"The misalignment between the BBC and the licence-fee payers who fund it is stark. This is a difference in foundational assumptions. The vast majority of the public thinks borders matter, biological sex is real, and merit counts more than identity. In the corridors of the BBC, such statements are treated as heresy."
The operative question is then - in what ways can British citizens exercise oversight of the BBC? In the US, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was nominally an independent non-profit corporation, albeit one funded almost entirely by the federal government. The only methods we had to exercise oversight were via the selection of its board by the federal government or changing its budget. The problems at funded stations via NPR and PBS (nearly identical to what you describe at the BBC) became too big to ignore and the only reasonable solution was to remove funding. I wonder if the British public has any recourse to "clean house" at the BBC short of canceling the license fee.
Appreciate this, Charlie. And yes – that’s the problem. Short of abolishing the licence fee, there’s no meaningful way for the public to “clean house,” which is why the BBC’s worldview has drifted so far from its audience. If the UK electorate ever votes in a party that doesn’t despise them (the Uniparty and the BBC being cut from the same cloth) then perhaps the licence fee will finally go, and the BBC will be forced to compete like every other channel.
It’s a shame, though. In its original form, the BBC was a societal good, committed to impartiality, public service, and the broader classically liberal values that held the country together. What replaced it is a progressive monoculture with none of those things.
It's not just elite groupthink per se. The content of their ideology matters. They learn in school that objective knowledge is impossible and claims to it are suspect, so you might as well stick to your priors and familiar stories.
Exactly. Once you teach people that objective truth is a power construct, it's no surprise when they retreat into ideology rather than evidence. This has been a calamity for Western institutions as a whole.
Years ago, on the much-missed BBC Radio 4 satirical show ‘Week ending’, there was a sketch where a man complaining he had been framed by the police had his complaint edited into a ‘confession’. Now the BBC news department is doing the same.
Michael Prescott - author of the dossier into the BBC - himself doctored Trump quotes in the report, making his evidence seem more damning. The New World's political editor James Ball joins James O'Brien to discuss the 'devastating' revelation that calls into question Prescott’s journalistic judgement.
Outstanding. "A corporation that serves an audience whose values it can’t comprehend, funded by people it disdains". Exactly.
That phrase stood out for me too. Excellent article indeed.
Great article, well written and absolutely spot on!
Thanks very much!
A stunning case study in regression to the mean in social behavior and ideology.
Well put, thanks.
"The misalignment between the BBC and the licence-fee payers who fund it is stark. This is a difference in foundational assumptions. The vast majority of the public thinks borders matter, biological sex is real, and merit counts more than identity. In the corridors of the BBC, such statements are treated as heresy."
The operative question is then - in what ways can British citizens exercise oversight of the BBC? In the US, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was nominally an independent non-profit corporation, albeit one funded almost entirely by the federal government. The only methods we had to exercise oversight were via the selection of its board by the federal government or changing its budget. The problems at funded stations via NPR and PBS (nearly identical to what you describe at the BBC) became too big to ignore and the only reasonable solution was to remove funding. I wonder if the British public has any recourse to "clean house" at the BBC short of canceling the license fee.
Appreciate this, Charlie. And yes – that’s the problem. Short of abolishing the licence fee, there’s no meaningful way for the public to “clean house,” which is why the BBC’s worldview has drifted so far from its audience. If the UK electorate ever votes in a party that doesn’t despise them (the Uniparty and the BBC being cut from the same cloth) then perhaps the licence fee will finally go, and the BBC will be forced to compete like every other channel.
It’s a shame, though. In its original form, the BBC was a societal good, committed to impartiality, public service, and the broader classically liberal values that held the country together. What replaced it is a progressive monoculture with none of those things.
Thanks for reading.
The people doing the sacking are the ones who need to be sacked.
It's not just elite groupthink per se. The content of their ideology matters. They learn in school that objective knowledge is impossible and claims to it are suspect, so you might as well stick to your priors and familiar stories.
Exactly. Once you teach people that objective truth is a power construct, it's no surprise when they retreat into ideology rather than evidence. This has been a calamity for Western institutions as a whole.
Zionist hit job, although I agree, the beeb is biased.
Years ago, on the much-missed BBC Radio 4 satirical show ‘Week ending’, there was a sketch where a man complaining he had been framed by the police had his complaint edited into a ‘confession’. Now the BBC news department is doing the same.
"You can’t reform an institution that treats its own assumptions as reality." Chapeau!
Michael Prescott - author of the dossier into the BBC - himself doctored Trump quotes in the report, making his evidence seem more damning. The New World's political editor James Ball joins James O'Brien to discuss the 'devastating' revelation that calls into question Prescott’s journalistic judgement.
https://youtu.be/RYPRQj0NtIU
https://thelastchord.substack.com/p/what-the-bbc-news-scandal-teaches