I am often met with genuine shock when I talk to fellow Brits about my views of the BBC. So I thought I would lay out the basis of my distrust, and why it’s perfectly justified to ignore their propaganda out of hand, as I now do routinely.
Public media trust is surveyed regularly and I am far from alone in my scepticism. I am of course not only sceptical of the Beeb, I distrust all the mainstream news channels, and not out of some irrational paranoia, but out of a balanced and rational judgement I have come to over several decades of personal experience and discovery of their lies.
As a YouGov survey showed, specifically with regard to the BBC:
“Less than half of Britons (44%) now say they trust the institution to tell the truth despite its public charter to remain politically neutral.”
(And here’s a very interesting article, Brits are switching off in their droves now.)
I really do automatically disbelieve just about anything I hear on the mainstream news these days, and certainly when it’s about an issue which is clearly political, or more likely, politicised by the allegedly ‘neutral’ BBC. And lately it seems they can politicise the issue of whether or not to go to the damn toilet!
If they tell me the weather should be sunny tomorrow, fine, no agenda there, safe to believe without double checking with other sources. When they tell me a bomb has gone off in London, I cautiously believe the reports. But when they start telling me about the perpetrator, his motives, the Police response etc, then I might start feeling like I need a few other opinions as that’s getting close to issues they definitely have a political agenda on, for example immigration, Islam, terrorism and so on. Terrorism itself is a highly politicised subject and not just by the BBC, although they are the ones who claim to be ‘unbiassed’, which is frankly laughable. And more and more people are waking up to this reality.
I could give literally hundreds of examples of BBC bias, or even outright lies. I dare say I could find a hundred a week if I had the time and the stomach to suffer their propaganda daily. Which I do not.
This is a very well-written article by the Spectator which gives a classic example of the somewhat radical bias I often hear when I am unfortunate enough to be near someone watching or listening to the UK’s state-funded ‘programming’.
One of the easiest ways that media can ‘lie’ to us, is not just by giving us completely false information, or even biassed reporting on true information, but in the way they so often deceive by ‘omission’. I am going to provide two recent examples of my own, the first in this post, and the second in a subsequent post.
If you had the power to tell just 1000 people everything they will learn about the world around them each day, if you were their only source of ‘news’ (which for many BBC listeners is actually the case), can you begin to imagine what you could do with that amount of influence? Do you think you could influence elections? What about decisions to go to war? What about family values, religion, morality, sexuality, history, health, and dare I say it… vaccines? The list is endless.
Furthermore, considering the BBC reports on news from the around the entire world (why I really don’t know), imagine if you had just ten minutes per day to tell your ‘subjects’ what has happened today, anywhere on the planet. You can only squeeze in maybe 4 or 5 items (perhaps only one if there is a major event), yet there are about a squillion things which actually did happen in the world, and you know about practically all of them because your global network is friggin’ enormous, surely one of the biggest on the planet, if not the biggest.
How much could you influence your audience to your political (or any other) leaning, simply by that CHOICE of what to inform them about, and what to refuse to report on?
And that’s before you get to the question of HOW you do the reporting, how you word the article, what pictures you show them, what quotes you include, what statistics you cite, which experts you refer to, who you interview about it, what questions you give them, and so on.
It’s a gargantuan amount of power. And perhaps, once upon a time, the BBC was reasonably responsible and unbiassed enough to be deserving of it. Around ten to fifteen years ago I was still listening to the BBC daily. I woke to Radio4 on my bedside radio/alarm. I listened to it if I went anywhere in the car, I listened to Radio2 sometimes if I wanted music, especially the folk and jazz specials etc. And I loved it.
The problem came when everything became so obviously agenda-driven, and I found I was spending more and more time grinding my teeth or shouting at the radio the counter-arguments that they never seemed to even mention, let alone have someone on to present articulately for their audience to consider, and form judgements for themselves.
