The BBC may have leaned towards pro-lockdown coverage of the coronavirus pandemic in a reaction to the threat to its funding, former Supreme Court Justice Lord Jonathan Sumption has said.
“The BBC, which is probably the most influential single media organ, was consistently pro-lockdown. It was, of course, under threat to its financial model from the Government and it therefore wanted to show that it was ‘good boys’,” he told the Telegraph‘s Planet Normal podcast with Allison Pearson and Liam Halligan. He continued:
Within the BBC, I know for certain that there were a variety of opinions, but the one which they chose to concentrate on was that the lockdown was a great idea, that people who were sceptical were being anti-social, and there was very little to show that there was an alternative view held by responsible people.
As a matter of fact, that still seems to be the position of the BBC. They are still running articles about Long Covid and the like, and no articles, or very few articles, about those things that suggest that a mistake was made.
Listen to the full podcast here or here.
That might be the BBC’s excuse. But what about everyone else? The coverage in the Times, for instance, or on ITV or Sky was hardly better. Perhaps it was all the advertising revenue from Government propaganda…
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
This is the other problem:
‘The Trusted News Initiative is a partnership, founded by the BBC, that includes organisations from around the globe including; AP, AFP, BBC, CBC/Radio-Canada, European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Financial Times, Information Futures Lab, Google/YouTube, The Hindu, The Nation Media Group, Meta, Microsoft, Thomson Reuters, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Twitter, The Washington Post, Kompas – Indonesia, Dawn – Pakistan, Indian Express, NDTV – India, ABC – Australia, SBS – Australia, NHK – Japan.’
Everyone pushing out the same story……didn’t that used to be known as propaganda……?
What complete bunch of numpties are funding the BBC…..Oh….hang on….!
This is one of the reasons there will never be a formal investigation into the safety of the death jabs. They cannot simultaneously call into question the safety of the jabs whilst recommending them for vulnerable tots from 6 months old can they? How would that work?
…And the comments under the article say it all. People know.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11945899/Covid-jabs-given-vulnerable-BABIES-Health-chiefs-recommend-two-Pfizer-doses.html
A bit speculative. They joined the WHO club, and took part in global censorship. Lost a few viewers along the way, though.
Looking on the bright side, it did bring a spotlight onto their political attitude, and how selective they actually are, not least on their “World Service” radio channel. Perhaps it should be renamed.
The point about advertising revenue is well made.
Following the drop in ad revenue caused by the shutdown of the economy, the media depended on government advertising (TCW). The free press was in effect bought off by Government bungs (Byline Times).
The bribery continued with the vaccination program. In the US, the Government spent $1 billion on advertising campaigns to promote vaccination (26/03/22).
See also How the BBC lost its way on covid (19/12/21).
In addition the BBC received and continues to receive significant bungs from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Just to add, Fergus Walsh’s wife works for Big Pharma.
On the tills at Boots in Milton Keynes?
All of the nonsense during the corona abomination, the climate change garbage, the lgbtq8#5x insanity – it’s all about the money.
In all cases there is/was lots of dosh to be made by convincing people they ‘need’ something or else… even more money to be made when corrupt governments force citizens to pay for coercive measures that violate their fundamental rights.
What used to puzzle me is how and why so many companies seemed to be on board with it – supermarkets trying to flog even more product to vegans I get, but going so far overboard? Now I know – ESG, DEI, CEI – different names for the same blackmail – funding for businesses, pension funds, etc. predicated on complying with measures dictated by a select few.
The real question is, who is behind it and why? If it were just a matter of making money, they could have pushed a vaxx that was no more dangerous than saline. There are other people to reach through ‘influencers’ to make money, why the bizarre desire to confuse children, to convince teenagers still finding their way, abuse people suffering from mental problems by pushing the trans ideology on them?
Lots of money can be made from the climate scam without actually destroying Western societies, so why are they hell bent on switching off the lights?
The rise of the internet, twitter, youboob – they took away a lot of income from the traditional media of newspapers and tv – that income was partly replaced by money from people making a killing (literally) off of these scams. These people dictate what the media can say, to the point we stare at a bumbling senile old man mumble nonsense and barely manage to walk a few steps and pretend that no one can see it.
