> At the last count, in 1984, the BBC had a staff of almost 30,000. We have discovered that all current affairs appointees, together with many of those involved in the actual making of programmes - including directors and film editors - are vetted.
> We have also established who runs the system. It operates, unknown to almost all BBC staff, from Room 105 in an out-of-the way corridor on the first floor of Broadcasting House - a part of that labyrinth on which George Orwell modelled his Ministry of Truth in 'Nineteen Eighty-Four.'
> The names of outside applicants are submitted to F Branch 'domestic' subversion desks at MI5, which is headed by the diplomat Sir Antony Duff. They are fed into a computer containing the details of 500,000 'subversives'.
https://www.cambridgeclarion.org/press_cuttings/mi5.bbc.page...
> MI5 probably got their toe-hold in the BBC during the war when staff running the external services broadcasting to occupied Europe were vetted. Sir Hugh Greene, later to become director-general of the BBC, remembers: 'I was vetted in 1940. MI5 thought I was a Communist, but it turned out to be a mistake .' During the Cold War, Attlee's Government openly announced that civil servants who were Communists (or Fascists) would not be allowed access to classified material. But the BBC were keeping a secret blacklist. Hugh Greene recalls a case in the external services: 'He wasn't a security risk at all. It turned out he had worked for MI6,the rival secret service, and there had been an internal quarrel.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Christmas_tree%22_files
edit: the BBC coverage of the Scottish independence referendum, Corbyn, and Brexit was embarrassing. The Prescott memo is just the latest observation of how the BBC has been used as a tool to propagate elite opinions and accomplish intelligence objectives. Of course you like it, it's for you.
I think this kind of criticism is in bad faith. Because there's an implication that you're comparing the BBC to some kind of ideal unbiased news outlet.
In reality, the alternatives to the BBC are much more obviously nefarious and make far less steps to remove bias.
If the BBC is a tool to "propagate elite opinions", then how would you describe Fox News, the Daily Mail, The Times (UK), or even CNN?
"I'm not forced to pay for those via a tax" would be the key difference.
I always understood that Broadcasting House was inspiration for Room 101 (Ministry of Love) rather than the MoT.
It's well-known that the University of London Senate House building was the inspiration for the Ministry of Truth. Both the interior and exterior have appeared in many films and TV shows. Seems to come out of the visual creative toolbox when there's a need to evoke oppression or technocratic stultification through architecture, which is a shame as it's rather nice to visit!
(They had a nice worked example involving exam results - some years have much higher variance than others, due to incompetence in question-setting or marking, and in those years the mis-marking is randomly distributed but only the more middle class parents manage to work the system to get re-marked)
(Well, I say anyone; I guess I mostly mean bad people, who aren't restrained by fairness or honesty).
Yes, they were clearly pro-Remain and anti-Corbyn and anti-Scottish independence.
>> The Prescott memo is just the latest observation of how the BBC has been used as a tool to propagate elite opinions and accomplish intelligence objectives.
Yes, it demonstrated examples of bias in favour of those elite opinions.
I would say they were a lot less pro-Remain than the facts were, such that they were effectively heavily biased towards Leave.
Typically they'd interview someone to factually explain how Brexit would be bad, and then 'balance' it up by giving equal airtime to some liar/fantastist telling us how it would be wonderful.
I can't speak of the MI5 accusation but the elite opinion one is comically of the mark. The (economic/political) elite famously hate the Beeb for its "leftie" views (really, it's just being balanced and telling the facts that they object to). The Tories would love an excuse to tear it apart but historically it's been too popular for them to get away with that.
If you had meant intellectual elites then maybe you would have a point but I don't think that's what you were saying.
Then I remember the Jimmy Saville cover-up. Britain's pound shop/ dollar store Epstein.
> senior managers were not told of complaints about Savile because of an "atmosphere of fear" which still exists in the BBC
Written 10 years ago and still true today. It's just that the lies de jour depend on who currently holds political and (to a far grater extent today) cultural power. The elites, in a modern cultural sense, are not necessarily people with traditional money and power (royalty, politicians, famous stars and billionaires). Undoubtedly they have power, but these days that type of power doesn't protect you from the mob. Today, power is wielded by people who claim to have none, yet somehow set the tone on social media (moderation rules), influence rules within universities, influence charities and NGOs, and from there, media outlets. Politicians today are just landing to all. The BBC has is right up there with all the other liars.
My suspicion to this day is that these schools were both a spy front and long-game propaganda, where they were teaching how to make news more western-aligned.
Why would BBC want to teach their methods in Russia? How do they benefit from that? How does Soros benefit from that?
So yes, essentially propaganda, but in the same way Hollywood is.
Also, look up "confucius institutes" all over the US and the world setup the Chinese government to do something similar.
They don't give a damn about democracy. There's a reason they stole plenty of elections across Europe and Latin America. Hell, they even helped steal the 1996 Russian election.
Why does US benefit from every kid on the planet being able to name the avengers and instantly recognize Coca-Cola cans?
I'm not saying this is some grand conspiracy orchestrated by the elites - but projecting your power by making sure everyone is aligned with you ideologically and culturally helps long term, both in making allies and in avoiding wars.
The lack of democracy in Russia has now ended up costing millions of lives and trillions in damages, so maybe we should have actually invested more?
The BBC's mission is to inform, educate, and entertain, not to benefit themselves.
> How does Soros benefit from that?
I'm more anti-Soros than most, but he is fairly open that he wants to prevent a recurrence of the Holocaust and a free press and western-style civil liberties are things he sees as supporting that. Even if you want to see it in selfish terms, the guy is rich and Jewish and wants the kind of society that doesn't victimise people like him; that doesn't mean he's part of some kind of cloak-and-dagger conspiracy.
Like all news organisations the BBC gets views based on outrage and I don't think the Greens or the Libdems get 1/2 Farage's news coverage based on having 1/2 his support and that's clearly because they don't do outrageous things.
They each have their own agendas.
