Biased Broadcasting Corporation

[NamPikToot]

Well, after a catalogue of problems inc various scandles which it has continually tried to cover up or bury and has only ever apologises for when its been found out the icing on the cake is surely the BBCs Panorama shows doctoring of a Trump speech. Panorama is a long running and hitherto very respected (imo) news/investigative programme which over the yeat has conducted some brilliant investigations but seeming as with the rest of the BBC is now as imaprtial as the current White House resident. Its been said for a long time now that the BBC's is no longer impartial, and you can see why through the obvious influence of largely left wing interests as it lurches from crisis to crisis; Gaza, Trannies, its political coverage across various programmes and news and now culminating in Panorama throwing its reputation down the drain.

The DG Davies and Head of News Turness have resigned over the doctored Trump speech but only seemingly after being found out as the report was leacked to the press - this course is the BBC managments MO, ignore, deny and only come clean when the failings are made public. To cap it all we have the cvnt Shah their Chairman coming out yesterday and describing the doctored Trump speech as an "Error of judgment" FFS, it was a deliberate act to change the speech in other words teh BBC deliberately tried to tell falsehood, the very thing it is supposed to ensure doesn't happen and yet over the last decade its been a regular occurance.

I grew up with the BBC and love its radio programming but its not fit for purpose as has been demonstrated time after time as it openly lies, covers up those lies and never holds its self to account until its found out like Davie, and to cap it all you then have a chairman who tries to down play the seriousness of what has occured.


The letter that shows the BBC has learnt nothing from its mistakes


Chairman Samir Shah’s tone in letter to MPs appears to downplay seriousness of doctored Trump speech at heart of crisis


Gordon Rayner
Associate Editor


10 November 2025 6:50pm GMT


Samir Shah, the BBC chairman, is facing questions of his own about the broadcaster’s bias scandal in the light of a letter he sent to a committee of MPs.


The letter is regarded by some in the corporation as overly defensive in tone, even apparently seeking to downplay the seriousness of the doctored Donald Trump speech at the heart of the crisis.


Mr Trump is threatening to sue the BBC for $1bn (£760m) after a Panorama documentary was edited to make it appear as if he incited the Capitol Hill riot in 2021.


Rather than issuing an apology to the US president, Mr Shah has told BBC News only that he is considering it.


Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary who is in charge of hiring and firing BBC chairmen, has been closely following developments and must now decide whether Mr Shah’s response has been adequate.


Mr Shah’s letter was sent to Caroline Dinenage, the chairman of the Commons culture, media and sport select committee, who wrote to him last week demanding answers over The Telegraph’s revelations of bias.


Here we analyse some of the key points of Mr Shah’s letter.


BBC managers, including Mr Shah and Tim Davie, the director-general, knew about the doctored Trump documentary as long ago as January, but rather than taking action, they did nothing.


The programme remained on BBC iPlayer until the end of October, one year after it was broadcast. By ignoring the warnings of Michael Prescott, its independent standards adviser, about the Panorama programme when they were raised in internal meetings, the BBC appeared to hope its guilty secret over Trump would indeed remain buried.


It is true that the BBC has, in some cases, published corrections, including on some of the topics raised by Mr Prescott in a 19-page letter to members of the BBC Board, which was leaked to The Telegraph after it started circulating in Government departments.


But Mr Prescott, who had a ringside seat to the BBC’s internal workings as an adviser to the Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee, told Board members: “What motivated me to prepare this note is despair at inaction by the BBC Executive when issues come to light.


“On no other occasion in my professional life have I witnessed what I did at the BBC with regard to how management dealt with (or failed to deal with) serious recurrent problems.”


He also said: “I would argue that the Executive’s attitude when confronted with evidence of serious and systemic problems is now a systemic problem in itself.”


Clearly, Mr Prescott does not agree with Mr Shah’s assessment of how the BBC has dealt with the problems he highlights.




It may be too early to know how effective any changes to BBC Arabic have been, but Mr Prescott made clear in his letter that the division’s staff treated stories about the war in Gaza in a way that was “designed to minimise Israeli suffering and paint Israel as the aggressor”.


