What do you think?
Rate this book
The BBC: Myth of a Public Service
The BBC: The mouthpiece of the Establishment?
The BBC is one of the most important institutions in Britain; it is also one of the most misunderstood. Despite its claim to be independent and impartial, and the constant accusations of a liberal bias, the BBC has always sided with the elite. As Tom Mills demonstrates, we are only getting the news that the Establishment wants aired in public.
Throughout its existence, the BBC has been in thrall to those in power. This was true in 1926 when it stood against the workers during the General Strike, and since then the Corporation has continued to mute the voices of those who oppose the status quo: miners in 1984; anti-war protesters in 2003; those who offer alternatives to austerity economics since 2008. From the outset much of its activity has been scrutinised by the secret services at the invitation of those in charge. Since the 1990s the BBC has been integrated into the market, while its independence from government and big business has been steadily eroded. The BBC is an important and timely examination of a crucial public institution that is constantly under threat.
272 pages, Kindle Edition
First published November 1, 2016
29 people are currently reading
745 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 26 reviews
November 8, 2016
This book was distilled from a PhD and occasionally betrays academic clunkiness in the writing. However, it is a passionate plea to the millions of us who use the BBC to recognise the bias inherent in this beloved institution. Tom Mills wants to "set the record straight on the BBC". He argues that the BBC not only broadcasts establishment views, but that is is a "neoliberal, pro-business, rightwing organisation." His book charts, in the six chapters below, how vested interests have captured this organisation.
Chapter One describes Reith's support of the government during the 1926 General Strike, and how in subsequent years, the BBC has taken the side of the government and business owners against strikers and trade unions in general. Chapter Two details how BBC managers invited MI5 and Special Branch to vet their staff, while conspiring to keep the BBC's governors in the dark. Chapter Three covers BBC's support for the government in the Iraq War. Chapter Four attacks the myth that the BBC is left-wing, arguiing that its middle-class, Oxbridge-educated staff create bias towards the right. Chapter Five is a gripping account of how Thatcherite neoliberals captured the BBC through sacking Milne and appointing arch-neoliberal John Birt. Chapter Six is the weakest of chapters, and does not so much discuss the "Future of Broadcasting" as summarise the previous chapters.
My final comment is on the horrible quality of the protected Adobe manuscript, where pages were impossibly slow to turn, the Table of Contents failed to appear and the book was generally impossible to navigate. Compared to the Kindle experience, even to just the Kindle App on my Android tablet, I never want to read a Netgalley manuscript again.
This book was provided to me by NetGalley in exchange for a fair and free review.
Chapter One describes Reith's support of the government during the 1926 General Strike, and how in subsequent years, the BBC has taken the side of the government and business owners against strikers and trade unions in general. Chapter Two details how BBC managers invited MI5 and Special Branch to vet their staff, while conspiring to keep the BBC's governors in the dark. Chapter Three covers BBC's support for the government in the Iraq War. Chapter Four attacks the myth that the BBC is left-wing, arguiing that its middle-class, Oxbridge-educated staff create bias towards the right. Chapter Five is a gripping account of how Thatcherite neoliberals captured the BBC through sacking Milne and appointing arch-neoliberal John Birt. Chapter Six is the weakest of chapters, and does not so much discuss the "Future of Broadcasting" as summarise the previous chapters.
My final comment is on the horrible quality of the protected Adobe manuscript, where pages were impossibly slow to turn, the Table of Contents failed to appear and the book was generally impossible to navigate. Compared to the Kindle experience, even to just the Kindle App on my Android tablet, I never want to read a Netgalley manuscript again.
This book was provided to me by NetGalley in exchange for a fair and free review.
June 14, 2025
It wouldn't be a stretch for most people to come to the conclusion that an entity like the BBC is a shell of what it was during the height of the social democratic period in the UK. Here Tom Mills lays it bare, the gradual neoliberalisation of the BBC, centralization of powers, and the modern precarious nature of employment.
I think the following from the conclusion does a great job of summarizing the BBC today "reliant in the long term on the trust and affection of its audience for its legitimacy, but dependent more immediately on the support of political elites, who hold not only the 'purse strings', but also the Constitutional power of life and death."
the author then argues the BBC will inevitably find itself facing a legitimacy crisis as the gulf between the people it says it represents and the interests of the political class widens. 9 years on from the publication of this book and I think it's safe to say that bird has come home to roost.
One need only look as far as the BBCs coverage of the genocide in Gaza to see examples of the divide between its audience, the political class and reality.
I think the following from the conclusion does a great job of summarizing the BBC today "reliant in the long term on the trust and affection of its audience for its legitimacy, but dependent more immediately on the support of political elites, who hold not only the 'purse strings', but also the Constitutional power of life and death."
the author then argues the BBC will inevitably find itself facing a legitimacy crisis as the gulf between the people it says it represents and the interests of the political class widens. 9 years on from the publication of this book and I think it's safe to say that bird has come home to roost.
