The BBC, Trump and the destruction of trust

 Back in the period 2010-2015, when the Barnet bloggers were at the heart of the fight against the One Barnet Capita outsourcing project and major news networks would court us as it was deemed newsworthy, there was a conversation that was had dozens of times in the pub, when I spoke to sympathisers. It went a bit like this "I've had this brilliant idea, why don't you write a blog saying [SOME BONKERS MADE UP STORY THAT PORTRAYS CAPITA/THE BARNET TORIES IN A BADLIGHT]. Everyone trusts you and it will do untold damage". My answer was always the same. Absolutely no. I will pass my opinions, but when it came to facts, I never, ever printed something I didn't have the evidence to support. Why? Because as soon as you are caught telling porkies and fabricating the truth, you are done for. 

What has this got to do with the resignation of the boss of the BBC Tim Davey and Donald Trump? Well everything really. Write this date in you diary. 9th November 2025. In the UK it is 9/11. It is the date that Donald Trump won the culture war. It is the day that the BBC admitted it had deliberately misrepresented Donald Trump. You can be blameless all of your life, but if you are exposed as a liar just once, no one will ever really trust you again. Trump will now (rather dishonestly, as differet rules apply to him) dismiss everything the BBC say and no reasonable person can disagree. The BBC can change its chairman, its board, its charter, its name, but it will never be trusted again when it comes to political comments against Trump. I don't really think anyone has taken the enormity on board. What is the point of BBC verify, if they can't even verify Panorama?

I have been the BBC's biggest supporter in the face of what I have always considered blatently ignorant criticism from extreme right and left commentators, out to destroy a trusted news source. How ironic is it that the BBC has done their work for them? I feel sick to my gut. This does not mean that the BBC has no role to play. I am 100% sure it's content is more reliable than organisations such as GB New 99% of the time, but the trouble is, there is the 1% where they have been caught with their pants down.

Trump has all the evidence he needs to shrug off any revealation from the BBC, no matter how well sourced. I started writing this blog at 10.45am. I got so far and then I got to the question "what does the BBC do now to regain the faith of its viewers and listeners?". The more I thought about it, the more I realised it is like asking how can I regain my virginity. It has gone. I can repent my sins and live the life of a Saint and when future generations look at my life, they may well decide I was a saint, but I will not get my virginity back in my lifetime. The same is true of the BBC's News organisations trust. 

Of course there is more to the BBC than just news. There is the light entertainment. Shows such as Traitors and Strictly that are top of the viewing figures and we all talk about. I listen to giants of local radio like Robert Elms and Gary Crowley, but even they cannot feel as proud of their employer as they did last week. Even broadcast giants such as David Attenborough, face having their work distrusted as a result of Panorama going bad. They have all been thrown under a bus by bad journalists.

If the BBC is to survive it needs to do something, it needs to do something radical. Something I never thought I'd say. It needs to split off its news organisation into a separate entity. It needs to be lead by professional journalists who are beyond reproach and be taken out of the control of the current management, who have clearly totally failed. This will damage the BBC severely, but without trust it has no purpose. The BBC has a world beating network of journalists and researchers, this must be preserved, but it simply cannot be in its present format. I personally would merge Channel 4 and BBC News into one organisation. I would take it out from the remit of the main BBC, with a completely different management structure. I would compel the BBC to buy news coverage from them, but renew the franchise every seven years. I would run it on a commercial basis, selling news stories to other organisations. I would make it part of the licence that they must employ a well staffed news team.

I hate saying all of this. It feels fundamentally wrong. But once an organisation loses your trust, then it needs change. It may well be that the bosses can find a way to recover trust, but I cannot see how. The BBC has been synonimous with truth since its inception. It has lost this and I do not believe that the current organisation can regain it.