The BBC, a “public service broadcaster”, prides itself on reporting stories in an “unbiased way”, publishing “impartial” content that supposedly informs rather than advocates the narrow range of talking points it selectively and meticulously chooses whether to broadcast or omit.
But while the BBC maintains an outward disguise of impartiality, upon closer inspection it becomes apparent the BBC is biased in deceptive ways that aren’t immediately recognizable to the average reader.
That’s their aim, to masquerade as the trusted premier news source that they’re not.
Within the narrow range of stories it does publish, it generally offers a vague, contrived level of imitative balance; but that’s within the stories it actually chooses to publish, and even then to call it ‘balance’ is a stretch at best — the BBC often uses sleight of hand tricks to give the impression of balance.
The BBC covers non-issues and headlines propaganda.
The thing most people don’t realize is that the most important news never makes the BBC headlines in the first place. Most people are so focused on the pros and cons of what it already does publish that they forget the gaping absence of the most important stories.
Just think of the recent war in Yemen, the truth about vaccines, the truth about large scale money-manipulation, or the illegal Israeli-US occupation of Syria to name a few huge topics — all of these stories are never seen on the BBC, not ever.
The BBC is shamefully pro-Israel and pro-banker by maintaining a blackout on the aristocratic elite families that rule by-proxy such as the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers, the BBC instead focuses on heads of state as the legitimate bodies of power, never daring to criticize the true seats of power and influence.
They also never cover Israel’s crimes because the aforementioned families own Israel and also own the BBC. Just because on paper the BBC isn’t privately owned means nothing — the BBC turns to establishment-owned media distributors such as the Associated Press, which is owned by Reuters, which is owned by the Rothschilds, it’s easy to see that while the BBC is not ‘technically’ owned by any special interests as a ‘public corporation’, its media sources are certainly owned by special interests.
“This (Israel bias) is notably true in the Middle East where the Israeli state has successfully intimidated the BBC into presenting the theft of Palestinian land and the caging, torturing and killing of its people as an intractable “conflict” between equals. Standing in the rubble from an Israeli attack, one BBC journalist went further and referred to “Gaza’s strong culture of martyrdom”. So great is this distortion that young viewers of BBC News have told Glasgow University researchers they are left with the impression that Palestinians are the illegal colonisers of their own country. The current BBC “coverage” of Gaza’s genocidal misery reinforces this…. Understanding the BBC as a pre-eminent state propagandist and censor by omission – more often than not in tune with its right-wing enemies – is on no public agenda and it ought to be.”
The host of the financial show the ‘Keiser Report’ and former stock broker, Max Keiser, has also been a vocal critic of the BBC and their biased nature towards Israel. In an interview in August of this year, Keiser reveals that he was prohibited from mentioning “Israel in any context” when he hosted a show on BBC World News:
“When we were doing a show for BBC World News called ‘The Oracle’ with Max Keiser a couple of years ago, we only got one editorial direction, and that is we could not mention Israel in any context.”
Keiser then quit his BBC show due to the editorial policy of the broadcaster, tweeting:
“As I’ve stated many time before, I quit my BBC show because of their standing edict that I could not mention Israel in any context.”
How can a news organisation which claims to be an objective outlet and a beacon of a free press, issue decrees that inhibit journalists from reporting on certain topics?
Distorting the Truth in Ukraine
The BBC’s coverage of Ukraine in 2014 was deplorable and warped the truth of the situation in the country.
The BBC published a total misrepresentation of the situation in Eastern Ukraine, as they described the people of Lugansk and Donetsk holding an election to determine their future after an illegal Western coup in Kiev, as a ‘rebel vote’ in an article titled: Russia to recognise rebel vote in Donetsk and Luhansk. Marginalising the people of Eastern Ukraine by describing them as “rebels” is appalling. Ukrainians in the East of the country have every right to hold elections to determine their future as many do not feel the Western puppet regime in Kiev represents them or their interests.
