Deceitful BBC
"If I were Mr. Bashir, I would strive to maintain a low profile for the next two to three decades."
Shock and horror—a BBC journalist has fabricated evidence and used forged documents! Lord Dyson's findings should not surprise anyone who knows the BBC's inner workings. In Hong Kong, we have long witnessed the BBC twisting the truth, particularly in its depiction of the civil unrest in 2019 and 2020.
By downplaying the mob violence here while condemning law enforcement, the BBC tacitly supports criminals and endangers innocents. Even now, the BBC continues this trend with its biased coverage of the unrest in Paris, aiming to discredit the French police.
Lord Dyson's report on the notorious 1995 Princess Diana/Bashir interview lends legal credence to a widely acknowledged truth: the BBC is inherently deceptive. This judgement extends to both BBC news programming and its opinion shows. However, there’s no need for concern, as the wildlife documentaries are mostly credible since the BBC cannot persuade lions and tigers to lie.
The Princess Diana saga is dreadful on two levels. Firstly, underhanded methods ensnared the interview, and secondly, the BBC attempted to cover up, deflect, and discredit anyone who dared to challenge them. Such cloaking required a sustained effort over decades.
In 1995, aided by the BBC, reporter Martin Bashir forged documents to manipulate Princess Diana, persuading her to grant him access. The interview set off a chain of events that culminated in her divorce, the withdrawal of royal protection, and her tragic death at the hands of a drunk driver in Paris.
While we might squabble over the direct connections, the impact is undeniable. At best, Bashir acted unethically, and at worst, he was involved in a series of events that led to her demise. Throughout this time, the BBC supported, applauded, and encouraged him.
Of course, Diana is not entirely innocent in this matter. As an adult, she made her own decisions. However, given her evident status as a 'spurned woman', she was vulnerable, and Bashir exploited that.
Under the guise of press freedom, breaking the law held little consequence for Bashir. We find a similar situation here with a journalist who deceived to obtain information from the Transport Department. Despite being convicted in court, she remains adamant in her defence of the case.
Furthermore, I've observed that warrior cops exhibit a similar attitude in their pursuit of criminals, willing to bend or break the rules to achieve results. The erosion of the law overshadows any short-term benefits. When the truth eventually surfaces, the fallout taints the entire organisation and society.
In a feeble defence of his actions, Bashir attempts to minimise the significance of the forged documents. That is his only hope. Unfortunately, it will not hold water in the court of public opinion. If I were Mr. Bashir, I would strive to maintain a low profile for the next two to three decades.
As academic David Sedgwick identified in his seminal work on the BBC, The Fake News Factory, many journalists consider themselves above the law. They are prepared to use unethical and illegal means to achieve results in their self-appointed status as guardians of all that is right and good.
Sedgwick further argues that the BBC, influenced by a minority of activists, aims to mislead, unsettle, and incite its audience. He presents a compelling case that encompasses Brexit, the conflict in Syria, and the BBC's depiction of rape victims in northern England who suffered at the hands of Asian gangs.
Meanwhile, activist journalists continue to use public money to pursue their agendas without proper oversight. In short, the British public is paying for an enterprise that is starting to look criminal.
There is no doubt that the appalling behaviour of one man—Martin Bashir—was responsible for much of this malignancy. However, the role of BBC leaders in obstructing investigations must be revealed. I can see that the 'rogue journalist' excuse is being used to shield the rest of the corrupt institution. Already, the BBC's defenders warn against a media feeding frenzy, much like they did after Savile and other scandals.
With Bashir gone, the BBC will return to its usual behaviour, searching for the next story to fabricate. Unless action is taken, we will have this conversation every few years.
While demands for change are increasing, can the BBC truly reform? History suggests otherwise. The cases of Savile, Harris, and numerous other dreadful incidents indicate that this organisation fails to learn. The culture prioritises self-preservation above all else, concealed behind a facade of press freedom.
In truth, I'm not sure how you bring about change, given that the BBC is a massive beast with tentacles in many domains. However, some parts of the organisation do commendable public service work, and these need to be maintained.
Making the BBC a subscription service could have the desired impact instead of forcing people to pay. If BBC products are in demand, the public can subscribe. If not, then the Beeb will need to change or disappear.
