The BBC: My Part In Its Downfall

The BBC has always been very Left-wing. But it didn’t used to be biased.

I should know because I was one of those identikit Left-wingers who worked at the BBC for 25 years. Everyone thought the same: Thatcher was mad, the poll tax was evil, immigration was a good thing, the rich should be taxed and nuclear weapons were immoral. These liberal-Left attitudes were shared by the vast majority of the people I worked with in the British Broadcasting Corporation. With a few exceptions.

I remember a quiet young man called Robbie Gibb who appeared in the BBC’s Millbank complex in Westminster in the 1990s when I was presenting BBC political programmes there. He was a Tory, so I was informed, as if he had some affliction which was unfortunate but which should be respected and not mocked.

And on the whole he was respected. The general view on the shop floor back then was that the BBC needed more political diversity in its own ranks. Though he did always appear just a little bit isolated. However, I can honestly say his views were much more respected on screen than off. We may have been Left-wing but we went to great lengths not to let it show.

I remember trying to persuade the late Enoch Powell to come on Westminster Live for nothing – he demanded a fee when it was not BBC practice to pay politicians. I didn’t agree with his views on race, nor did the producers of the programme, but we wanted his voice to be heard. The idea that someone who opposed immigration was not suitable to be broadcast was just not something anyone ever argued, to my knowledge.

You may say I’m being naïve here and perhaps I am. Of course our unconscious biases probably ended up being reflected in the kinds of issues that we showcased on news and current affairs. But this cultural bias in the BBC, a result of its recruitment of politically-literate humanities graduates, was counteracted by an almost religious observance of impartiality. It really was a kind of cult in the BBC then. Letting your views show on air was seen as just as much a violation of the BBC’s ‘mission to explain’, as the then BBC director general John Birt put it, but deeply unprofessional and uncool. At least that’s how I remember it. Others may have different recollections.

When Tony Blair was elected in 1997 everyone I worked with seemed relieved, glad, optimistic. Rejoice! The Tories were dead and buried. However, we all realised that we had to bend over backwards now to hold Labour to account over lobbying, spin, spending, defence, Europe and a whole range of issues. The idea that it was our job to amplify or validate Labour’s policies and prejudices would have seemed outrageous.

So when did this all change? Well I think I can just about date it to 2014 or so and the issue was climate change. For the first time the BBC said to its staff that this cult of impartiality should no longer apply. So no more platforming of critics of climate change like the former Tory Chancellor Nigel Lawson, the popular TV botanist David Bellamy, or indeed Piers Corbyn, the brother of the Left-wing Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn. The science was conclusive, said the BBC, declaring that there should be no ‘two sides-ism’ which might lead viewers to think that there was a legitimate argument against climate change.

The comparison was with Nazism. You would not give the fascist point of view in a debate nor would you platform a racist. Opposing climate change became ‘climate change denial’ – equivalent to Holocaust denial, which of course was illegal in Germany. That was the moment that the impartiality cult was dropped.

Now I agree that the scientific consensus is clear and that anthropogenic climate change is happening and that we are partly responsible for it. But the trouble with refusing to debate an issue is that it is no longer tested. It becomes a dogma. The whole crucial issue of what to do about climate change went by default. Whatever the popes of climate change said was automatically assumed to be true.

Oil and gas were simply evil and to be shunned, even though 75% of our energy is still derived from it. Cars were bad, flying wrong, central heating an infestation and industrial farming an affront to nature. This approach informed just about every BBC programme. As if in wartime, BBC programmes were all about how to do the right thing. How to rewild nature, install renewable energy, stop using chemicals, reduce car miles, use bicycles etc. Like supporting your nation in a war, going green was seen as a moral absolute to be promoted without question. Yet, the inconvenient truth, to paraphrase Al Gore, is that our society is inconceivable without energy and most of it still comes from carbon-based fuel and will do for many years to come.