One need only look as far as the BBCs coverage of the genocide in Gaza to see examples of the divide between its audience, the political class and reality.
November 12, 2016
You can find a copy of this review at:
https://thequidnuncblog.wordpress.com...
I have been waiting a lot for a book like this to come around to the public. Finally, truth put to paper and my heart can calm itself down. The voice of media has always been a strong one, and when it comes to a giant like BBC it is very important for the general public to know, that what it stands for is not always the right thing, or in fact not even the right subject to be portrayed.
I am absolutely in love with this book that deftly demolishes most of the popular and comforting myths surrounding the BBC. And proves me right in my choice to stay away from a journalism career. Especially, here in Britain. I am sure this read will make many people angry, but I am eternally grateful for having read it. Within the pages of The BBC: Myth of a Public Service you'll find how Mills highlights a number of factors, including the elite-populated, government-appointed BBC Board of Governors (since 2007, the BBC Trust), the class and educational background of senior management, the fact the government of the day sets the corporation’s budget and decades long vetting of employees conducted by the security services. For the untrained eyed mind-blowing facts, for the more knowledgeable reader a definite nod will occur on almost every sentence.
This a definite must read for all involved in Media Studies or Journalism. I was mostly impressed by the radical reform of the BBC which according to Mills is much needed: the end of political control over senior appointments and budgets, a more representative workforce and the public commissioning of investigative journalism.
This book is well argued and fact-proofed. No doubt in giving my recommendation to everyone I know.
https://thequidnuncblog.wordpress.com...
I have been waiting a lot for a book like this to come around to the public. Finally, truth put to paper and my heart can calm itself down. The voice of media has always been a strong one, and when it comes to a giant like BBC it is very important for the general public to know, that what it stands for is not always the right thing, or in fact not even the right subject to be portrayed.
I am absolutely in love with this book that deftly demolishes most of the popular and comforting myths surrounding the BBC. And proves me right in my choice to stay away from a journalism career. Especially, here in Britain. I am sure this read will make many people angry, but I am eternally grateful for having read it. Within the pages of The BBC: Myth of a Public Service you'll find how Mills highlights a number of factors, including the elite-populated, government-appointed BBC Board of Governors (since 2007, the BBC Trust), the class and educational background of senior management, the fact the government of the day sets the corporation’s budget and decades long vetting of employees conducted by the security services. For the untrained eyed mind-blowing facts, for the more knowledgeable reader a definite nod will occur on almost every sentence.
This a definite must read for all involved in Media Studies or Journalism. I was mostly impressed by the radical reform of the BBC which according to Mills is much needed: the end of political control over senior appointments and budgets, a more representative workforce and the public commissioning of investigative journalism.
This book is well argued and fact-proofed. No doubt in giving my recommendation to everyone I know.
May 2, 2018
Good, but disappointing because Tom Mills pulls too many punches, and even worse seems to lose interest once he gets past the Thatcher era. I’m guessing maybe the original PhD thesis stopped there?
Hardly any attention is paid to the BBCs non news output, which is surely a critical part of this most ideological of ideological state apparatuses, as if it is taken for granted that the BBCs self congratulatory “best telly in the world” reputation is defensible in any way. (Brief mention of ‘social cement’ but it’s dispensed with within a page.)
The book is very weak on recent history, the David Kelly affair, for example.
The morality of making people pay to be proselytised at, on pain of prosecution, is never addressed. The entrenched dynasties of presenters and apparatchiks, entitlement dripping from every pore, are another deserving target which escape unkicked, and the many weaknesses of rolling news are barely mentioned.
A supplementary edition, with a bit more teeth, unafraid to make some enemies, and which analyses the supine way in which the BBC now mirrors all the other right wing media, and not even to a particularly high standard, might be worth a read. Getting opinions from actual viewers, and ex viewers, would liven things up a bit.
Hardly any attention is paid to the BBCs non news output, which is surely a critical part of this most ideological of ideological state apparatuses, as if it is taken for granted that the BBCs self congratulatory “best telly in the world” reputation is defensible in any way. (Brief mention of ‘social cement’ but it’s dispensed with within a page.)
The book is very weak on recent history, the David Kelly affair, for example.
The morality of making people pay to be proselytised at, on pain of prosecution, is never addressed. The entrenched dynasties of presenters and apparatchiks, entitlement dripping from every pore, are another deserving target which escape unkicked, and the many weaknesses of rolling news are barely mentioned.
A supplementary edition, with a bit more teeth, unafraid to make some enemies, and which analyses the supine way in which the BBC now mirrors all the other right wing media, and not even to a particularly high standard, might be worth a read. Getting opinions from actual viewers, and ex viewers, would liven things up a bit.
March 14, 2017
Well written and while it does touch upon recent events, I feel like he could have gone deeper with the advent of social media and its role in Today's Journalism.
This book is kind of Eerie in that while this is about Britan and its press, with recent events in the U.S., it does show a lot of similarities with ours.
This book is kind of Eerie in that while this is about Britan and its press, with recent events in the U.S., it does show a lot of similarities with ours.
October 4, 2019
It has always puzzled me when anyone accuses the BBC of left wing bias. It holds about as much weight and conviction as that unhinged American clown who is always bellowing about “fake news”. Of course this is a myth engineered and perpetuated by the right wing media and part of wider, long-term strategy to expand their business and political interests. The likes of Murdoch and his poisonous empire go to phenomenal lengths to challenge, discredit, and even overthrow the BBC at every opportunity, so that they can get to enjoy even greater power and control within the English speaking world.
The BBC has always been a largely middle class entity which provides many lucrative careers for privately educated Oxbridge graduates. It has protected, praised and promoted every government it has ever been under. How often have you see it meaningfully challenge the status quo?...When have you ever seen the BBC confront the British state on their colonies, wars or other appalling acts of greed, cruelty or murderous intervention abroad?... And I don’t mean in retrospect when everyone else has already jumped on the bandwagon and it safe and even cool to do so. Any coward can do that. How often do they challenge the inherited wealth and privilege of the royal family?... The BBC is part of the establishment and so ensures it protects it as an act of self-preservation. They don’t tend to go in for extremes. They are quietly to the right with a small, but strong r. Even when they play the regional accent card, or they are dropping their ts and gs to cater to the masses, and employ the odd leftie, the song still remains the same.
Mills examines the rather cosy relationship between the BBC and Westminster with an ever growing cast of careerists who waltz through the revolving door between the two. “Greg Dyke was, like BBC Chairman Gavin Davies, a multi-millionaire Labour Party donor, and Davies was especially close to New Labour. His wife, Sue Nye, was private secretary to Gordon Brown, and their children were bridesmaid and page boy at Brown’s wedding. An investment banker, Davies had served as an unofficial economic advisor to Brown and to Blair.”
The governors and trustees who set the overall strategic direction approving budgets and overseeing decisions made by the management, “They have been appointed by central government and have naturally enough tended to be overwhelmingly Establishment figures drawn from privileged backgrounds.” Baron Hall of Birkenhead (An Oxbridge graduate and son of a bank manager) is currently the Director General and of course there has yet to be a female DG. As well as this, one 2014 report found that of the 125 BBC executives 33% had attended Oxbridge, compared to 0.8% of the UK population.
I was really interested to read about Director General John Birt (now Baron Birt) who was responsible for the introduction of the Producer Choice system which took effect in April 1993, this led to a vast increase in admin, lawyers, accountants, business affairs executives and other layers of bureaucracy. After leaving the BBC he became Strategic Advisor to Prime Minister Tony Blair.
We hear of the BBC siding with the government against the miners during the General Strike of 1926, this is a clear and early indication of where the BBC exists on the political spectrum. This would happen again in 1984 at the Battle of Orgreave where many police officers brutally attacked unarmed miners in broad day light. After all it knows what side its bread is buttered on and tends to fall in line with what the government of the time wishes. We learn that the MI5 was vetting candidates for the corporation for decades too.
Mills addresses the BBC’s role with the Labour government’s illegal invasion of Iraq and the BBC seemingly bowing down to requests from fascist dictator Franco. We see governments repeatedly and consistently censoring, controlling and threatening the BBC ensuring that it is never allowed to openly challenge many of the government’s most controversial and dangerous policies.
In many ways the BBC is a no win situation, like any media corporation it is not perfect, and never will be. It certainly could do with many improvements and reality checks, but when compared to most of the alternatives within the world today, it doesn’t take long to see how much worse things could get. Visit or look into any of the other English speaking countries of the world today and see how far they fall short of the BBC’s standards and quality. They are either heavily reliant on imported content, limited by resources or tainted by other external factors which deeply compromise their integrity.
This starts off being quite patchy, and I feared this was another case of lecturer as author syndrome, where they struggle to translate strong knowledge into an agreeable reading experience. But stick with it, it gets better. There are times when it is bone dry (the chapter on MI5) and there are times when it is really absorbing and Mills pulls out some great stuff and overall this was an intriguing if not inconsistent read.
February 5, 2024
Considering how progressive, anti government, left-leaning BBC contents these days, it is rather perplexing that BBC has never been an independent broadcaster, instead serving as the propaganda arms serving the government. As the author rather insidiously described, BBC invariably bent towards the will of the contemporary Conservative government of various times, from the Pre-wartime, when it was predisposed against the workers in covering Workers' General Strike of 1926, then it bent against Churchill's and Tories claim of unfairness (a running theme that still run until now). The Attlee's Labour's unexpected rule was conveniently skipped, all the same with Harold Wilson, that wizard of media, the true modern British Prime Minister who put media at his disposal, breathlessly jumped into the gargoyle of the leftists, Margaret Thatcher and her neoliberalistic drive towards BBC, which unfortunately turn it into a bureaucratic entity, pro-business rather than pro-labour in its coverage, a tradition which was unchanged by Tony Blair and his New Labours, or Tory Lites, if you will, by their pushing every buttons to justify Britain's support in America's War on Terror. In the end, I found myself bemused by this book and its claim of government manipulation on BBC, which unfairly biased against Tories, a claim that paradoxically also fair enough, considering Tories' longevity in government when compared to Labour and other oppositions.
May 29, 2025
Took me back to uni, in a good way.
November 8, 2016
The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) is one of the most important institutions in the United Kingdom, delivering radio, television and online programming both to its core domestic audience and around the world. Yet is this public service broadcaster a mouthpiece of the establishment? How independent is it truly? Is there a future for the BBC? All these questions and more are considered in this fascinating, engaging and focussed book!
Throughout, the reader is treated to a well-sourced, articulated and neutral look at the BBC since its inception, although the majority of focus is understandably on more recent events and projecting forward. Both sides of the political divide argue, at times, that the BBC is biased in favour of the opposing view, especially towards the government party of the time. Is there truth in this claim? Undoubtedly yes, but has this changed along society and became, if anything, more nuanced and what is bias in any case? In any case it is not so black and white as people may believe.
The BBC is far from a blameless organisation. It has been involved in many scandals, perhaps some justified and some less so and might you expect that such a large, diverse organisation can and will make mistakes over time? Is it learning from its mistakes, errors and omissions and/or does it actually regret each and every issue? That may be a different question and something less likely to achieve a consensus opinion about.
The author concludes that the BBC is lacking in many areas, even if that doesn't necessarily condemn it to deserved opprobrium and require that it is dismantled. Some of the problems may be of the BBC’s own structural making, the effects of a previously bad but politically expedient decision. We are, it is argued, getting our news through a BBC filter, although is that so bad when there are a plethora of media outlets capable of reporting the news. The BBC has no monopoly; it may still be a big gorilla in the media room, yet there may be space for contrasting, alternative voices. The bigger question might be, dependent on your view, how pervasive and possibly damaging the BBC filter actually is.
It is quite conceivable that this book can appeal to both the BBC’s detractors and its staunchest defenders at the same time! It is a recommended read. You don’t even have to have specific interest in broadcasting or politics to enjoy this book too. Highly recommended.
Autamme.com
Throughout, the reader is treated to a well-sourced, articulated and neutral look at the BBC since its inception, although the majority of focus is understandably on more recent events and projecting forward. Both sides of the political divide argue, at times, that the BBC is biased in favour of the opposing view, especially towards the government party of the time. Is there truth in this claim? Undoubtedly yes, but has this changed along society and became, if anything, more nuanced and what is bias in any case? In any case it is not so black and white as people may believe.
The BBC is far from a blameless organisation. It has been involved in many scandals, perhaps some justified and some less so and might you expect that such a large, diverse organisation can and will make mistakes over time? Is it learning from its mistakes, errors and omissions and/or does it actually regret each and every issue? That may be a different question and something less likely to achieve a consensus opinion about.
The author concludes that the BBC is lacking in many areas, even if that doesn't necessarily condemn it to deserved opprobrium and require that it is dismantled. Some of the problems may be of the BBC’s own structural making, the effects of a previously bad but politically expedient decision. We are, it is argued, getting our news through a BBC filter, although is that so bad when there are a plethora of media outlets capable of reporting the news. The BBC has no monopoly; it may still be a big gorilla in the media room, yet there may be space for contrasting, alternative voices. The bigger question might be, dependent on your view, how pervasive and possibly damaging the BBC filter actually is.
It is quite conceivable that this book can appeal to both the BBC’s detractors and its staunchest defenders at the same time! It is a recommended read. You don’t even have to have specific interest in broadcasting or politics to enjoy this book too. Highly recommended.
Autamme.com
January 27, 2017
you can a find a copy of this review at:
https://thequidnuncblog.wordpress.com...
I have been waiting a lot for a book like this to come around to the public. Finally, truth put to paper and my heart can calm itself down. The voice of media has always been a strong one, and when it comes to a giant like BBC it is very important for the general public to know, that what it stands for is not always the right thing, or in fact not even the right subject to be portrayed.
I am absolutely in love with this book that deftly demolishes most of the popular and comforting myths surrounding the BBC. And proves me right in my choice to stay away from a journalism career. Especially, here in Britain. I am sure this read will make many people angry, but I am eternally grateful for having read it. Within the pages of The BBC: Myth of a Public Service you'll find how Mills highlights a number of factors, including the elite-populated, government-appointed BBC Board of Governors (since 2007, the BBC Trust), the class and educational background of senior management, the fact the government of the day sets the corporation’s budget and decades long vetting of employees conducted by the security services. For the untrained eyed mind-blowing facts, for the more knowledgeable reader a definite nod will occur on almost every sentence.
