[noemon]

Top Stories:



"BBC guilty of ‘rewriting British history’ to promote woke agenda in ‘biased’ documentaries"

Article Caption:


Article:

The BBC is “rewriting British history to promote a woke agenda”, a group of the country’s leading academics has warned, as they cited multiple examples of “bias” in its documentaries.

A report said the BBC was failing in its duty of impartiality by allowing “politically motivated campaigners” to present “tendentious” views of British history as fact.

Lord Roberts, the author and broadcaster, accused the BBC of pursuing a “fatwa” against Sir Winston Churchill. The dossier said documentaries on subjects including slavery, colonialism and the Irish famine distort the truth about Britain’s past through inaccuracy or omitting important facts.

Marie Kawthar Daouda, a lecturer at Oxford University, said the BBC needs to “stop apologising” for Britain’s history. Jeremy Black, the former professor of history at Exeter University, said the BBC was guilty of “systemic failure” through an inability to present a rounded picture of the past.

The report was compiled by History Reclaimed, whose co-editors are David Abulafia and Robert Tombs - both of whom are professors emeritus at Cambridge University. Supporters of the organisation include Lord Chartres, the former bishop of London; Vernon Bogdanor, professor of government at King’s College, London; Niall Ferguson, the broadcaster and fellow of Stanford University, and Lawrence Goldman, emeritus fellow of St Peter’s College, Oxford.

A midterm review of the BBC’s royal charter, launched by the then culture secretary Nadine Dorries earlier this year, is currently examining whether the corporation needs to be reformed to help it achieve greater impartiality.

The authors of the report, titled Can We Trust The BBC With Our History?, called on the BBC to tighten its editorial guidelines and set up an advisory panel of historians to reduce “groupthink” among programme makers.

Programmes highlighted in the dossier include The Misadventures of Romesh Ranganathan, in which the comedian visits Freetown in Sierra Leone and discusses Britain’s role in the slave trade, without mentioning that the city - so-called because it was the destination of freed slaves - was set up by the British.

A current affairs programme suggested the Bengal famine of 1943 was a consequence of racism on the part of Churchill, despite the fact that Britain sent large shipments of food to the Indian region in the face of wartime food shortages.

Lord Roberts described it as an example of a “fatwa” he says the BBC has been conducting against Churchill for years, while Zareer Masani, a historian of Indian heritage, said he was “appalled” by the BBC’s claims.

Meanwhile, an episode of the archaeology series Digging for Britain aired a claim that British policy during the 19th century Irish potato famine amounted to the “extermination” of a people and that aid was refused - even though prime minister Robert Peel ordered the purchase of American maize to feed 500,000 people in Ireland and ruined his career by suspending the Corn Laws to allow untaxed imports.

The report also criticised Enslaved with Samuel L Jackson as well as a BBC Radio 4 documentary about Sarah Forbes Benetta, one of the only black women in Victorian high society.

A spokesman for History Reclaimed said: “Abuse of history for political purposes is as old as history itself. In recent years, we have seen politically motivated campaigns to rewrite British history in a way that undermines the solidarity of our communities, our sense of achievement, even our very legitimacy.

“The BBC, of all institutions, should never accept as fact arguments put forward by politically motivated campaigners. Sadly, it appears that tendentious and provocative arguments seem to be given preference, and they have often been relayed without proper concern for accuracy.

“At their best, the BBC’s programmes are of high quality and are widely praised. But regrettably, it seems that the BBC, for all its merits, does not always respect the objectives set out in its charter and its claim to be strictly impartial.”

Prof Tombs, co-editor of History Reclaimed, said: “The report identifies a pattern of failure by the BBC that points unmistakably to conscious or unconscious bias.”

Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthbert, director of the anti-racism group Don’t Divide Us, said: “When a public institution such as the BBC helps normalise a radically critical, minoritarian view of Britain’s history, it makes the possibility of a culture-in-common for a nation’s citizens - old, new, and yet to be - more difficult. This is not a public service.”

A BBC spokesman said: “We place the greatest importance on accuracy and bring audiences a breadth of viewpoints, perspectives and analysis across thousands of hours of news, current affairs and factual programming, covering a range of historical topics.

“Across the entirety of our output there will, of course, be occasions when people disagree with or want to challenge what they have watched or heard and we have well publicised routes for them to do that.

