Is there a coup underway at the BBC? When journalists are punished for minor mistakes while truth-tellers are silenced, that's not accountability — that's control. In this video, I explore how the BBC has become the front line in a far-right campaign to destroy truth itself, and why this matters for democracy in Britain and beyond.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
Is there a coup going on at the BBC, as many of its staff have suggested this week? My answer is, of course, there is. When journalists are toppled for minor errors, while those responsible for truth are silenced , that's not accountability, that's about seeking control. And this desire for control is not accidental. It's part of a wider, far-right project to de-legitimise truth itself.
As historian Tim Snyder said in his book On Tyranny, truth is always the first casualty of authoritarianism. Fascism doesn't begin with violence; it begins with lies. And to achieve that, first of all, you discredit truth-making institutions: the press, academia, and civil society. And look at the USA; that's exactly what Trump has been doing, and now he's turning on the UK.
The aim is to replace facts with opinion, and then opinion with propaganda. The objective is simple: if no one ends up believing anything, power can say anything.
As Hannah Arendt, the notable historian and commentator on fascism, put it in 1973, "The moment we no longer have a free press, anything can happen. A people that no longer can believe anything cannot make up its mind. And with such a people, you can then do what you please." And what she was talking about is not a theory. It's the roadmap of every authoritarian regime in history, and that is why the BBC is being targeted.
The BBC, for all its faults, and let's be clear, it's got them, remains one of the most trusted media organisations on earth. Destroying that trust is the ultimate prize of those who want a world without accountability. After all, when the BBC fails, who replaces it? Private media oligarchs want to do so. They want to deliver corporate control of what we hear. They want to create partisan echo chambers. And that's the point: they want truth itself to be privatised.
And who gains from this? Let's be clear, this assault on the BBC is all about money and power. When truth is unstable, the rich get richer and democracy withers. The economic and political power structure of the wealthy benefits most from the confusion that this attack on the BBC is trying to create, because when the public can't agree on facts, the elite act unseen in the shadows of secrecy, finance, and captured institutions.
And the consequence is obvious: democracy corrodes. If public debate lacks shared facts, it becomes a shouting match. Reasoned argument collapses; spectacle wins. We start to vote for those who sound strong, but not for those who sound right.
Then inequality deepens. The wealthy already own the press; now they want to own the platforms, the data, and the message itself. When truth collapses, their advantage multiplies. Ordinary citizens are just then left with noise and not with knowledge.
The consequence is, of course, state capture. The state itself becomes hollowed out. If you can't trust data or the media, you're told you can't trust the government either. And that is, in fact, the fundamental point of the process, which is represented by the attack on the BBC. When the oligarchs step in, supposedly to run things efficiently and for profit, what they actually want to do is replace public service in pursuit of the truth with private control in pursuit of their power.
The consequence is that extremism thrives. They are, of course, trying to fill a vacuum of their own creation, and the result will be that a disoriented public will turn to easy answers, to scapegoats, to nostalgia, and to strong men, and that's where fascism grows, not from strength, but from despair.
So what must be done about this?
We need to defend the frontline of freedom, and that is the truth. But at this moment, it is represented by the BBC. We need to defend the BBC because it represents the principle of public truth. It is a public broadcaster accountable to the people ultimately, and that is essential to democracy. Without it, we drift into the fog of lies.
Second, we need to reform the media economy. Truth cannot survive in markets that reward outrage. We need regulation, public funding, and new nonprofit journalism models to ensure accuracy and accountability are not priced out of existence, which is the threat that is being created now.
Thirdly, we need to democratise truth-making. Media literacy should be a civic right and not a niche study. We, as citizens, must learn how to question, verify, and understand information. A democracy ignorant of how truth is made will not stay a democracy, and that requires that all of us ask particularly pertinent questions as to what it is that we choose to understand.
Fourthly, we need to link that truth to justice. Facts are the foundation of fair taxation, fair markets, and fair democracy as well, of course, of fair government. When truth fails, economic justice falls too; that's why media reform is part of the politics of care and not an afterthought.