The omertà on discussion led to the absurdity of the UK closing down the North Sea oil and gas industry, endangering tens of thousands of jobs, just so we could import the oil and gas we still need from abroad. The dogmatic rejection of ‘unnatural’ pesticides and herbicides ignored the reality that productive agriculture is impossible without them. The promotion of ‘clean energy’ ignored the fact that it isn’t actually all that clean and that constructing wind farms and the paraphernalia of renewable energy brings its own problems, not least unaffordable electricity bills which have left a third of the country in fuel poverty. Green is not always good.

The ‘no debate’ idea quickly spread from climate change to other issues. Transgender people insisted that there should be no debate about their existence any more than there should be debate about global warming. The BBC adopted this uncritically from around 2015. There is a famous discussion with Victoria Derbyshire and a group of four transgender advocates where Susie Green of Mermaids remarks that her own daughter told her “when she was four” that “God had made a mistake and she should have been a girl”. The academic and feminist, Germaine Greer, was summarily cancelled after she said that “just cutting off your dick doesn’t make you a woman”. The BBC installed an LGBTQ correspondent who became a kind of witch-finder general damning heresy against the transgender ideology, as the leaked report from the former BBC editorial adviser Michael Prescott exposed. Male sex offenders were referred to as women. Drag queens became ubiquitous. Gender transitioners were invariably celebrated for their ‘courage’. It took the Supreme Court and the Cass Review in 2024 to make the BBC question the gospel according to Stonewall.

Then of course we had Black Lives Matter and the UK media collectively took the knee after a black man died in police custody in Minneapolis. Militant demonstrators, who took to the streets during Covid lockdown, causing injuries to 27 police officers, were generally regarded as virtuous opponents of racism.

Donald Trump opposed climate change, critical race theory and transgender ideology so he was clearly an agent of the devil. Statements from Trump invariably included references to his ‘lack of evidence’ and ‘unfounded’ complaints. Many of his remarks were indeed outrageous and his claims unfounded. But so are the remarks of most politicians.

Trump became quarantined as a kind of moral infection. The objection to his policies became a kind of knee-jerk reaction to politicians of the Right like Nigel Farage who, along with the Daily Mail, became the butt of endless unfunny jokes on Have I Got News for You. The comedienne, Jo Brand, famously said that she wished the Reform leader had been pelted pelted “with battery acid” instead of milkshakes.

Comedy was the one area where the BBC felt it could be unashamedly Left-wing because if anyone criticised it they could be accused of lacking a sense of humour or being a supporter of the far Right. This became so ubiquitous on shows like the News Quiz, Dead Ringers and even the formerly hilarious Now Show that they became all but unlistenable even to people of the Left like me.

So we are where we are now, which is the worst crisis the BBC has faced over, yes, Donald Trump, race and transgenderism. The BBC has responded to criticism of editorial standards by its own adviser, Michael Prescott, by attacking the same Robbie Gibb, now a BBC governor, of leading a “Right-wing coup” in league with the Tory press. The Today programme turned into a party political broadcast on behalf of its right-thinking employees, thus inadvertently exposing the reality of political bias. It should have reported the crisis dispassionately and analysed the content of the Prescott Report into BBC bias rather than trying to deflect attention from it. The thin skein of BBC impartiality was finally ripped apart.

Perhaps it is impossible for the BBC to continue after this split. As critical friends like the former BBC politics presenter Andrew Marr and the former defence correspondent Mark Urban have pointed out, there is now a generation of activist-minded graduates running BBC programmes who think that they should, like broadcasters in wartime, be taking sides. They think the BBC should be promoting social justice, opposing environmental catastrophe and depriving anti-immigrant populists of the oxygen of publicity. Only they cannot do this and still be the BBC proper. Now that Reform is leading the opinion polls the BBC cannot exclude Nigel Farage or sack Robbie Gibb. The “coup” theory only points up the fact that there are many members of the BBC Board of Governors like Muriel Gray, formerly of The Tube, who could not exactly be called Tories.

