The BBC was reported to be in crisis yesterday.
It is not. It is possible that some errors have been made. And every organisation makes them, on occasion. So does every person alive. That the BBC has is not, then, news. Nor is it a scandal. Differences of opinion on such issues will arise. Apologise when it goes wrong, by all means. But in a massive organisation, such things happen.
And if the BBC made an error, it was in not making clear that there was a cut in a broadcast clip. The message was, in my opinion, not wrong. The error was not serious, then.
And does Trump have a hope of winning a libel claim, let alone one for $1 billion? Not at all, in my opinion.
Meanwhile, people have gone, accepting the blame. I suspect they have had enough of the hard-right, arch-Tory campaign that appears to be led by BBC Board member and Tory, Robbie Gibb, seemingly aimed at ending impartiality in the BBC and to replace it with right-wing bias, which appears to be winning, and from members of which campaign the leaks now embarrassing the BBC might have emanated, because thwey had to come from someone. I don't blame those quitting, but with their departure, that should be it.
But it won't be because this fracas has nothing to do with what has supposedly happened. What is, instead, happening is that the rich and powerful who hate the BBC's challenge to their control of the media, and who, almost without exception, support the far-right parties both here and in the USA, are exploiting this situation to foment hatred of a state institution, as they always do.
I am no fan of BBC News. It is horribly biased against the left, unions, ordinary people, the people of Gaza, Jews who do not support Netanyahu, the Scottish independence movement, and many others. Its support for the rise of the far right in the UK has been reprehensible. It is absurd to suggest otherwise. The evidence is overwhelming. But before anyone on the left agrees that the BBC should go, be careful what you ask for.
There are reasonable questions to ask about the influence of some groups on the BBC.
There are reasons to argue that its idea of impartiality, which often involves platforming those with extreme views, is absurd, inherently biased and even harms its credibility. But, have no doubt that those wanting the BBC gone are of far-right inclination and want something in the style of GB News (which Gibb advised) to replace it.
So, argue for reforming the BBC by all means. But please don't argue that it should go. That would be to give the far-right exactly what they want, which is the end of any chance of accountable media.
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!
It is within the gift of the PM to conduct a sweeping change at the BBC (ejecting Gibb, Quirke and others), using this as a crisis point. There is a precedent for political change set by Johnson etc, and an honest PM would outline what a balanced appointment might be, and how that was healthy for democracy. Alas, we have a closet right wing Zionist with no spine in charge.
I have to disagree with the thrust of this post – the BBC has always been biased in favour of the government/rich. No doubt you will have seen the famous clip of Chomsky with Marr, pointing out that Marr is only where he is because of his own political positions. Kuenssberg was found to have misrepresented Corbyn (by a BBC enquiry) after the attack in Paris. The BBC also shielded Johnson, when he was dishevelled, at the Cenotaph. In my opinion, these are not mistakes.
The BBC is an international propaganda agency, for the UK Government, as are other state broadcasters. It is not, nor has it ever been independent or unbiased.
I do share your concern over what would replace it though, you only have to watch GB News, or listen to to Times Radio, to see what the future would be.
Thank you and well said, Sean.
My only quibble is your characterisation of Johnson at the cenotaph. Why? I was there with my veteran father and godfather. Johnson appeared drunk, wore a suit that did not match and placed his wreath upside down.
There were Newsnight and Panorama features that made up stories about Corbyn. Let’s not forget the Grauniad stories about Corbyn and Assange and BBC stories about the miners, Irish people etc.
It would be funny if Trump called Corbyn as a witness.
If I was Trump, I would sanction the BBC as a threat to US National security and include its bankers and other contractors in the net and watch as the BBC falls apart.
We have to disagree on this.
What would you do instead?
The private sector cannot deliver. So, what else? There needs to be a solution.