Mr Prescott said in his letter that there needed to be “a genuine admission of just how deep-seated the problems are” in BBC Arabic. He may feel Mr Shah’s letter falls short.




This is the only mention of the BBC’s reporting of gender issues, which Mr Prescott said had been effectively censored by the broadcaster’s LGBT desk within News.


Mr Shah fails to address the suggestion that the LGBT desk was refusing to cover any stories that went against their radical trans ideology, something that BBC insiders insist is still a major problem.




Mr Shah’s letter reveals that senior managers knew as long ago as January about the problem with the Panorama programme, meaning that for 11 months they sat on the information.




The fact that Mr Shah is still trying to make excuses for the doctoring of the Trump clip is likely to raise concerns among members of the parliamentary committee.


Rather than accurately presenting “what was happening on the ground at that time” as Mr Shah suggests, Panorama showed footage of people marching on the Capitol out of sequence – the very opposite of what was happening on the ground at the time.




The very reason the programme did not attract significant audience feedback is almost certainly because the editing of Mr Trump’s speech was so slick that no one watching the programme would have been aware that he never said people should go to the Capitol and “fight like hell”.


Again, Mr Shah appears to have missed the point.


If Mr Shah is so passionate about impartiality and trust, why did he do nothing when Mr Prescott made managers, including him, aware of what Panorama had done? And why, when Mr Prescott later wrote to him in person about the same subject, did he not even bother to reply?

Access Denied

[Neverna]

The BBC has been biased for ages and should be dismantled.

[Topper]

The "president" is going to sue BBC for a billion dollars. LOL

[kingwilly]

All news organisations are biased to one degree or another.

[NamPikToot]

The "president" is going to sue BBC for a billion dollars. LOL

Unless the BBC apologises. The BeeB will have an internal review on the matter of suiing, they will then publish an internal reporft and find the whole episode is a rightwing conspiricy but it will be best for all concerned if an apology is issued, the report will make its way to some managers desk where it will sit until the date for the court appearance is issued and then it will come to light that the BBC should have issued an apology but no one acted on the findings of the report. Trump will sue and be awarded 100 Mil in damages and the UK Taxpayer will have to foot the bill but in true Civil Service fashion no one will be found to have been negligent in th BBC and as a result no one fired. Next

[taxexile]

the BBC, funded by a compulsory licence fee that will result in a criminal record for non payers, and supposed to be an impartial news and entertainment provider is run by a bunch of liberal leftist brit hating hamas supporting wokesters whose non-stop biased support for sexual deviants, trans freaks, throat slitting ragheads and criminals whilst disparaging all others is shameful.

just imagine being able to create a product or group of services and then have the power bestowed upon you by the state to force people to buy it.
welcome to the BBC.

they have now been found bang to rights broadcasting fake news, and it is quite right that trump is threatening to sue them.

the BBC now brands anyone who dissents from its worldview as “right-wing”, yet cannot bring itself to call hamas a terrorist organisation. it refuses to platform figures such as tommy robinson, all the while indulging actual extremists in the name of “impartiality”. captured by trans ideology and moral cowardice, it no longer reflects the nation it’s funded to serve. an institution that cannot state basic biological truths has forfeited its purpose.



i have refused to pay the license fee for many years now, and they are welcome to take me to court. i will not be forced to pay them in order to receive biased news and their non stop woke infected propaganda, that's not part of their legally binding remit. i would win my case.

they are responsible for the protection for many years of kiddy fiddler jimmy savile, pedo image groomer hugh edwards and many other presenters eventually found guilty of sexual offences against minors.

they have been cooking leftist minority socks for far too long, and now it's their lies about trump, their hated nemesis, that stand to bring the whole organisation to their knees. knees that have been taken to every fucking loony activist minority on the planet for years.

i am now happily basking in the comforting warmth of schadenfreude. i hope trump bankrupts the fuckers.

