In 2017 the BBC announced its intention to assemble a dedicated team “to fact check and debunk deliberately misleading and false stories masquerading as real news”. News chief James Harding proclaimed that the Reality Check team would be “weighing in on the battle over lies, distortions and exaggerations”. Harding continued: “The BBC can’t edit the internet, but we won’t stand aside either.” Harding goes further to say the corporation had been inundated by news in 2016 because the world was “living in an age of instability”.
It appears that the BBC has not coped particularly well with this excess of news and the methods employed by the Reality Check team have not generated the desired outcome. According to data compiled by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, the BBC has experienced a decline in public trust from 75% to just 55%, with other mainstream TV broadcasters and print news suffering a similar decline over the same period, from 2018-2022. Further to this, the most recent global annual report published by the Edelman Trust Barometer placed the U.K. in 26th position, ahead of only South Korea and Japan in terms of public faith in media. The survey clearly tells us that the U.K. remains one of the countries with the lowest faith in media.
So what is driving this decline in trust? Is fake news to blame? Or, paradoxically, could the efforts of the BBC to counter such stories be exposing its own limitations? A typical example of how BBC Reality Check chooses to ‘weigh in’ is illustrated in this 2022 report, ‘Does video show Russian prisoners being shot?‘ The report is unable to provide sufficient evidence to ‘debunk’ the authenticity of the footage, which, the BBC states, “has been claimed to show Ukrainian soldiers shooting Russian prisoners of war”. Instead, it offers the reader a discourse, the content of which is clearly riddled with omission, selection and presentation bias. The report reads like a crude attempt to defend a narrative, rather than an objective attempt to elucidate a news story.
Consider this shocking statistic: only two of every 10 people in the U.K. feel that the news media is “independent from undue political or Government influence most of the time”. This ranks us 16th among the 24 nations surveyed, on a par with Romania.
I do not mention this to slight other nations, but to illustrate the point that our much vaunted media landscape is not the envy of the world as we are often led to believe.
Against this background, with such a prolonged and substantial decline in trust, what action is our national broadcaster taking to rebuild it? One might expect the BBC to reflect on its output, a period of introspection perhaps, an honest assessment of mistakes that have been made, a promise to learn from them and do better in the future. But no – the BBC has concluded that the problem is you: your inability to separate fact from fiction and your inability to appreciate the hard work that goes into getting the truth to your television.
So in order to help us, the BBC has a launched a new initiative, BBC Verify, “a new brand within our brand” aiming to “pull back the curtain on our journalists’ investigative work and introduce radical transparency”.
Deborah Turness, the Chief Executive of BBC News and Current Affairs, writes:
The exponential growth of manipulated and distorted video means that seeing is no longer believing. Consumers tell us they can no longer trust that the video in their news feeds is real. Which is why we at the BBC must urgently begin to show and share the work we do behind the scenes to check and verify information and video content before it appears on our platforms. All day, every day, the BBC’s news teams are using ever more sophisticated tools, techniques and technology to check and verify videos like the Kremlin drone footage, as well as images and information… but, until now, that work has largely gone on in the background, unseen by audiences.
The implication being presented here is that the BBC’s output is not at fault, but it is our perception of its output that is defective and BBC Verify is designed to correct our misconceptions. It is with circular, or perhaps spurious, reasoning that the BBC chooses not to report on its own decline in trust and then circumvents any discussion of this fact by creating a unit to verify the trustworthiness of content available on other platforms.
Turness kindly provides us with a link to “give people a taste of what Verify will be doing, day in, day out”. The video, presented by BBC Verify editor Ros Atkins, analyses footage of the apparent attack on the Kremlin and one can assume that this is the best current example of the BBC’s forensic capabilities. I would urge readers to view this report and, like the roof of the Kremlin, prepare not to be blown away!
We are informed that BBC Verify will foster the investigative skills and open source intelligence capabilities of around 60 journalists and experts including the specialist ‘disinformation correspondent’ Marianna Spring.
Marianna helps us in the fight for identifying the perpetrators of misinformation online by listing the “seven types of people who start and spread falsehoods”.