This a definite must read for all involved in Media Studies or Journalism. I was mostly impressed by the radical reform of the BBC which according to Mills is much needed: the end of political control over senior appointments and budgets, a more representative workforce and the public commissioning of investigative journalism.
This book is well argued and fact-proofed. No doubt in giving my recommendation to everyone I know.
https://thequidnuncblog.wordpress.com...
I have been waiting a lot for a book like this to come around to the public. Finally, truth put to paper and my heart can calm itself down. The voice of media has always been a strong one, and when it comes to a giant like BBC it is very important for the general public to know, that what it stands for is not always the right thing, or in fact not even the right subject to be portrayed.
I am absolutely in love with this book that deftly demolishes most of the popular and comforting myths surrounding the BBC. And proves me right in my choice to stay away from a journalism career. Especially, here in Britain. I am sure this read will make many people angry, but I am eternally grateful for having read it. Within the pages of The BBC: Myth of a Public Service you'll find how Mills highlights a number of factors, including the elite-populated, government-appointed BBC Board of Governors (since 2007, the BBC Trust), the class and educational background of senior management, the fact the government of the day sets the corporation’s budget and decades long vetting of employees conducted by the security services. For the untrained eyed mind-blowing facts, for the more knowledgeable reader a definite nod will occur on almost every sentence.
This a definite must read for all involved in Media Studies or Journalism. I was mostly impressed by the radical reform of the BBC which according to Mills is much needed: the end of political control over senior appointments and budgets, a more representative workforce and the public commissioning of investigative journalism.
This book is well argued and fact-proofed. No doubt in giving my recommendation to everyone I know.
December 7, 2025
I have problems with the BBC quite apart from the bias in their reporting.
Why am I forced under threat of prosecution to spend £169.50 each year for a service that I don't actually want.
It would not be acceptable to force someone to pay for any other form of entertainment that they did not wish to watch.
I can live quite comfortably without the bias and the dumbed down variety shows. It's time to get rid of the licence and move to a subscription system. That way people can decide for themselves how to spend their own money.
UPDATE: DECEMBER 2025
Another controversial year for the BBC. Resignations, doctoring speeches, and now this week uproar over Question Time. What sort of boneheads are making the decisions at the BBC. Meanwhile if l want to watch the Ashes cricket series ( one of the oldest and greatest events in British sport ) I am forced to pay an alternative network for the privilege.
Keep paying the people running your organisation the big bucks BBC. Screw the licence payers!
Why am I forced under threat of prosecution to spend £169.50 each year for a service that I don't actually want.
It would not be acceptable to force someone to pay for any other form of entertainment that they did not wish to watch.
I can live quite comfortably without the bias and the dumbed down variety shows. It's time to get rid of the licence and move to a subscription system. That way people can decide for themselves how to spend their own money.
UPDATE: DECEMBER 2025
Another controversial year for the BBC. Resignations, doctoring speeches, and now this week uproar over Question Time. What sort of boneheads are making the decisions at the BBC. Meanwhile if l want to watch the Ashes cricket series ( one of the oldest and greatest events in British sport ) I am forced to pay an alternative network for the privilege.
Keep paying the people running your organisation the big bucks BBC. Screw the licence payers!
October 26, 2023
Very welcome history of the genesis of the BBC within the bosom of state & Empire. Astonishing that Secret Service vetting of staff only ended in 1985. Only increases my admiration for Isabel Hilton & Will Hutton. And the chapters chronicling the development of the BBCs business & economics coverage couldn’t be more relevant in this age of Zero Hours and cost of living crisis.
December 14, 2023
This was okay I guess.
I'd been quite looking forward to reading this, having had it on the 'to-be-read' pile for some time and often seeing it referenced elsewhere. However, after reading it I am left with the notion that I haven't learnt anything particularly new or enlightening.
The book's premise is that rather than the BBC being impartial and independent, it is in actuality inextricably entwined with the Establishment, power and the state. I don't think anyone who has been playing attention can say that it is anything but? The book was published in 2016 so some of the references are new enough to be familiar, and in many respects since then the BBC has been exposed time and time again - particularly in relation to it's revolving doors between the BBC, the City of London and Westminster and the Civil Service. In many respects the findings have been accentuated since then, with the assassination of Corbyn, the ridiculous close relationship to the Tory press office and even today the line the BBC has taken on Israel's genocidal attack on Palestine.
Some examples - in the 2019 general election when there was the story of children lying in corridors in hospital that was building momentum, the BBC led on a story about the hospital were the Health Minister was attacked outside. It was proven false, but the political narrative over the night was on this assault rather than the NHS in crisis. What became evident was that the attack story was leaked by the Tory Press office and ran with without validation. Job done.
