What do you think?
Rate this book
Noble Liar
The Noble Liar is going to make a lot of people feel uncomfortable. Good. Today more than ever we need to shake up the public debate about major institutions and be forced out of the comfort zone of our echo chambers. Those of a liberal disposition who are so virtuous in their rightness that they are ruthlessly illiberal about those who disagree may squirm at the accuracy of their depiction in this important book. Those who are happy to be noble liars to promote their greater truth may be stung by the deconstruction of how they are contributing to a festering rot at the heart of media institutions. But good for Robin Aitken for courageously taking on thorny taboos and making us rethink received opinion. Aitken uses the BBC as his main focus, but is skilful in his critique of the national broadcaster, invaluably allowing us to reflect on key contemporary institutional contempt for the values of the millions of people, distortion of media impartiality under the guise of fact-checking and the preachy nature of an ever-narrower news agenda that avoids discussing prickly questions that challenge liberal consensus. --Claire Fox, director of the Institute of Ideas, author of 'I STILL Find That Offensive!'; The Noble Liar maps a world of self-obsessed and irresistibly comic liberals against whom the pendulum may already have begun to swing. --Conservative Home; Bias in the news is dismally, but brilliantly, adumbrated in a new book by Robin Aitken, a BBC staffer for more than 25 years. Aitken, sick to the back teeth of the partisan nature of the corporation's news coverage, concludes that the BBC has 'whether through carelessness or hubris' given up any pretence of impartiality, preferring instead to promulgate its philosophically asinine world view. --The Sunday Times. About the Robin Aitken is a former BBC reporter and journalist. He spent twenty-five years working across all levels within the Corporation, from local radio to the Today programme. He is the author of Can We Trust the BBC? (Continuum, 2007). He is co-founder of the Oxford Foodbank and was awarded the MBE for this work in 2014.
288 pages, Paperback
Published January 1, 2018
34 people are currently reading
135 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 - 30 of 33 reviews
April 6, 2019
This is an outstanding book - my book of the year so far. Robin Aitken who worked for the BBC for 25 years as a reporter and executive, lifts the lid on the ideological bias so prevalent (and at times subtle) within the BBC. Whilst most people claim that the BBC is biased against them - and thus enables them to say that if everyone is claiming bias then there is no bias - Aitken shows the way that the BBC is shot through with a liberal progressivism which stops it reporting fairly. He looks at the bias against Brexit, Christianity and what might be termed social conservatism - and the bias in favour of feminism, Islam and other causes that are deemed to be socially progressive. It is an astounding and revealing book in many ways I would recommend it to all - but perhaps especially to Christians. It's a long time since I've read a book which explains what is going on in the culture so well.
"Without an understanding of its (the BBCs) guiding philosophy we are in danger of being led blindfold into a way of thinking we have not freely chosen, but have merely absorbed."
"Without an understanding of its (the BBCs) guiding philosophy we are in danger of being led blindfold into a way of thinking we have not freely chosen, but have merely absorbed."
April 22, 2019
I think this book is well worth the read, and fully deserves a five-star rating.
An interesting interview with the author, discussing this book, and, I think, complementing it quite well, can be seen here.
The Noble Liar further develops Robin Aitken's critique of the BBC as being a well intentioned, but fundamentally flawed broadcaster of news and current affairs. Whereas his first book, Can We Trust the BBC?, seemed to me to be written with a very sympathetic, almost friendly, attitude towards the BBC (which he had at that time only recently left) this book takes a far more dispassionate view. I think it is the better of the two books.
It considers the ways in which the BBC has stifled debate on many social issues facing the UK, promoting views which are in accord with its own position (which of course it will always deny exists) and denigrating any opposing viewpoints. The author is clearly a social conservative, although not stridently so, and he examines the ways in which the BBC distorts discussion of subjects such as the EU, immigration, feminism, and religion (with separate chapters considering the ways in which Christianity and Islam are covered).