Interestingly, Marianna lists politicians, jokers, scammers, conspiracy theorists, insiders, celebrities and even your relatives as people to be wary of, but fails to acknowledge the role of journalists in the dissemination of ‘fake news’. This is despite contemporary research informing us that British people have among the lowest level of trust in journalists, with only 37% of those surveyed saying that they trusted them, versus a global average of 47%. The report states: “That might indicate that developed countries either have people who are more prone to trusting conspiracy theories or they are experienced enough to know when journalists might be lying.”
The BBC offers no evidence that the former theory rather than the latter is more probable, but it is nonetheless working hard to push the former. A demonstration of this push is apparent in the publicity material for Marianna Spring’s podcast series Marianna in Conspiracyland.
The press release for episode six (airs June 19th Radio 4) states: “Marianna is uniquely equipped to navigate Conspiracyland, having found herself on the frontlines of the battle of online disinformation and hate since those early days of the pandemic. She herself has become a frequent target of this movement.”
Does the movement in question include the eminent doctors and scientists whose voices have been censored and ignored by the mainstream?
Will Marianna act impartially, exercise objectivity and engage with these experts? Will she discuss the substantial body of research that counters the mainstream pandemic and vaccine narrative? Will she detail how our Government delayed the release of statistics revealing that “for healthy 40-49 year-olds almost one million booster shots were required to prevent one ‘severe’ hospital admission”? Or the freedom of information releases from Japan and Australia revealing that vaccine trial data indicated widespread multi-organ bio-distribution of vaccine lipid nano-particles? This was known to authorities but not revealed and it runs counter to assurances given to the public at the time.
Surely, this knowledge is essential to obtain informed consent, especially from those at less risk from infection.
Legitimate concerns of deficiencies within the vaccine trials, regulatory failures and widespread data misrepresentation have been either censored or forced to the periphery of debate. It seems improbable that Marianna will take part in any substantive discussion on these issues, as she has already announced her intention, namely to construct a tenable narrative that links the “growing U.K. conspiracy movement and alternative media” to foreign, far-Right groups and ‘hate’.
To appreciate the ultimate purpose of this podcast and the underlying intention of BBC Verify, we must refer back to James Harding’s comment in 2016 when he intimated that the BBC was unable to fulfil its desire to “edit the internet”. Since then, much has changed; mechanisms that curtail the exchange of information between law-abiding citizens are now well established via the Trusted News initiative (TNI).
The Trusted News Initiative (TNI) is a partnership founded by the BBC in 2019. According to the press release:
TNI members work together to build audience trust and to find solutions to tackle challenges of disinformation. By including media organisations and social media platforms, it is the only forum in the world of its kind designed to take on disinformation in real time.
The public interest argument presented is that the TNI is essential “to protect audiences and users from disinformation, particularly around moments of jeopardy”.
A very basic question regarding this initiative by the BBC remains undetermined, namely: by what authority does the BBC exercise the power to create the TNI? The BBC Charter clearly states: “The BBC must be independent in all matters concerning the fulfilment of its Mission and the promotion of the Public Purposes, particularly as regards to editorial and creative decisions… and in the management of its affairs.”
The charter makes no exception to this rule. One cannot be “independent in all matters” whilst also engaging in discussions about media content with a vast network of international news providers and social media platforms. Currently the partners are listed as: AP, AFP, CBC/Radio-Canada, European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Facebook, Financial Times, First Draft, Google/YouTube, the Hindu, Microsoft, Reuters and Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Twitter and the Washington Post.
When our national broadcaster creates an international media partnership whose collective perspective is formed through the lens of official guidance then it becomes less able to fulfil its democratic function: to hold officialdom to account. This partnership makes a mockery of the notion of media plurality and the damage to our democratic values is confounded by its inconspicuous nature.
The editorial independence of the BBC also comes into question when it defines health disinformation as any view that runs counter to official guidance. By taking this stance it becomes unable or unwilling to act as an arbiter of truth in its own right. If the BBC only defines truth via the diktats of Government agencies then its role becomes that of an intermediary, like an arm of Government, acting in a similar fashion to a state broadcaster.
For a damning example of how the TNI creates bias within our media, listen to the story of Mr. John Watt outlined in this video.