“Within the BBC, I know for certain that there were a variety of opinions”
Hmm, well I suppose he knows more BBC people personally than I do, but if you look at the BBC’s output you have to assume that the dominant ideology is left wing collectivist, woke, globalist, because that is what the output reflects. The covid scam was a perfect fit for all of those things, as is the climate scam.
And yes, what about all the other media firms in the UK and globally? And big tech, etc etc.
Sumption spoke against lockdown very eloquently when it was uncomfortable to do so, and for that he deserves credit, but this seems like wishy washy cock-up theory to me and simply ignores the huge global forces that have been at work for decades to erode individual freedom and nation states.
Very true – wishy washy, limited hangout reasoning without any apparent awareness of the Trusted News Initiative.
It’s all about destroying the ‘lunatics’, the ‘far right’, the ‘independents’ outside these massive globalist news fiction factories. See their ‘bring your daughter to work’ Miss Information correspondent for the direction of travel.
Sumption: It was about the licence fee jitters.
What? Setting aside the truth, and becoming an agent of homicidal propaganda for 3+ years was about licence fee jitters. If so, they need binning root and branch.
If you truly believe that, my lord, I have a bottle of Frizz-Ease conditioner to sell you. Although it does seem that this was an off the cuff remark on a podcast.
I’m only slightly less worried about that tie he’s wearing.
A man of his training and powers of reasoning and expression should know better than to make woolly off the cuff remarks about something so important
Which is exactly what I was getting at.
I have only just noticed the tie and had to enlarge the picture. If the tie is a declaration of support for the current US administration then my assessment of Sumption as senile was certainly on the generous side and is indeed a worry.
“Jonathan Sumption: The BBC Was Pro-Lockdown Because of the Threat to the Licence Fee”
For crying out loud, he’s bloody senile.
Thanks once again Mogs.
I’m just laughing at how plain spoken you are. I do like a person who calls it as they see it and to pot with what others think. You join me in the “I’m not here in a people-pleasing capacity” approach to posting!
The whole of the MSM worldwide has been bought by the globalists and yet there are still some reading DS who believe, as does Sumption, that “The BBC Was Pro-Lockdown Because of the Threat to the Licence Fee.”
The BBC was never at risk of losing the Licence fee and the likes of Tim Davie knows this. The BBC, part funded by Billy and the EU had to do nothing more than as it was told and push the agenda of the Davos Deviants. Sumption is simply upholding cock-up theory and that is bollox and by now he should have been able to work that out for himself. Clearly Sumption has not understood the meaning of Lockstep.
Sumption has been a huge disappointment and his ill-considered utterances are doing the realist cause little good and much harm.
On posting I comment as I see and understand the situation and I am honoured to stand alongside you in sharing a similar approach.
Look at us compared to the French and their riots and general naughtiness. We simply read and digest the risible words of a wispy haired old gent who has spent the last 50 years knowing or not knowing or not caring where the bodies are buried, and go on accepting the cost of living, net zero bollox, Ukraine, Biden, creeping tyranny, not to mention the licence fee and Gary Lineker. We gaze wistfully at our pitchforks and pop them back in the cupboard. The Peasants Revolt is still much to fresh in the memory.
Vive la France. Is it on the BBC?
Absolutely agree OPP.
I don’t know about senile but don’t know why you’ve attracted 10 downvotes. Sumption’s reasoning seems very weak here and I am a fan of his. Any downvoters care to defend Sumption’s argument?
Thanks tof.
Are you perhaps confusing former Supreme Court Justice Lord Jonathan Sumption with Rowley Birkin QC? The latter is the BBC’s parody of the former.
No, I am not.
I really shouldn’t have to spell this out again. If people on here cannot understand LOCKSTEP then we are in a bloody mess.
He was very, very drunk at the time.
Nope. Not had a drink for six weeks.
That’s good Hux’ but my reply to Roy was a catchphrase that Rowley Birkin QC always used at the end of his monologue – Another character from the brilliant Fast Show.
I think you might not have appreciated the humour intended in Roy’s reply?
According to Paul Whitehouse, this character was based on a person he met on a visit to Iceland.
Well he would say that wouldn’t he?
There is no excuse for their evil behaviour
The BBC is fully signed up to the UN/WEF Agenda 2030.
That’s why.