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.
Wow – WATCH 'TIL THE END
— BRING_THE_NOISE (@Nohj_85) May 26, 2023
From a Vaccine Injurred person's perspective The @BBCNews 'Disinformation & Social Correspondent' @mariannaspring seems somewhat confused
So I thought I'd help her out by telling some of OUR experiences, debunking some of HER myths & say who she… pic.twitter.com/gP6FYmNBqF
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.
Obviously, net zero carbon is a project doomed to failure (or maybe success, if one’s goal is to reduce the world’s population by starvation or any other means necessary).
This brings me on to the victory of the Farmers-Citizen Movement (BBB) in the Dutch elections (who stood against the political moves to destroy Dutch farming on the pretext of changing the climate). I suggest that we know from history what the consequences of damaging productive farms are – in “Zimbabwe”, where European farmers were forced out and the former bread basket of Africa became a basket case; in Soviet times when millions starved after the collectivisation of farms; in the PRC where the massacre of sparrows to stop them eating the grain resulted in the proliferation of insects previously eaten by the sparrows,with the insects eating far more grain than the sparrows ever did, causing starvation.
I suggest furthermore that the example from Holland demonstrates that something can be done. I was talking to someone standing as an independent in the upcoming local elections, who relates that you don’t have to pay a deposit to stand, and that it really isn’t that difficult to get your name down on the ballot paper; that you don’t need to give your exact address, and that even without campaigning, you will take votes from people fed up with the old, corrupt parties who just want something different, which especially in marginals will send a message that people are fed up with the whole bunch of them. I would urge all those who feel able (and who haven’t given up on politics altogether) to consider standing, and for those who can’t or won’t stand, to at least support an independent or someone outside the old, corrupt parties who have brought us unprecedented human rights abuses in the last few years (three years next Thursday, lest we forget). It may or may not work, but at least you can feel that you are doing something.
I read something yesterday which says that the BBB is controlled opposition with funding links to Bayer, ie Monsanto which is no friend to the farmer & aligns itself with Agenda 30 & the WEF.
No link to the source so I cannot verify it. If this is so, it’s all very depressing.
Surely the downside is the danger of being elected. Then you would be condemned to spending time with councillors from the older parties who you would not have employed or chosen as friends, such is their general quality.
I think it’s all pretty pointless in the UK with its FPTP uniparty system.
The sabotage of Truss, 50% intending to vote for Labour and just 2% for Heritage which is a proper alternative and the truly scandalous behavior of MPs yesterday just before Andrew Bridgen was about to speak are strong indications of that futility.
TCW has this one out today for those who think otherwise and want to pester their MP a bit:
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/ten-questions-for-your-mp-dont-hold-your-breath-for-the-answers/
I am with Craig Murray (see my/his comment under the SNP article) and the Z Man, who provides the best and most apt descriptions of the hive mindset and workings of the managerial/political class today- why they won’t and simply can’t listen to objections like Prof. Kelly’s against their Covid, Climate, wokeness etc. agendas and the banality of them and how they came and the next ones will come into existence.
https://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=29525
“The thing is, this is not a front brain activity. People are not looking around on every issue, counting noses and anticipating the majority. Instead it is an instinctual thing, arrived at by interacting with the people in close proximity. It is why the metaphor of the hive is so important. Like drones in a hive, the people in the managerial class do not know why they believe what they believe. They just know everyone they know supports men in dresses, so it must be the right thing to do.”
“It Was A ‘Vaccine Strategy’ From The Start”
Seriously? This is the daily sceptic is it not?
Sorry Toby, but you seem to be enjoying the limelight a little too much! Seem to be forgetting your roots amongst all the fame and fortune?
Where the f are you Toby? Too big for us mere plebs now? Rubbing shoulders with the high and mighty all the time leaves a little bit more shit on you!
Seems your getting caught up in all the bright lights, big city! Impressing all your famous mates are you? Careful Toby!!!
4 downticks! Do not question the chosen one! This is the way of the woke!
I love a good rankle!
I’ve got a bad feeling about the direction of the daily sceptic! Anyone else?
There should be 100 downticks and no upticks, but upto now, its 50/50!
Perhaps there are other subscribers on here like me who hardly ever use downticks. Stupidity is not really worth the bother.
“Why “serious” scientists do not buy lab leak
“What’s this all about, Toby?
It’s the title of the linked article, which uses it ironically in a piece suggesting that the virus was deliberately leaked by US agencies, not accidentally by the Chinese. That seems fairly non-mainstream to me.
If you read the article the author is putting forth the theory that the virus was not caused by an animal or that it came from a lab-leak in Wuhan. I agree with him. To exclusively blame the Chinese at this point is to ignore all of the evidence we have of U.S involvement ( they are the architects, after all ) plus the facts that the virus was reported in other countries, not just in addition to China but *before* China, such as the U.S and Italy. I think it is reasonable to believe, based on available evidence, that this virus was made in a lab/labs, and deliberately released in multiple countries.
I stand corrected!
“that this virus was made in a lab/labs, and deliberately released in multiple countries”
Exactly. A point I have made many, many times.
The stories on ds are starting to have a monotonous empty ring to them,like a bell with a crack in it! Getting funding from somewhere else?
If so, say so and I’ll withdraw mine!
Still charging a fiver to get in touch?
