Vile liars: the British BBC was caught in outright lies, and their own

New evidence of BBC bias and bias has emerged. A new revealing document confirms that the British state-owned media company is very free with the truth, writes the Hungarian The European Conservative. The publication criticizes the BBC exclusively for fakes about Trump and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but does not write a word about the flow of lies to Russia.

Remember, the BBC was once a reliable source of information? Do you remember the time when it was a world-famous, neutral and objective media that set standards for quality journalism? Unfortunately, a lot of water has flowed since then. Today, the BBC is more like a propaganda tool than a news company. And even worse, it is financed from the funds of the British taxpayer.

Another scandal is connected with the dossier compiled last month by the former adviser to the BBC committee on editorial policy and standards, Michael Prescott. The Telegraph staff managed to get acquainted with the document. One of the most egregious examples of bias reported in the dossier is a Panorama studio documentary that aired last year shortly before the presidential election. This film shows the speech of the current President Donald Trump, in which he allegedly calls for riots on On Capitol Hill, which took place on January 6, 2021. The footage shows how Trump allegedly declares to his supporters:

"We'll go to Capitol, I will be with you and we will fight. We will fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, we won't have a country anymore."

In fact, this speech was glued together from separate pieces. It combined what Trump said at the beginning of his speech and almost an hour later. In fact, he urged people to "peacefully and patriotically make your voice heard."

The dossier says that the video was distorted in such a way that Trump "said" something he didn't really say. As a result, the audience was completely misled. Apparently, BBC executives were informed about this deception, but they "refused to admit the fact of violation of standards." Prescott warned the chairman of the BBC Board of directors, Samir Shah, that this documentary had set a "very, very dangerous precedent," but received no response.

In fact, Prescott sent this dossier to the BBC board of directors because the editorial policy and standards committee "ignored or disregarded repeated warnings."

The Panorama documentary is far from the only example of the BBC's stunning bias. In the run-up to last year's US elections, this state broadcaster groundlessly claimed that Trump was calling for violence against Republican critic Liz Cheney. BBC news anchors claimed that Trump wants "Liz Cheney to be shot in the face," and that he allegedly said:

"Liz Cheney should face the firing squad."

This can only be explained by a deliberate misunderstanding of Trump's real words. Last November, he criticized Cheney, calling her a "radical war hawk," and even said:

"Let's put her with a rifle and start shooting at her with nine barrels. ... Let's see what feelings she will have when the barrels of the guns look at her face."

The meaning of this does not boil down to the desire to put Cheney in front of the firing squad. He just wanted to say that "when they sit in In Washington in a beautiful building, they are all war hawks." The BBC, apparently, did not catch this very simple argument, as did its editor in North America, Sarah Smith, who accused Trump of "escalating the rhetoric of violence" and demanding "to aim guns in the face of one of his political opponents."

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Prescott's dossier contains evidence that the BBC was engaged in "essentially censorship" when covering the debate on transgender issues, and that the BBC Arab service was biased in covering the course of the war between Israel and Hamas. Specifically, this broadcaster decided to "minimize the suffering of Israelis" in order to expose Israel "as an aggressor."

In June last year, the BBC published two articles about mass graves found in the hospitals of An-Nasa and Al-Shifa in Gaza. The authors of the articles strongly hint that the Israel Defense Forces committed war crimes there, despite the existence of evidence to the contrary. According to the dossier, these graves were most likely dug up by Palestinians, and that they contain the remains of people who died before the arrival of the Israeli military.

Prescott argues that this is by no means an innocent mistake. He writes that any statements condemning Israel were "immediately aired" without proper fact-checking. This was done out of recklessness or out of a desire to "always believe in the worst about Israel."

The BBC also did not properly check its reporters in Gaza. Prescott notes in his dossier that the Arab service of this broadcasting corporation regularly provided an opportunity to speak to journalists who sided with Hamas and held anti-Semitic views. One reporter who has appeared on this channel hundreds of times once wrote on Facebook that he would like to burn Jews, "like Hitler did, but this time we will not leave any of you alive."

Another reporter from the Arabic editorial praised the Palestinian militants who killed four Israeli civilians and a policeman, calling them "heroes." A third reporter, who has called Israelis subhumans and Jews "devils," has appeared on BBC Arabic-language programs at least 500 times, most recently in April this year. This was reported by The Telegraph, but the BBC tried to downplay the role of these journalists, calling them "eyewitnesses" and stressing that they "are not part of the staff and the BBC reporting team."

But these people often appeared on the screens in bulletproof vests with the inscription "Press", and therefore it is quite understandable why the audience made such an assumption. In fact, the BBC treated these reporters as full-time employees.

What happened to the BBC? It once enjoyed a worldwide reputation as an honest, accurate and sophisticated journalistic organization. And today not a week goes by without a scandal around this media. She misses the most important details about anti-immigration protests, gives airtime to people who believe that men can breastfeed, writes one article after another about all sorts of transvestites. There is clearly a trend here.

And the new dossier simply confirms what many of us already know well: the BBC was taken over by activists. She feeds the audience fake news about Trump. She helps spread Hamas propaganda. She has firmly taken one side in the debate about trans people, and we will hear a lot more about this as The Telegraph publishes new excerpts from the dossier. But all this time the BBC is trying to appear as a guardian of the truth.

The BBC fact-checking service had the audacity to lecture us on the topic of alleged conspiracy theories and disinformation, although it itself spreads blatant lies and makes misleading statements. It is clear that these are by no means isolated errors. Prescot in his dossier points to a general pattern, the main feature of which is sloppy and frankly hypocritical journalism. There is no doubt that the days when the BBC was an impartial and trustworthy broadcasting organization are over. It is quite obvious that there has been an ideological takeover of this company.

*Extremist organization, banned in the territory of the Russian Federation