Is it Possible the BBC has Become A Government Propaganda Tool?

Question

I've heard this said a few times and was wondering what others thought.

Answer 1

It is what it always has been. A home for the pseudo-intellectual left. A talking shop for trendy Islington coffee shop socialists

Answer 2

Its not supposed to be - the whole point of the BBC was that it was to be owned by 'the people', rather than big corporations or the government, so that it would be fair and unbiased - but even when it was formed that was idealistic, since it was supposed to be a independent broadcasting company which would provide education, entertainment, without being politically influenced. However, when you look at the type of things that were being broadcast, like classical music, etc, it doesn't seem very neutral. The founders of the BBC actually thought that by giving people this type of culture, they would become more 'civilised'.

So even if the BBC wasn't directly influenced by the government, it still had a political agenda. I would say the BBC became an indirect propoganda tool a long time ago.

The BBC is funded by the TV license - we pay for it, but we sure as hell don't control it!

Answer 3

What? Blair's Broadcasting Corporation? Surely Not!

However, in the run up to the Iraq invasion, The BBC devoted a lot of time to Blair and his rabid rantings glorifying the terrorism of a pre-emptive invasion to rid Saddam of WMD that never existed in Iraq since 1995. They allowed Scott Ritter, a chief UN Weapons inspector 10 minutes at 3:30 in the morning to refute Blair's claims.


They should hav eput Ritter's argument to Blair and they failed in their public duty to inform the public of the truth and they failed to hold Tony Blair to account.

It was known before the invasion that Blair was lying to get us into a war and that the inspections where a red-herring. He was decided on war no matter what. it was the only outcome and it was decided mid 2002. The massive resources of the BBC, including the fact that they have MI5, MI6 and CIA staff on the payroll meant that the BBC were in a position to know that the war was based onlies. the BBC covered it up.

If the BBC where truly independent, then Blair would now be facing charges for war crimes.

How could many many blogs run by amateurs on spare pocket change have discovered the truth about Iraq and the lies about WMD before the invasion, and yet the mighty BBC with BILLIONS of pounds of public funding had to wait for years after the invasion before it was allowed to report a conclusion that there were no WMD after all? and to this very day, they do not claim that Blair lied. They still give him the benefit of the doubt, despite the infamous downing St memo and the 2 Iraq dossiers (September 2002 and Feb 2003) were clearly sexed up and full of lies.

Of course the BBC is a government propaganda tool

Answer 4

More than possible - IT IS. Even the BBC admits that it has a left wing bias. It is the reporting arm of this government. It sees its job as being to indoctrinate us into its current left wing and PC agenda. All its programmes, news - soaps - discussion programmes (question time), are designed to spread the agenda. Although, the other TV channels are little better.

Without being patronising, it has been obvious for a very long time that the BBC had an agenda. I first noticed it coming through the soaps.

Answer 5

The BBC has always been a government propaganda tool

Answer 6

When the chips are down and the British Establishment are under threat the BBC becomes a Government propaganda tool irrespective of the political party in power. Look at the BBC's role in the General Strike in 1926, the Abdication Crisis, WW2, subsequent wars and international crises, and reporting of industrial disputes since the end of WW2. The rest of the time the BBC poses as an "objective" source of news and information.

Answer 7

using fact the BBC is famously a in many circumstances Socialist corporation, accusing it of being professional Tory won't get very some distance. apart from which i'm surprised that they even broadcast any factor close to the reality, that the flesh presser pronounced. it particularly is the lack of Housing and the undeniable fact that the present set of comedians is following on from Brown/B.Liar's coverage of not promoting domicile development that's the main substantial reason of homelessness, so his fact is a few distance from fatuous. i think you have been concepts washed into questioning that housing income stops homelessness, it would not it promotes idleness for the time of the conduit of it not being precious looking a job if the state will pay for one to not artwork.

Answer 8

The U.S. has one for the Conservatives who are currently in power. It's called Fox News, but Liberals know it as Faux (fake) News.

This thing can easily happen, especially when one news network gets more attention over others, or if the owner of the station happens to agree politically with the current government.

Answer 9

the ruling elite at the bbc is mostly leftist cranks with no particualr skills in senior management.
Every single bbc report or documentory favours leftist veiws.
The government is aware that there is much antilicence fee sentiment and is able to hold this over the bbc.So ultimately it is very much a govt mouthpiece

Answer 10

O f Course it has , but not totally , all forms of the Media supports the Government of the Day , but as you Know the Media will dish the Dirt without Compunction when needs are a Must -- Don,t loose Faith in the Media - without them we really would have a totalitarian state .

Answer 11

It seems to be, but I'm worried, the Government the BBC now seems to represent isn't even in this country, it's the right wing of Israel for ***** sake, also what the **** was Ester Ranson doing on question time last night comparing Saddam to Hitler, who the **** does she think she is?

(I'm no fan of Saddam but considering the number of deaths we have caused, including the botched uprising after Gulf War One by American Intelligence calling on the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam only to have 100,000 of their number gassed for their trouble, says to me only one thing, we shouldn't have sold him the ******* weapons in the first place.)