“Cherry-picking a handful of examples or highlighting genuine mistakes in thousands of hours of output on TV and radio does not constitute analysis and is not a true representation of BBC content.”

Commentary: BBC should build unity around British history, not slander it

The BBC has a glorious past. For French or American audiences, BBC adaptations of Shakespeare and Dickens are canonical. But why should a national broadcasting corporation be ashamed of being British?

We hear so much about the evil deeds of the British Empire, but an episode of History of Africa dedicated to the British involvement in the ending of slave trade is yet to be seen. In the meantime, The Misadventures of Romesh Ranganathan fails to mention that between 1808 and 1860 alone, The West African Squadron captured 1,600 slave ships and freed over 150,000 African slaves.

We have heard a lot recently about the Benin Bronzes and their restitution but, in its coverage of the question, the BBC systematically failed to mention that these objects, work of enslaved hands, were seized in 1897 as an act of retaliation after the massacre of an unarmed party of British envoys and a large number of their African bearers, and that the following British expedition put an end to slave trading in Benin.

The way the BBC depicts British history might be the only way many people ever will access this past, and this inaccurate, biased and divisive slandering of the Empire will not do much good.

The BBC claims to be committed to reflecting the diversity of Britain. Promoting diversity of skin tone is a rather cheap substitute for diversity of opinion. In 2020, quotas were announced as targets for 2023 - 50 per cent women; at least 20 per cent black, Asian, or minority ethnic; and 12 per cent disabled.

As for ethnicity targets, are potential employees supposed to take a genetic test to qualify for one of the first categories? Britain is diverse, and so far, it has become inclusive by allowing skilled people, regardless of sex or skin tone, to make use of their talents in all sectors. The quota policy is inherently divisive and nurtures a victimhood mentality, while obfuscating hard work, personal achievements, and merit.

There is no shame in promoting a shared British identity. In its early years, BBC radio was shaped as a polite, slightly high-brow, family-friendly universe, more keen on creating a national British cohesion than on reflecting regional particularities.

During the Second World War, this national dimension took on much greater importance. Addresses from Winston Churchill or George Orwell kept people informed of the situation but, more importantly, gave the audience something to look forward to, and thus created a sense of togetherness.

For the French, “L’appel du 18 Juin 1940”, when Charles de Gaulle stood as the leader of the Free French, was a beacon of hope. And in October that year, Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret spoke during the Children’s Hour, telling them that “all shall be well in the end”.

Family, faith, and tradition are realities shared by many Britons of various skin tones, and understood by the vast majority of humanity. Many, in Britain and abroad, regardless of faith or ethnicity, will join in to watch the Carol Service and for the King’s Speech.

If Britain’s national broadcasting institution does not respect British identity, why would other countries? Building unity around British history and tradition is sorely needed - and the BBC could and should help to create it.

Marie Kawthar Daouda is stipendiary lecturer in French at Oriel College, University of Oxford

"Black people pursuing a fatwa againt Churchill" without however offering a single point of evidence for these racist claims.

But let's take a look at the second article:

Government’s anti-terror scheme backed organisations that went on to promote extreme Islamist ideas

Taxpayers’ money has been handed to groups promoting Islamist extremism, a landmark review of the Government’s flagship Prevent programme has found.

Key figures in organisations funded by Prevent are alleged to have supported the Taliban, defended militant Islamist groups banned in the UK and hosted hate preachers, according to a leaked draft of the report seen by The Telegraph.

The review by William Shawcross, a former head of the Charity Commission, is expected to say that the “unacceptable” cases undermined Prevent’s ability to “effectively undertake counter-radicalisation” work.

As part of the Prevent de-radicalisation strategy introduced after the 9/11 attacks, groups and charities have been given taxpayers’ money to steer young Muslims away from terrorism.

But the review finds that a number of the organisations went on to promote extreme Islamist ideas.

“These findings raise serious questions about whether Prevent is knowingly taking this approach and, if not, whether it operates robust due diligence procedures and has an acceptable level of understanding of Islamist extremism,” the report will say.

The finding that government-funded groups have promoted extremism is likely to provoke a backlash, with the UK facing steep tax rises in the new year.

The report has taken nearly two years since Mr Shawcross was appointed in January 2021 by Priti Patel, then the home secretary, with Home Office lawyers working to counter potential libel action by any referenced groups.

That led to concerns among supporters of Mr Shawcross that the review could be watered down for fear of provoking claims of Islamophobia and stirring community tensions. One said: “Home Office officials are terrified of looking like they are picking on Muslims.”

