The BBC - Faking It

"A YouGov survey this week revealed that only 19% feel the BBC is impartial"

It's August 1988 at Kai Tak Airport. I stand beside the wreckage of a mangled CAAC Trident. Its nose has detached, while the remains of the fuselage hang precariously over the runway seawall.

Firefighters have finished recovering the six deceased crew members. A passenger will later die in hospital; fortunately, most of the others escaped uninjured apart from cuts and bruises. 

The press are now arriving at the scene to take their pictures. A BBC journalist rushes to the front of the press pack, demanding, "What's the name of the RAF officer in charge of the rescue. I need to speak to him?"

I pointed out that there was no involvement from the RAF. Sure, the Royal Marines had arrived in their fast boats and helped in the initial moments. However, beyond that, the military did not participate. The BBC guy looked deflated. 

However, the BBC's coverage later that day claimed that the RAF had taken charge of the rescue operation, despite the truth being different. This blatant disregard for the facts disrespected the hard work of the Hong Kong Fire Services, the ambulance crews, and the police.

​The underlying message was clear: the locals needed the British military to take control in times of crisis, a narrative that was far from the truth.  

Triggered by the airport crash incident, I began to sit up and take notice. After each typhoon, the BBC provided extensive coverage of the British army's efforts in clearing roads and removing fallen trees as it showcased our 'brave lads' getting Hong Kong back on its feet. 

And yes, the army was involved, but its efforts were limited to the immediate vicinity of their bases. They were overshadowed by the much larger response from the Hong Kong government. All of this helped reinforce the myth that these colonial citizens relied on the British military to manage emergencies.

To be fair, the military assistance was appreciated. However, the propaganda aspect of the coverage always seemed exaggerated to me. 

Skip forward to 2019, during Hong Kong's social unrest. BBC news clips often showed peaceful protesters marching before immediately cutting to police firing tear gas. What was left out were the hours of petrol bombs, criminal damage, and attacks the police endured before they responded.

Was the intended message of that editing that the police opened fire on an innocent crowd? It seems so.

In one instance, a clip of an elderly woman in Yuen Long standing inside the police lines shouting at officers is portrayed as her berating the riot police. Clearly, those who devised this story didn't speak Cantonese because the woman could be heard asking the officers to remove the protesters, whom she'd earlier challenged. 

The BBC's narrative and commentary were starkly biased: protesters were portrayed as good, while the police were depicted as bad. 

Then again, in 1984, BBC footage of the so-called ‘Battle of Orgreave’ during the UK miners' strike was edited and broadcast out of chronological order, falsely depicting miners attacking police and police responding with a mounted charge. In case you're wondering, that coverage mirrored the pro-establishment stance at the time. 

Thus, it should come as no surprise that the BBC faces accusations of bias: this has been evident for decades. What is surprising is that it has taken so long for BBC misconduct to explode in such a spectacular way to make headlines worldwide. President Trump can claim credit for that, although many incidents could have sparked a crisis. 

The entire Jimmy Savile scandal, along with the BBC cover-up —including their decision to shut down a documentary about their well-known in-house sex offender—serves as a notable example. To Savile, you can also add Rolf Harris, Hugh Edwards, Frank Bough, or various DJs who should have prompted a crisis. 

Think about the trap set for a vulnerable Princess Diana by BBC reporter Martin Bashir, who used fake documents to persuade her to participate in an interview that had devastating consequences. 

In March 2007, the BBC even stooped to faking a Blue Peter phone-in competition. The taint on this iconic kids' show reflects poorly on the BBC’s culture.

Earlier this year, the BBC featured the 13-year-old son of a Hamas leader narrating a documentary about Gaza. Hamas is designated a terrorist organisation by the UK. In an apology, the BBC dismissed criticisms as ‘the omission of that detail’. 

These incidents, along with many others, illustrate that, despite claims by its defenders, the BBC is often quick to ignore its regularly cited values of fairness and integrity. And it is juvenile to suggest that institutions don't have an inherent bias, they clearly do. But the BBC went beyond the bias line into outright advocacy. 

In the 2019 publication 'Fake News Factory,’ author David Sedgwick convincingly argues that the BBC has a long history of fabricating news, distorting the truth, and shaping narratives through its reporting. The book describes how the BBC is an overtly political organisation, following an agenda and pursuing the Orwellian 'Right-think' versus 'Wrong-think'. 

Over time, the 'Right-think' shifts and the BBC adapts to the times, not to the truth. As a result, in recent decades, it has fostered a woke culture that has allowed radical activist groups, such as Stonewall, to flourish. Until as recently as 2021, the BBC's Diversity and Inclusion department primarily operated as an extension of the Stonewall organisation. 

Commentators have argued that this infiltration by radicals gave them influence over the BBC's output, which, in the case of Stonewall, distorted the coverage of the transgender issue. 

I'm not among those who wish to see the collapse or fall of the BBC. Quite the opposite. Some of its programmes, including documentaries, wildlife content, and science output, are of the highest quality. 

However, the impact of the woke (for want of a better word) is now apparent everywhere at the BBC. These days, comedy on the BBC has become unwatchable, while the legendary Doctor Who franchise has evolved into a platform for virtue signalling and social commentary, becoming a pile of nonsense. 

What annoys many Brits is that, by law, you must pay a tax to the BBC. Therefore, you are essentially forced to pay for the privilege of being fed biased coverage of world events. Not paying for a TV licence could result in a £1,000 fine. 

There is now a movement against paying for it. Over the past two years, the number of households paying the tax has decreased from 24.1 million to 23.8 million as opposition to the BBC has grown. This decline results in a loss of approximately £50 million in revenue for the corporation.

A YouGov survey released this week revealed that only 19% of respondents feel the BBC is impartial. And recent events are unlikely to push those numbers in the BBC's favour.

At the same time, staunch defenders of the BBC say mistakes will happen, which is true. However, there is ample evidence suggesting a pattern that indicates these are not just errors, but part of a narrative-shaping effort. Moreover, the British taxpayer is funding this process. Therefore, comparing the BBC to other news outlets is flawed.

Trump, despite an apology from the BBC, is pursuing legal action. Whether this matter will go to court is uncertain; in the meantime, the BBC will now face intense scrutiny for signs of bias, narrative shaping, and potential deception. It's an uncomfortable position, but then again, the chickens are coming home to roost. 

The BBC needs to take a long, hard look at itself and move away from its old, self-created narrative that it is the best. Like the British police, another declining and failing institution, some honest reflection would help.

Unfortunately, listening to the squealing of the BBC insiders and their defenders, there is no appetite for that.