The howls of anguish from the legions of BBC supporters on X only exposes the reality that the BBC now is biased as it always has been – but it has unfortunately stopped realising that it is.

Iain Macwhirter, a former BBC political correspondent and TV presenter, is a columnist for the Times and the author of Disunited Kingdom. This article was first published on his Substack page.

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.

49 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
RW
RW
4 months ago

Nobody ever disputed that people who believe to be “transgender” exist. Considering how vocal they are, that would be quite idiotic. What is “disputed” or rather, outright rejected, is their claim that we – as people who were born with a certain sex but no gender – don’t exist.

This kind of inversion is typical, BTW.

JeremyP99
4 months ago
Reply to  RW

“Gender” does not exist. It’s a fantasy. Normally, fantasies are not legislated on behalf of.

RW
RW
4 months ago
Reply to  JeremyP99

It’s a abstract category/ construct from some “social science” theory. This basically means it’s a somewhat glorified fantasy but that’s a nice illustration of this mechanism: Some people relationship theorists at a US univerisity comes up with some theory about relationships of people and even if it flatly flies in the face of a reality, as the claim that people aren’t sexually reproducing mammals obviously does, it now becomes another “settled science” and people whose opinions differ are defined as morally repugnant because of this.

“There are two kinds of people in the world, the just and the unjust, and the just decide who is who.”

RTSC
RTSC
4 months ago
Reply to  RW

The Transgender Religion requires FAITH that, if a man simply says “I am a woman” then magically, he becomes one.

And, just like during the Reformation, if you do not accept the Dogma and accept the FAITH as dictated to you by the High Priests of the Religion, then you are a heretic and should (figuratively speaking) be burned at the Stake.

The Transgender Religion is the first example that I can think of in the UK where the Establishment has attempted to brainwash and bully the entire population in order to pander to the delusional mental health illness of a tiny minority.

CircusSpot
CircusSpot
4 months ago

Trump and Brexit unhinged the globalist minority to such an extent that there is no way back for the BBC to be impartial. Only cutting the funding, the number of channels and wavelengths and enforcing a subscription service might save some part of it.

Gezza England
Gezza England
4 months ago
Reply to  CircusSpot

The news operation should be shut down for a start.

huxleypiggles
4 months ago
Reply to  CircusSpot

The BBC is now so tarnished as to be irrelevant except perhaps as a source of comedy.

kev
kev
4 months ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

Sadly a lot of the “comedy” is unfunny nowadays, trying to be woke and PC.

Historically though, some of the best ever.

JeremyP99
4 months ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

Radio 3 is good, tho’ dumbing down. And R5/5+ for sport.

We junked our TV 20 years ago, sick of the BBC. And both of us once R4 fans. As soon as Jenni Murray turned Women’s Hour (keen male listener) into Transgender Hour, and Today became a cesspit, that was that.

As for “comedy”. God help us.

Gezza England
Gezza England
4 months ago

A very good insight into the fall of the BBC although the author is wrong on climate change of course. The rot might have started prior to 2014 but the Climate Gate scandal was a definite step to the Far Left. Without a massive clear out of personnel I cannot see how the BBC can plot a path back to impartiality.

Norfolk-Sceptic
Norfolk-Sceptic
4 months ago
Reply to  Gezza England

The BBC started the climate narrative in the Autumn of 2001 with a climate announcement that followed a weather forecast. At the time it sounded more like a warning, but with no information on how to respond. A few days later, after much thinking, I realised it was a threat.

The problem then, and still is, is that all those that speak for the BBC appear to be devoid of any basic STEM knowledge. And if you have attained the knowledge expected in the A level Physics/Chemistry courses, a bit of Common Sense, the rudimentals of Engineering/Business practices, and a working brain, it would be obvious that the Climate Change Narrative is wishful thinking, at best, and can be accurately described as Propaganda.

