I have a problem with BBC bias. It started many years ago when I saw a deliberate editorial decision at the time of the Miners’ Strike to reverse the sequence of events at the Orgreave coke plant.
The nine o’clock news showed this:
Miners rioting and hurling rocks at the police. Police lines opening and mounted police pacifying rioting miners.
A late-night Channel 4 programme showed a long uncut shot of what really happened:
The miners were sitting around having their packed lunches. One miner was walking along the police line taunting them. Police line opened. Mounted police began attacking the miners with truncheons and trampling them with horses. Injured, bloodied miners, furious at what had happened grabbed rocks and attacked the police.
The BBC had reversed the action and completely reversed what had happened giving a completely wrong impression of what had taken place. Clear support of Thatcher and her right-wing policies.
Over the years I have witnessed many examples of right-wing bias yet I hear the right labelling it as left-wing and woke. Absolutely ridiculous.
At the moment they are all over Farage giving him endless free coverage but never truly challenging him over his policies, far-right Trumpist affiliations or ridiculous salary from far-right connections.
Then we have Trump being used to batter the BBC accusing it of fake news and being woke. What bollocks.
The BBC edited a speech Trump made when he was openly inciting far-right groups like The Proud Boys to come to the Capitol and fight. I’ve watched it all. IMO he was trying to steal the election and inciting violence. He should be in jail. At very least he should have been tried in court.
The edit may well have created a slightly different impression but I doubt it. The evidence was clear. The programme as a whole was extremely fair. It gave air to all views and impressions.
When a politician makes a speech is it mandatory that any reporting of that speech is the whole speech in its entirety or are ALL speeches edited? TV, radio and newspapers all show tiny excerpts from speeches, never its entirety. Nearly always these excerpts represent the bias of the media and as nearly all the media is owned by wealthy tycoons it presents a biased right-wing view. I’m used to that.
Did the BBC misrepresent Trump and defame him? I don’t think that’s even possible. He incited riots, lies every time he opens his mouth and spreads fake news and conspiracy.
I know that if I read the Express, Mail, Telegraph, Times or Sun I’m getting a dose of propaganda. Perhaps they need suing for billions.
Now if you want to hear clear defamation you need to hear Trump and his mouthpiece Bullshit Barbie saying in press conferences that the BBC is a purveyor of fake news and is corrupt. That is what real defamation looks like. I’d sue him for billions and take the pressure off the licence paying public.
This is a right-wing attempt to bring down free speech and control the media! The Tories loaded the BBC with right-wing sycophants now they are trying to destroy it.
I have my gripes with the BBC but at least it’s less biased than other right-wing sources like GB News!!
Here’s a couple of letters courtesy of John. Thanks John.
In the US, we have watched every one of our once reliable news sources first pulled down, then abused, and finally sold off. The same is now happening to the BBC – it is going to face constant attack until it becomes a shadow of what it was. Who will this benefit? The war of media control is what we in the US have lost, and what you in the UK seem to be willing to lose. And for what?
Larry Marchant
Glen Allen, Virginia, US
I cannot be alone in thinking that the BBC has strong grounds to countersue President Trump and his press secretary. To call the BBC “100% fake news” and its journalists “corrupt” looks, on the face of it, defamatory. The reputational damage must be immense if unchallenged.
Alec Hamilton
Cheltenham, Gloucestershire
