that Japan has asked European and Asian leaders who have yet to respond to the invitation to refrain from attending. Tokyo is seeking to prevent Beijing from spreading its distorted interpretation of wartime history, the report
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase