Aunties bloopers

Guest Article by Andy Mac

Picture the scene: It’s late August 1963, and thousands have gathered in Washington DC in front of the Lincoln Memorial. They’ve come to see and hear the words of Dr Martin Luther King as he prepares to deliver his much-anticipated ‘I Have a Dream’ speech. Among the broadcasters invited to hear and comment on the historic moment is Leonard Parkin, North America Correspondent for the BBC. A BBC camera rolls as Dr King delivers the following words:

“We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protests to degenerate into physical violence. . . . The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to distrust all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny.”

A day or so later, the footage arrives in the cutting room at BBC HQ in London. The top brass at the Beeb, keen to portray King as a race-baiting womaniser as opposed to a Civil Rights totem, edit the speech in a highly dishonest way and broadcast it on the evening news that night. The entire British nation hear Dr King say the following:

“We must forever conduct our struggle on physical violence. . . . The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must lead us to distrust all white people. For many of our white brothers have come to realize that their destiny is up.”

Just imagine how tarnished the BBC of the early Sixties would have been had they sought to go down this deliberately malevolent route. It would have probably spelt the end of the corporation as we had known it. Needless to say, such a scenario was far removed from the minds of those in the high echelons of the BBC. Not only because it would have promoted King in a manner totally unworthy of him, but also because our national broadcaster was seen sixty years ago as the most truthful and trustworthy purveyor of news one could imagine.

I am not the sort of person who believes in keeping so-called ‘national treasures’ purely for their own sake. When a British institution has ceased to operate with the quality and transparency those who fund it have come to expect, it’s time to call it a day. This is not to suggest that President Donald Trump will be as favourably regarded in historical texts as King is (although I believe his achievements in office deserve far more plaudits than the liberal-dominated media bubble is prepared to afford him), or that the impact on the two individuals would have been equally damaging. But what I am most definitely arguing is that today’s BBC is prepared to eviscerate the speeches of political figures it doesn’t like, then lie about the basic motivations for doing so, while soft soaping any members of the general public who still buy the lie about its ‘impartiality’, and all to tarnish certain people in perpetuity. This is exactly what they did to Donald Trump on not one but two occasions, and it is why I sincerely hope the President sues the Beeb until it can no longer even afford to pay its mediocre celebrity pool the basic Living Wage.

I’ll be honest with you: I despise the BBC. OK, I despise many other Left-leaning broadcasters as well. For example, if the odious James O’Brien (of LBC’s parish) had been a character in ‘Jaws’, I’d have left the beaches open. The crucial difference is that I can turn off the radio and/or TV for the most part, safe in the knowledge I am not compelled to fund the views of people who are the antithesis of everything I believe in. That doesn’t apply to the British Broadcasting Corporation. Every adult in the United Kingdom and its Crown Dependencies is compelled, by threat of prosecution, to pay nearly £180 per year for the ‘privilege’ of being able to receive television programmes heavy on unnecessary diversity, climate change catastrophising, a deep dislike of American conservatism, and blatant pro-Palestinian narratives. As an individual who prefers the political leanings of GB News, I still wouldn’t expect that particular channel to be funded by those who disagree with its political philosophy. As hard on my sanity as they are, I am fair-minded enough to agree with GB News being funded by adverts for electric sofa beds, gold-dealing jewellers in the Welsh Valleys, and irritating Geordies promoting Simply Factoring Brokers.

We are supposed to believe that the BBC’s hatchet job on the Trump speech of January 6th, 2021 resulted from a mere ‘mistake’. It did nothing of the sort. It was an intentional skewering of a speech at a pivotal movement (remember that Trump was still a 1st term president when it gave that speech) in order to instil in the British general public the same contempt for Trump as held by the movers and shakers within the Corporation. The desire behind the heavy editing was to convey the impression Trump had called for violence against the electoral process, when the full text of the speech proves he did nothing of the kind. That is damaging, highly defamatory and worthy of reciprocal punishment. End of!

Those of us who followed the bias of the BBC for many years know this development is nothing new. Only last year, the Sunday Telegraph got hold of a report that said the Corporation had breached its rules on impartiality no less than 1,500 times during the height of the Israel-Hamas war. The article, written by Camilla Turner and Patrick Sawer, went on to say “The report revealed a ‘deeply worrying pattern of bias’ against Israel, according to its authors who analysed four months of BBC’s output [beginning on October 7 2023] across television, radio, online news, podcasts and social media.” I am all for the BBC being as biased as it wishes to be. It can turn into the Notting Hill version of Pravda for all I care. Just so long as I no longer have to contribute a penny towards its upkeep! Clear?