And then we had the 'antisemitism' crisis which dominated the news. We soon learnt that Margaret Hodge, one of Corbyn's biggest opponents had a daughter heading up BBC news. The nepotism and closeness of power to the BBC makes it very hard to consider it as impartial.
But of course we are describing recent events and not those of the book. The book generally provides an overview of the BBC and looks at points in it's history to show it's closeness to power. So there is documented evidence of it's taking the government line in the General Strike of 1926 - again, nothing new. There is a long chapter about vetting by M15 and how the BBC rather than being asked by M15 to monitor it's staff, actually asked for far more than what M15 offered. I was reminded of the Noam Chomsky interview with Andrew Marr and...
Marr: “How can you know I’m self-censoring?”
Chomsky: “I’m not saying you’re self-censoring. I’m sure you believe everything you say. But what I’m saying is if you believed something different you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.”
By this, suggesting that the range of opinion and political views allowed at the BBC means that they filter out anyone remotely espousing anything other than establishment values. Of course, those who get in, may not think that is why they are there, but that feels beside the point.
There are chapters on the Miner's strike in 1986 and the cooked up weapons of mass destruction dossier, but again they don't go into to much depth, and again, anyone paying attention knows the truth now about the doctored footage and bias. The old, 'we talk to industrialists and politicians more than ordinary people and trade unionists' argument has been told for decades.
There is an interesting chapter about the attempt to liberalise and introduce competition into the BBC and how this marketisation actually led to lots of additional costs. It reminded me of the New Public Management which wrecked a lot of the public sector at around the same time and what we are still trying to unpick. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so damaging.
The most interesting chapter is the one about the growth about business and economics news since the 90's and how it was a concerted effort, from 2 minute slots at the end of the news to full hours of TV per day. The explosion in the number of business journalists and funding since the 90's seems completely disproportionate to the interest in it, and it is clear (like big business love to have) is that lots of public money has been spent not only to provide a small minority with 'business news' but also the BBC took it upon them selves to push a neoliberal agenda and a pro-business agenda on the public - which we did not ask for, nor want.
The book occasionally references those who claim the BBC is left-wing and tries to prove otherwise but I kind of see this as wasted effort. Only idiots believe this. But what I am struck by is that the BBC is very much like the Labour Party. Both ingrained with the establishment - both carry on moving further and further right wing to prove they are not left, whilst all along the right sets the narrative. As the window carries on moving rightward, the 'impartial, central space' moves with it.
The book can be quite dry at times, but is interesting enough. I guess for some there will be a lot of eye-openers in here, but really it wasn't so much for me.
I'd been quite looking forward to reading this, having had it on the 'to-be-read' pile for some time and often seeing it referenced elsewhere. However, after reading it I am left with the notion that I haven't learnt anything particularly new or enlightening.
The book's premise is that rather than the BBC being impartial and independent, it is in actuality inextricably entwined with the Establishment, power and the state. I don't think anyone who has been playing attention can say that it is anything but? The book was published in 2016 so some of the references are new enough to be familiar, and in many respects since then the BBC has been exposed time and time again - particularly in relation to it's revolving doors between the BBC, the City of London and Westminster and the Civil Service. In many respects the findings have been accentuated since then, with the assassination of Corbyn, the ridiculous close relationship to the Tory press office and even today the line the BBC has taken on Israel's genocidal attack on Palestine.
Some examples - in the 2019 general election when there was the story of children lying in corridors in hospital that was building momentum, the BBC led on a story about the hospital were the Health Minister was attacked outside. It was proven false, but the political narrative over the night was on this assault rather than the NHS in crisis. What became evident was that the attack story was leaked by the Tory Press office and ran with without validation. Job done.
And then we had the 'antisemitism' crisis which dominated the news. We soon learnt that Margaret Hodge, one of Corbyn's biggest opponents had a daughter heading up BBC news. The nepotism and closeness of power to the BBC makes it very hard to consider it as impartial.
But of course we are describing recent events and not those of the book. The book generally provides an overview of the BBC and looks at points in it's history to show it's closeness to power. So there is documented evidence of it's taking the government line in the General Strike of 1926 - again, nothing new. There is a long chapter about vetting by M15 and how the BBC rather than being asked by M15 to monitor it's staff, actually asked for far more than what M15 offered. I was reminded of the Noam Chomsky interview with Andrew Marr and...
Marr: “How can you know I’m self-censoring?”
Chomsky: “I’m not saying you’re self-censoring. I’m sure you believe everything you say. But what I’m saying is if you believed something different you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.”
By this, suggesting that the range of opinion and political views allowed at the BBC means that they filter out anyone remotely espousing anything other than establishment values. Of course, those who get in, may not think that is why they are there, but that feels beside the point.
There are chapters on the Miner's strike in 1986 and the cooked up weapons of mass destruction dossier, but again they don't go into to much depth, and again, anyone paying attention knows the truth now about the doctored footage and bias. The old, 'we talk to industrialists and politicians more than ordinary people and trade unionists' argument has been told for decades.
