A guest post by David Sedgwick, courtesy of www.davidsedgwick.co.uk.
If you thought you had seen the worst of BBC petulance and spite in its coverage of the US election, then you’d be very wrong. On the day Donald Trump officially became the 45th President of the United States, the state-funded broadcaster went into some kind of psychotic meltdown.
Denial has finally given way to rage. Until Trump delivered his inauguration acceptance speech the Liberal media had been deluding themselves into believing that the Trump administration would do as administrations are expected to do: follow the Liberal line.
That the Trump administration intend to implement the policies they successfully campaigned on has taken the Liberal media somewhat by surprise. And who can blame them? In the western world Liberalism reigns supreme. Sure, you vote left or right, Labour or Tory, but ultimately what you get is Liberal. And that’s just the way they like it.
BBC Two’s nightly Newsnight is one of many such programmes serving up a daily diet of anti-Trump propaganda. As reality sinks in – that the Liberal elite are not actually going to continue getting their way – the bitterness, bile and hatred has increased to levels bordering on paranoia and hysteria.
Wait a minute, isn’t the BBC compelled by its Royal Charter to be impartial? So what about the unremitting flow of negativity towards the incoming administration? Ah, impartiality…
In order to propagate their favoured ‘narrative’ while appearing to remain impartial, the crafty devils at the BBC employ a range of tricks to stack the odds in favour of their preferred ‘narrative.’
Often this entails simply stacking the cards against an opponent in terms of sheer weight of numbers. Thus, for every guest supporting say Brexit or Trump there will always be at least two guests propagating an anti-Brexit or anti-Trump message. Pretty transparent, but a perennial favourite at the BBC.
Further, whenever they can, BBC producers will ensure they engage the weakest Brexit or Trump proponent they can possibly find. Yet another transparent tactic the aim of which is to allow those propagating the BBC narrative the minimum of opposition.
During the run up to the US presidential election the BBC hit gold when they located a Trump-supporting Republican who seemed to be in a state of perpetual shock. Faced with carefully selected and very hostile audiences in programmes like Question Time, the poor man – hardly the most eloquent speaker at the best of times – soon crumbled.
The good old Beeb would never dare have engaged the services of a strong Trump supporter such as an Ann Coulter or a Kellyanne Conway, articulate, intelligent women neither of whom would fit the BBC’s ‘Trump hates women’ ‘narrative’ and moreover a couple of women certainly capable of giving as good as they get.
Observers of the organisation’s coverage of the EU referendum would have noticed pretty much the same tactics in use on a daily basis. Strong, articulate Brexit supporters such as George Galloway were purposely marginalised while soft Brexiteers such as (Guardian columnist!) Giles Fraser and the rather limp, ineffectual Chris Grayling MP were given air time a-plenty.
Interesting then to observe last night’s edition of Newsnight which, amid the anguish and drama-queen antics of its presenter Emily Maitlis, featured a debate between a pro-Trump and an anti-Trump commentator.
Perhaps Ms Maitlis had simply not expected the spirited defence of the Trump administration as outlined by Michelle Malkin. Where is that docile Republican when he’s needed? It certainly might help to explain why Maitlis – the impartial referee, note – jumped to the defence of the anti-Trump Danielle Allen at every opportunity.
Two against one. BBC ‘impartiality’ had lasted all of 30 seconds…
As the debate went on it became apparent that the BBC had uncovered, albeit inadvertently, a ferociously pro-Trump advocate. And female to boot! This could not be allowed to go on – people might actually start to work things out for themselves without the benefit of a BBC ‘narrative’ to guide them. What to do?
When Maitlis introduced the next segment of the programme, while Allen remained in situ, Ms Malkin was conspicuous by her absence. Having refused to be bullied and intimidated a la BBC-style, the broadcaster had simply got rid of this irritant.
Gone. Absent. Airbrushed away. And best of all, nobody even noticed.
Dissenting voices outlawed, Maitlis and Allen were later joined by Ben Smith of Buzzfeed – the disseminator of the fake Russian dossier – as well as Michael Wolff contributor to the virulently anti-Trump USA Today.
The Liberal Echo chamber was once again up and running. Only four more years to go.
In the mean-time I wonder if one of our elected representatives would care to inform licence fee payers just exactly how the state-funded hate campaign of our state-funded broadcaster will actually enhance US-UK relations?