I think DS also publish pieces that are alternative in that they challenge our sceptical thinking. I get that some of them rankle because we all have our confirmation biases to varying degrees but it is good to have them challenged now and again. I don’t think DS is becoming more mainstream, just providing some fodder from an alternative perspective for us to read and squabble over. lol A lot of the articles now I don’t even click on as they don’t interest me. We each take what we want from the site and leave the rest. That way there’s something for everyone.
Very diplomatic
There are plenty of echo chambers you will feel fine in on the net, Twitter etc..
I appreciate being confronted with intelligent different opinions than mine here.
The only thing I find annoying are your comments here today.
“Broken promises on immigration have led to a Brexiteer exodus from the Tories”
Or Labour!? Same club!
Don’t vote!
That’s the biggest message you could ever send!
“Nicola Sturgeon’s gender reforms blamed for SNP losing 40% of its membership”
Oh well! We’ll just vote in an Asian replacement!
“Britain is addicted to mass migration – and it is not racist to say this must change”
Whats the true population of the uk? These are the questions the ds used to ask!
Happy St Patrick’s hangover day!
I put this on a story ATL, don’t know if you saw it? Andrew Bridgen talking to an empty House, yesterday….and getting a thoroughly pathetic response…
The thing is YouTube have already deleted it…which someone in Government should be making a song and dance about..but they won’t…..shocking in so many ways….
https://rumble.com/v2dkxea-british-mp-andrew-bridgen-leads-an-adjournment-debate-on-the-efficacy-of-th.html
Jesus wept!
The sad state of British politics!
Where are the hero’s?
Bridgen is a god!
Yeah I posted it last night under a different article. It’s how the bent little shysters all scurry out at the beginning like rats, which is massively insulting to a colleague and speaks volumes, which p’d me off big time!
That was truly stunning, scandalous and hyper anti-democratic.
But it is ignored by the media, even the DS…, and the poisoned sheep need it thus way are absolutely fine with it.
It reminds me of the German parties and media’s undemocratic treatment of the AfD, while simultaneously smearing that party as being the only undemocratic one.
A certain propagandist’s ‘Always accuse the other side of that which you are guilty!’ cones to mind.
Yes…it’s taken me some time as I didn’t recognise the man who speaks at the end…from the BigPharma script…vaccines saved lives, UK should be proud of its vaccine rollout etc etc….
It’s Will Quince who is the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Social Care. He will be going on my ‘never trust or vote for’ list..LOL!
Andrew Bridgen
@ABridgen
.@YouTube have taken down the speech I gave in Parliament today. I am an elected member of the UK Parliament. The speech was given in the Chamber of the House of Commons and responded to by a Government Minister, what chance has anyone else got of putting their views on YouTube?
Oh I’m sure JRM will jump on the case.
Still up on Dr John Campbell’s channel with a short intro from him: (2) UK Parliament – YouTube
The Merkel/UniEssen ties to Wuhan stink and might also explain the head start of Drosten and BioNTech, the Pfizer hookup and the continued political preference of their dodgy product over the other dodgy ones and Germany’s particular Covidian zeal, including its unique, continued and ever more intensifying focus on Long Covid as an umbrella for and deflection from PostVac damages.
This is one of the best, clearest and most shocking analysises of how and where the UK fell apart economically over the last 2 decades. That one chart in particular hit home with me, as I arrived here to flee German socialism in 1995 but am now at the same level of it here as when I left.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/this-budget-not-only-misses-the-point-it-doesnt-even-understand-it/
Plenty of Ukraine stuff here today, so I’ll add this clear debunking of the pathetic sailboat fairy tale by Scott Ritter and a short comment and reference to Sy Hersh’s recent interview with Chris Hedges, where he stated that Z. is in trouble with his generals because he takes a too big cut, in order to prove that his level of info runs very deep.
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2023/march/15/the-nord-stream-andromeda-cover-up/
Thanks for the link.
…yes I’m adding that story to my rubbish bin labelled ‘Racoon Dogs…’…..LOL!
Cock-up? My arse!
This is the reason for the What’sApp messages:
https://twitter.com/CartlandDavid/status/1636837203891421185
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11872853/International-Criminal-Court-issues-arrest-warrant-PUTIN.html
Hmm, I wonder if an arrest warrant will be issued for that scruffy, scrounging git – the Ukrainian military green wearing war puppet, who is expert at jetsetting around the world, extracting vast amounts of taxpayers money from
colludingsympathetic governments?Flu vaccine safety data from the CDC is not what has been promoted…. Quelle surprise!
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/the-flu-vaccine-is-too-deadly-to
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/my-red-hanger-of-shame/
WTF is this all about?
If our council introduces this scam then everything will be going in one bin. F.’em.
Barstewards.
https://off-guardian.org/2023/03/17/what-one-tweet-can-teach-us-about-fake-news/
Kit Knightly – I share his position entirely.
Bridgen’s HOC speech back up on YT: (3) Efficacy of the mRNA covid-19 booster, 17 Mar 2023 – YouTube
He states vaxx program has cost UK £8.3BN so far – not sure if that includes payouts for vaxx injuries. Costs > £9M to prevent one hospitalisation for covid for healthy 30-39 year olds.
An article in the Spectator Australia about the suppression of Ivermectin as a treatment:-
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/03/did-the-ivermectin-ban-cost-lives/