Fully agree. I don’t think the BBC lies or provides false information very often. The sins are those of omission. They don’t give a platform to a non neo-liberal view, they don’t call upon people like Richard or other economists with a different view; they don’t invite Palestinians to give their case, or give proper background to many issues. (It is better on radio 4 IMO)
Its natural history, drama, sport, documentaries and radio for a cultural minority, e.g. radio 3 -all without adverts -is worth the £3.50 or so a week of the license.
I think that that is a very fair assessment Ian although I am so biased towards the BBC that I would not mind if it were thrown to the market at all. I’m utterly sick of them.
The BBC’s under funding has nibbled away at its quality for years – you can see this when one tussles with local BBC outlets – they seem to want court salacious popular content, reflect public opinion – ANY public opinion – rather than help form it or counter balance it. I’ve heard local BBC radio slagging off the local Council and merely repeating Reform tropes about immigration and housing pressures – all to boost their popularity.
The only way the BBC can be saved is through a return to something more fundamental. And I’m afraid I cannot see that happening.
Thank you.
I strongly disagree and can highlight lies about Mauritius, Jean-Claude Juncker etc.
What the BBC does in Scotland is not make “errors” although it does that, but they’re deliberate, against our SNP government and other institutions.
It wouldn’t do that if the government was one of the English parties such as their new favourite, Reform, or the down and nearly outs, LINO and the Tories. Six months later there might be a small un-apology about their “mistake”.
It daily undermines our First Minister, our government, our NHS, our education and every other institution.
Its news and current affairs programmes are vacuous, putrid and anti-Scottish.
English people might revere it, but many people in Scotland cannot tolerate the propaganda against our country, especially as they’re expected to pay for the privilege of hearing how shit their country is, from a “beloved” public broadcaster.
The English Broadcasting Corporation, as it is thought of by many here, has no place in Scotland.
It should go.
An SBC is needed
It’s also important that the first post-independence government keeps an appropriate distance from the new national broadcaster. Having a national broadcaster seemingly tethered to Bute House – no matter the polticial complexion of the government – would be no improvement over the BBC. A national broadcaster must operate without fear or favour, and the BBC’s outpost in Scotland does neither.
Agreed, entirely
Well said to both.
Yes I agree with the comments re the BBC thought of as the EBC in Scotland. Hostile devious and biased reporting re Scotland’s independence movement and indeed anything Scottish that might appear as positive.Here is a tiny example of that. There were riots in England and N Ireland last year re immigrants. It was reported by the BBC as ‘Riots across the UK’. I wrote and complained to the BBC as there were no riots in Scotland and Wales. Countries were advising their citizens not to visit the UK. Scotland has a healthy tourist business and I saw this misreporting as damaging to it.
I eventually had a reply …’The riots happened across the UK so was reported as such’. And that was that. So Scotland and Wales were tarred by the behaviour of rioters in England and N Ireland. This tiny drip drip of biased reporting against Scotland goes on indefinitely by the EBC. Yes you are right Richard..we need an SBC..in other words independence… with an honest media by the Scots for the Scots.
Thank you.
The BBC must continue to exist, for all its faults it may have. (At least while their is a UK as a nation and a polity; if and when the Home Nations all go their separate ways, that will be a different story.) Because what other option there is?
It’s a cliché, but the BBC probably is still one of the, of not _the_ , “least worst” broadcasters in the whole world.
It’s probably a bigger cliché, but spend more than 3-6 months watching TV in any other country to realise the BBC isn’t ALL THAT bad. (Probably because TV as a concept had never been quite as big in many other countries for various reasons, but still.)
Another well-worn argument, but one that still isn’t completely amiss: the licence fee might seem a bit steep at first, and, yes, some of the method of enforcing its payment are quite harsh and probably quite unnecessary, but what other option? Sky, for example; how much does it cost, 4x the cost of the licence fee? For what? Apart from sports and films (which aren’t admittedly cheap to get), what else does Sky REALLY offer? Is the general output on mosty of its channels REALLY worth four times the price of the TV licence? Most probably not necessarily.