On Brexit he considers the history of the BBC's long standing pro-EU views, and how it blinded itself to the possibility of a vote to leave. This detachment from wider society was of course not confined to the BBC, but surely a broadcaster more willing to allow a variety of viewpoints would have reduced the bubble mentality of the UK's governing classes. The resulting political shockwaves resulting from Brexit are still reverberating widely. This surely must be the outstanding instance of the BBC failing to understand the broader society it tries to report on, and how such failure can lead to unforeseen consequences.
Aitken does give some examples of the ways in which dissenting voices occasionally break through. For instance, in the chapter on feminism, he considiers the BBC's handling of the tension between the views of more traditional feminists and modern transgenderism, quoting Germaine Greer's appearance on Newsnight, where she remarked "Just because you lop off your dick and then wear a dress doesn’t make you a fucking woman. I’ve asked my doctor to give me long ears and liver spots and I’m going to wear a brown coat but that won’t turn me into a fucking cocker spaniel." Aitken gives this as one of the few occasions a dissenting voice was permitted and states that Greer's status as an icon of the feminist movement was the only reason she was given the platform (although I think her long standing relationship with the program was probably also a factor).
Personally, I would like to have read about subjects other than just social issues, but of course the author concentrates on areas he covered during his career at the BBC, and those he feels most strongly about.
Although I do not share the author's views on all the topics he covers, I strongly believe that those views deserve to be thoroughly aired by any truly impartial broadcaster, and I think he succeeds in showing how the BBC fails to be impartial in so many ways. Definitely worth the read for anyone interested.
An interesting interview with the author, discussing this book, and, I think, complementing it quite well, can be seen here.
The Noble Liar further develops Robin Aitken's critique of the BBC as being a well intentioned, but fundamentally flawed broadcaster of news and current affairs. Whereas his first book, Can We Trust the BBC?, seemed to me to be written with a very sympathetic, almost friendly, attitude towards the BBC (which he had at that time only recently left) this book takes a far more dispassionate view. I think it is the better of the two books.
It considers the ways in which the BBC has stifled debate on many social issues facing the UK, promoting views which are in accord with its own position (which of course it will always deny exists) and denigrating any opposing viewpoints. The author is clearly a social conservative, although not stridently so, and he examines the ways in which the BBC distorts discussion of subjects such as the EU, immigration, feminism, and religion (with separate chapters considering the ways in which Christianity and Islam are covered).
On Brexit he considers the history of the BBC's long standing pro-EU views, and how it blinded itself to the possibility of a vote to leave. This detachment from wider society was of course not confined to the BBC, but surely a broadcaster more willing to allow a variety of viewpoints would have reduced the bubble mentality of the UK's governing classes. The resulting political shockwaves resulting from Brexit are still reverberating widely. This surely must be the outstanding instance of the BBC failing to understand the broader society it tries to report on, and how such failure can lead to unforeseen consequences.
Aitken does give some examples of the ways in which dissenting voices occasionally break through. For instance, in the chapter on feminism, he considiers the BBC's handling of the tension between the views of more traditional feminists and modern transgenderism, quoting Germaine Greer's appearance on Newsnight, where she remarked "Just because you lop off your dick and then wear a dress doesn’t make you a fucking woman. I’ve asked my doctor to give me long ears and liver spots and I’m going to wear a brown coat but that won’t turn me into a fucking cocker spaniel." Aitken gives this as one of the few occasions a dissenting voice was permitted and states that Greer's status as an icon of the feminist movement was the only reason she was given the platform (although I think her long standing relationship with the program was probably also a factor).
Personally, I would like to have read about subjects other than just social issues, but of course the author concentrates on areas he covered during his career at the BBC, and those he feels most strongly about.
Although I do not share the author's views on all the topics he covers, I strongly believe that those views deserve to be thoroughly aired by any truly impartial broadcaster, and I think he succeeds in showing how the BBC fails to be impartial in so many ways. Definitely worth the read for anyone interested.
