Probably just me, but the BBC's scrutiny of the Government during the general election campaign feels better than its scrutiny of Government thinking on Brexit. The BBC seems still to be able to do scrutiny when it wants to. /1
If this is right, it does raise questions about how different the world might now look had the BBC had not taken the decision in early 2017 that: "The duty we broadcasters had to “broadly balance” the views of the two sides is at an end." (radiotimes.com/news/2017-04-0…). /2
If - as is my strong impression - the world would now look very different had the BBC properly scrutinised Brexit, it raises a series of really important questions about the BBC going forward. /3
How was the 2017 decision taken? Who took it? And - with important implications going forward - is it right that the 2017 decision, taken by those people in that way could so shape the future of our nation. /4
Ultimately, these are questions about what it means to have a broadcaster with such dominance in the news market (the BBC has first place and seven in the top 20; no one else has more than one). The more I think about it, the more convinced I am it's profoundly unhealthy. /ENDS 
(Graph from here ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/…).
