The Media Research Center has long hated the BBC for failing to be a right-wing pro-Trump shill. For instance:
- BBC Airs Gross Cartoon of Piers Morgan ‘Brown-Nosing’ Trump’s Bare Rump
- BBC Touts Medical Editor Charging Trump with ‘Crime Against Humanity’ on WHO
- BBC Thinks English Women’s National Team Is Too White
- Another Truth Ministry? Government-Funded BBC Establishes First ‘Disinformation’ Correspondent
- NY Times Defends ‘Revered…Non-Partisan’ Left-Wing BBC from Tory Pouncing on Front Page
- WHAT? State-Affiliated BBC Champions Climate Change ‘Ninja Trollhunters’
- Report: BBC Feeds Viewers a ‘Diet of Woke Bias’ in News and Dramas
When the BBC got into some serious trouble with Trump, the MRC couldn’t have been happier. Jorge Bonilla cheered in a Nov. 9 post:
After much controversy over the doctoring of a portion of President Donald Trump’s remarks at The Ellipse on January 6th, 2021, it has been announced today that both the Director General and News CEO of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) have resigned.
Curiously, Bonilla didn’t actually document what the BBC did wrong, nor did it explain, like WorldNetDaily similarly failed to do, describe the proper context of Trump’s “fight like hell” statement during that speech. Instead, he lashed out at frequent MRC target Brian Stelter for reporting on it:
Quite unusual,” Stelter says. Of course, Stelter tries to make the resignations about everything else, from “dramas or comedies” to coverage of the war in Gaza. But this wasn’t about any of that. It was solely about selectively and deliberately editing a speech in order to suit a narrative. Stelter’s attempt to muddy the waters is simply shameful.
Unfortunately, it is quite unusual for news bosses stateside to resign after they’ve been caught spreading any of a litany of hoaxes: Russia, Very Fine People, Drinking Bleach, Elon Nazi Salute, among a legion of others. While it appears that there remains a modicum of British reserve and elegance compelling immediate resignation when caught spreading fake news, such decorum does not exist stateside. Media lie and move on to the next hoax when caught.
Bonillla offered no evidence that Trump did not say “fight like hell” as an incitement for his followers.
The next day, P.J. Gladnick whined that another media outlet wouldn’t stick to his preferred narrative:
So how did Politico cover this scandal? By treading lightly on the details while emphasizing that “the latest crisis marks a significant escalation in attacks on the BBC from the right.”
In addition, strongly implied that the Trump administration’s reaction to the BBC scandal displayed unseemly hubris as you can see in the title of their Sunday story by Matt Honeycombe-Foster, “Trump gloats as BBC boss quits over coverage ‘mistakes’.”
[…]And, according to Politico, it was not only Trump who supposedly acted poorly but also White House Spokesperson Karoline Leavitt who had the gall to have not only “seized” (but not pounced?) on the scandal but compounded the grievous breach of liberal etiquette because she “appeared jubilant.”
Gladnick did not dispute that analysis. Tim Graham then went after Stelter again:
Leftists like CNN’s chief media analyst Brian Stelter feel terrible about two top executives at the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) tendering their resignations over a really bad edit of Donald Trump’s speech to supporters on January 6, 2021. Those right-wingers are ruining things again by focusing on aggressive media mangling of the facts.
In a video on X, Stelter lamented that this edit shouldn’t have forced resignations, but the BBC “exists in an incredibly politically charged environment, even as it tries to be apolitical and impartial.” Wrong. Nobody believes they’re “trying” to be apolitical. They want to be perceived as impartial even as they’re extremely partial.
As Stelter notes, the BBC has faced relentless criticism over its relentless bias against Israel and in favor of Hamas in its reporting from Gaza.
Last year, after a study found the BBC overwhelmingly favored Hamas spin after the attacks of October 7, BBC’s Jeremy Bowen claimed “Searching for some kind of spurious balance is entirely wrong, the truth is the objective.”
We’ve documented how the study, which made heavy use of the kind of artificial intelligence the MRC normally disdains, was found to be highly flawed with a researcher bringing a pro-Israel bias to the project. But it gave Graham the right kind of headline he can exploit, so he will stick with that narrative. He went on to grumble:
The lefties are also concerned about the re-evaluation of the BBC’s license-fee system of funding “public” media. British households pay £174.50 ($230) a year for BBC shows and services, which leads to conservative complaints about involuntarily supporting anti-conservative media.
No one probably fears for the BBC under a Labour Party government, but the BBC’s brand is definitely struggling, just like aggressive bias caused a funding problem for PBS and NPR.
Graham offered no evidence of the “aggressive bias” he claims exists at the BBC, NPR or PBS.