May 6, 2019
Outstanding book. Essential reading for anyone who wants to understand the times in which we live. Every Christian ought to read this and every church leader must read it.
May 31, 2020
Quite enjoyed this on the whole, mostly i guess through confirmation bias - a certain amount of it chimes with a viewpoint I already hold of the BBC. I did find some of it a little problematic though. I ended up skipping most of the chapters on religion and feminism. Perhaps even more unbelievable was the chapter on moral standards for which most of the focus was on a Channel 4 show!
There was a lot of debate on these issues but little to relate it back to the BBC beyond some glib accusations that the BBC stifles debate on these issues or such like. The bigger problem for me though was that the author very often did not come across as very objective himself. For all the assertions - correct assertions in many areas in my opinion - that he made about the BBC being so heavily biased in one direction or another, the author displayed such a lack of objectivity himself in the opposite direction that it often read less a legitimate critique of the BBC and more a very long complaint because the BBC didn’t agree with his viewpoint (or at the very least wasn’t impartial which, after all, is meant to be the crux of the issue).
There was a lot of debate on these issues but little to relate it back to the BBC beyond some glib accusations that the BBC stifles debate on these issues or such like. The bigger problem for me though was that the author very often did not come across as very objective himself. For all the assertions - correct assertions in many areas in my opinion - that he made about the BBC being so heavily biased in one direction or another, the author displayed such a lack of objectivity himself in the opposite direction that it often read less a legitimate critique of the BBC and more a very long complaint because the BBC didn’t agree with his viewpoint (or at the very least wasn’t impartial which, after all, is meant to be the crux of the issue).
February 21, 2019
This book isn't quite what it says on the cover. It is more of a polemic about the author's world view and how this is being marginalised by the metropolitan liberal elite of which the BBC is only one, albeit an important one, of the main components. He argues his position constructively and often with much evidence on issues such as Brexit, identity politics, marriage, religion and politics generally. I did get a bit lost though when he seemed to be criticising the BBC for being a meritocracy because that fills the organisation with people all holding the same world view and so becomes an echo chamber. I understand his point there but not when he then appears to say an aristocracy would deliver a more balanced set of views.
January 25, 2019
Well balanced,thought provoking and yet sadness that the BBC with all its advantages and obligations to the nation is failing us.I like many of us would have considered the BBC to be impartial
Yet the way they have presented the news on Brexit alarmed me, not to mention other subjects and this book confirms my suspicion that they are running their own agenda regardless of their obligations.
Yet the way they have presented the news on Brexit alarmed me, not to mention other subjects and this book confirms my suspicion that they are running their own agenda regardless of their obligations.
January 3, 2019
Essential reading
”So while today, political correctness is rigidly enforced by the media and the law (via the ‘hate crime’ regulations among other things), it will not be so for ever. Remember Brexit and take heart.”
For everyone interested in the truth and not fake news.
”So while today, political correctness is rigidly enforced by the media and the law (via the ‘hate crime’ regulations among other things), it will not be so for ever. Remember Brexit and take heart.”
For everyone interested in the truth and not fake news.
March 31, 2021
I'm not sure how to rate this book. Then again, I often vacillate when attempting to condense my overall feelings about a book in X out of 5 stars. Is it a purely personal subjective experience? But then who would pick up a book like this for pleasure?
Am I rating the book's message? If so, do I give it a poor rating simply because I disagree with its premises/arguments/conclusions? That seems rather unfair if the author met their objectives for their target audience (to which I may not belong).
Am I rating the book's ability to communicate its central messages to its target audience? Who is this book's target audience? What is the purpose of this book? I'm not sure the author was clear about this as it often felt like he was venting years of frustration and insecurity.
In any case, I finally settled on two stars because I suppose the author made a half-reasonable attempt at sharing his understanding of how and why the BBC may distort the news in a liberal manner (hence one star would seem unfair).