His experience of severe vaccine injury is purged from the internet by multiple platforms. Consequently, his voice and access to communications via the internet are restricted. Of equal importance, a challenge to the unscientific mantra of ‘safe and effective’ is removed from the discourse. John’s story is not disinformation and this type of censorship acts in opposition to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19 is clear: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
The question of whether media platforms have the right to censor speech and ban people from communicating will become highly irrelevant once the Online Safety Bill and the EU Digital Services Act become law. Once this happens, Article 19 of the Declaration of Human Rights looks set to be of limited help.
The BBC should not be coordinating a publicity campaign that falsely implies the only speech these laws will affect are those of far-Right groups, purveyors of ‘hate’ and ‘conspiracy theorists’.
The public deserve a more thorough analysis of how the proposed limits to their communication will remove an essential balance within our society. When diverse voices are supressed, truth and transparency are often the first victims. It is this suppression of ‘unapproved’ viewpoints that has fuelled the rise in alternative media. If the BBC is to regain trust, it should set a path to a return to impartiality.
Shiraz Akram is a member of the Thinking Coalition, a pro-liberty group, highlighting and questioning Government overreach.
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.
If I was a practicing Christian I’d by shrugging my shoulders and leaving the church for good!
I agree..what the heck is the point of it? If you keep chopping the salami, eventually there’s nothing left!
Although I suspect within the Church itself there are many who don’t agree, and hopefully carry on regardless….
Sadly we just see the stuff the media wants to exaggerate and promote….and I’m hoping it’s a bit like the ‘Rona Con’, make people think they are isolated, wrong and alone..when really they are not…..and again it’s some ‘high-ups’, just like our own Government, who are making crack-pot decisions, that the majority would never agree to if asked….
It seems to be the way with everything now!?
Sandi Toksvig moaning about lack of progress towards CofE recognising same-sex marriage:
“In a video, she said it was clear the “Church of England and the society it purports to represent are not remotely in step”.”
Sandi Toksvig says archbishop told her progress on same-sex marriage in Church of England will be ‘glacial’ (yahoo.com)
What on earth makes her think it’s the church’s role to “represent society”? Isn’t it supposed to represent the Word of God?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aQe4vHuXGXQ
great speech in Dutch parliament criticising the Dutch Covid inquiry.
I am not always in agreement with Baudet, but this one is good, despite the fact he does get a bit too shouty towards the end.
I really enjoyed this…and of course he is just speaking the truth…
I had really quick search to see who he was…..apparently, he’s far-right, associated with Russia, and a conspiracy theorist…I could have bet money that is what I would have found…LOL!
He will have to join Mark Steyn, Neil Oliver and all the others in the sin-bin, where all the factual truth speakers have to go!! LOL!
…another one of the good guys…Croatian MEP MIslav Kolakusic….
“The misinformation about COVID-19 spread by officials and public health workers around the world was not just harmful lies but a complete betrayal of citizens. Those lies have severely damaged the credibility of the public health systems, and the consequences will be permanent.”
https://twitter.com/mislavkolakusic/status/1623266467264319488
“Jewish group and MPs urge GB News to stop indulging conspiracy theories” Well, we all knew that this was coming, didn’t we? I mean you can’t have some wild haired presenters speaking their minds, can you? So the powers that be have been looking closely at the content and – oh, hang on, isn’t that anti-semitic? We’ll just go and check with our pet Jewish groups who sounds important and representative but really are there to get the ‘idea’ into the mainstream press and then we’ll call up our buddies at the Guardian and say ‘could you get that journalist, McFidget, to write a piece introducing the ‘idea’ that GB News is anti-semitic and we’ll make sure our chums at Ofcom are notified and …’ Barstewards! This is what those cowardly little people do when faced with unrelenting probing into their plans. They resort to underhand tactics that worked so well with others such as Jeremy Corbyn etc. So Neil Oliver, who is about as antisemitic as Ben Gurion, is the latest focus now that the wonderful Mark Steyn has effectively been neutralised. And they have the gall to say ‘conspiracy theories’ which torpedoes any rational, logical argument below the waterline so it hasn’t got a chance, among the sleeping masses, of gaining more traction. It’s all a well-worn script but how do you fight back? Mark Steyn was actually quite scathing of his former boss, Frangopolous or whatever his name is, calling him a habitual liar. So what we have is the demolition of free speech in plain sight and we all knew it would happen at some point.
