How the BBC Pushed Reform’s Triumph Down the Running Order and Set the News Agenda

Anyone switching on BBC Radio 4’s Six O’Clock News on Friday May 3rd 2025 in the hope of hearing more about the shock local and mayoral election results and Reform’s dramatic success was in for a surprise – unless of course the would-be listener was already familiar with BBC priorities.

As Big Ben’s chimes faded away the bulletin kicked off with “The Duke of Sussex says he would love a reconciliation with the Royal Family”…

Er, what? Some mistake, surely? Had by some mischance the BBC accidentally plugged in to a previous edition? For an extraordinary 40 seconds the headline bragged about the BBC’s exclusive non-story and featured two clips from the wittering petulant prince.

Only then did the headlines switch off to the day’s “other main news” into which Reform’s remarkable impact on the political landscape had been relegated.

Now, to be fair the BBC newsreader did say next “Reform redraws the political map…”, a line that ought to have indicated the story’s importance, and the bulletin did go on to feature extensive coverage of the day’s events. But that news only came after subjecting listeners to an incredible six minutes of the one-time spare heir’s ponderous revelations about his tortured life.

BBC1’s News at Six was almost identical, also running with (and boasting about) Harry as the exclusive top story. Incredibly though, viewers were treated to a bone-numbing 10 minutes (a staggering one-third of the programme) of Harry before the election results were touched.

One might have thought that a political party redrawing the political map would have pushed any other story out of sight. Instead, the BBC decided that an ex-pat Royal’s meandering moans were of far more significance to the nation and thus deserved top billing.

It’s a remarkable example of the national broadcaster’s and its staff’s patent devotion to subtly imposing its own agenda on the country, prioritising its ‘exclusive’ over what was so obviously the real Big Story of the day – so big in fact that it may mark the direction this country takes over the next decade. It was, by even the most elementary and banal measure an extraordinary editorial failure.

You can listen to the Radio 4 bulletin here and the BBC1 version here. You can make a complaint here, should you feel so inclined.

Anyone switching to the BBC News website was treated to much of the same. Here are its top stories for Saturday May 3rd:

Now, it’s also true that above those stories was a banner with clickable election results. And you can see from the screen grab that the election is covered but is still marginalised from the big picture of the retired royal soldier.

One has to wonder – had Labour won the day, would that have been pushed into second place? At least by Saturday morning (May 3rd) the elections had found their proper place as the top story on Today, with the Duke of Sussex suitably shunted down the running order.

At least the BBC’s Chris Mason had this to say on the BBC News website:

But it is wise, too, to acknowledge the sheer scale of this breakthrough by Reform UK.

They went into these elections with the challenge of proving that they could match in votes what the opinion polls had suggested they could.

They comfortably exceeded that high expectation which is why this is a profound moment in our contemporary politics.

Senior Reform figures believe the primary driving motivation behind their surge was that most powerful of human emotions: betrayal.

The Guardian followed the BBC’s cue, finding four Harry stories to lead with on Saturday May 3rd:

Reform’s wins were covered below but only by dismissing Nigel Farage’s suggestion that this is the “beginning of the end” for the Tories as no more than a claim, while the party was labelled “hard right” – the latter of course being a clear attempt to position Reform as a borderline fascist organisation in the eyes of its readers who no doubt spent the morning hungrily devouring the Prince Harry copy first.

The Mail was no better, running with the “sad and sorry saga” of Harry’s BBC interview as its top story. So did the Sun with ‘Harry’s Lost It‘.

Even the Times decided Saturday morning readers would be more interested in the Sussex saga:

This must have delighted the BBC newsrooms since their remit is invariably to set the news agenda for the day.

Conversely, the Telegraph grasped the moment with its top story about the six votes that shook politics (Prince Harry was pushed down the page to where he belonged):

Nigel Farage has declared the end of two-party politics after Reform secured the greatest ever local election result for an outsider party.

Reform UK has had the “Labour Party for lunch” and “wiped out” the Conservatives in parts of England, he said, after delivering a heavy defeat to the mainstream parties.

The party has taken control of 10 local councils, winning hundreds of seats across localities from Durham to Kent and toppling a 14,000-strong Labour majority in a parliamentary by-election.

Mr Farage vowed to use his party’s newfound foothold in local government to close hotels housing asylum-seekers and cut public spending in a similar approach to Elon Musk, the tech billionaire, and his DOGE department in the US.

Sir Keir Starmer told voters “we get it” as he vowed to move faster with Government delivery, while Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, issued a public apology.

Sir Keir Starmer is widely quoted as saying yesterday “I get it”. But does the BBC and some of its slavish cohorts among the print media? It seems not.

