Cal Thomas: The biased broadcasting corporation
Two friends in London have sparked a conversation about the recent editing scandal at the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), which led to the resignation of two high-ranking officials. The controversy revolves around the BBC’s editing of President Donald Trump’s speech on January 6, 2021, which was manipulated to suggest he incited violence against the Capitol. One friend criticized the BBC’s bias, likening it to the derogatory term “Clinton News Network” used by conservatives to describe CNN during the 1990s. The other friend dismissed the edits as a mere mistake, but the article argues that such actions were deliberate attempts to shape public perception of Trump, echoing concerns about propaganda in media.
The BBC’s credibility has been under scrutiny for some time, particularly regarding its reporting on politically charged topics such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and climate change. A recent survey by David Pickering revealed that trust in the BBC is heavily influenced by political identity, with significant disparities between left-leaning and right-leaning audiences. The Wall Street Journal highlighted the BBC’s establishment of an LGBTQ desk to ensure favorable coverage of transgender issues, suggesting a systematic bias in its reporting. The article argues that the BBC’s insistence on maintaining an annual TV license fee, which funds its operations, further complicates its relationship with the public, especially as viewers are bombarded with commercials that often overshadow the content.
The resignation of Tim Davie, the former director general of the BBC, exemplifies the organization’s struggle with public trust and accountability. Davie’s statement about owning the narrative reflects a broader issue within media institutions, where the responsibility to serve audiences fairly has been overshadowed by a sense of ownership over the narrative. The article concludes that unless the BBC begins to embrace a more balanced approach by hiring reporters with diverse political perspectives, its credibility will continue to be questioned, echoing a sentiment shared across the media landscape in both the UK and the US.
Two friends email from London about theÂ
editing scandal
 that led to the resignation of two top officials from the British Broadcasting Corporation. The resignations followed exposure of the splicing together of two parts of a speech by President Donald Trump on Jan. 6, 2021.The edits made it look and sound like the president was urging his followers to violently attack the Capitol.
One emailer said the first “B” in BBC should stand for bias. That reminded me of what some conservatives called CNN during the Clinton administration (the Clinton News Network), because of their perceived bias.
The second writer said the edit was only a “mistake.” It wasn’t a mistake. It was deliberate and it was made with the intention of having viewers accept their desired negative opinion of Trump. In another country and in another era, this would be called propaganda. If this sounds like the editing of the CBS “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris to make her sound articulate, it should. Both flowed from the same liberal worldview.
Kudos to theÂ
London Daily Telegraph
 for practicing real journalism and exposing the edit of the Trump speech.
During World War II the BBC was a trusted source of information. It sent coded information to the French resistance and took other actions in support of the war effort. This was accurately depicted in the film “The Longest Day.” In recent years, the BBC has seen its level of trust decline.
A survey conducted by David Pickering ofÂ
The Conversation
, a news organization that calls itself “dedicated to facts and evidence,” noted that “Trust in the BBC is heavily conditioned by political identity.” The survey of 11,170 people in the UK “showed striking differences between how people with left-wing and right-wing party affiliations felt about the broadcaster.”
The editing incident isn’t the first time the credibility of the BBC has been called into question. Several internal studies have found the organization to have reported unfairly on the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. The studies changed nothing as the pro-Palestinian bias has continued. It is the same when it comes to their reporting on “climate change.”
AÂ
Wall Street Journal
 editorial notes the BBC has had an LGBTQ desk within its London headquarters to make sure stories were favorable about transgender issues. Stories that did not reflect the BBC’s “liberal orthodoxy” were suppressed, notes the Journal.
On top of this, streamers and owners of television sets are required to pay an annualÂ
TV license fee
 of £174.50 (about $230) per year for a color license and £58.50 ($77) for a black-and-white license, a compulsory payment used primarily to fund the BBC’s television, radio and online services.
Does anyone still own a black-and-white TV? And on top of this, viewers must watch endless commercials, some of which are more entertaining and creative than the programs.
Efforts by some conservative members of Parliament to eliminate the TV license fee have failed. As in America, politicians are reluctant to give up money.
Tim Davie
, the now-resigned director general of the BBC said in a statement: “This narrative will not just be given by our enemies. It’s our narrative. We own things.”
Right there you have the reason so much of the media in the UK and the U.S. are held in low regard. They think they “own things,” instead of exercising a responsibility to serve the people fairly and accurately. As with other exposures of bias, I suspect little will change within the BBC unless it follows the example of the new president ofÂ
CBS News
 and begins hiring reporters with a conservative worldview who will presumably report conservative ideas fairly and accurately.
Readers may email Cal Thomas atÂ
tcaeditors@tribpub.com
. Look for Cal Thomas’ latest book “A Watchman in the Night: What I’ve Seen Over 50 Years Reporting on America” (HumanixBooks).