And finally, we need to reclaim political agency. This is, after all, a political act that is going on. The attack on the BBC is coming from a politician from outside the UK who is quite deliberately sending out the message that he wishes to destroy it. We must act as citizens, as journalists, and politicians alike, to defend the truth as part of the fight for democracy against someone who has clearly set out to destroy democracy, not only in their own country, but around the world. And if our politicians won't defend this, then we must; we have a right to know, and that right must be reclaimed.
The assault on the truth is the modern face of fascism. That face wears suits and not uniforms, it manipulates algorithms and not armies, but its aim is the same, and that is to rule by deceit. We can resist by rebuilding trust, defending truth, and demanding accountability. And remember, truth is not a luxury; it is the foundation of democracy itself, and that is what is in doubt with the future of the BBC being open to question.
So what do you think? You've heard my opinion, now I'd like to hear what you think. Do you think the BBC's existence is fundamental to the future of democracy in the UK? Do you think that we must defend it? Do you think we should promote the idea of alternative forms of media in the UK to challenge the power of the media corporations controlled by a few that are dominating the messages that we get? Do you think that we face a threat from fascism if we don't do so?
Let us know. There's a poll below.
Poll
Loading ...Taking further action
If you want to write a letter to your MP on the issues raised in this blog post, there is a ChatGPT prompt to assist you in doing so, with full instructions, here.
One word of warning, though: please ensure you have the correct MP. ChatGPT can get it wrong.
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
They’re propaganda punters who wouldn’t know the truth if it jumped up and bit them on the arse.
The people attacking the BBC are exactly that. Right wing journalists, politicians and media barons aren’t interested in the truth, only getting their way.
As far as B.B.C Scotland News is concerned A.C, I would put it slightly differently. I believe that they in fact do know the truth, but the journalists operate under a mantra that the British State must be supported at all times. After all, it is the British Broadcasting Corporation. I have no doubt that nothing is written, either on paper, or electronically, about this stance, but instead it works by convention, and woe betide any employee who doesn’t follow this line. And as someone once said, if your mortgage depends on your job, you will never bite the hand that feeds you. I think if the staff were completely free to express their opinions, I believe that quite a number of them at B.B.C Scotland, would in fact support the Independence movement, but are constrained from doing so by their employer.
I’m no longer interested in a state running a broadcaster – the well has been truly poisoned on that score for me, because the state can be corrupted and ours certainly is. The BBC for so long put a nice glaze on the British Empire; it applies that glaze today as the empire consumes its own people. For me, the BBC has previous.
I was going to refer to the judiciary as a model of independence in upholding something – the law – but as we have seen elsewhere – the judiciary is not immune to political interference and judges too are fallible human beings. But maybe media having that sort of status is what is needed
And how a regulator can abide something like GB News – with politicians crossing the boundaries so easily from rule to participation is another indicator that something is very wrong indeed.
My view is that if we care about the truth we have to have standards to uphold it – I’m in favour of regulation with teeth to do that, the heart of the media being thoroughly independent is what is needed. As the Guardian says ‘facts are sacred’.
But can you have independence when the ownership uses its stewardship as a vehicle for their own political whims? Then you get back to a form nationalised provision or semi-nationalised.
Maybe the answer is that we need the state to print money to print truth, to subsidise the private sector media? Pay them to tell the truth or at least produce balance. Pay them to delineate truth from opinion?
And none of this concerning the media/BBC is in splendid isolation – it has to be part of revived education, history, social values.
I think that a good place to start is some sort of truth and reconciliation moment in this country’s life. A determination to end the lies we’ve been living with is now due – to assess and recognise the damage and draw a line beneath it. And then to lay down a set of principles and rebuild a truly mixed economy of everything from there.
Like an animal born with two or three heads the BBC cannot survive. It is trying to please everyone; and some are not deserving of ‘being pleased’ at all.