Subscribe
Notify of

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.

46 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Valerie_London
Valerie_London
11 months ago

It’s a waste of time complaining to the BBC. I did so about their coverage of lockdown protests and their unbalanced and dismissive (and at times non-existent) coverage of those marches. The response I eventually got was nothing short of gaslighting, denial and directing me to a link to escalate my complaint, which of course didn’t work.

Their arrogance knows no bounds.

Prickly Thistle
Prickly Thistle
11 months ago
Reply to  Valerie_London

At least you got a response. I tried to complain about Countryfile and got an automatic response claiming that they had too many emails to reply to.

robnicholson
robnicholson
11 months ago
Reply to  Valerie_London

>Their arrogance knows no bounds

A rather dangerous stance IMO considering this is what Grok has to say about Reform’s view of the BBC license fee:

Reform UK, led by Nigel Farage, strongly opposes the BBC licence fee, advocating for its complete abolition. The party views the fee as “taxation without representation” and considers the BBC “out-of-touch,” “wasteful,” and “institutionally biased.” Their manifesto pledges to scrap the £174.50 annual fee, arguing that in a world of on-demand TV, people should have the freedom to choose what they pay for, potentially shifting the BBC to a subscription-based model. Reform MPs, such as Lee Anderson and Rupert Lowe, have publicly emphasized this stance, with Lowe stating the fee would be scrapped “on day one” if Reform wins power in 2029. The party criticizes the coercive nature of the fee, including the threat of prosecution for non-payment, and believes the BBC should “stand on its own two feet” financially.

transmissionofflame
11 months ago
Reply to  robnicholson

I’m disappointed if Reform merely want to change the charging mechanism. The BBC needs to be privatised. The state has no business being involved in any way with a media empire. Ofcom should also lose its role as a content regulator.

robnicholson
robnicholson
11 months ago

Good point – I have no idea how they envisaged the BBC would then be run. How is it financed now? Who actually employees the BBC staff? Off to ask Grok…

robnicholson
robnicholson
11 months ago
Reply to  robnicholson

BBC staff are legally employed by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), a public service broadcaster established under a Royal Charter. The BBC operates as a statutory corporation, meaning it is a publicly funded entity with its own legal personality, distinct from the UK government. Employees, including journalists, presenters, and support staff, are contracted directly by the BBC or its subsidiaries, such as BBC Studios for commercial activities.

How a “statutory corporation” is run is my next research but later…

transmissionofflame
11 months ago
Reply to  robnicholson

The Director General is appointed by the Board, the Board is appointed by the Government.

robnicholson
robnicholson
11 months ago

So net zero risk of political meddling is there? 😉

transmissionofflame
11 months ago
Reply to  robnicholson

Indeed. In practice the media generally in the rich world appears to be dominated by lefties, both those who own and run it and those who work in it. So privatisation wouldn’t necessarily change the political slant but it would mean I am not forced to pay for it and the imprimatur of authority lent the BBC by its association with the state would gradually be lost.

Gezza England
Gezza England
11 months ago

The US media is dominated by the Far Left and has spent years lying to the people but now the result is that trust in them has never been lower as the people can only be lied to for so long especially as internet sites exist the tell people the truth.

transmissionofflame
11 months ago
Reply to  Gezza England

Yup, with the possible exception of Fox.

zebedee
zebedee
11 months ago
Reply to  Valerie_London

I complained about Joke O’Burn saying on the Daily Politics that Trump had said that Boris would make a better PM than May a few seconds after they had played the clip of him saying something quite different. The response I got from BBC Complaints could only be described as verbal diarrhoea.

stewart
11 months ago
Reply to  Valerie_London

The media, and especially the BBC, isn’t there to report and inform of the reality of the moment. It is there to create reality.

The BBC is always doing its job of telling the public what the establishment wants it to think. And what people are programmed to think becomes reality.

So lockdown protests are important if the news makes them so. Reform causes an electoral landslide if the media allow it. And the establishment certainly doesn’t want it to happen.

The only reason it might still is because they don’t fully control social media and the Internet. Yet. But they’re working on it.

varmint
11 months ago
Reply to  Valerie_London

I received a text the other day, apparently from the BBC (although you never know these days if texts are some scam or other) asking for my opinion on the future of the BBC. I won’t be replying to it because I know it will make not the slightest difference what I think. They will continue to be the British Brainwashing Corporation.

