I came across two thoughts in the last few days which appeared separate, but the more I considered them the more linked they became in my mind. I’ll share them with you.

A speaker in an online discussion I was involved in drew a comparison between the amount of information we now receive with the invention of the printing press in Germany well over 500 years ago.

This had a major impact on religion; early pamphlets allowed ideas to be spread quickly, an early Bible (the Gutenberg bible) was read by many who were interested in Martin Luther’s ideas and the end result was the split in the Christian church with the Protestant Reformation. Without the printing press, it may never have happened.

The speaker equated this with the plethora of information we receive today from many sources, and the impact this has on society; though he did point out that the difference today is that we tend to read only the stuff that makes us comfortable and don’t challenge ourselves with the uncomfortable truth.

The second story was one of those profound little vignettes on Facebook which provoke much thought, whether technically true or not. If you put 100 black ants and 100 red fire ants in a glass jar, nothing will happen. But if you shake it violently, the ants will start killing each other. Black and red will think the other is the enemy. But, says the writer, the real enemy is the person who shook the jar.

The same is true in society, whether men v women, black v white and so on, including our own land; Before we fight each other, we should ask ourselves, “Who shook the jar?”

Nobody likes to think they are being manipulated, but the paradox is that while there is so much knowledge available we often just take the bits that we like. Confirmation bias, it’s called.

When it comes to lockdown and the pandemic, to the competing narratives about our own troubled history, to the racism endemic across the world and, indeed, just about any issue that affects our lives, do we approach things with an open mind?

But the power of information is such that anyone wanting to influence us has unprecedented access to our minds; and we should ask more often: “Who’s shaking the jar?” And why?

There has been a major focus this week on the BBC, which as a public service broadcaster has been in a very influential and privileged position for almost 100 years.

In a changing media world, serious questions are being asked about the BBC’s role and the original aim – to “inform, educate and entertain” – can seem out of date for a single organisation in times when people can pick and choose which service they want and get it from numerous different sources.

Lord Dyson’s devastating report into the deceitful way Martin Bashir obtained his famous interview in 1995 with Princess Diana has put the BBC in the dock. As disgraceful as Bashir’s behaviour was, even worse was the complete whitewash by the then head of news, Tony Hall, who investigated the allegations against Bashir at the time, and described him as an “honourable man” and “honest” and exonerated him for his “lapse".

BBC management has proved itself repeatedly and seriously inadequate in policing and investigating its own organisation; think of the scandals of Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris and what they got away with in plain sight.

In the aftermath of the Dyson report into the Diana interview, Michael Grade, a former chairman of the BBC criticised the Corporation management’s arrogance and said their default position is “We’ve done nothing wrong".

Can we, though, simply isolate BBC shortcomings and think that if we resolve its problems, the media landscape will be fair and impartial?

Prince William, understandably, wants those responsible to be held to account; and while the focus is on the BBC, nobody seems to be asking questions of the Royal Family’s shortcomings in its role.

Also the fire directed at the BBC by some in the tabloid press is nauseating, considering some of their behaviour; not least the odious Kelvin MacKenzie, the former editor of the Sun who printed lies about the Liverpool fans who died at Hillsborough, who’s now trying to take the high moral ground with calls to “defund the BBC".

The tabloids have a lot to answer for when it comes to the hounding of Diana.

And the controversy now engulfing the BBC undoubtedly gives opportunity to those in positions of power and influence to “shake the jar” and neuter the Corporation which they accuse of left-wing bias, notwithstanding that the left also accuse the Beeb of right-wing bias.

The BBC has many fine journalists, including those in Northern Ireland, and produces a range of news, current affairs and investigations, as well as quality education and drama output.

There is much to admire in the BBC, and indeed journalism generally where principled exponents across the world do important and invaluable work in serving a public interest for people; often at great personal risk.

In reforming the BBC, we must be careful to protect the value to a democracy of good and responsible public service broadcasting.

But the Corporation faces an existential crisis, and while those many in key management positions simply double down and operate in a bubble, divorced from the real world, they do their employees and indeed public service broadcasting no good whatsoever.

We don’t have to go far to see this weakness in BBC management. I watched Nolan Live last Wednesday night on BBC1 television and couldn’t help thinking that Stephen Nolan has lost the run of himself.

There are, of course, legitimate questions to be asked about the policing of the Bobby Storey funeral, and the questions were in there. But the latest half hour spent on this issue appeared nothing more than a self-indulgent Nolan justifying himself as the tormentor in chief. There was little balance in the programme, with commentators and all virtual audience members following the narrative.

The first 15 minutes was simply a dramatic Nolan monologue, with finger pointing and dramatic effect.

The nature of journalism has changed; and we have much more polemic and strident opinion. But such rhetoric seems out of place in a public service organisation such as the BBC, which said last year that it was “committed to achieving due impartiality in all its output".

That statement came in the wake of Emily Maitlis causing controversy on Newsnight with what seemed a mild introduction on Dominic Cummings rule breaking. But BBC bosses said she “did not meet our standards of due impartiality".

Of course, Nolan will remain defiant and say he’s speaking up for “You” and his friends in certain quarters will go into print and on social media to defend him.

I think there are at least questions for BBC management to ask. But they won’t.

Personally, I think the BBC as a whole is a public service worth having and it would be a pity to see its downfall. But today’s world is a very different one to the one the Corporation was founded in 1922 and the BBC needs to adapt and regain the trust of the public. And radical reform of how it is funded and managed is needed.