Some might argue that a conservative, well-spoken* white man in his 60s (when the book was written) without a degree** is not the best person to discuss whether feminism, civil right etc. has gone too far.
Some might equally argue that I'm not the best person to rate this book, given that I embody much of what the author thinks has gone wrong with the world. I'm a brown, female, immigrant, atheist with (unused) postgraduate qualifications who lives in sin with an overeducated liberal elite. Though my abandonment of an evangelical Christian upbringing is perhaps the biggest afront? Well, it could have been worst for him...at least I'm not a Muslim apologist?
With those caveats, here are some of my thoughts anyway. I feel saddened that the author's arguments and examples are so unsatisfactory; their lack of depth suggests his potential lack of empathy for his (caricature) liberal enemy. He has an MBE for the Foodbank he co-founded so he's not Rees-Mogg in his conservativeness, but rather he wants his socially conservative views to be given more attention and weight. And he sees the BBC as a public entity whose reins are improperly held by liberals.
In that way, he reminds me of my dad. That is, he's well-intentioned but also bewildered by a fast-changing world where familiar social norms seem stampeded out until all that's left is Naked Attraction, children raised by liberal LGBTQ parents and (insert whatever may be the dominant fear of the day - England overrun with non-white heathens for example).
I hope he isn't surprised to hear that most educated liberals find Naked Attraction to be grim "entertainment" too, albeit for (probably) different reasons.
Also, I agree with him that social cohesion may be better served if (liberal) people with power had greater care for conservative fears and factored these concerns into the way change takes place. But the author doesn't help his case by citing Tommy Robinson, Donald Trump and Viktor Orban as examples of the BBC failing in fair coverage.
This book, like many others of its ilk on both sides of the socially conservative/liberal divide, serves to increase polarisation rather than foster productive solutions. Given the book was published in 2018, its messages seem extra naive and damaging (haven't we all learned to do better after the Brexit vote?)
Well, I finished this book, with as open a mind as I have, and perhaps the author will do the same with my work when I eventually publish my perspectives and suggestions. It's (obviously) not a trivial task and however well-intentioned I might be. Nevertheless, futile or otherwise, I'm giving it a go.
Overall, I wouldn't recommend this book. One could instead frequently check one's bias, as well as the bias/incentives of the content producers when assessing any media organisation.
*an accent that suggests he less likely to be raised by people too poor for an education
** this demographic often feels threatened by a loss of status, especially by "overeducated elites" (from both anecdotal experience and more rigorous studies)
Am I rating the book's message? If so, do I give it a poor rating simply because I disagree with its premises/arguments/conclusions? That seems rather unfair if the author met their objectives for their target audience (to which I may not belong).
Am I rating the book's ability to communicate its central messages to its target audience? Who is this book's target audience? What is the purpose of this book? I'm not sure the author was clear about this as it often felt like he was venting years of frustration and insecurity.
In any case, I finally settled on two stars because I suppose the author made a half-reasonable attempt at sharing his understanding of how and why the BBC may distort the news in a liberal manner (hence one star would seem unfair).
Some might argue that a conservative, well-spoken* white man in his 60s (when the book was written) without a degree** is not the best person to discuss whether feminism, civil right etc. has gone too far.
Some might equally argue that I'm not the best person to rate this book, given that I embody much of what the author thinks has gone wrong with the world. I'm a brown, female, immigrant, atheist with (unused) postgraduate qualifications who lives in sin with an overeducated liberal elite. Though my abandonment of an evangelical Christian upbringing is perhaps the biggest afront? Well, it could have been worst for him...at least I'm not a Muslim apologist?
With those caveats, here are some of my thoughts anyway. I feel saddened that the author's arguments and examples are so unsatisfactory; their lack of depth suggests his potential lack of empathy for his (caricature) liberal enemy. He has an MBE for the Foodbank he co-founded so he's not Rees-Mogg in his conservativeness, but rather he wants his socially conservative views to be given more attention and weight. And he sees the BBC as a public entity whose reins are improperly held by liberals.