DiscoveredJoys
DiscoveredJoys
4 months ago

“They think the BBC should be promoting social justice, opposing environmental catastrophe and depriving anti-immigrant populists of the oxygen of publicity.”

I’m quite happy for the BBC to continue doing this. Free speech after all. But I don’t think people should be compelled to pay for this stance, whether they like it or not.

MadWolf303
MadWolf303
4 months ago
Reply to  DiscoveredJoys

They have broken the covenant..

EppingBlogger
4 months ago
Reply to  DiscoveredJoys

No!

Quangos, their management and staff have no right to do anything other than deliver their statutory objectives. Political views are for voters not tax payer funded nomenklatura.

Is tge plural of nomenklatura need ae or as.

Hardliner
4 months ago
Reply to  EppingBlogger

Nomenclatures

Solentviews
Solentviews
4 months ago

“Now I agree that the scientific consensus is clear and that anthropogenic climate change is happening and that we are partly responsible for it”… Really disappointing to see this. It shows a complete lack of critical thinking. The facts don’t support this: 1. CO2 can no longer contribute significantly to any warming. It is saturated (at around 300ppm) and even if the concentration was doubled there would be no noticeable effect. 2. CO2 has been (according to ice core) at levels 500% more than today (2000pm). The planet did just fine. 3. All the spikes in CO2 over the last few million years show it LAGS temperature rises on Eatth, it doesn’t precede it. Warm water (oceans) cannot hold as much dissolved CO2 so it is released into the atmosphere and the atmospheric quantity increases. 4. Finally, (not that it matters), nature produces 97% of global CO2. The 3% from humans is a rounding error. The manufactured ‘scientific consensus’ is because researchers want to keep their jobs. There is NO future in most universities if you point out the (very minimal) climate change over the past 40 years is nothing to worry about and is perfectly normal. Mr Macwhirter, I… Read more »

Boomer Bloke
4 months ago
Reply to  Solentviews

Agreed. CO2 is plant food. The more they get the better they do. Our biology is carbon based, as is all life on Earth apart from a vanishingly small number of organisms with alternative biochemistry. We require carbon to live, at a molecular level and functional level. And scientists know this.

rhn
rhn
4 months ago
Reply to  Solentviews

Absolutely. Either MacWhirter can’t read, or he has no interest in fact. There is no credible evidence that natural climate change is anthropogenic. Indeed, as the data shows, it is cyclical, not linear. We have had the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming Period, both of which lasted centuries but from which ‘normal service’, as it were, resumed.

Boomer Bloke
4 months ago

The author’s carefully calibrated position on these issues makes this hard to read, and I barely got past “anthropogenic climate change is happening”. However everything he has said confirms my long held view (which was initiated by the TV licensing organisation bullying my half blind mother for her license fee) that the BBC should be split up, sold off, the word British reclaimed and rehabilitated from its branding and the consumers allowed to decide where to put their media expenditure. They think they have become too big to fail. They haven’t.

Norfolk-Sceptic
Norfolk-Sceptic
4 months ago
Reply to  Boomer Bloke

When I think of what should happen to the BBC, I think of what the Romans finally did to Carthage.

MadWolf303
MadWolf303
4 months ago

Yet another insider comment, who cannot see that the entire operation has been taken over and turned into a left wing/commie cult….that is in itself fine, let them say and do as they please……but what they cannot do is force everyone, on pain of being jailed and given a criminal record , is to pay for them…they have broken the covenant, it is over.

huxleypiggles
4 months ago

Now I agree that the scientific consensus is clear and that anthropogenic climate change is happening and that we are partly responsible for it.”

Oh dear, oh dear. Utterly clueless.

varmint
4 months ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

He is correct there is a “consensus” —–Of Global Government Technocrats at the UN and WEF, of their lackeys in National Governments (Miliband etc), of Government funded data adjusters (scientists), and of a bought and paid for media. ——-This is a Political consensus though, not a scientific one, because in science consensus has no role to play.