There is an interesting chapter about the attempt to liberalise and introduce competition into the BBC and how this marketisation actually led to lots of additional costs. It reminded me of the New Public Management which wrecked a lot of the public sector at around the same time and what we are still trying to unpick. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so damaging.
The most interesting chapter is the one about the growth about business and economics news since the 90's and how it was a concerted effort, from 2 minute slots at the end of the news to full hours of TV per day. The explosion in the number of business journalists and funding since the 90's seems completely disproportionate to the interest in it, and it is clear (like big business love to have) is that lots of public money has been spent not only to provide a small minority with 'business news' but also the BBC took it upon them selves to push a neoliberal agenda and a pro-business agenda on the public - which we did not ask for, nor want.
The book occasionally references those who claim the BBC is left-wing and tries to prove otherwise but I kind of see this as wasted effort. Only idiots believe this. But what I am struck by is that the BBC is very much like the Labour Party. Both ingrained with the establishment - both carry on moving further and further right wing to prove they are not left, whilst all along the right sets the narrative. As the window carries on moving rightward, the 'impartial, central space' moves with it.
The book can be quite dry at times, but is interesting enough. I guess for some there will be a lot of eye-openers in here, but really it wasn't so much for me.
January 25, 2019
Detailed account of verifiable events within the BBC over the past 100 or so years. The author works hard to stay objective and only lets slip a few personal biases. However it's never anything worse than a quick anecdote and they're few and far between so this is a light criticism. I never felt like he was deliberately misleading or misrepresenting something.
Most political books I've read (particularly of a critical nature) are woefully wrong about something that takes 2 seconds to research (or worse they are intentionally bullshitting you) so I'm relieved to report that I never found anything like that here. I appreciate the commitment to facts and accurate quotes above partisanship and this book is among the stronger ones in that regard.
Most political books I've read (particularly of a critical nature) are woefully wrong about something that takes 2 seconds to research (or worse they are intentionally bullshitting you) so I'm relieved to report that I never found anything like that here. I appreciate the commitment to facts and accurate quotes above partisanship and this book is among the stronger ones in that regard.
December 7, 2020
Outstanding and authoritative book that completely debunks the myth that the BBC is some sort of left wing organisation. It is clearly quite the opposite. Mills doesn't go as far as saying it has a right wing bias, but provides a very compelling case that the BBC is simply too embedded within the Establishment to be taken seriously as an "independent" and "impartial" public service broadcaster. Also makes it clear that the BBC only maintains outward appearance of impartiality, in order to deflect from criticisms, whilst at the same time having a very submissive relationship to the government of the day.
October 17, 2020
Polemical scholarship without the benefits of a wide-ranging view or the kind of generalizing intellect that marks the most readable elements of such monographs. Mills has a hatchet and takes it to the BBC without compunction - few considerations are made to the reader, to context, to anything other than Mills' chosen grind. Is it interesting? Sure, or it could be, but it all repels the reader who isn't already looking for ammunition to blast the BBC.
September 28, 2018
Interesting read, perhaps a little dry in places for those without a deep interest in the media. Author's central argument is well-supported and the book contains a wealth of eye-opening details.
December 30, 2019
'capital, in reality, has never created anything; it has only capitalised on people's creativity and expertise, and directed their activities towards profitable ends.'
July 28, 2023
great analysis throughout, very little opinion and just lets the facts do the talking. not the easiest writing style but deserves a four star due to its analysis
April 14, 2024
Anti Establishment porn
January 25, 2025
Some useful history but the claims that the BBC is a right wing biased media does not, IMHO, hold water when one views the BBC's obvious anti-USA, pro Euro and migrants, gender, anti corporations and other very leftie causes.
September 9, 2016
I grew up believing that the BBC was the least biased News outlet. Maybe because my confirmation bias or my motivated thinking, I don't know, but this book was a good eye-opener.
Of course, there is no 100% neutral or unbiased opinion in the Media. Everyone has their own agenda and this book tries to explain not only the struggle between the interest of various groups of power that have influenced the way the BBC reports, but also the transition and the tug of war between opposing ideologies.
These groups of power or elites are composed by the State, the private sector and the rest of the political powers.
This book tries to analyze the BBC "relationship with the centres of power in British society, principally corporations and the state".
The author shows with good evidence that the BBC has been used sometimes as a "Propaganda" machine and "does not stand apart from the world of politics and power and the corporate interests which predominate there. Rather, it is an important part of those complex networks of power and influence."
Thus, the BBC doesn't have one immutable Favourite nor a permanent "political partisanship". Its orientation and bias are changing depending on the networks of power at the time.
All Media are biased, but that doesn't mean there are useless.
Of course, there is no 100% neutral or unbiased opinion in the Media. Everyone has their own agenda and this book tries to explain not only the struggle between the interest of various groups of power that have influenced the way the BBC reports, but also the transition and the tug of war between opposing ideologies.
