Self-afflicting prejudice?

"I have fought three elections against the BBC and don't want to fight another against it,” is what Former British PM Margret Thatcher said in 1987 about the once world’s most watched and respected news organisation. Thatcher was peeved by the BBC's one-sided reporting against her and its anti-English coverage of the Falklands War. The BBC has developed into a tool of division for the ideologically driven class. Not only Thatcher but there is a long history of numerous allegations of a left-wing bias against the corporation and its apparent prejudices. when the BBC recently aired a documentary on Gujarat Riots. Aimed at Indian PM Modi before the 2024 general elections, it had its reverberations felt worldwide, yet remained less effective to hit the target. Although banning the documentary in the time of the internet is a difficult task, it rather has caused damage to its creator. Film-makers, socialites and politicians have come forward in denouncing and supporting the film.

But one must understand the intent of the accuser. This is not the first time that the BBC has come under the scanner. Its behemoth’s history has been full of lies and prejudice during its 100 years long journey. From 1947 to 2008, BBC's reporting on South Asian geopolitics and economics revealed a pervasive and hostile anti-India bias. BBC's attitude has been anti-India since the beginning. Alasdair Pinkerton, a geopolitical observer at the University of London, analysed the coverage of India by the BBC from India's 1947 independence from British rule to 2008. Pinkerton observed a tumultuous history involving allegations of anti-India bias in the BBC's reportage, particularly during the Cold War, and concluded that the BBC's coverage of South Asian geopolitics and economics showed a pervasive and hostile anti-India bias because of the BBC's alleged imperialist and neo-colonialist stance.

In 2011, BBC issued an apology to its Indian viewers and admitted that its Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative story about the retail organisation, Primark, for use of child labour in India was fictitious. The organisation’s reporting has been responsible for damaging the image of India and encouraging racist incidents against Indians, thereby relentlessly reinforcing stereotypes of South Asians. In 2008, the BBC also showed its anti-India bias in its coverage of the Mumbai attack. Journalist MJ Akbar protested and declined to participate in an interview due to this incident.

Not only in India, but many in the UK think that there is a biasedness in the news organisation’s approach. Former UK ministers, Norman Tebbit and Conservative MP Peter Bruinvels called it the "Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation" and "Stateless Person's Broadcasting Corporation". The channel’s coverage of the US 1986 Bombing of Libya and the Zircon affair also came under the scanner. In 2010, BBC Director General Mark Thompson revealed the inheritance of prejudice in the organisation, and how there was a pronounced leftward slant in their approach since the days he started working as a production trainee. The organisation always fought with its impartiality. The BBC, which was established more than a century ago, peaked on the global trust scale but has since started to decline.

Former and current personnel, including Antony Jay, Justin Webb, editor of North America, Rod Liddle, editor of the Today show, Robin Aitken, former correspondent, and Peter Sissons, have all made similar accusations. Former political editor Andrew Marr said that rather than being political, the BBC's liberal bent was cultural and the outcome of the people it hired. BBC has also been accused of being part of the Establishment. The view that the BBC was biased to the left is a planned and cynical move made by the right to intimidate the corporation. A study by Cardiff University academics, released in August 2013 looked at how the BBC covered a variety of topics. One of the conclusions was the predominance of party political sources; in coverage of immigration, the EU, and religion, they made up 49.4 per cent of all source appearances in 2007 and 54.8 per cent of all source appearances in 2012. Moreover, the data revealed that the Conservative Party was given a lot more airtime than the Labour Party.

In terms of appearances in 2012, then-Prime Minister David Cameron was over four to one ahead of Labour leader Ed Miliband. Apart from this, in April 2009, BBC Trust's Editorial Standards Committee released a report regarding three complaints over two news stories that involved Jeremy Bowen, the Middle East Editor for BBC News and had charges of bias or inaccuracy. British American Journalist, Mehdi Hasan, also accused BBC of being skewed towards power and privilege, tradition and dogma. The BBC has also been accused of racism, "institutionally homophobic", and "transphobic".

Seeing the history of the cabal that questions everything of the present political dispensation, 'India: The Modi Question' is just the beginning. India is going to see many more such reports, it's a tool kit which is unfolding in anticipation to pip Modi by this method. The news organisation once respected by all is losing its shine. Television is after all 'a weapon of mass distraction' is what Larry Gelbart said. So, 'The Modi Question' might have created the distraction, but banning by the Indian government has given the impetus to those who want to keep flogging the dead horse.

Facts are not always what they appear to be but are often what they are perceived to be. In a state's affairs, a labyrinth of lies, half-truths, and allusions frequently obscures the truth, which is not always made clear. Isn't that a reality?

Fake news is not a new invention either. It is as old as journalism. There have been numerous instances when fake news and deception have caused war and tension for ages. An interesting anecdote is told in America about journalistic falsification during the US Spanish War in the late 19th century when Cuba was under Spain’s occupation. The 'New York Journal' sent their war correspondent, Fredric Remington, to cover the war in Spain, but when he found nothing happening in Cuba, he wanted to come back, but his boss Hearst ordered him to stay back and furnish the pictures. Eventually, Remington furnished a picture of women being strip-searched by Cubans causing much furore and finally, the US and Spain went to war.

'India: The Modi Question' has not created war but in the pursuit of its ideology, BBC might lose a fair share of the chunk of its supporters. It would be ultimately detrimental to those who still respect journalism. After all, it's the profession that thrives on trust.

The writer is a senior journalist. Views expressed are personal