In that way, he reminds me of my dad. That is, he's well-intentioned but also bewildered by a fast-changing world where familiar social norms seem stampeded out until all that's left is Naked Attraction, children raised by liberal LGBTQ parents and (insert whatever may be the dominant fear of the day - England overrun with non-white heathens for example).
I hope he isn't surprised to hear that most educated liberals find Naked Attraction to be grim "entertainment" too, albeit for (probably) different reasons.
Also, I agree with him that social cohesion may be better served if (liberal) people with power had greater care for conservative fears and factored these concerns into the way change takes place. But the author doesn't help his case by citing Tommy Robinson, Donald Trump and Viktor Orban as examples of the BBC failing in fair coverage.
This book, like many others of its ilk on both sides of the socially conservative/liberal divide, serves to increase polarisation rather than foster productive solutions. Given the book was published in 2018, its messages seem extra naive and damaging (haven't we all learned to do better after the Brexit vote?)
Well, I finished this book, with as open a mind as I have, and perhaps the author will do the same with my work when I eventually publish my perspectives and suggestions. It's (obviously) not a trivial task and however well-intentioned I might be. Nevertheless, futile or otherwise, I'm giving it a go.
Overall, I wouldn't recommend this book. One could instead frequently check one's bias, as well as the bias/incentives of the content producers when assessing any media organisation.
*an accent that suggests he less likely to be raised by people too poor for an education
** this demographic often feels threatened by a loss of status, especially by "overeducated elites" (from both anecdotal experience and more rigorous studies)
August 25, 2019
A book to be read by all believers, to help them understand how their Christian values are being subtly changed through our education establishments and by the mass media.
Robin Aitken writes a throughly engaging book on the bias of the BBC towards promoting liberal social views over against the conservative social views of the majority of ordinary people in the UK, in such areas as the family, morals, gender, immigration and Judeo-Christian values.
He argues that the noble lie at the heart of the BBC (hence, title, the noble liar), is the disastrous belief that all cultures are deserving of equal respect, even though the people from these cultures hold beliefs and practices that are antithetical to ours, i.e. Buddhism; Hinduism, Islam and Sikhism, and that they should be allowed to live according to their own lights. The reality is very different, especially with the rise of radical Islam, that seeks to impose Sharia law within British society.
In reality the BBC is simply a part of the wider agenda of the liberal elite, who have revised our 'British Values' by rejecting our Judeo-Christian roots, for a secular philosophy of tolerance of all beliefs and moralities, under the guise of individual freedom.
Aitken concludes by calling us to remember Brexit and to take heart and hope from it, in that 'the pro Europe establishment forces were defeated by a maverick band of sceptics urged on by a couple of influential newspapers.'
My one criticism of Aitken's book is his simplistic conflation of multiculturalism with anti-christian values. The majority of the early immigrants from the british commonwealth that came in the 1950s and 1960s were Christians and brought new life and vigour to our main line Christian churches that were all in decline after world war two.
It is still these immigrant Christians that are the most vocal against the political correctness of the liberal establishment and the LGBTQI agenda to abolish the family and clear gender distinction within our society today.
This is a book to be read by all believers, (especially millenials, those born after 1980), to help them understand how their Christian values are being subtly changed through our education estsblishments and by the mass media.
This book is also a challenge for church leaders to teach their congregation the word of God and Christisn apologetics, in order that no believer is taken 'captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ' (Col. 2:8).
March 16, 2024
I found the first 3 chapters interesting, the comments about how the BBC favoured Pro -European attitudes over any kind of euroscepticim. Another interesting fact was that during the Falklands war the BBC at first did not show at first any support to the British government and our troops aganist Argentina.