And the existence and legal status of the BBC is probably the last barrier of the concept of public service broadcasting. Especially since television (and radio) advertising money has been gradually drying up over the past 20+ years. And it should be said that an HBO-style PPV system or a CPR/PBS/NPR “volumtary donation/subscription” system would never work for the BBC. In the US, it more-or-less works because it is a big country, and there can be found almost enough people to cough up their money to keep those systems going.
BBC News does need improvement there’s no doubt about that. Don’t watch much but not impressed by what I see. Too often it requires the bullshit buzzer. Getting rid of it will not provide that improvement though – it would make it even worse.
Having said that, I do think it is better than the right wing propaganda channels (one starts with G and the other with T) and better than what would replace it.
I do think that there are those who want it privatised as they see it as a way to make more money and spread more propaganda to an even wider audience. If that does happen then there will, in my opinion, be no point in watching the MSM.
Craig
Watching GBNews does cure a bit of criticism of BBC, but increasingly the two become very similar. One of my sisters has a partner who watches GBNews all the time (they’re retired coppers) and it is a source of considerable friction between them (and my sister is no wet liberal). Basically most MSM is disappearing down the right wing plughole, and responsible journalism resides only with independent outlets.
Surely it would be better that the jousting/conniving world of politics is represented by the board of the BBC being represented by the vote share of a general election say above 5%? This could lead to the political parties agreeing that each party should have programmes aired on the BBC which spell out for the public their positions on various topics. We might then have a better educated electorate which stops playing Lucky Dip at election time!
PR, eh? Why not?
We don’t like it, it’s not perfect, but we should keep it as a bulwark against things that are far worse.
It reminds me of Richard Dawkins on the CofE and Christianity…
But seriously, yes, we should keep it.
When the public funds the BBC, someone like Gibbs encouraging a situation that supports a massive money grab against it is a hostile act against not just the BBC but the British public who help fund it.
Trump’s act is also hostile to the UK, but that’s nothing new because he’s been fairly hostile to most countries other than those run by strongman authoritarians.
One question is this – should ‘Sir’ Robbie Gibbs have both his board membership and his knighthood removed?
Oh, and as Caroline Leavitt is using this as justification for saying people should watch GB News, then that should be a pretty good indication of what NOT to do. BBC may be imperfect, but it’s better than that. In response, the UK should be recommending that people should watch MSNBC. And South Park.
For those who may be interested, Lewis Goodall has a good and interesting piece about the Beeb and the background to the latest fiasco on his Substack
https://goodallandgoodluck.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-impartiality-at-the
He is good on this
Gibb forced him out. There is no love lost.
The Newsagents podcast yesterday was interesting. Three top level BBC journalists who felt forced out with lots of internal contacts. The BBC used to do excellent investigative journalism, but one by one many of the good ones have either jumped ship or been forced out. It was obvious that life was becoming increasingly uncomfortable for Emily Maitlis in her Newsnight role, but Lewis was young and I was surprised when he left. He’s good on LBC, but it doesn’t feel a big enough platform for a young journalist of his talent.
The Lewis Goodall piece is well worth a read.
Appearances on BBC’s Question Time since 2015
Nigel Farage 12 – Jeremy Corbyn 4
Total since 2000
Nigel Farage – 38 appearances, listed as the 5th top appearance
Jeremy Corbyn – 4
Source: Wikipedia
The left think the BBC is biased against them. The right think it is biased against them. The SNP think it is biased against them. The SNP think it is biased against them. Most religious groups think it is biased against them. So on balance the BBC must be pretty much balanced but everyone hears what they want to hear to some degree. On the genocide in Gaza I prefreered Al Jazeera. But that is beacause I am against bombing unarmed civilians with the second most sophisticated airforce the world. That is just my bias.
And the evidence shows it is very biased to the right.
Let’s stick to that, shall we?
If the BBC is as biased to the right as you say, why is it the right who most want to destroy it?
Paul
Because they are now far-right, and think the right as it was is now the left.
Time for a little relief.