Prickly Thistle
Prickly Thistle
11 months ago

“We get it” says Keir. No you don’t and probably never will, just like the Tories.

robnicholson
robnicholson
11 months ago

In the pub last night I found myself saying “Even if nothing comes of this shift today, surely it will spur Labour and Conservative to sit up and take notice? That must be good?”. There was silence for a few seconds before laughter “Of course they won’t”.

Jon Garvey
11 months ago

His response was akin to the German government taking AfD’s leading the polls as a public criticism of its backing off on immigration and de-industrialisation.

Gezza England
Gezza England
11 months ago

The main response was to go harder and faster on policies that are tanking the economy, costing jobs, making people poorer, covering up the Pakistani rape gangs and allowing the continued flow of immigrant scum. Which are what people were voting against on Thursday but who ever accused Two Tier of being very bright.

robnicholson
robnicholson
11 months ago

My left-leaning friends are surprisingly quiet about all of this. I’m not going to prod the sleeping bear because I’ve had my head bitted off too many times about lockdowns, vaccines, Ukraine, Net Zero, woke and voting Reform at election. I’ll just gloat quietly for now.

transmissionofflame
11 months ago
Reply to  robnicholson

I have found it impossible to discuss political matters with most people I know, who I have discovered are mainly rabidly intolerant. I struggle to completely respect them because of that. We have very few friends left with whom we feel free to speak our minds. Many former friends and family we simply have nothing to do with anymore.

robnicholson
robnicholson
11 months ago

Indeed, similar story here. Which is also depressing. I help admin a local Facebook group where the community banned political discussion because most debates rapidly go toxic. A shame really as there are some key issues that the community does need to talk about.

transmissionofflame
11 months ago
Reply to  robnicholson

It’s sad and frustrating. I love a good debate.

Gezza England
Gezza England
11 months ago

The rise of the intolerant liberal far left is the culprit as they are so convinced they are wrong despite all the evidence to the contrary. The left always whine when they lose elections that it was not the policies.

robnicholson
robnicholson
11 months ago
Reply to  robnicholson

I’ve just re-read my post and the number of items on there is depressing. I’m sure everyone can add more. Might gaslight myself and say I’ve got it horribly wrong every time?

PS. the “quite” spelling mistake I left above annoys me but I assume you can’t edit after a post has a comment?

transmissionofflame
11 months ago
Reply to  robnicholson

The edit button disappears after a while.

robnicholson
robnicholson
11 months ago

Makes sense. I really wish X allowed you to do that. Number of times I find myself copying a post, deleting it and re-adding. Anyway, we digress 😉

Cotfordtags
11 months ago

This is totally off topic but no one else is mentioning it as far as I can tell. Keir Starmer is, as we know, obsessed with Ukraine and obviously thinks this is the only way to make himself look good. But what the hell are Ukrainians doing joining the VE Day march. I know there was fluidity with some Ukrainians changing sides during WW2, similar to Italy as the war was coming to an end, but they fell into two camps, German supporters and USSR supporters. Starmer and Johnson allies, for want of a much better term, mostly trace back to the pro-German forces and some even wore their WW2 insignia, where our WW2 allies are now solidly pro-Russia. So who will be marching on Monday, our allies then who delivered victory in Europe or the ones we support now, who fought against victory in Europe?

RW
RW
11 months ago
Reply to  Cotfordtags

Let’s hope it’s going to be the communists and that they’ll all carry large Stalin banners with them. That’s tribute Britain has rightfully earned.

Heretic
Heretic
11 months ago
Reply to  Cotfordtags

Well done for noticing that appalling news! I added this earlier at the end of the comments under today’s News Round-up, and here’s the beginning of it:

May I add the disturbing news today that Ukrainian troops are to join British troops for the Victory in Europe celebrations:
Ukraine troops to join British forces for VE Day procession

What exactly were Ukrainian troops doing during WW2? Here’s an illuminating BBC archived article that seems to be partially blocked, so I have copied it below for your information, in case it gets blocked again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4739645.stm
Last Updated: Tuesday, 2 August 2005, 18:03 GMT 19:03 UK

“UK ‘DIDN’T WANT’ UKRAINIAN NAZIS”

“British officials were very uneasy about the decision to allow AN ENTIRE UKRAINIAN SS DIVISION TO SETTLE IN THE UK in 1947, newly released files show.”

[See the rest of the archived article at the end of today’s News Round-up comments]

*******************************************
So why are they being allowed to march with British Troops for VE Day?

And why were the Ukrainian Nazis protected from repatriation to Stalin, while the White Russians were not?

It seems a travesty.

