THE way I see it, the BBC, when it is speaking directly to the viewer through an announcer or if the script is written before it is read, does have a responsibility to abide by conventional English. People learn from example. Traditionally, the example from the BBC has been a good one.

I, like many people, tend to listen to Radio 4, and it’s pretty rare to hear anything enraging, although I did jump up and down in the bathroom recently late at night when I heard a Radio 4 announcer use “phenomena” as if it were singular.

The trouble is, language changes all the time. It is becoming increasingly common for reporters to say (neglecting the rules of case agreement): “There’s four ways of looking at this.” This annoys me, but I know there’s nothing you can do about it. I may yell “Are!” and “Were!” at the radio, but you’d feel a bit daft calling in to register a complaint.

Blaming the BBC for such a decline would be to miss the obvious: that the BBC is reflecting a shift that is occurring elsewhere in the language. I personally wish they wouldn’t endorse this particular development, but I suppose I have to accept that many other people don’t notice it, and certainly aren’t bothered by it.

The use of slang in drama is absolutely fine. EastEnders or Only Fools and Horses would look very peculiar if they were suddenly rewritten in the language of Noël Coward or Evelyn Waugh.

Spoken language moves on. The BBC is bound to reflect that. However, the BBC should remind presenters that if they are presenting a television or radio programme, particularly for children, it does imply some responsibility. If you are news announcing, then even more so. If it is written, it ought surely to conform to the grammatical rules of the written word.

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Science News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Donor organ allowed child’s own heart to heal
• Michael Jackson: Not the final chapter
• Brüno toned down for 15 rating