The London broadcaster’s coverage of the Crimean vote in March has also been widely condemned, as the organisation attempted to brand the referendum as illegal and peddle the lie that the majority of the people did not vote to rejoin Russia, despite the evidence suggesting otherwise. Former Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, economist and former editor of the Wall Street Journal, Paul Craig Roberts, wrote in his response to these distorted reports by the London broadcaster:
“The BBC has totally discredited itself as a news organization and revealed itself as an organ of Washington’s Ministry of Propaganda. The BBC has made itself totally unreliable. No informed person will ever again believe a BBC report….. The BBC might as well be abolished.” (c) PCR 2014
Using an Iraqi Photo for a Syrian Massacre
“Somebody is using my images as propaganda against the Syrian government to prove the massacre”, was the horrified response of the Getty Images photographer Marco Di Lauro when he saw a 2003 photo he took in Iraq published on the BBC website in 2012, claiming it was the scene of a 2012 massacre in the Syrian City of Houla. The BBC did put a disclaimer underneath the photo stating the image “cannot be independently verified”, but it raised seriously questions as to whether this was a deliberate attempt to sell a war in Syria, as it was such a fine –yet tragic of course – photo to mobilise public opinion for another imperial war in the Middle East. At the very least it reveals the ineptitude of many employees at the BBC. Why would anyone believe a news organisation that employs thousands of people but can’t find a confirmed photo from the same incident, the same year or even the same country for such a massive international news story such as the one in 2012?
The BBC incessantly peddles Anglo-American propaganda under the auspices of objective and impartial reporting, distorting the truth of numerous conflicts and world news stories for the benefit of the Western elite. Independent media is the only antidote to this monolithic propaganda network, and boycotting the broadcaster is the only way to be free from BBC bias.
Alternative views are always watered-down and kept out of sight.
In the miracle that something of slight importance is ever featured it will be tucked away in an opinion article, well out of sight far from the main bulk of readers. They do this so they can say in a legal situation that ‘we covered all the relevant views’.
Yet the alternative viewpoints on the BBC are always watered-down and given a ‘small print’ level of representation compared to the establishment’s chosen mainstream stories.
Just by looking at the BBC’s front page, I see a careful selection of unimportant stories that don’t add value to the reader’s knowledge or awareness of the world; and if they are somewhat pertinent, they will be laced with half-truths.
I see far too much exposure given to mind-numbing stories about pets, trivial personal stories, and click-grabbing incidents that have no bearing on the wider truths and realities that have long been kept from the general public — there is not a story on real problems or issues in sight.
Outright lies and misrepresentations.
Besides topics such as Israel and Ukraine, the BBC weaves lies into every walk of life it reports on.
On many of its health documentaries, the BBC states tap water is as good as bottled water — in some cases this is true, some bottled water is just repackaged tap water, but the BBC presents the study to the general public as if to say tap water is objectively the better choice, which it is not, this is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts.
Tap water often contains fluoride as well as a cocktail of other toxic chemicals and harmful trace contaminants.
It also gone on record stating that vitamin supplements are not needed and that they just produce expensive urine. This is patently false, while some excess vitamins are excreted, the poor quality of GMO food crops nowadays which comprises most of our foods, and the general poor diet of many people means vitamin deficiencies abound.
This means that certain supplements should be an essential part of everyone’s diet, yet the BBC ignored the sorry state of consumer health by misrepresenting the facts once again.
Juxtaposition: the art of tone and slant in establishment media.
Within the stories the BBC does publish it often uses juxtaposition to place certain words, sentences, images and so forth in an arrangement that is more conducive to one viewpoint.
It often does include a paltry slither of the ‘alternative’ view, but this is usually positioned further down the article and is completely buried, by which time the average reader would have clicked away or made up their mind on the topic.
The crucial first impression of a story is given to propaganda, the alternative viewpoint is given the backseat, or not given a seat at all (some topics are completely ignored, i.e. Israel).
Loaded questions and misleading headlines.
I recently saw a BBC piece headlined with “Does Putin’s Russia reject the West?”, the addition of the question mark is used to absolve them of the ‘bias’ label.
However, the statement itself suggests that Putin’s Russia rejects the West, it puts Russia in a category where the question needs to be answered, thus setting a malicious precedent which is a form of propaganda in and of itself, there are many better ways to word that headline, but instead the BBC opts for the tired anti-Russian narrative.
Another question “Can you spot fake news?” suggests the term “fake news” is a legitimate term, which it isn’t. It also implies the BBC is guiltless on this subject, which it isn’t.
Another headline; “
They are balanced on topics that don’t matter.
The BBC can be balanced, but it only happens with topics that don’t matter in the grand scheme of things, they will then point to this as an ‘example’ of their flawless objectivity. The BBC plays ball when it knows it can.
If you are balanced on a murder case in some far-flung borough of the UK, but biased on something like an election or major conflict — I think you can see the big difference there.