But on Wednesday, government sources denied there had been any “redactions” or that the report was delayed by a row between Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, and Michael Gove, the Levelling Up Secretary, over removing names.

A Downing Street spokesman said: “The review will be published in due course. It remains right that we take the time to prepare and deliver a considered response.”

The long-awaited review is expected to criticise Prevent for straying from its “core mission” of stopping people from becoming terrorists by putting too much emphasis on treating them as victims.

It is also expected to say that Prevent is “out of kilter” with the rest of the counter-terrorism system by focusing on Right-wing extremism at the expense of the Islamist threat, which accounts for the vast majority of terror attacks.

When out of office in the summer, Mr Gove said it would be a “key test” for the Government to treat Mr Shawcross’s report seriously, not “kick it into the long grass” or dilute it so it did not “see the light of day”.

In the draft review, Mr Shawcross says he examined some of the hundreds of millions of pounds in funding distributed by Prevent, finding that the money “too often goes towards generic projects” and, in some cases even to organisations that had “promoted extremist narratives”.

“During the course of the review, I became aware that some Prevent-funded groups promote extremism or have links with extremists,” he says. “I found unacceptable examples of some of these organisations promoting Islamist extremist sentiments, or of validating and associating with Islamist extremists.”

‘Vital tool for early intervention’
The report cites four examples from open source research, including the leader of a Prevent-funded civil society organisation that made public statements “favourable and supportive” of the Taliban.

It had referred to militant Islamist groups proscribed in the UK as “so-called terrorists” and “legitimate resistance groups”, and said Muslim members of the Armed Forces should refuse orders. It also said the statutory Prevent duty threatened “a McCarthyite witch-hunt against Muslims”.

A second hosted Islamist figures who had engaged in “hateful rhetoric” against liberal Muslims and Muslim minorities, while the founder of a third had supported the views of an organisation known for hosting extremist speakers. At a fourth, senior figures and staff members were found to be connected to Islamist networks.

“Prevent lets the vast majority of Muslims in this country down when it gives legitimacy and influence to those which promote Islamist narratives,” the report says.

Mr Shawcross states that officials involved in Prevent may be focusing on Right-wing extremism “above and beyond the actual threat it poses” in order to “try and fend off accusations” that its earlier focus on Islamist extremists was “stigmatising minority communities”.

“It is correct for Prevent to be increasingly concerned about the growing threat from the extreme Right. But the facts clearly demonstrate that the most lethal threat in the last 20 years has come from Islamism, and this threat continues to endure,” the report says.

It warns of a concerted campaign “driven by a number of Islamist groups to undermine and delegitimise Prevent”, including by “stirring up grievance and mistrust” towards the scheme among British Muslims.

The Downing Street spokesman said: “We’ve always said Prevent remains a vital tool for early intervention and safeguarding.” Mr Shawcross declined to comment.

Again zero evidence from an "unpublished review" that the government hesitates to publish but is keen to allow the Telegraph to furnish us with "all we need to know".

[Potemkin]

The British upper classes define themselves by who they exclude. Once they define who they hate, then they have defined who they are. The xenophobia, the racism and the classism are baked in.

[QatzelOk]

The BBC is “rewriting British history to promote a woke agenda”, a group of the country’s leading academics has warned, as they cited multiple examples of “bias” in its documentaries...

This is the only part of the "woke" agenda that I find uncontroversial: the need to clean up the lies in our official histories so that we can have productive relationships with other nations, other classes, other human experiences. The lies of nationalism... are in our "woke" age, poised to kill us all.

Lord Roberts, the author and broadcaster, accused the BBC of pursuing a “fatwa” against Sir Winston Churchill. The dossier said documentaries on subjects including slavery, colonialism and the Irish famine distort the truth about Britain’s past through inaccuracy or omitting important facts.

And the listed subjects above are those that need to be re-examined and unpacked most of all.

The British upper classes define themselves by who they exclude. Once they define who they hate, then they have defined who they are. The xenophobia, the racism and the classism are baked in.

So this is why we are experiencing a media clash between:

Freedom of expression so that the truth can emerge in public discourse
versus
You are all Hamas, Taliban, Hizbollah, North Korea supporters with your woke media crap!

***

The same media that gave the world Archie Bunker is revealing that Archie Bunker was inspired by the hegemonic media owners themselves.