Lastly, I must applaud the Duke of Cambridge's eloquent and heartfelt statement. In all this madness, he presented himself as steadfast, moderate in tone, but deeply sincere. He's starting to look like a future King. Well done, Sir!
May 2021
By downplaying the mob violence here while condemning law enforcement, the BBC tacitly supports criminals and endangers innocents. Even now, the BBC continues this trend with its biased coverage of the unrest in Paris, aiming to discredit the French police.
Lord Dyson's report on the notorious 1995 Princess Diana/Bashir interview lends legal credence to a widely acknowledged truth: the BBC is inherently deceptive. This judgement extends to both BBC news programming and its opinion shows. However, there’s no need for concern, as the wildlife documentaries are mostly credible since the BBC cannot persuade lions and tigers to lie.
The Princess Diana saga is dreadful on two levels. Firstly, underhanded methods ensnared the interview, and secondly, the BBC attempted to cover up, deflect, and discredit anyone who dared to challenge them. Such cloaking required a sustained effort over decades.
In 1995, aided by the BBC, reporter Martin Bashir forged documents to manipulate Princess Diana, persuading her to grant him access. The interview set off a chain of events that culminated in her divorce, the withdrawal of royal protection, and her tragic death at the hands of a drunk driver in Paris.
While we might squabble over the direct connections, the impact is undeniable. At best, Bashir acted unethically, and at worst, he was involved in a series of events that led to her demise. Throughout this time, the BBC supported, applauded, and encouraged him.
Of course, Diana is not entirely innocent in this matter. As an adult, she made her own decisions. However, given her evident status as a 'spurned woman', she was vulnerable, and Bashir exploited that.
Under the guise of press freedom, breaking the law held little consequence for Bashir. We find a similar situation here with a journalist who deceived to obtain information from the Transport Department. Despite being convicted in court, she remains adamant in her defence of the case.
Furthermore, I've observed that warrior cops exhibit a similar attitude in their pursuit of criminals, willing to bend or break the rules to achieve results. The erosion of the law overshadows any short-term benefits. When the truth eventually surfaces, the fallout taints the entire organisation and society.
In a feeble defence of his actions, Bashir attempts to minimise the significance of the forged documents. That is his only hope. Unfortunately, it will not hold water in the court of public opinion. If I were Mr. Bashir, I would strive to maintain a low profile for the next two to three decades.
As academic David Sedgwick identified in his seminal work on the BBC, The Fake News Factory, many journalists consider themselves above the law. They are prepared to use unethical and illegal means to achieve results in their self-appointed status as guardians of all that is right and good.
Sedgwick further argues that the BBC, influenced by a minority of activists, aims to mislead, unsettle, and incite its audience. He presents a compelling case that encompasses Brexit, the conflict in Syria, and the BBC's depiction of rape victims in northern England who suffered at the hands of Asian gangs.
Meanwhile, activist journalists continue to use public money to pursue their agendas without proper oversight. In short, the British public is paying for an enterprise that is starting to look criminal.
There is no doubt that the appalling behaviour of one man—Martin Bashir—was responsible for much of this malignancy. However, the role of BBC leaders in obstructing investigations must be revealed. I can see that the 'rogue journalist' excuse is being used to shield the rest of the corrupt institution. Already, the BBC's defenders warn against a media feeding frenzy, much like they did after Savile and other scandals.
With Bashir gone, the BBC will return to its usual behaviour, searching for the next story to fabricate. Unless action is taken, we will have this conversation every few years.
While demands for change are increasing, can the BBC truly reform? History suggests otherwise. The cases of Savile, Harris, and numerous other dreadful incidents indicate that this organisation fails to learn. The culture prioritises self-preservation above all else, concealed behind a facade of press freedom.
In truth, I'm not sure how you bring about change, given that the BBC is a massive beast with tentacles in many domains. However, some parts of the organisation do commendable public service work, and these need to be maintained.
Making the BBC a subscription service could have the desired impact instead of forcing people to pay. If BBC products are in demand, the public can subscribe. If not, then the Beeb will need to change or disappear.
Lastly, I must applaud the Duke of Cambridge's eloquent and heartfelt statement. In all this madness, he presented himself as steadfast, moderate in tone, but deeply sincere. He's starting to look like a future King. Well done, Sir!
May 2021
Copyright © 2015