Norfolk-Sceptic
Norfolk-Sceptic
4 months ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

The Left, and many more, must think that Scientists make up Scientific Laws on a whim, like they, the Left, do for geopolitical ‘opportunities’.

varmint
4 months ago

“Now I agree that the scientific consensus is clear”—–But matters of science are not decided by a show of hands. This should have been a RED FLAG for you to realise that Climate Change is POLITICS, not SCIENCE. —Consensus allows the many to say what no individual can say which is POLITICS. The other thing to realise is that most of what passes as science on this issue is actually Computer Modelling. But models full of assumptions, guesses and speculations are not science and they are not evidence of anything. There are no experts or scientists who know what the climate is going to do in 50 or 100 years time, and if they tell you they do they are lying.

kev
kev
4 months ago
Reply to  varmint

Totally agree with your initial point, and that was the comment that leapt from the article for me. However, I think the author has made a reasonable effort to be objective, having been in that BBC/Metropolitan/Lefty bubble, surrounded by wall to wall groupthink and being fearful of daring to question the dogma and orthodoxy, Considering his other well reasoned points, he can maybe be forgiven for that one erroneous comment, his transition to sceptic is still ongoing! I don’t mean that to be condescending, but my experience in the world of skepticism, red pilling and awakening means you can take nothing from “official” sources as any kind of truth, you have to literally question everything we’re told by MSM. Perhaps the only thing I’m prepared to believe from the BBC is the football (and other sports) results, that is pretty much it! Everything else has an agenda. It was the whole Climate scam that awakened my skepticism and questioning, once you see the lie (or BS) in one matter, it makes you question it all, or it should. If you sort of instinctively know they are lying about “Climate”, why would you give them a free pass on “Vaccines” and… Read more »

rocky44
rocky44
4 months ago
Reply to  kev

Some comments here are a bit harsh on someone who admits he’s beginning to see the light. Let the man continue his journey!

Norfolk-Sceptic
Norfolk-Sceptic
4 months ago
Reply to  varmint

Or, at least, the Climate Change Worshipers don’t know know enough to spend several trillion of our money, today.

Andrea Cooke
Andrea Cooke
4 months ago

I mourn the BBC for what it once was, in particular Radio 4. As a teenager I started listening to Radio 4 in the late 1980s. It was like having a clever, chatty companion in the room or the car. Adults talking about fascinating subjects, their lives, their profession. Through my years raising children it saved my mind. Then, as this article suggests, something noticeably changed around the 2010s. An ideological contagion had swept through its content. Identity Politics contaminated everything. No longer a discussion with a Solar Physicist, instead it was all arranged around the aforementioneds sexual orientation, race, gender and most importantly of all, their tale of woe. It was a constant stream of VICTIMS and how they suffered. As the listener, it felt as though somehow this was my fault, my responsibility. Instead of my chatty companion, the Radio was now a pulpit from which a scolding admonishment emanated, much like a Puritan priest. Only this time it was of a secular Church. I haven’t listened to Radio 4 for over a decade. It simply ceased to be a pleasure, more an act of self harm.
Mores the pity…

EppingBlogger
4 months ago
Reply to  Andrea Cooke

Let us always remember which party ran the government and “negotiated” (as if the BBC itself should have any say other than on purely technical issues) a charter renewal.

GlassHalfFull
4 months ago

If the BBC were “left wing” they would have supported Corbyn.
They didn’t and did hit pieces on him instead.
The BBC is “liberal” to its core NOT left wing.

RTSC
RTSC
4 months ago
Reply to  GlassHalfFull

Corbyn was anti-EU.

GlassHalfFull
4 months ago
Reply to  RTSC

Yes, one of his many good points.
Many of us on the left were anti-EU.
It was the “liberals” in the Labour Party that wanted to Remain.

Kev
Kev
4 months ago

Sadly this organization has the greatest global reach of any media.

