So, the BBC messed up. Again. With a long history of concerns regarding impartiality, why is it a Panorama on Trump, that aired over a year ago, the scandal which led to the resignation of the Director General? I have never been a fan of the BBC; all media thrives off bad news, and eventually, I stopped watching because of fearmongering. It was incredibly boring and did not feel relevant to me. Only recently have I started reading the news again, and it feels as ridiculous as ever.
Why did Tim Davies have to resign? Davies was the Director General for the BBC, gaining the position in September 2020. The Director General is the editorial, operational, and creative leader of the BBC. He made a statement to his staff that the decision to step down was entirely his decision. CEO of News, Deborah Turnes, also stepped down. She made a point in her statement to point out that, “while mistakes have been made, I want to be absolutely clear, recent allegations that BBC News is institutionally biased are wrong.”
So, what is the big deal? In October of 2024, a Panorama episode was released, which has now been taken down from BBC iPlayer, titled ‘Trump: A Second Chance?’. This episode aired days before the 2024 presidential election. Lines of Trump’s speech, from January 6th 2021, were delivered to a crowd who would later storm the Capitol building. This was edited together to, allegedly, make it sound like he encouraged the violence at the Capitol building. The 54-minute speech was cut down into a ten-second sound bite. The Panorama lines go like this: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol Building, and I’ll be there. We fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” Now the cut happens between ‘…and I’ll be there.’ and ‘We Fight like hell…’. I have read the transcript of the whole 54-minute speech, and Mr Trump’s main points are that the 2020 election was rigged and he actually won rather than Biden, the members of the Republican Party were too weak to fight for him to have a second consecutive term, and that illegal immigrants were out to get him and other US citizens. He went on to blame ‘big donors, big media, big tech and others’ for spreading fake news about him. However, Trump is in fact a billionaire who aligned himself with Elon Musk (big tech) during his 2024 campaign, yet has sued multiple broadcast agencies with comedians such as Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert due to their comments about him. The irony is not lost on me.
Since the scandal broke on November 9th, Trump has threatened to sue the BBC for $1 billion for defamation. In a statement on Fox News, Trump gave his reason, stating that the BBC had defrauded the public during the 2024 presidential election. The BBC issued an apology but denied that any compensation should be awarded, and I agree. Trump has set a precedent in the US that he can sue media companies into submission; thus, he will face more hurdles if he plans to sue the BBC.
Trump will not be able to sue in the UK as the Statute of Limitations for a defamation case needs to be filed one year from the date of publication. This has passed; however, Trump hopes to sue from Florida to combat this. Trump will have to prove that the Panorama episode was available to a large portion of the US public, thus influencing their opinion during the 2024 Election. However, as Panorama is a UK program that is only available through a UK TV license, this will be hard to prove by Trump’s legal counsel. Considering that Trump was re-elected as president, the program did not influence public opinion enough to hurt his re-election campaign. Trump’s legal counsel will have to prove that the edit was made with purpose and malicious intent. It was a 10-second sound bite of an hour-long documentary that was poorly edited. The words were still Trump’s and, under US law, where he plans to sue, opinion on a matter of public concern and political speech is heavily protected under defamation laws. All these points were sent in a letter by the BBC to Mr Trump. Trump’s outrageous demand for $1 billion also far exceeds any compensation available in the UK, as typical damages are limited to around £100,000.
This has sparked global media coverage of BBC conduct and comes at a critical point for the company as its Royal Charter expires in 2027. Discussions on the funding model for the broadcaster will be a main topic when drawing up the new charter.
There has been a large shift in the UK public and their opinion regarding TV licenses. As it stands, a TV license currently costs £174.50. You must have a TV license to watch live broadcast news, BBC iPlayer, or any live TV coverage. Failing to purchase a TV license and still using these services could result in prosecution and a £1000 fine. TV licenses are optional, but most of the time, they sure don’t make it feel that way. Have you ever received one of those ‘intimidating’ letters from the government? The gist would be that the home is not registered as having a TV license, and they threaten prosecution for failing to purchase one. Thus, an official would be visiting the premises to confirm that you are not watching unauthorised TV. What a joke, right? You can register your reason online for not having a TV license. I did it once, and all the options were so confusing that it nearly convinced me that I did need one. Now imagine a vulnerable person trying to go through this process and making a very large purchase that they don’t actually need. That feels predatory, doesn’t it? These threats from enforcers hold no merit. I never had a visit, and they hold no authority. They are not the police; they cannot enter your home without being invited in, like vampires.
Unfortunately, this system is susceptible to corruption. In 2017, a BBC report conducted on TV license enforcement found a gender bias against women and the vulnerable. Women were disproportionately being prosecuted more than men. The report found the collection company Capita, a third-party company hired by the BBC for £58 million, was giving workers bonus incentives to capture 28 license fee evaders per week. Obviously, they denied the allegations that the bonus was tied to prosecutions, but rather to license sales. The decimalisation of non-payment has been a hot topic of discussion by MPs due to the increased reports of concerning, aggressive behaviour by enforcers, potentially costing the corporation £200 million a year, according to The Guardian.
Compared to other European countries, we are currently 4th in the most expensive TV licenses behind Switzerland (352 euros), Germany (220 euros), and Austria (200 euros). Since 2000, the TV license has increased by £70; this was supposed to be in line with inflation, which is not the case. Surprisingly, according to the Bank of England, inflation would have raised the cost to £198.79. As it stands, the demand for TV licenses has waned with the option of streaming services, as well as the government no longer covering licenses for over-75s. Many members of my own family no longer purchase a TV license, because what do we really gain from the service?
If the BBC still wants public funding through what is basically a subscription service, a remodel is in desperate need. With the next generation being chronically online, rising demands on the cost of living and the challenges of the BBC’s relevance as a British broadcaster, does the BBC have a future?
Personally, I know I will never purchase a TV license. Will you?
Editor: Ola Jakubowska