RW
RW
11 months ago
Reply to  Heretic

The people you’re here referring to as “Ukrainian Nazis” were Ukrainians who fought for an independent Ukraine. Hence, they naturally allied with the Germans who fought against Russian communism. Ukraine became independent thrice in the 20th century and the first two times, Britain was instrumental in bringing it back under a brutal Russian yoke because British politicians thought this was in the best interest of the Empire. This means Britain is responsible (among others) for about as many dead Ukrainians as the so-called Nazis reportedly killed jews.

If there’s a moral highground in this story, Britain has certainly doesn’t deserve it¹. Especially when also considering the almost as large number of German civilians who also got killed because of this and the plentiful victims of 50 years of communist rule in eastern Europe.

¹ Nothing particularly special as human history is no superhero movie where good guys fight bad guys. This wartime fairly tale kept alive because of its continued political usefulness ought to go away again.

Art Simtotic
11 months ago

Sir Two-Tier “gets it,” just like he got energy bills, the national insurance increase, the farm tax, VAT on school fees, scrapping the winter fuel allowance, coercive use of remand, not knowing what a woman is, etc, etc.

Purpleone
11 months ago

Funny I added exactly true same thoughts to the news page a while back. I watched a bit of Iplayer as well yesterday, and even during the bit of the news about the election they kept shrinking the screen to show the bloody Harry story / a QR code to link to it etc on the right hand side… I got the impression that ‘story’ has cost them a lot, so they really, really wanted to push it. Sky news at 6 yesterday wasn’t much better mind…

zebedee
zebedee
11 months ago

I can’t listen or watch because I cancelled my TV licence during Covid. Now I don’t have to worry about the BBC’s misinformation.

Heretic
Heretic
11 months ago
Reply to  zebedee

You can see excerpts on Youtube…

JXB
JXB
11 months ago

Nigel Farage has declared the end of two-party politics…”

This “analysis” is doing the rounds and is quite wrong. We have had two Party politics since the beginning of Parliament – I doubt it will end. What is likely ended is the current duopoly of Labour and Conservative.

The question is what well the new duopoly be: Labour and Reform UK or Conservative and Reform UK? My money is on the former since we have enough goons, loons, useful idiots and public sector workers, unions, welfare recipients of one sort or another to support Socialism and Labour… the hand that feeds them.

From the 18th Century the two Parties were The Whigs (Liberals) and The Tories (Conservatives) until the 1920s when Labour with its origins in the second half of the 19th Century, was elected to Government. This spelled the end of the Liberals whose fortunes decline and its dregs are now to be found in the Liberal Democrat Party, and the start of a new duopoly which we have had… perhaps until Thursday.

CircusSpot
CircusSpot
11 months ago
Reply to  JXB

Possibly ReformUK v the new other Party the Labour Democratic and Unionist Party combining Lab, Tory & Lib Dem’s!

Heretic
Heretic
11 months ago
Reply to  JXB

But political parties were only invented in Parliament in the 17th century!

For all the centuries before that, Members of Parliament were respected local worthies from various useful professions and businesses (NOT LAWYERS), who were tasked with representing the best interests of their own constituents, and were not burdened or constricted by the dictates of any political party, because there were none. MPs were all Independents for centuries, and somehow the nation managed to survive and thrive without political parties at all! We should go back to that.

Myra
11 months ago
Reply to  Heretic

Great idea!

Claphamanian
Claphamanian
11 months ago

An interview that further damaged relations between the Royals.

If the two brothers and The Wife had been sensible they could have created a House of Diana. One that could have lasted longer than the House of Windsor might.

Hound of Heaven
Hound of Heaven
11 months ago

The magisterium at the BBC was being treated for severe shock and was advised to avoid directly confronting the genuine magnitude of an event which could have posed a serious threat to its collective health.

Heretic
Heretic
11 months ago

Dan Wooton did a good review of this on his “Outspoken” Youtube channel, and pointed out that Harry has said more than once that he wants Meghan to be Queen…

So that’s something to look forward to, isn’t it? 🙁

transmissionofflame
11 months ago
Reply to  Heretic

The Lord preserve us!

David
David
11 months ago

Maybe someone should tell Megs that being married to a king called Henry didn’t work out well.

varmint
11 months ago

One of the main BBC tactics ———–OMMISSION. They might not tell bare faced lies as such but instead they just don’t speak about something they don’t like, or they push it aside or to the bottom of the pile.

Covid-1984
Covid-1984
11 months ago

Cancel your BBC licence already.

Epi
Epi
11 months ago

Haven’t watched or listened to the Bullshit Broadcasting Company ever since their disgraceful performance during the scamdemic. Same for the MSM including the Telegraph. It’s all a government propaganda machine. A plague on all their houses.