These groups of power or elites are composed by the State, the private sector and the rest of the political powers.
This book tries to analyze the BBC "relationship with the centres of power in British society, principally corporations and the state".
The author shows with good evidence that the BBC has been used sometimes as a "Propaganda" machine and "does not stand apart from the world of politics and power and the corporate interests which predominate there. Rather, it is an important part of those complex networks of power and influence."
Thus, the BBC doesn't have one immutable Favourite nor a permanent "political partisanship". Its orientation and bias are changing depending on the networks of power at the time.
All Media are biased, but that doesn't mean there are useless.
July 24, 2016
A very interesting book about the lack of transparency and objectivity in the BBC.
The blurb is basically a compact version of the interesting arguments made within the book. "The BBC is one of the most important institutions in Britain. And it is also one of the most misunderstood. Since it's founding, the BBC has been the servant of the establishment. Despite its assertions about impartiality and fairness, and the constant accusations of favouring the liberal points of view, it has always sided with the elites.
This was true in 1926 when it stood against the workers during the General Strike, and it has continued to mute the voices of those who spoke against the status quo: miners in 1984, anti-war protesters in 2003, those who offer alternatives to austerity economics since 2008. The organisation failed to uphold principles of integrity and accuracy and in recent years been mired in scandals that has caused serious damage to its reputation.
In the year when channel renewal forces all parties to question where the BBC is for, media expert Tom Mills exposes an unfulfilled promise. He shows that the BBC has always been close to those in power, while also professing objectivity. Yet from the outset much of it's activity has been scrutinized by the secret services at the invitation of those in charge. Since the 1990's introduction of the market place into the institution makes any hope of a public service broadcast...shows why we are only getting the news that the establishment want you to hear."
I found Tom Mills' arguments in book highly persuasive and showed a lot of insight into the unexplored depths of the BBC.
The blurb is basically a compact version of the interesting arguments made within the book. "The BBC is one of the most important institutions in Britain. And it is also one of the most misunderstood. Since it's founding, the BBC has been the servant of the establishment. Despite its assertions about impartiality and fairness, and the constant accusations of favouring the liberal points of view, it has always sided with the elites.
This was true in 1926 when it stood against the workers during the General Strike, and it has continued to mute the voices of those who spoke against the status quo: miners in 1984, anti-war protesters in 2003, those who offer alternatives to austerity economics since 2008. The organisation failed to uphold principles of integrity and accuracy and in recent years been mired in scandals that has caused serious damage to its reputation.
In the year when channel renewal forces all parties to question where the BBC is for, media expert Tom Mills exposes an unfulfilled promise. He shows that the BBC has always been close to those in power, while also professing objectivity. Yet from the outset much of it's activity has been scrutinized by the secret services at the invitation of those in charge. Since the 1990's introduction of the market place into the institution makes any hope of a public service broadcast...shows why we are only getting the news that the establishment want you to hear."
I found Tom Mills' arguments in book highly persuasive and showed a lot of insight into the unexplored depths of the BBC.
March 11, 2023
Tom Mills has written an excellent account of how the BBC has always reflected the views of the establishment. In a short but well researched book, Mills totally demolishes the idea, propagated by many right wingers, that the BBC is somehow a bastion of left wing liberal views. In fact, it is the polar opposite and has for years been used by the powers that be to push an anti-union, anti-worker, anti-left wing line. Unsurprisingly for an academic, Mills's book has an excellent reference section which in itself is a treasure trove of other books and sources to read about the BBC. Mills is especially incisive in exposing political interference of the BBC, of which there has been a great deal and more often than not of the right wing variety. It's fair to say that Mills is not overly optimistic about the prospects of the BBC being democratised and being less of an establishment mouthpiece. I hope he's wrong but I suspect he isn't.
November 3, 2016
An insightful book debunking the myth that the modern BBC is an impartial, public service institution
It may have been at the beginning, but British Governments of all colours and other interested parties have hijacked a once revered go to programme maker whose integrity and honesty was valued all over the world.
The type of programmes produced now are more often than not farmed out to outside programme makers, costing much more than the BBC would. In my opinion, the licence fee is not value for money.
I hope the powers that be read this and change their ways soon, but I'm not holding my breath.
Very highly recommended.
I was given a digital copy of this book by the publisher Verso Books via Netgalley in return for an honest unbiased review.
It may have been at the beginning, but British Governments of all colours and other interested parties have hijacked a once revered go to programme maker whose integrity and honesty was valued all over the world.
The type of programmes produced now are more often than not farmed out to outside programme makers, costing much more than the BBC would. In my opinion, the licence fee is not value for money.
I hope the powers that be read this and change their ways soon, but I'm not holding my breath.
Very highly recommended.
I was given a digital copy of this book by the publisher Verso Books via Netgalley in return for an honest unbiased review.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 26 reviews