During my first visit to Mainland China in 1987, many things caught my attention. Foremost was the flawless British accent of our minders and translators. I asked one casually, "Which public school did you attend?" None had travelled outside China, but all had sat at the BBC's knee to perfect their English. The accents, intonation, and vocabulary seemed to be directly from the BBC. I was truly impressed.
The BBC once set the gold standard across various fields, including news, children's TV, and entertainment. Through its thorough reporting, I gained insight into the wider world. The nightly newscast, with presenters such as Angela Rippon, was essential viewing in our house.
Later, under the bedsheets, I'd listen to the World Service on a transistor radio (kids today won't know what that is). Voices from beyond the horizon took me on a worldwide journey.
There was no doubt the BBC provided us with the 'truth'; however, on reflection, we never considered how we reached that conclusion. It was a given — we trusted the BBC because no one could believe Richard Baker would lie to us.
After all, the words 'spin' and 'agenda' had not yet entered our lexicon. Moreover, as a soft power tool, the BBC's influence on the international stage should not be underestimated, as my experience in China showed.
How things have changed: in recent weeks, the BBC has received the most complaints in its history about the coverage of Prince Philip's death. Frustrated by the relentless commentary that interrupted scheduled programmes, viewers turned away in large numbers. More than 110,000 individual complaints were received.
When the BBC introduced a form to simplify the complaints process, the move drew criticism for potentially encouraging more protests. One commentator remarked, "BBC presenters and editors pray for the eternal life of the royal family – or, at least, to be absent from work when the death of one of its members is announced." The wounds are still evident from the lacklustre coverage of the Queen Mother's death in 2002. Poor BBC can't win.
A relative summed up the attitude of the great British public: "I need to know he's gone, which wasn't unexpected. A few words of praise, and can I now get back to Gogglebox?"
As the BBC has lost more public favour, it's intriguing to observe how the zeitgeist is shifting. The causes of this decline are deep and complex. It's pointless to identify a single reason for this fall from grace, because everything is connected. I believe that all history is about context — the long prelude.
Let's dive straight in. The BBC's biased coverage of events, which had always existed, became more evident with the rise of the Internet. Recently, the BBC supported a Remainer narrative on Brexit, which annoyed many. Then there's the Jimmy Savile scandal and other sex offenders whom the corporation protected for decades.
As the BBC's Chairman, former Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten received some criticism as that story came to light. The institutional damage remains unaddressed.
My own experience offers a small insight into how the BBC operates. During an aircraft crash at Kai Tak in 1988, an overexcited BBC reporter rushed over and asked, "Can you tell me the name of the RAF officer coordinating the rescue?" RAF officer?
He was less than impressed when I replied that no RAF personnel were involved in the incident. Later on the radio news, he announced, "British Forces led the rescue effort."
He overlooked the excellent work carried out by the Hong Kong Fire Services, local ambulance crews, and the police. The underlying message was that these colonial citizens required leadership and guidance. Furthermore, the report was a calculated deception.
Then you have the BBC taking a stance, with 'facts' shaped to fit. I could recount many such stories from Occupy Central and the 2019/20 riots, when BBC coverage was so biased it collapsed. But, to be fair to the BBC, they weren't alone in whitewashing events that were often violent.
David Sedgwick's book ‘The Fake News Factory - Tales from BBC land’ depicts a broadcaster with a political agenda, driven by activist journalists who show little regard for balance.
He provides numerous examples, extensive data, and insider interviews to argue convincingly that the BBC is dishonest. As an academic, Sedgwick is certainly well-grounded in his analysis.
He documents the BBC's involvement in 'Project Fear' as it sought to overturn the 2016 Brexit vote. The methods included outright lies, citing anonymous sources to exaggerate scenarios, and giving Remainers easy access to discussion panels while ruthlessly questioning Brexiters.
In the 2000s, when news broke that thousands of young girls had been sexually assaulted and raped by grooming gangs, the BBC dodged the story. By contrast, false allegations against a footballer made headlines. After being pressured to cover the Telford and Rotherham sex scandals, the BBC then began to scrutinise the victims' accounts.
Other media soon reported over 19,000 recorded cases of grooming — a figure the BBC continued to doubt. It has long been known that the perpetrators came almost exclusively from one group, a fact that the BBC appears unwilling to acknowledge.
Even Crufts, an annual dog show, received more coverage on BBC News. The extensive and ongoing abuse of young girls and women over decades was downplayed or largely ignored within the BBC.
With 44 men arrested for the rapes and assaults of working-class white girls, the BBC didn't cover the story on its main news channel. When the cases came to court, the BBC ran headlines 'woman denies embellishing abuse claims' and 'women denied lying'. Who is on trial here?
The fact that the BBC later launched a campaign against Sarah Champion MP, who had highlighted these terrible cases, speaks volumes. Any honest assessment of these events must recognise that certain groups are fair game on the BBC, while others are protected, even when they commit rape and murder.
Sedgwick further reveals how the BBC shields itself from complaints. A team of mainly former BBC employees decides cases at Ofcom, the regulator. These insiders rarely break ranks to support the complainant against the corporation.
These days, the Internet often outperforms the BBC in areas it once dominated. For example, Triggernometry, an online chat show hosted by two comedians, delves deeper into current affairs than anything the BBC offers.
With audiences abandoning the BBC in record numbers and a campaign to defund the organisation underway, the corporation's future remains uncertain. Surveys indicate that the public is unwilling to continue paying for a biased BBC.
Yet it's essential not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The BBC produces a wide range of content, with a significant portion excellent. Local radio stations serve their communities well, and no one matches the BBC in natural history programming. So if there is a need to cut back, it should be on distortions in the news and current affairs departments.