[taxexile]

All news organisations are biased to one degree or another.

true, but we are not forced by law to pay them whether we use their service or not. it should be a subscription service like netflix or sky sports.

their remit, by law, is to provide unbiased and impartial content. which they have singularly failed to do.

[taxexile]

[Edmond]

We watch 30 minutes of Sir David Attenborough before bed every night, nowadays. The kid, as an animal lover, junior biologist, and all round gentle soul, loves them.


From skimming all that lot I'm starting to feel like I should ban them and teach her the word boycott?

[cyrille]

This particular programme failed to include a comment when Trump used the words 'peaceful means'.

That's what all this stupidity is based on.

Hence a lawsuit from the orange turd for one billion $.

I'm quite surprised by your 'dismantled' comment, Nev.

Is BBC bias really the most alarming thing here?

Really?



What alarms me is that the orange turd might be turning the whole planet utterly fkin brain dead.

What should have happened 20 years ago imo is a switch to advertising and subscriber based funding.

Oh, and using the time singnal as a jingle was and remains asinine.

This crap about the BBC being left wing is just that: what I said it was at the start of this sentence.

[cyrille]

We watch 30 minutes of Sir David Attenborough before bed every night, nowadays. The kid, as an animal lover, junior biologist, and all round gentle soul, loves them.


From skimming all that lot I'm starting to feel like I should ban them and teach her the word boycott?

Fkin hell, Mao.

You sounded 60 years old 20 years ago.

Chronigically, it all fits

Is it all a witty parody?

[NamPikToot]

This particular programme failed to include a comment when Trump used the words 'peaceful means'.

That's what all this stupidity is based on.

They spliced his speech and actively selected how it was broadcast, that isn't stupidity - its ouitright in contravention of their charter

[Looper]

We watch 30 minutes of Sir David Attenborough before bed every night, nowadays

What are they gonna do when he carks it?

I hope they use an AI Attenborough voice replication for animal documentaries after that. Although I can see why he or his family might not agree to that.

I downloaded The Secret Lives of Orangutans which he narrates, but it is a Netflix production and they have added the cheesiest 'humorous' musical sound track to it, like the most moronic YouTubers do for their cat videos, which makes it utterly shithouse and unwatchable.

[taxexile]

its fake news. in order to deceive. plain and simple.

the bbc is not fit for purpose.

prejudice paraded as fact, mere opinion elevated to the level of undisputed truth and the accusations of right wing extremism for those who question.

I was cancelled by the BBC for telling the truth about immigration.

I was warned I’d never work there again if I spoke about the issue. They were right. I never did

Harriet Sergeant
Related Topics
Immigration, BBC, Migrants, Homelessness, Radio 4
11 November 2025 8:30am GMT


The two homeless teenagers begging on a street in Manchester cheered up over a hot chocolate and doughnuts. They were only 17. His leg was in plaster after a fight. She had mental health issues. Both had been in care, but they assured me that they watched out for each other. Certainly there was no one else looking after them.

Why not stay in a hostel for the homeless, I asked. I was interviewing them for a BBC Radio Four documentary on the rise of homelessness. They had tried, they said, but the migrants got there first. It was always full up by the time they arrived.

This was news to me. It was 2016 and we had just come from speaking to Andy Burnham, then a Labour MP and shadow home secretary under Jeremy Corbyn. Like everyone else the BBC researcher had lined up, he blamed the surge in the homeless on austerity and Tory cuts.

Unlike some of the others we interviewed, the teenage couple were genuinely homeless and were the only ones to mention immigration had contributed to their situation.

When I looked into their claim, I found migrants made up around half of rough sleepers in London and one in three elsewhere The rise in the homeless and their overwhelmed facilities was a direct result of the rise in immigration. It was also an example of how migration has hit the poorest in society hardest. This seemed a crucial point to make in a programme on homelessness.

The BBC producer who checked my script thought otherwise. I only wanted a sentence or two as background. But she warned that any criticism of immigration would harm my future relationship with the BBC. I was astonished. Not even when I researched my first book on apartheid in South Africa or my second, in China shortly after the Cultural Revolution, had anyone tried to censor me before. Yet here was the BBC, the BBC of all institutions, insisting I ignore a key fact.