With all this talk of being sued for a billion. A now famous instance from the history of Private Eye edited by Ian Hislop, often seen on the BBC Have I got new for you . It contains the rude word used by Pilgrim yesterday -you know what these young people are
https://proftomcrick.com/2014/04/29/arkell-v-pressdram-1971/?fbclid=IwY2xjawOANdRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEexSoZ_S6I48pZAAZb0d8eVvbm8t0L7yb0guZiaJzHpanlw7ITaTm20YRSPbI_aem_dsUmX9WYYnpuPEzj6nAqdQ
The goal of many people is simply to sell off the BBC at a vastly reduced price.
The BBC Archive must be worth £billions.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/topics/c01yxyz46myt
Honestly when I heard this story yesterday, I thought to ignore it as it appeared to me to be just a case of Trump throwing his weight around and some people had to go as a result.
A major institution shows familiar failings
A right wing bias, susceptibility to encroachment by vested interests
It alienates people on all sides of the political spectrum
A common refrain is to reduce its power, shrink it down, make it less impactful and allow others to take its place, let the wealthy have their way, they know best
Maybe a better solution would be to empower it to take a firmer stance against those who seek to control it
Parallels between the BBC and Government seem hard to ignore.
I think it was 20 years ago that I stopped watching the BBC news. I had been shouting at the BBC news for some time but I found my self getting ready to through my book at the screen in disgust. I treasure my books and that was the last straw. I do watch Channel 4 news, and RTE, the Irish news. I found the BBC overseas radio was better but they have taken it off longwave.
I find Naked Capitalism interesting and a number of other sites.
The ‘editing’ issue is merely a pretext -a convenient legal hook to launch an attack but we all know the real battle is for something much more fundamental.
This is about a powerful figure and political movement intolerant of any form of scrutiny or criticism. An independent media like the BBC that holds power to account is an adversary to those who wish to operate without checks or dissent.
It’s political jui jitzsu of the first order. The gaslighter in chief, isn’t going after a media outlet that’s already seen as partisan -that would be low impact -but taking down the Gold Standard -is the ultimate victory. If you can convince people that the BBC is fake, then everything is fake and no institution can be trusted and all that’s left is tribal allegiance. Those of us who believe in truth need to present a united front. The BBC is not perfect obviously and I for one was right royally pissed with them during the independence referendum but this is bigger than the BBC. The real fake news is not error. It’s not bias. It’s the wilful systemic dissemination of false information with the intent to distort reality, destroy trust and manipulate public opinion. The bigger picture is that we must fight for a free press that should be able to investigate and criticise powerful people without fear of billion dollar lawsuits.
Thanks
Many years ago, in a Reith Lecture, James Murdoch (on behalf of Rupert Murdoch, presumably) complained about how the BBC took up ‘market space’. Reason enough, in their view, for the dismantling of the BBC. It’s not just about ideology; it’s also about commercial interests – pure and simple!
It beggars belief that a lying, corrupt, convicted, degenerate best friend and alleged customer of Epstein should threaten the BBC for failing to spot a mere exaggeration of his major role in the treasonous, murderous attack on the Capitol building and everyone rushes around trying to appease the b**tard by attacking the BBC. Shame on the appeasers. Far from resigning, Tim Davey and Deborah Turness should have challenged Trump to go to court and enable the exposure of his role in the Capital attack, his history of lying, his contempt for the law, the judiciary and the Constitution and of course his friendship with Epstein. A deviant bully should never be allowed to win.
I bashed out this brief piece in THE LEFT LANE Monday afternoon.
https://theleftlane2024.substack.com/p/the-craven-bbc-and-starmers-labour
The thing is a complete con. The bottom line: Trump actively encouraged the 6 January 2021 attempted — and failed — insurrection.
He should be told: TAKE A HIKE!
Alan
In my opinion, the BBC’s response to Trump should be based on Private Eye’s response in Arkell v Pressdram Ltd.
🙂
Agreed