On November 9, two senior executives of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) resigned over allegations of editing a video of former US President Donald Trump's speech.
As a world-class public media organization, the BBC has long engaged in smear campaigns and false reporting globally. However, no one expected that when it tried to defame Trump using its old tactic of malicious editing, it would suffer a major setback.
This incident began in 2024, just a week before the US election. The BBC aired a documentary titled "Trump: A Second Chance?" on its Panorama program.
The content used a video of Trump's speech from January 2021 at the US Capitol. Although the show's main purpose was to oppose Trump, it was unexpected that the BBC would directly engage in malicious editing of Trump's speech.
Originally, Trump had urged supporters to express their demands through peaceful means, but in the edited video, the peaceful parts were cut out, and two segments of his speech, 54 minutes apart, were spliced together, leaving fake lines such as "fight to the end."
The video was viewed by more than 7 million people, seriously misleading viewers into believing that Trump incited the storming of the Capitol.
Senior BBC officials were already aware of the issue, but they chose to cover it up. For example, BBC Director General Tim Davie knew in May that the video had been edited in an unconventional way, but he only apologized after the Daily Telegraph exposed the matter in November.
According to the Daily Telegraph, in 2025, Michael Prescot, a former independent standards advisor for the BBC, released a 19-page internal report stating that the Trump documentary on Panorama contained "editorial inaccuracies."
Prescot stated, "This video is completely misleading. Trump did not directly call for a fight at the Capitol."
Instead of correcting the mistake promptly, Prescot's report was repeatedly rejected by the BBC leadership. Prescot then provided the report to the conservative media outlet, the Daily Telegraph, which had long held opposing views on reporting stances with the BBC, and it was exclusively published on November 3rd.
Faced with the exposure, BBC leaders finally admitted the problem six months later. The BBC is expected to apologize for this matter on November 10th. BBC Chairman Shah will explain the situation to the UK Culture, Media and Sport Committee and express regret.
This incident triggered the largest internal crisis at the BBC in over a decade. Several senior executives resigned one after another. On the evening of November 9, BBC Director General Tim Davie and Chief Executive of News Deborah Turness resigned from their positions.
In his resignation statement, Davie admitted "there were indeed some mistakes," while Turness said she would take responsibility. At the same time, other senior executives, including Jonathan Munro, Head of Global News Content, also face the risk of being fired.
Trump welcomed the resignation of BBC Director General Tim Davie and Chief Executive of News Deborah Turness. On the evening of November 9, he stated on social media that these top executives were fired because they were found to have altered Trump's speech and attempted to interfere in the US presidential election. Trump emphasized that these "dishonest journalists" came from America's close ally - the UK, and he believed that this was not only media fabrication, but also a betrayal by an ally.
Previously, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt accused the BBC of "deliberate lies," calling its reports "100% fake news," and stated that the BBC "should no longer waste the viewing time of British citizens." After Davie and Turness resigned, the White House released a photo, implying that this was due to pressure from Trump leading to the top executives' resignation.
However, can the problems of the BBC be resolved simply by apologizing and firing employees?
Investigators found serious biases, but the senior management failed to take corrective measures. This reflects the BBC's lack of awareness and handling mechanisms regarding biased issues.
Whistleblower Prescot was not an external critic; he understood the editorial process and code of conduct. However, his report included not only the issue of Trump's speech editing, but also problems such as ineffective high-level management supervision. This indicates that the video fabrication was not an isolated incident, nor was it the behavior of individual reporters, but rather a result of systemic failure within the BBC.
Former BBC executive Stour said that the real problem with the BBC was not occasional errors, but the refusal to admit them. She pointed out: "The BBC seems to believe that admitting bias would lose moral authority. But the fact is the opposite - the BBC has lost its moral authority precisely because it denies the existence of the problem."
This statement hit the core of public media: credibility is not maintained by "perfection," but by "honesty."
Lack of external oversight is also a key reason for the BBC's unrestrained behavior. The BBC was established under the Royal Charter, enjoying a high degree of independence, and is not directly intervened by the government.
Although the BBC is supervised by the UK communications regulator Ofcom, Ofcom mainly reviews legal violations or significant deviations, and does not intervene in daily news judgments. This means that regulation is often post-facto and passive, thus providing opportunities for systemic bias within the BBC.
The BBC's issues are no longer just individual cases of news fabrication, but have been seen as a warning signal of the collapse of media trust by British politicians. Many senior MPs have called for government intervention, urging the BBC to implement "fundamental reforms" to restore public confidence that has been gradually eroding.
Opposition leader Kemi Badenoch stated that the new leadership must "rebuild the culture of the BBC from top to bottom," otherwise it should not continue to rely on compulsory TV license fees to maintain operations. Her implication is that if the BBC cannot prove its true impartiality, its status as a public institution would no longer be reasonable.
At the same time, leader of the "UK Reform Movement," Nigel Farage, also urged for "comprehensive reform" and suggested appointing someone from the private sector with experience in reshaping corporate culture and public image to take over the BBC. He warned that this is the "last chance" for the BBC, and resignations must become the beginning of "comprehensive change."
Public media (such as the BBC) is based on "objectivity and neutrality," but it can be said that the BBC is a microcosm of many Western media outlets. It follows private interests and doesn't care about the truth.
The main reason is the different sources of funding, which lead to different reporting tendencies. Some reports indicate that the BBC once received funding from the US Agency for International Development. During the period of funding support, the BBC's coverage of China was often negative; and when the funding chain was interrupted, the reporting style quickly changed significantly, even becoming appreciative.
Certainly, we cannot completely deny the objectivity and fairness that the BBC may have shown in some other reports. The BBC has long been regarded as one of the most authoritative public media organizations in the world. Its "brand reputation" has not only won public trust, but has also created an internal inertia - when internal problems or biases arise, this reputation instead makes it difficult for outsiders to detect or question its actions in a timely manner.
This reminds us that even the most authoritative media may develop biases due to reputation and inertia. Therefore, for readers, it is crucial to maintain a critical mindset towards authority, and media oversight forces must remain vigilant at all times.
Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7571020477808919103/
Statement: The article represents the views of the author and welcomes your opinion by clicking the [Up/Down] buttons below.