Well, we are taking the fight local because this is where the battles will be fought, not in the pages of the Guardian or on the BBC, but in the council chambers, local meeting halls and in the streets of local council districts. First off, the 15 min city plans which councils are rolling out regardless of people’s objections. We clearly live in a totalitarian regime and the people bringing in these plans are going against the rule of law, the common law of this land. We are bringing back jural assemblies, the true indication of real democracy, and we will bend every sinew and nerve towards exposing this treason. They are not going to win this.
Just like Andrew Brigden, I think we will find strong Jewish voices coming out in support over the next few days…
I’m reminded that many millions more people have watched the Project Veritas Pfizer video, than have watched the ‘satanic’ Sam Smith Grammy video…I saw the numbers online yesterday….but we know which was the only one shown in the MSM….!!
I can smell their fear…LOL!
my annual synagogue subscription currently due includes an extra amount for the Board of Deputies which has been cancelled
Good man.
Neil Oliver
@thecoastguy
Anyone worried about me – don’t be. I’ve seen and had it all before. Onwards. X.
The guy is a legend..and I agree with you Ath, they are not going to win….
“Moon dust fired into space could help stop global warming” Lunacy at its most literal. Why give these clearly insane ideas column inches? Even I, with a severely limited appreciation or knowledge of astrophysics, can see how utterly stupid such a plan is. It reminds me of the totally preposterous plots I’ve seen in some Hollywood movies – the idea to restart the sun by sending nuclear missiles into its heart, or landing on an asteroid to divert its course. Do you remember Klaus Schwab’s plan to send huge mirrors into space to deflect sunlight? Are there no critically thinking journalists left at the Telegraph? And I seem to remember, but of course I could be wrong, that we are actually about to enter a period of global cooling. I mean how cold are they planning for us to be? Cold enough to be able to do away with fridges? And have they though that this might be permanent and interfere with ALL life and not only our miserable human ones? Bonkers! I hope their plans, if at all put into being, perish in the Van Allen belt.
…don’t tell anyone, but it’s not just Moon Dust, it’s moon dust mixed with Unicorn Farts, which apparently is the highly secret ingredient….!
Although the question could be moot as there could also be a shortage of actual Moon Dust….. due to China…..who else…?? LOL!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11590249/NASA-boss-China-claim-moon-territory-BAN-astronauts-touching-down.html
A chief at NASA is raising red flags over China’s ambitions to get to the moon.
In a new interview, NASA Administrator Bill Nelson says he and others within the scientific agency are growing increasingly concerned over what the country plans to do when they make it to the moon.
Nelson believes China could attempt to corner the market on resource-rich locations on the moon’s surface and try to block out the U.S. and other countries looking to make it to the lunar object.
‘There is potentially mischief China can do on the moon,’ said one other official monitoring the ‘space race.’
‘And it is true that we better watch out that they don’t get to a place on the moon under the guise of scientific research. And it is not beyond the realm of possibility that they say, “Keep out, we’re here, this is our territory,”‘ Nelson continued.
The NASA boss said he fears China will mimic their strategy when it came to claiming land- and water- in the South China Sea.”
LOL!
I’ll try not to buy it.
The madness of Khant’s net zero. I know it’s not him but he is the poxy proxy. We have to hope that all London Borough’s fight back because “first they came for…
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/khans-carbon-cult-is-tearing-london-apart/
…reality….! And just think if it was your baby or child for instance…
Low Traffic Neighbourhoods delay paramedics on 999 calls, says ex London ambulance chief…
Traffic-management schemes and other road changes that could delay life-saving treatments are being monitored, according to London Ambulance Service (LAS).
LAS confirmed it was working with traffic teams across the capital to avoid using physical barriers such as bollards on schemes designed to manage the flow of vehicles. It comes after a series of social media posts showed ambulance crews’ access to streets newly blocked by bollards in Palmers Green…..
Apparently the leader of Harrow Council sent a tetchy letter to Khan saying that the people came first and ignoring Khan’s bullying, HP. Worth a watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrjSkkxiiFw&t=364s
Thanks Aethelred I watched the video last night.
I hope the defiant councils are genuinely defiant and not putting on a show.
The article by Berenson in the round-up is worth a read..he ends with
…Fauci is 82 it will be up to the rest of us to deal with what he’s done.