I did consider keeping quiet. Up until then, the BBC producer and I had been bonding over some very good cakes from Ottolenghi. But the teenage couple had touched me. The point of being a journalist is to give voice to the overlooked. And there were few more helpless and poignant than those two young people.

In the end the programme focused on my night in a squat with a commune of vegans. They were poor but also mostly middle class and anti-capitalist and wore their Caucasian hair in dreadlocks. The BBC clearly felt more at home with them than my care leavers.

When A Waste of Space was broadcast, it was reviewed by Gillian Reynolds then radio critic of the Telegraph and “the radio equivalent of the Oscars”, according to my lovely editor. Gillian congratulated him and declared me, “a new Radio star”.

On the strength of this, my editor pitched a series to Radio Four entitled “Sergeant in the System”, which would be my take on the welfare state which I had spent ten years investigating for a series of Think Tank reports.

This would include people I had interviewed and, in many cases, befriended, like members of a south London gang, drug dealers, prostitutes, single mothers, care leavers, illiterate pupils and disillusioned NHS staff and patients.


Just as with the homeless couple, these people had a unique insight into the failures of the welfare state. But the BBC’s sympathies lie with those who work for the welfare state, less so with its uppity customers. Once more I was proving a liability.

Radio Four rejected our pitch and told my editor I was too Right wing.

The BBC producer had warned me, “You will never work at the BBC again if you question immigration”. She was right. I never did.

[Edmond]

You sounded 60 years old 20 years ago.

Chronigically, it all fits

Is it all a witty parody?

The kid's previous nighttime TV show was an episode of The Simpsons, all 36 seasons of them over 4 years or so... While I am a big fan, her watching David Attenborough is a welcome change.

[NamPikToot]

Does she ever ask if David chases teenage girls?

[Edmond]

Yup..

[helge]

.......

[Joe 90]

I prefer to watch "Citizen journalists" on YT than be indoctrinated by the Mainstream media.

The Bolshovic Broadcasting Corruptors have had it their own way for far too long, they can shove their licence fee up their arses.

Jimmy Saville
Hugh Edwards
The Southport child slayer was a Welsh choir boy
The list is endless..

[Joe 90]

[kingwilly]

Hilarious.

[Neverna]

the BBC, funded by a compulsory licence fee that will result in a criminal record for non payers

i have refused to pay the license fee for many years now, and they are welcome to take me to court. i will not be forced to pay them in order to receive biased news and their non stop woke infected propaganda, that's not part of their legally binding remit. i would win my case.

Contrary to tax’s belief, it is not compulsory for everyone to pay a licence fee, or for everyone to pay a licence fee to watch TV, or as some people mistakenly believe, to pay for a licence fee if you own a TV. It is only compulsory if you watch or record live TV, i.e., TV as it is being broadcast. You can legally watch TV on catch-up.

[kingwilly]

.The Young Ones - TV Licence | Best of British Comedy

[Neverna]

I'm quite surprised by your 'dismantled' comment, Nev.

By dismantled, I mean I think the BBC should be split up into separate organisations.

One part, BBC News (world, national and local), should be news that should be impartial and mainly aimed at UK domestic consumption.

Another part should be BBC entertainment, mainly programmes for domestic consumption on BBC channels but obviously some programmes produced by the BBC could be licenced for people in other countries to watch.

A third part, the World Service, should be completely removed, IMO, but if it is kept, it should be a completely separate entity to the BBC and either funded by advertising or funded by the government and not by licence fee payers. Part of my view on the BBC World service stems from the fact UK licence fee payers should not be paying for a service that is not for them, but rather for millions of people living in other countries. Another reason is that I don’t believe the BBC can be completely impartial if it is promoting the UK and the UK government (surely it has an in-built bias), but if the government wants to foot the bill for that kind of entity (and it's not funded by licence fee payers), then let the government do that as a separate government funded entity that is no longer part of the BBC.

The whole BBC funding thing needs a review and change as fewer and fewer people are paying for a TV licence. The government needs to understand why that is and then address the issue and address it in the interests of the UK consumer rather than the BBC.