As a Scottish Independence supporter, I am generally highly critical of the BBC and its pro-union bias, as well as its appalling failures in coverage of Gaza. That said, I am deeply disturbed by the current attacks on it by the right and its adherents. The BBC does need to be reminded of the ideals of journalistic integrity that it was once the absolute hallmark of, but I still believe it to be among the more reliable news operations in the UK and worthy of defending
Excellent summary of what’s happening and why it needs defending. I would add this, political appointments at the head of the BBC has been and is part of the problem. Along with underfunding, the loss of innovative programming and using fewer new, talented, and challenging writers has led to lowering of standards.
Option e): All of the above.
It’s suffering, as it has for many years, from internal mismanagement. This is now being leveraged to launch a political attack to replace it with corporate media power, as a means to control truth.
Despite all that, it is still mostly independent and trustworthy (excepting certain key issues), but clearly not for long.
Its so long since I consumed BBC News or current affairs that perhaps I shouldn’t comment, but I feel the battle was lost long ago.
The control has been in place for a long time, the placemen are already installed where it matters, governance is political, staff are ignored. Programmes like QT or AnyQuestions are a joke, especially audience selection and chairing.
The BBC helped destroy Corbyn, helped promote Fa***e, helps suppress the Palestinian voice, and helps suppress Scottish aspirations for independence.
At the same time the BBC is represented to us as being a fifth column of woke lefty antisemitic terrorist sympathisers.
(Not my reading of Robbie Gibb, Samir Shah, and Tim Davie, but there you go)
Can we do anything?
Not without a change of government – a real change.
The BBC allows some alternative voices in same areas such as specialist radio programmes but its mainstream output has been compliant with the right for some time.
This is partly because as an establishment broadcaster it reflects the political status quo. This is clear in for example its coverage of issues such as the economy, republicanism, imperialism – its obsequious and blanket coverage of the US is noteworthy. There is a preponderance of ill-informed centrist and right wing ‘commentators’.
On socialist/pro-Palestinian voices it has gone much further. The Panorama on ‘Labour antisemitism’ under Corbyn was the worst fabrication I’ve ever seen on British TV, and principled journalists such as Peter Oborne are making the case that the BBC and other media are complicit in the Gaza genocide.
I think we’ll see more platforming of the right as it tries to fend off Reform (and reform). The other day they had Kelvin MacKenzie to talk about journalistic standards. I rest my case there.
But we must support public service broadcasting and give it licence for real balance, and the way to do that is obvious: elect a left-wing government.
The BBC has suffered from too much political inluence for years. I can think of many examples where the Tories were given a very easy ride during their 14 years in gov. Laura Kuennsburg and Andrew Neill were particularly scathing at any hint of socialism. Strangely, the right seem to believe the BBC are overly woke, whatever that means- I honestly don’t know. Now that Labour have some power, they seem to get an easier ride. Maybe, the BBC always court the party with the power to do things for them. Of course, wealth will always exert more influence than altruism, so that invariably produces some right-wing bias.
I don’t think the Trump business has any real mileage in the constant stream of news around the Budget.
Some are suggesting, perhaps slightly tongue in cheek, that Gary Lineker would make a great BBC Director General.
I have to agree with all the criticisms made by previous commenters. The BBC in Scotland is completely corrupted. On its coverage of every public service it lies by omission and commission. I must also say its coverage of the Israeli genocide, and I use that term with care, in Gaza has been totally biased towards Israel. I now get my news from Aljazeira , the only reliable news outlet I can access.
Good adaptation from Monty python
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DRAkwr7DBvZ/?igsh=MTMzMzAxY2xoZ3FyaQ==
Robbie Gibb led a systematic plot to place right-wingers at the heart of the news function. boris Johnson accelerated that process. Gibb’s problem is that the left-liberal media bias he decries (and which he helped set up GB News to counter) is a quicksilver phenomnon: it relies on the natural tendency of most clever well-educated people to gravitate towards positions that emphasise values like social justice and cohesion. The assumptions these values gives rise to are hard to eradicate, culminating in Gibb choosing to die on the hill of an innocuous speech edit, when everyone can see Trump was encouraging insurrection.