Meanwhile, the BBC’s evident one-sidedness hasn't escaped attention in Beijing. In a forensic putdown, a BBC reporter took a hit - watch below. Ouch.
January 2021
The BBC once set the gold standard across various fields, including news, children's TV, and entertainment. Through its thorough reporting, I gained insight into the wider world. The nightly newscast, with presenters such as Angela Rippon, was essential viewing in our house.
Later, under the bedsheets, I'd listen to the World Service on a transistor radio (kids today won't know what that is). Voices from beyond the horizon took me on a worldwide journey.
There was no doubt the BBC provided us with the 'truth'; however, on reflection, we never considered how we reached that conclusion. It was a given — we trusted the BBC because no one could believe Richard Baker would lie to us.
After all, the words 'spin' and 'agenda' had not yet entered our lexicon. Moreover, as a soft power tool, the BBC's influence on the international stage should not be underestimated, as my experience in China showed.
How things have changed: in recent weeks, the BBC has received the most complaints in its history about the coverage of Prince Philip's death. Frustrated by the relentless commentary that interrupted scheduled programmes, viewers turned away in large numbers. More than 110,000 individual complaints were received.
When the BBC introduced a form to simplify the complaints process, the move drew criticism for potentially encouraging more protests. One commentator remarked, "BBC presenters and editors pray for the eternal life of the royal family – or, at least, to be absent from work when the death of one of its members is announced." The wounds are still evident from the lacklustre coverage of the Queen Mother's death in 2002. Poor BBC can't win.
A relative summed up the attitude of the great British public: "I need to know he's gone, which wasn't unexpected. A few words of praise, and can I now get back to Gogglebox?"
As the BBC has lost more public favour, it's intriguing to observe how the zeitgeist is shifting. The causes of this decline are deep and complex. It's pointless to identify a single reason for this fall from grace, because everything is connected. I believe that all history is about context — the long prelude.
Let's dive straight in. The BBC's biased coverage of events, which had always existed, became more evident with the rise of the Internet. Recently, the BBC supported a Remainer narrative on Brexit, which annoyed many. Then there's the Jimmy Savile scandal and other sex offenders whom the corporation protected for decades.
As the BBC's Chairman, former Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten received some criticism as that story came to light. The institutional damage remains unaddressed.
My own experience offers a small insight into how the BBC operates. During an aircraft crash at Kai Tak in 1988, an overexcited BBC reporter rushed over and asked, "Can you tell me the name of the RAF officer coordinating the rescue?" RAF officer?
He was less than impressed when I replied that no RAF personnel were involved in the incident. Later on the radio news, he announced, "British Forces led the rescue effort."
He overlooked the excellent work carried out by the Hong Kong Fire Services, local ambulance crews, and the police. The underlying message was that these colonial citizens required leadership and guidance. Furthermore, the report was a calculated deception.
Then you have the BBC taking a stance, with 'facts' shaped to fit. I could recount many such stories from Occupy Central and the 2019/20 riots, when BBC coverage was so biased it collapsed. But, to be fair to the BBC, they weren't alone in whitewashing events that were often violent.
David Sedgwick's book ‘The Fake News Factory - Tales from BBC land’ depicts a broadcaster with a political agenda, driven by activist journalists who show little regard for balance.
He provides numerous examples, extensive data, and insider interviews to argue convincingly that the BBC is dishonest. As an academic, Sedgwick is certainly well-grounded in his analysis.
He documents the BBC's involvement in 'Project Fear' as it sought to overturn the 2016 Brexit vote. The methods included outright lies, citing anonymous sources to exaggerate scenarios, and giving Remainers easy access to discussion panels while ruthlessly questioning Brexiters.
In the 2000s, when news broke that thousands of young girls had been sexually assaulted and raped by grooming gangs, the BBC dodged the story. By contrast, false allegations against a footballer made headlines. After being pressured to cover the Telford and Rotherham sex scandals, the BBC then began to scrutinise the victims' accounts.
Other media soon reported over 19,000 recorded cases of grooming — a figure the BBC continued to doubt. It has long been known that the perpetrators came almost exclusively from one group, a fact that the BBC appears unwilling to acknowledge.
Even Crufts, an annual dog show, received more coverage on BBC News. The extensive and ongoing abuse of young girls and women over decades was downplayed or largely ignored within the BBC.
With 44 men arrested for the rapes and assaults of working-class white girls, the BBC didn't cover the story on its main news channel. When the cases came to court, the BBC ran headlines 'woman denies embellishing abuse claims' and 'women denied lying'. Who is on trial here?
The fact that the BBC later launched a campaign against Sarah Champion MP, who had highlighted these terrible cases, speaks volumes. Any honest assessment of these events must recognise that certain groups are fair game on the BBC, while others are protected, even when they commit rape and murder.
Sedgwick further reveals how the BBC shields itself from complaints. A team of mainly former BBC employees decides cases at Ofcom, the regulator. These insiders rarely break ranks to support the complainant against the corporation.
These days, the Internet often outperforms the BBC in areas it once dominated. For example, Triggernometry, an online chat show hosted by two comedians, delves deeper into current affairs than anything the BBC offers.
With audiences abandoning the BBC in record numbers and a campaign to defund the organisation underway, the corporation's future remains uncertain. Surveys indicate that the public is unwilling to continue paying for a biased BBC.
Yet it's essential not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The BBC produces a wide range of content, with a significant portion excellent. Local radio stations serve their communities well, and no one matches the BBC in natural history programming. So if there is a need to cut back, it should be on distortions in the news and current affairs departments.
Meanwhile, the BBC’s evident one-sidedness hasn't escaped attention in Beijing. In a forensic putdown, a BBC reporter took a hit - watch below. Ouch.
January 2021
Copyright © 2015