Red telephone boxes, tea, fish & chips and James Bond. All marvellous institutions associated with our great nation.
But the BBC?
Hardly. These days the first B may as well stand for ‘Brussels’.
Let’s cast our minds back to two summers ago. The Brexit vote was the beginning of a populist uprising across Europe and America, and it has led to a newfound sense of Euroscepticism. This has stuck in the craw of Auntie so much that its angry face can be easily seen beneath the thin veil it attempts to keep over its bias towards the European Union.
It would be somewhat innocent of us to think that broadcasting corporations don’t have an agenda. ITV, Channel 4 and Sky news outlets have all at times conveyed a sense of claptrap liberal preaching. This, coupled with a generous portion of their staff showing a sense of sympathy to anything that drifts to the left-wing – whether it be to our faces on-screen or on their Twitter feeds – of the British political spectrum, but the difference with the BBC is that they charge the British taxpayer £147.50 a year for the privilege. And that will soon rise by another £3.50 on April 1st. They obviously take us for fools.
It would be bad enough to think that the money of hard-working people alone was keeping the BBC afloat, but there’s plenty of other income that they like to hide from us as much as possible.
Between April 2011 and November 2013, the BBC successfully applied for £3million from the European Union. This information was kept from the public until a request through the Freedom of Information Act by The Spectator, who also reported at the time that the then-BBC trust Chairman, Lord Patten, was refusing to answer questions in Parliament or before the European Scrutiny Committee about the corporation’s tone of reporting on Europe.
Not surprising given that Lord Patten, former Conservative Party chairman and ally of Europhilic former PM Sir John Major, was a European Commissioner for External Relations for five years. Since then, the corporation has been somewhat more transparent, reporting it was donated £2.3million from the EU in the financial year up to March 31st 2017.
Some of these generous gifts from Brussels have gone into its programming, the EU partly funding a documentary made by the corporation on former President Obama, as reported by Breitbart London two years ago.
Perhaps the BBC feel obligated to show some sort of moral recompense for the EU’s generosity with the way it reports on Brexit, and how many of the positive things the decision to leave is happening ‘despite’ it. A prime example is the BBC’s flagship political panel bear pit Question Time. Last September, the findings of research by journalist Ken Andrew and the Guido Fawkes website showed that 86% of the Question Time panel post-referendum were sympathetic to the Remain campaign, and since then, the pattern of pitting one Brexiteer to four Remainers has been commonplace.
In some instances, some of corporation’s employees feel the need to appear on other networks and feed viewers misinformation, demonstrated by BBC World presenter Katty Kay, who claimed most of the electorate “regretted” the decision to vote for leaving the EU in November 2016.
Conversely, Andrew Neil, who co-hosted the corporation’s global coverage of the 2016 US Presidential Election with Kay, took to Twitter last October to report the results of a Sky News poll which showed 74% of the public thought ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ was better than the 26% who thought ‘any deal was better than no deal’, indicating that a generous proportion of the British public would prefer Britain to exit as soon as possible.
With many citizens comfortable with exiting the EU amid the country’s biggest television and radio broadcaster desperate for the opposite, what happens to it? The BBC has long-faced charges of bias towards the Labour Party (worth another article on its own), and now it faces the charges of peddling propaganda against the will of the people they are supposed to broadcast for. It either faces-up to the reality of changing its ways and perhaps putting the British public who pay for its existence first, rather than the Eurocrats who subsidise its greed.