BBC'S IMPARTIALITY CLAIM JUST LAUGHABLE

They must remind themselves of their duty of balance and truth

By Mark Sharman

THE BBC’s self-righteous defence of impartiality in the Gary Lineker affair would be laudable if it were not smothered by so thick a blanket of hypocrisy.

Laudable? Laughable would be more accurate.

This is the same BBC whose Trusted News Initiative is facing an anti-trust lawsuit in Texas, brought by the indomitable lawyer Robert Kennedy Jr.

The suit alleges that the BBC colluded with other legacy media organisations, including Reuters and Associated Press, and Big Tech operators, in an attempt to “stamp out” and “choke” small independent media rivals by smearing them with the “misinformation” tag.

Further, Freedom of Information requests and the release of Twitter accounts have revealed those same Big Tech companies colluded with multiple US Government agencies to promote and protect the Covid narrative, irrespective of counter evidence.

The BBC is part of that game. Remember how its researchers spotted online vaccine-injured groups using emojis of carrots for syringes, to evade censorship by Facebook? The worthy BBC reported the subterfuge to its friends in Big Tech and boasted of that successful sleuthing, while the injured complained that they were just trying to keep each other alive.

Such behaviour is entirely consistent with the work of its Disinformation Unit (prosecutor, judge and jury?) whose sole existence depends on scouring the internet to find so-called conspiracy theories and ‘debunking’ both the message and the source, even when it may be a highly-qualified scientist.

Unfortunately for disinformation queen Marianna Spring and her underlings, ‘conspiracy’ theory after theory is proving to be the real truth and nothing but the truth.

The BBC has consistently played the role of chief fearmonger, with exaggerated Covid death numbers, dishonest interpretations of who was or wasn’t vaccinated in hospital ICUs, a virtual black-out of huge protests against vaccine mandates and a continued and particularly spiteful vilification of so-called anti-vaxxers.

Worse, it has refused to acknowledge the abject failings of the jabs’ efficacy – and worse still the devastating effect they have had in terms of harm.

And where is the investigative journalism over the unprecedented and unexplained excess deaths seen all over the world, which ominously coincide with the ‘vaccine’ roll-out?

Impartial? This BBC promoted ‘vaccines’ for pregnant women (on Woman’s Hour, of all places) without any data to prove they were safe.

Radio 5 Live announced to the world that the BBC did not debate with ‘anti-vaxxers’ even if they might be right.

And, when asked by News Uncut what happened to balance and impartiality in reporting, the public-funded BBC was not prepared to comment.

Now watch out for the BBC’s climate change propaganda. If it wasn’t enough for the news coverage to be totally one-sided, there are story lines in fictional shows across the network, astute product placements and pro-green comments galore.

And don’t expect Ofcom to step in – the regulator has already decided that climate science is settled, just as they discouraged broadcasters from questioning the Covid hierarchy.

Then there is the new David Attenborough series, Wild Isles. It turns out that part of the production money was stumped up by the RSPB and the WWF. How does that underpin impartial reporting?

Those bodies have an agenda, however worthy that may be.

Before we give Gary Lineker his due mention, let’s just return to the BBC Disinformation Unit. Please watch this video statement from our friends at Oracle Films.

Impartiality? Get off your high horse BBC.

And so to Lineker’s comments about the Government’s Bill to curb illegal immigration via the English Channel, which he likened to Nazi policy.

News Uncut, naturally, supports free speech, but that’s not the argument in this case. As a former TV news and sports executive myself, I would expect Lineker to have a clause in his contract regarding public statements. To make a biased political point was always going to land him in hot water. He is, after all, a major face of the “impartial” BBC.

We all experience terms and conditions in many walks of life; it seems to me that Lineker tore his up and is suffering the consequences. And he did not even display a great deal of knowledge in his virtue signalling.

It has been reported that a high percentage of Channel-hoppers are not refugees at all, but plain illegal immigrants, mostly young single men from countries such as Albania, where there are no political hardships.

It would have helped to do his video analysis first.

Ironically Lineker was recently central to a major BBC political statement of its own. The Corporation snubbed the opening ceremony of the World Cup in Qatar, preferring instead to discuss human rights in that country. It may not have been Party Political, but political comment it certainly was.

The BBC, it appears, is under too much influence – Governments, world corporations, sponsors, multi-million-dollar donors like Bill Gates etc – as well as (and in many ways contrary to) its deep in-house progressive liberal-left beliefs.

BBC management would do well to dust off the Royal Charter to remind themselves of a duty of balance, impartiality and truth. Strong leadership is required to restore the once rock-solid reputation – and Lineker’s case should be only the beginning.