EppingBlogger
4 months ago

I suppose the BBC staff want a carve-out from bans on plastics and hydrocarbon use generally so the public can still have TVs and a reason to keep them at the standard of living they are used to. Or did they imagine TVs would be made from grass or the license fee would be maintained even when no one had a device to receive their pearls of propaganda.

Myra
4 months ago

You forgot to mention Covid….

Epi
Epi
4 months ago

Now I agree that the scientific consensus is clear and that anthropogenic climate change is happening and that we are partly responsible for it.”

Proof please – No models allowed especially from Imperial College!

Prickly Thistle
Prickly Thistle
4 months ago

Stopped reading when I got to the bit where you said that we humans were causing climate change.

You were also complicit in SNP getting away with murder.

Hang your head in shame.

coviture2020
coviture2020
4 months ago

In a nutshell thankyou

shred
shred
4 months ago

The thought of Huw Edwards receiving £300k pension while looking at his laptop is too much to take. And the £415 pa paid to the Radio 4 presenter who was allowed to present BBC lies all morning makes paying the licence to watch their propaganda even more sickening.

RTSC
RTSC
4 months ago

“Now I agree that the scientific consensus is clear”

No it isn’t. As you rightly point out in this article, anyone who disagreed with the CON was de-platformed, silenced, cancelled and branded a heretic.

As for the BBC’s left-wing bias, it started under Thatcher, not 2014, and the issue was the EEC/EC/EU.

The Contemptible
The Contemptible
4 months ago

“Now I agree that the scientific consensus is clear,,,”

Politics requires consensus, science requires evidence. There is increasing evidence that the consensus is wholly wrong, not that anybody who gets their news from the BBC or the bulk of the mainstream media would ever hear that.

Jaguar
Jaguar
4 months ago

Why was there a protest on Jan 6th? Because the 2020 election was rigged. The most blatant, egregious bias in the history of any media organisation is the BBC’s refusal to see the mountain of evidence showing that Trump was far more popular than Biden in 2020.

Sarony
Sarony
4 months ago

It is not clear who, at the BBC, ruled that impartiality on climate change should go out the window. Was it one person, a committee or, simply, a general consensus?

Less government
4 months ago

Some 3,500 comments on the DT article today about the BBC is pretty clear. The knives are out and you had better run for the hills.
Just for your information, the Climate Crisis is B.S. And the medical abuse of children in relation to their gender is one of the most disgusting crimes condoned by the BBC. They are also complicit in the killing of thousands by the Covid injections and many more with serious injuries. The “safe and effective” propaganda was right up the BBC’s street. There is no organisation more repulsive than the BBC. It needs burying alive.
How much funding did you receive from the Gates Foundation?

rhn
rhn
4 months ago

the scientific consensus is clear and that anthropogenic climate change is happening and that we are partly responsible for it. ‘. Please, please, stop promulgating this fiction. Climate change is indeed happening – as it has been since the dawn of time. There is no ‘scientific consensus’. Many reputable scientists – some Nobel Prizers – have set out evidence showing that much of what is taken as ‘anthropogenic’ is the result of natural forces – sun, earth rotation etc. Don’t take my word for it – here are two appropriate links:
Climate – the movie: https://vimeo.com/924719370?share=copy
The Great GW Swindle https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pIRICfZOvpY.

Boris
Boris
4 months ago

“Now I agree that the scientific consensus is clear and that anthropogenic climate change is happening and that we are partly responsible for it”.

What ! Is this guy for real?

johnnythefish
johnnythefish
4 months ago

‘Consensus’ is for politics, not science.

Plus there isn’t an overwhelming ‘consensus’ amongst scientists anyway – it is a deceit based upon a fraudulent analysis of scientific papers.

rhn
rhn
4 months ago

As they say, ‘News is made in the edit’. This is crucial to understand the BBC’s bias – what they report, who they offer airtime to comment and how guests are questioned. This, as much as what contributors say, is part of the bias diagnosis.