The other chapters were just too much, the author just seemed to be making spurious links between cause and effects. The BBC was just part of some kind of over arching liberal agenda which the author seemed to blame for the ills of everyday life. The Chatterly trial and the lack of censorship has led to addiction of the young today to pornography. He suggests some kind of censorship and banning but surely this will only lead to it becoming more popular as what usually happens to things which are banned. What has this got to do with the BBC?
Then the author wants us to assume that married couples should all stay together for the children even if they are unhappy. He looks at evidence which he reads as couples should stay together because children do better with married parents. The research suggests this but it just means children do better with happily married parents not that they would do better with obviously unhappy parents. So making parents feel guilty for divorcing and blaming children's mental health problems on them.
I also have massive issues with his approach to Muslims which he seems to thinks can never integrate in society. He also seems to want the BBC to say Christianity is morally better to Islam. He seems to think that Richard Dawkins is to blame for secularism in the UK. Feminists are to blame for the left wing, liberal agenda of the UK. He also seems to suggest that women should have no more right to decide what happens to their bodies as men when it comes to abortions.
He then seems to suggest that Tommy Robinson was in the right when trying to publicise details of an on going trial in thus gang rape trial. I'm not sure the details but you have to be very careful reporting on an ongoing trial. Anyway a lot of things that I disagree with but the book was well written and easy and addictive to read.
The other chapters were just too much, the author just seemed to be making spurious links between cause and effects. The BBC was just part of some kind of over arching liberal agenda which the author seemed to blame for the ills of everyday life. The Chatterly trial and the lack of censorship has led to addiction of the young today to pornography. He suggests some kind of censorship and banning but surely this will only lead to it becoming more popular as what usually happens to things which are banned. What has this got to do with the BBC?
Then the author wants us to assume that married couples should all stay together for the children even if they are unhappy. He looks at evidence which he reads as couples should stay together because children do better with married parents. The research suggests this but it just means children do better with happily married parents not that they would do better with obviously unhappy parents. So making parents feel guilty for divorcing and blaming children's mental health problems on them.
I also have massive issues with his approach to Muslims which he seems to thinks can never integrate in society. He also seems to want the BBC to say Christianity is morally better to Islam. He seems to think that Richard Dawkins is to blame for secularism in the UK. Feminists are to blame for the left wing, liberal agenda of the UK. He also seems to suggest that women should have no more right to decide what happens to their bodies as men when it comes to abortions.
He then seems to suggest that Tommy Robinson was in the right when trying to publicise details of an on going trial in thus gang rape trial. I'm not sure the details but you have to be very careful reporting on an ongoing trial. Anyway a lot of things that I disagree with but the book was well written and easy and addictive to read.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 26, 2019
The Noble Liar is an overdue exposé of media bias in general, and BBC bias in particular from a former reporter who spent 25 years at different levels within the BBC.
Needless to say, a lot is covered. The main point emphasised though, is that the BBC of course does not directly lie, because straightforward dishonesty is easy to disprove. No, the BBC and much of the media lies by omission, and by weighing their televised conversations, interviews and debates heavily towards the views of the BBC controllers. A few examples.
Example of lies by omission:
-The recent massacre of over 200 Christians in Nigeria by Islamists: Completely ignored
Example of lies by carefully selected language:
-The recent Sri Lanka bombings by Islamists which targeted Christians: Reported as "explosions" which killed "Easter worshippers". This journalistic slight of hand sanitises the sectarian attack and is framed as purely a "senseless" tragedy, from which no notice could possibly be obtained.
Example of bias, not impartiality:
Between 2005 and 2015 there were 4275 guests invited on the BBC to talk about the EU. Only 132 (3.2%) supported the UK leaving the EU.
You're perfectly free to continue financing the BBCs skewed news agenda with your "tax", but you are capable of removing BBC content (channels, apps etc) from your devices and no longer paying the BBC tax (again, disguised as a licence fee).