[taxexile]

This is not a Right-wing coup. The British Brainwashing Corporation is reaping what it sowed
It is the BBC’s journalistic malpractice that’s to blame for the current crisis

Allison Pearson

11 November 2025 7:00pm GMT


I hear that Tim Davie now identifies as a woman and is on maternity leave. As a keen student of BBC News, the outgoing director-general will be aware that trans women’s chest milk is every bit as nourishing for babies as mother’s breast milk, so at least Tim (or Tina, as he is now called), won’t have any worries on that score. If that sounds a teensy bit deranged, well, shame on you, ladies and gentlemen, for not being a “trans ally”.

You can’t work for the BBC without being an “ally”, saying “pregnant people” with a straight face and tut-tutting at Scottish nurses who don’t wish to undress in front of a male colleague called Beth. Who can forget the brave guest who dared to suggest on Woman’s Hour that lesbians were women? The Radio 4 presenter hastily apologised to listeners for this “offensive” view.

The BBC has reached this moment of existential peril because, although it has always had Right-wing critics, by allowing itself to be captured by far-Left activists, it has finally managed to unite in fury against it women, Jews, motorists and pretty much anyone who believes that a male boxer should not be allowed to beat a female boxer to a pulp and win an Olympic gold medal.

Even Emily Maitlis, high priestess of the Notting Hill Dinner Party Tendency, admitted yesterday on her News Agents podcast that it was “absolutely terrifying” when a Newsnight team was working on an investigation into the Tavistock gender clinic, where children in fragile mental health were prescribed puberty blockers. What was “terrifying” was not the routine chemical castration of young people. No, it was the internal LGBT mafia which, as Gordon Rayner has revealed in his brilliant Telegraph expose of Michael Prescott’s leaked dossier, was allowed to censor the BBC’s coverage of transgender issues.


This tyranny of student activists is perfectly described in his Substack by the distinguished defence correspondent, Mark Urban, who worked at the BBC for 35 years. Urban paints a picture of veteran managers struggling to maintain old standards of impartiality in the face of a young, progressive workforce that would, for instance, object to inviting J K Rowling to appear on a panel because she was a “bigot”.

You can bet those kids would have been perfectly happy denouncing their own parents during Mao’s Cultural Revolution. Just imagine the glum resignation of grizzled correspondents, who have witnessed the world’s worst barbarism in its darkest corners, forced to abase themselves before unsmiling young commissars in seminars on white privilege. No wonder there was no place at the Beeb for Jeremy “Oh, for God’s sake” Clarkson, and the wonderfully irreverent Top Gear lads.

Well, the BBC boss class now has a billion reasons to rue the appeasement of ignorant children who made sure that newsreaders had to call rapists “she” – insulting and infuriating the 51 per cent of the population who are women. Many of us have gone from having Radio 4 as the background murmur to our lives to not giving a damn what happens to the BBC.



Do these arrogant old aristos of the airwaves not realise that appeals to a sentimental attachment to the national broadcaster stopped working around the time the BBC was ignoring the desperate family of the boy that “national treasure” and News at Ten anchor, Huw Edwards, was asking to send him lewd pictures?

Still, all credit to the BBC. It is no small achievement to bring together a coalition of enemies that contains Left-wing feminists and Donald J. Trump. As I hoped he would, the US president is threatening to sue the BBC for a billion dollars unless he gets a full apology by Friday morning for “false, defamatory, disparaging, misleading and inflammatory statements”, plus a response which appropriately compensates him for “the harm caused”.

A monster legal action by the leader of the free world, also our most important ally (as a furious Trump pointed out on Friday to Nigel Farage), is a prospect so ruinous, so explosive and unprecedented that no one has fully absorbed what it might mean. Thus far, the response of the BBC has been pitifully inadequate, especially when you consider that its editorial fakery had the potential to alter an election result.