But I’m reminded that this isn’t Fauci’s first rodeo….if you want to sit for an hour with a cuppa I can’t recommend this Substack highly enough….I read it when it came out, but it’s so pertinent to many of the things that have happened with Fauci/Covid….….and taken as an overview of the AIDS ‘scandal’ it’s really informative..
(Currently Dallas Buyers Club is showing on Sky movies, and I’m going to re-watch this weekend….)
https://filiperafaeli.substack.com/p/dont-watch-dallas-buyers-club
I was really impressed when I read the substack article a few weeks ago and subsequently bought the dvd. I’d not seen or heard of the film before that.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/are-king-and-country-worth-fighting-for/
A subject that has bothered me all my adult life. Would I stand and fight for King and Country? Sadly no.
First and foremost I would fight for my family, that is and will be ALWAYS my overriding priority.
I would fight for England, or England as it should be – honest, decent, proud, virtuous – but for the current establishment and the Windsor traitors, never.
I doubt I am on my own and I suspect many couldn’t care less.
I’d fight for the nation of which I’m part but not for the state that clearly hates everything about me other than the taxes I pay.
…it’s an interesting article….
….I think most people faced with a real enemy, that they felt had to be totally overcome, would fight…but I agree with you….not for King and Country, but for family, friends, the life they want to live..and leave for their children…
…..but I don’t think those things aren’t threatened externally..but internally…
I don’t think many would want to fight for our out of touch, WEF member, and fully Woke King, I certainly wouldn’t…..I also wouldn’t fight to fill the coffers of the military industrial complex…..which most people see through now, and are utterly cynical about…..
As you say honesty, pride, virtue and decency, the nuclear family….have all but disappeared from any thoughts or actions of the ‘elites’….so why would anyone want to die, or send their children to die on their behalf?…in the main I despise them…
We have a very different relationship with Government and Monarchy than our forbears did….
At the rate we are giving our military capabilites away to the Ukraine, I am more and more concerned by the threat of War being declared by the Isle of Man. We would surely have to capitulate and sue for peace.
The proudest of military traditions, to not being able to defend ourselves, in a single generation. All while no-one noticed…
Or, yea Gods, what if the wee screecher attacked over Hadrians Wall??
I have a distinct feeling that leaving the country so ill defended in a time of great turmoil and war is actually a treasonous act. I would have to check but it must be written somewhere about this.
Sadly yes Neil. 😔
Agree with all you say, HP. I think I might have done way back but I ain’t fighting for no WEF puppets. I would fight for England, for my fellow countrymen but definitely not the government or, indeed, the King if he continues to go along with the WEF stance.
Thanks Aethelred. 👍
I’m with you Hux me old fruit ! Used to think I might if The Queen asked but now it’s a no from me !
Cheers Freddy.
More dubious use of taxpayers money…
https://declassifieduk.org/uk-spends-over-80m-on-media-in-20-countries-around-russia/
Yet people in this country have to go cold and hungry while an illegitimate government pisses taxpayers money away in foreign lands and for which we have no legitimate interest.
Our government is treasonous but for how many years has this been so?
All the way back to Major I reckon.
I reckon that it goes back even further, early to mid 20th Century at least.
https://youtu.be/q1_5VrUunqI
The MET now admitting to recruiting coloured people who can’t write or speak English. I’ve posted on this previously.
Quel surprise!
I refer to the Guardian article about Neil Oliver’s broadcast. There was nothing anti-Semitic in it and if the Jewish community is ramping up its sensitivity to crazy levels that restrict free speech then they must be told to stop, or risk being ignored even when actual anti-Semitism occurs.
On the subject of “Hypocrisy from MPs regarding regulators”, New Scientist in November 2019 (just before the “pandemic”), had a front page article “Why the Medicine You Take Could Actually be Bad for Your Health”.
ISSUE 3258 | MAGAZINE COVER DATE: 30 November 2019 | New Scientist
The article was drawing attention to the increasing phenomenon of new drugs being rushed to market with insufficient testing, and of regulatory capture by the pharmaceutical industry.
It included this observation:
“Drugs are approved based on preliminary findings, or authorised for a particular use, then widely prescribed for something else. And hanging over the process is a worrying question: are these agencies working to protect the public or to further the interests of drug companies?”