The information war is even more serious than we first thought. When people in the comments sections call BBC news ‘state propaganda’, they are right. Neither the BBC nor the other major media organisations in the UK are independent or neutral, and the so-called editorially-controlled media are in reality puppets of the state: The Telegraph can reveal that civil servants have been placed in journalistic roles at the BBC, ITV and Channel 4. It is becoming clear that the media are not the fourth estate, meant to keep the authorities in check, but instead work for the state to keep the people in check. Why should taxpayers have to pay for what is demonstrably state propaganda?
The Telegraph reveals that the state’s own employees were anonymously placed in strategic positions within the editorial teams of the BBC, ITV and Channel 4. The newspaper writes:
Civil Service fast-stream graduates and managers are being seconded to the BBC newsroom to produce news and analysis on “high-impact, sensitive topics” such as small boat crossings and coverage of the Covid pandemic.
Articles and blog posts published on the BBC website, and seen by The Telegraph, show that they have been bylined and credited as members of “BBC News” and “BBC Verify”.
The same has happened at ITV and Channel 4. This means that not only have the media been working hand in hand with the authorities for years, and certainly not acted as a ‘fourth estate’; the authorities themselves have been directly involved in determining what kind of news and information the public should be presented with. This is a serious matter, because the BBC and other public service broadcasters are supposed to be independent, truthful and politically neutral. Fortunately, the media landscape is not entirely dominated by these channels, but one might wonder whether the infiltration ends there – with a few staff members influencing certain stories – or whether this is merely the tip of the iceberg? And is this sort of thing happening only in the UK?
During the Covid period, it quickly became quite clear that there was one specific version of reality that was to be promoted. The official narrative was repeated by many different sources – from traditional, editor-led media to social media influencers – and attempts were made to stifle the debate. Many people will probably recognise this one-sided focus – first on the virus’s allegedly high mortality rate, as well as the necessity of school closures and lockdowns affecting almost the entire society, the alleged superiority of face masks and, not least, the pressure to get vaccinated – that made alternative media truly essential if the general public were to form a picture of the actual reality. For when you put two and two together and are told that the answer is five, fortunately there are some of us who begin to question the narrative of the editor-controlled media.
Partially successful manipulation
The manipulation of the masses was only partially successful. Admittedly, people got vaccinated in droves, complied with mask rules and other measures devised by politicians, but many sought information elsewhere. Social media platforms such as X became more important than ever, as did other uncensored, unfiltered websites where people could see first-hand information with their own eyes (though, of course, with the caveat that some of the information there might also be manipulated or untrue). Media outlets such as Document here in Norway were similarly important. In the UK, ‘Lockdown Sceptics’ emerged – a blog that has since been renamed The Daily Sceptic – founded by Lord Toby Young, who also founded the Free Speech Union. Young set it up because there was a need for in-depth analysis of the coronavirus, and none of the major, editor-led media outlets could offer anything other than advertising campaigns for the government’s policies. Other media outlets, particularly on the independent right, also dared to speak their minds and did not necessarily follow the official narrative.
It was during this period that GB News was launched. The TV channel launched in 2021 and quickly became a refreshing alternative to the BBC, Sky News and the other mainstream channels. They faced opposition right from the start and have had their fair share of teething problems. Unfortunately, they parted ways with a number of presenters and journalists in the first few months, and also experienced technical difficulties. Viewers might suddenly find the sound cutting out, or the programme being interrupted by adverts without warning. Some of those who lost their jobs believe it was because they were too outspoken, even for GB News. GB News, like all other broadcasters, has Ofcom – which regulates all television content – breathing down its neck. They were also subjected to boycott campaigns by the left, such as the one by ‘Stop Funding Hate’, which targets companies that choose to use GB News for their advertising campaigns. GB News says it has lost 140 million pounds as a result of the boycotts.
But despite the opposition and teething problems, GB News has succeeded in something absolutely crucial: winning the trust of its viewers. Whilst trust in, for example, the BBC is declining, trust in GB News is high, according to a report from Ofcom – a report whose data Ofcom itself attempted to conceal. They also score higher than Channel 4, ITV and the BBC in terms of impartiality and diversity of opinion.
The BBC rigged Trump’s speech
The BBC was caught out when it emerged that they had edited Trump’s speech on 6 January to make it appear as though he was inciting the crowds to attack the Capitol. It was such a major blunder for the BBC that Director-General Tim Davie was forced to resign. Viewers do not forget such things easily. The number of active TV licences in the UK has fallen by 540,000 in one year, and by 2.5 million since 2020. Why pay for a state broadcaster that behaves like Pravda, when you can follow the news for free on YouTube or GB News? The falling revenue has led the government to begin exploring the possibility of extending the TV licence to cover streaming platforms such as YouTube, Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney+.
The news that fact-checkers are working directly for the major media organisations was not well received by the opposition. Danny Kruger of Reform UK calls it a scandal and says that the BBC has breached its own rules on impartiality. Reform wants instead to abolish the TV licence and carry out a complete overhaul of the bureaucracy, he says.
The BBC says it will start naming its previously anonymous fact-checkers in order to be more transparent.
Unfortunately, it’s ‘too little, too late’, as they say over here. The BBC and the other mainstream media outlets have lost their relevance and have long since lost control over what people are told.