Yes, Tim Davie and Deborah Turness, the head of news, have resigned, but with mealy-mouthed statements that in no way addressed the progressive cancer that is killing the BBC. Absurdly, Turness claimed that her department, which is responsible for stirring up hatred against Jews, refuses to call the most evil thugs on the planet “terrorists”, and has never met an illegal migrant it didn’t prefer to a British citizen, was “not institutionally biased”.

An attempt to paint the crisis as the result of a Right-wing coup, rather than shameful journalistic malpractice, was clutching at straws. As if to prove that the institution was beyond redemption, Monday morning’s edition of the Today programme ended with three men agreeing how trusted the BBC is. Seriously, what planet are these people on?

As the storm raged, the BBC was still, true to form, suppressing opinions it didn’t like. When it quoted the damning reaction of Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, it omitted the sentence, “On basic matters of biology, the corporation can no longer allow its output to be shaped by a cabal of ideological activists.” Truth stings, does it?

I admire Samir Shah, the BBC chairman who previously has appeared to get the problem more than most, but he looked timid and evasive when he apologised for “that error of judgment”, by which he meant Panorama’s editing of Trump’s speech. Sorry, it wasn’t an error. (Bent coppers planting evidence on someone is not a mistake.)

A highly-skilled team working for your organisation, Mr Shah, deliberately rearranged and falsified the words of the US president to change his meaning, and make it look like he was inciting violence, because they think he’s a bad man who’s got it coming.

Furthermore, they believe they occupy the moral high ground, and anyone who disagrees with them is not “kind”, an ally or a good person – and probably thinks that only women can be pregnant and male breast-milk is Gold Top.

Trump’s fury has understandably led the media coverage (a top libel lawyer tells me the president will most likely settle for a grovelling apology from the BBC and £1m of our licence-fee payers’ money), but this is about much more than one politically motivated, current affairs hatchet job. As Kemi Badenoch said, there is “a catalogue of serious failure that runs far deeper”.

The British Brainwashing Corporation has become a highly effective propaganda tool for what Rod Liddle, celebrated columnist and former editor of the Today programme, says are far-Left views, much more extreme than people realise. At the very most, BBC journalists represent 20 per cent of the population telling 80 per cent of the population how they should think and behave, while we pay their salaries.

This is taxation without representation – a fraud on the viewing and listening public who are supposed to suck up partisan coverage like that infamous headline during the Black Lives Matter riots in 2020: “27 police officers injured during largely peaceful anti-racism protests in London”.

“It is in the DNA of the BBC to be impartial,” insists Samir Shah. That was true once, maybe, but the misdemeanours outlined in Prescott’s leaked memo – from wrongly labelling the political party Reform UK as “far-Right” in 2024, to the rotten-to-the-core BBC Arabic service issuing 215 corrections to Gaza coverage since October 7 2023 (for inaccuracies which framed Hamas claims as fact) – are surely all the evidence we need to confirm gross institutional bias. As is the BBC’s bonkers insistence that biological sex isn’t real, and the women and gay people who dispute such nonsense must be silenced.


All of us, I suspect, will have had a moment that destroyed any lingering loyalty.

Mine was that BBC News story in February 2024 reporting that “trans women’s [er, surely, male] milk is just as good for babies as women’s breast milk”. It wasn’t just scientifically bogus, it was pernicious, insulting and a perfect example of how a once-trusted institution had been ideologically captured.

In the past, when it was just Conservatives attacking the BBC, it was easily shrugged off. Now, the corporation’s opponents are various and in a mood for vengeance. The TV licence in its current form was never likely to survive beyond the end of 2027 when the current BBC charter ends.

The Telegraph’s exposure of this huge scandal will hasten that necessary change. Good. After the 2029 general election, when some form of a sane centre-Right government is hopefully back in charge, the BBC will become, to a great extent, a subscription service. Then, at last, we will see how much genuine popular enthusiasm there is for trans breast-feeding, Hamas barbarism, contempt for Scottish nurses who want the privacy of a women’s changing room, mass uncontrolled immigration, “largely peaceful” far-Left riots and activism posing as impartial reporting.

Reap, meet Sow.

THE TELEGRAPH

^
that.