Oh and I haven’t even mentioned the disgusting little ‘enterprise’ we call the “Licence Fee”. Hopefully the ongoing campaigns to tackle that issue will see success one day. Let them compete like everyone else. Pay to watch it, fine. Pay to own a TV (which is what most people wrongly think you have to do), bloody disgrace!
Of course they produce admittedly brilliant documentaries and nature programs etc., but have you seen their budget?!! Any media firm with that sort of money to hand could do just as well, or better, but we will never know because they have a monopoly don’t they. And it’s all funded by a backdoor tax/blackmail scheme to take advantage of the fact that people like having a TV in their homes, and believe (again wrongly) that they can’t watch Game of Thrones, Deadliest Catch or Sky News without paying for a ‘TV Licence’! The truth couldn’t be more different!
So, let’s give a real-world example of the cause of my visceral hatred and distrust of the BBC.
‘Panodrama’
This example relates to a widely hated man (mainly thanks to the Beeb) called Tommy Robinson. For many people, including many who dislike him, this was the watershed moment in finally waking up and realising how biassed the BBC is, and how maliciously deceptive they are towards their audience and anyone they regard as an opponent of their radically left-wing agenda.
A few years ago Tommy Robinson made a ‘documentary’ film called “Panodrama”. It was about a “courageous prize-winning journalist” (as he was called by the BBC) called John Sweeney. You may have heard the name, I certainly had when a friend of mine told me to watch the Panodrama film. And boy was I glad I did.
John Sweeney was a very big name at the BBC and well-known for some hard-hitting investigative journalism on the Panorama program, a nationally-renowned program and yes, a favourite of mine for many years and a program I held onto my respect for even when I began to lose it generally for the BBC as an organisation. That’s until I watched Robinson’s exposé OF Panorama, and by extension, the entire BBC.
This Panodrama film shocked me, and I mean really shocked me, especially the jaw-dropping ending where the true monster lurking beneath the liberal veneer of John Sweeney came out like a ball of fire, once realising he was caught red-handed.
Tommy Robinson was a pariah, a beaten down ‘non-person’ who had virtually no funding or power by comparison to his chosen target. But the victory he achieved over the BBC was pure gold, and perhaps most ironically of all, it smacked of real journalism, almost of the standard of the famed Panorama program he dealt such a lethal blow to with the film.
The documentary is a little ‘rough around the edges’, which is only to be expected given who made it and under the given circumstances. But despite not being as ‘polished’ as a multi-million budget BBC documentary, it certainly is of watchable quality, and regardless of that, it is in my view a hugely important film for what it shows about the likes of senior BBC journalists, and how incredibly dishonest some of the management/editors are.
This makes it all the more unfortunate that it’s one of the most censored films out there. Try finding it on Google or YouTube (frequently removed). You can eventually, but they make it extremely difficult. I have found it on YouTube because people keep re-uploading it, but it could disappear at any time so I will include an alternative BitChute link below in case the YT one ‘goes down’.
When it went live, Facebook curiously deleted Robinson’s account, along with Twitter and all the others apparently. I say curiously, because the film has nothing overtly offensive in it, certainly not in comparison to almost every other one of Robinson’s published comments and videos which didn’t cause such a blanket ban but were far more politically-incorrect.
Big Tech are apparently looking out for the BBC, the big boys close ranks when needed I suppose.
I won’t lay out all the background as the video explains all of that but very briefly…
Robinson had been in and out of court to answer various absurdly trumped-up charges and he was unhappy with the coverage the BBC were giving him. He claimed there were deliberate lies being told about him and that there was a ‘conspiracy’ between the BBC and a despicable Marxist activist group called Hope Not Hate.
So he set out to prove it. And he succeeded in fine style. Hence why he was de-platformed for it globally.
