For release: 11/13/25
The biased broadcasting corporation
By Cal Thomas
Tribune Content Agency
Two friends email from London about the editing scandal that led to the resignation of two top officials from the British Broadcasting Corporation. The resignations followed exposure of the splicing together of two parts of a speech by President Donald Trump on Jan. 6, 2021.The edits made it look and sound like the president was urging his followers to violently attack the Capitol.
One emailer said the first “B” in BBC should stand for bias. That reminded me of what some conservatives called CNN during the Clinton administration (the Clinton News Network), because of their perceived bias.
The second writer said the edit was only a “mistake.” It wasn’t a mistake. It was deliberate and it was made with the intention of having viewers accept their desired negative opinion of Trump. In another country and in another era, this would be called propaganda. If this sounds like the editing of the CBS “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris to make her sound articulate, it should. Both flowed from the same liberal worldview.
Kudos to the London Daily Telegraph for practicing real journalism and exposing the edit of the Trump speech.
During World War II the BBC was a trusted source of information. It sent coded information to the French resistance and took other actions in support of the war effort. This was accurately depicted in the film “The Longest Day.” In recent years, the BBC has seen its level of trust decline.
A survey conducted by David Pickering of The Conversation, a news organization that calls itself “dedicated to facts and evidence,” noted that “Trust in the BBC is heavily conditioned by political identity.” The survey of 11,170 people in the UK “showed striking differences between how people with left-wing and right-wing party affiliations felt about the broadcaster.”
The editing incident isn’t the first time the credibility of the BBC has been called into question. Several internal studies have found the organization to have reported unfairly on the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. The studies changed nothing as the pro-Palestinian bias has continued. It is the same when it comes to their reporting on “climate change.”
A Wall Street Journal editorial notes the BBC has had an LGBTQ desk within its London headquarters to make sure stories were favorable about transgender issues. Stories that did not reflect the BBC’s “liberal orthodoxy” were suppressed, notes the Journal.
On top of this, streamers and owners of television sets are required to pay an annual TV license fee of £174.50 (about $230) per year for a color license and £58.50 ($77) for a black-and-white license, a compulsory payment used primarily to fund the BBC’s television, radio and online services.
Does anyone still own a black-and-white TV? And on top of this, viewers must watch endless commercials, some of which are more entertaining and creative than the programs.
Efforts by some conservative members of Parliament to eliminate the TV license fee have failed. As in America, politicians are reluctant to give up money.
Tim Davie, the now-resigned director general of the BBC said in a statement: “This narrative will not just be given by our enemies. It’s our narrative. We own things.”
Right there you have the reason so much of the media in the UK and the U.S. are held in low regard. They think they “own things,” instead of exercising a responsibility to serve the people fairly and accurately. As with other exposures of bias, I suspect little will change within the BBC unless it follows the example of the new president of CBS News and begins hiring reporters with a conservative worldview who will presumably report conservative ideas fairly and accurately.
Readers may email Cal Thomas at tcaeditors@tribpub.com. Look for Cal Thomas’ latest book “A Watchman in the Night: What I’ve Seen Over 50 Years Reporting on America” (HumanixBooks).
(C) 2025 TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.