Sweeney was the BBC ‘assassin’ tasked with ‘killing’ Tommy Robinson, and a big prime-time BBC Panorama airing was the vehicle he intended to use. When Tommy Robinson realised that he was being ensnared by the UK’s state media, he turned the tables in a true David & Goliath moment, and not only showed he is better than the BBC, but that the BBC were actively corrupt and dishonest, fabricating lies to mislead the entire British public into hating Robinson even more, and aiming to deal the final blow to Tommy’s reputation.
I have said it before, the best place for bad ideas is right out in the open, where we can all see them and expose their flaws. Censorship looks weak, like the ideas can’t be challenged and thus must be forcibly silenced. Besides, we are better than that, we can deal with bad ideas head on, can’t we?! Apparently the BBC can not.
Despite it’s limited audience thanks to mass censorship, the film still did immense damage to public trust in the BBC, at least among those who have seen it. I seem to recall it starting a fairly substantial wave of people ditching their TV Licence with many protests as a result too.
Some believe it was instrumental in causing the BBC to increase the price of the “Licence Fee”, to make up for the losses incurred by such a wave of people cancelling their TV Licence altogether. I shudder to think what damage the film could have done, had it been broadcast on BBC1 at 9pm on a Saturday with the audience the planned Panorama program would have received, had Robinson not exposed their own misgivings and forced the program to be cancelled.
Oh I do love a victory for the underdog!
The whole ‘Panodrama’ debacle is now a big blot on the career of John Sweeney. Even his Wikipedia page has to refer to it as it was such a major event in his career. Well, it wasn’t really an event in his career, more an abrupt ending to it!
“Panorama issued a statement apologising on Sweeney’s behalf for his “offensive and inappropriate” comments. The Panorama episode on Robinson was never shown on the BBC. On 1 October 2019, Sweeney announced via Twitter that he would be leaving the BBC after 17 years, calling founder of the EDL Tommy Robinson a “complete c**t” after supposedly being fired because of Tommy Robinson’s documentary Panodrama and the protests outside BBC Manchester”
As you will see in the documentary if you watch it (and please do), those starkly vicious comments are not exactly a one off. “C*nt”? Seriously? From a Beeb man? Whatever next?! Real ale instead of Prossecco?
It turns out Sweeney has quite a temper on him as I hope you’ll see for yourself. And he really shows himself up at the end when he gets well and truly Panorama’d! Watch it below, or here at BitChute if the YouTube version below becomes mysteriously “Unavailable”:
I would also like to applaud one of our most famous British institutions, Oxford University, for having the courage to invite Tommy Robinson, perhaps the single most hated man in Britain, to speak at their campus and explain why he has the views he does. They did so despite the usual radical left-wing protestors doing their usual crap outside the event and trying to drown it out in any way they could.
I watched this talk several years ago and I felt quite proud to see some of our greatest minds sitting and listening to a man who most of them utterly despised, a man from a world most of them will never see: The poor and heavily Islamicised streets of Luton town in Bedfordshire.
The talk he gave at the Oxford Union can be watched below, after I spent a good while trying to find it thanks to Google censorship and algorithmic meddling. A presentation which has been watched over 3.2 MILLION times, just won’t seem to come up on a search. Funny that eh!
I searched for “Tommy Robinson Oxford Union” and this video was suppressed from the results, I then went to the Oxford Union channel and searched inside their channel for “tommy robinson” and up it came. The YouTube algorithm ‘should’ instantly suggest this massively popular video, but we can’t have that can we?
Please stick a finger in the eye of the censors and give this a watch if you really want to be amazed at how different the beliefs of Tommy Robinson are, compared to what they are claimed to be by the BBC liars, and indeed all mainstream media (read ‘attack dogs’). Here is the backup BitChute link again in case the video below ‘disappears’.
The stark difference betwen the real man known as Tommy Robinson, and the Nazi-like caricature painted by the entirety of the UK corporate media, was probably the most profound awakening for me to the massive bias and dishonesty of the taxpayer-funded British Broadcasting Corporation.