I'd strongly recommend it.
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-i...
Needless to say, a lot is covered. The main point emphasised though, is that the BBC of course does not directly lie, because straightforward dishonesty is easy to disprove. No, the BBC and much of the media lies by omission, and by weighing their televised conversations, interviews and debates heavily towards the views of the BBC controllers. A few examples.
Example of lies by omission:
-The recent massacre of over 200 Christians in Nigeria by Islamists: Completely ignored
Example of lies by carefully selected language:
-The recent Sri Lanka bombings by Islamists which targeted Christians: Reported as "explosions" which killed "Easter worshippers". This journalistic slight of hand sanitises the sectarian attack and is framed as purely a "senseless" tragedy, from which no notice could possibly be obtained.
Example of bias, not impartiality:
Between 2005 and 2015 there were 4275 guests invited on the BBC to talk about the EU. Only 132 (3.2%) supported the UK leaving the EU.
You're perfectly free to continue financing the BBCs skewed news agenda with your "tax", but you are capable of removing BBC content (channels, apps etc) from your devices and no longer paying the BBC tax (again, disguised as a licence fee).
I'd strongly recommend it.
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-i...
May 25, 2025
The Noble Liar is a clearly-written and well-organised polemic regarding how the BBC has in recent years blatantly and increasingly betrayed its core principle (and violated its covenant with the country) of being impartial on matters of public debate, and has instead viewed its purpose as being to advance and protect a particular progressive/ globalist/ multicultural political agenda. This is an obvious trend among mainstream media organisations generally, but it is particularly noteworthy with regard to the BBC in view of the level of power and influence it has as a result of its state-sponsored status.
Much of the book consists of a discussion of several current political issues, including Brexit, religion, Islam, abortion, feminism and Trump, where the author argues that the BBC has taken a clearly partial position on these issues and he then sets out the opposite (socially conservative) side of the argument. While there is not a lot in the way of new ideas beyond the points made in other recent influential books such as, for example, The Strange Death of Europe and The Road to Somewhere , he generally makes his arguments persuasively, including the central point regarding the BBC’s bias. One criticism is that I would have preferred if he had spent less time on arguing the substantive underlying issues and more on providing evidence of the BBC’s bias (e.g., examples and data), which should have been very easy to produce. In addition, in making his case he neglects to cover the obvious examples of Israel/Palestine and global warming/climate change.
Much of the book consists of a discussion of several current political issues, including Brexit, religion, Islam, abortion, feminism and Trump, where the author argues that the BBC has taken a clearly partial position on these issues and he then sets out the opposite (socially conservative) side of the argument. While there is not a lot in the way of new ideas beyond the points made in other recent influential books such as, for example, The Strange Death of Europe and The Road to Somewhere , he generally makes his arguments persuasively, including the central point regarding the BBC’s bias. One criticism is that I would have preferred if he had spent less time on arguing the substantive underlying issues and more on providing evidence of the BBC’s bias (e.g., examples and data), which should have been very easy to produce. In addition, in making his case he neglects to cover the obvious examples of Israel/Palestine and global warming/climate change.
November 4, 2020
The BBC dominates British media. It whines about the rise of online media, but also brags about its presence in all media: 91 percent of British adults use a BBC service each week; the average adult uses these services for 18 hours per week; 80 percent access BBC news every week; 60 percent do so via television; and more than half regularly use BBC online.
The BBC refutes its dominance by pointing to public funding, but in reality it is as commercial as any other provider. (It exposes its hypocrisy every time it uses the free market to justify its fabulously paid staff.)
In any case, using public funding as a defence makes the BBC sound like state media. The BBC claims its independence is guaranteed by charter, but government approves its charter (around every decade) and its chairman and director-general (around every five years).
Read more at this link
The BBC refutes its dominance by pointing to public funding, but in reality it is as commercial as any other provider. (It exposes its hypocrisy every time it uses the free market to justify its fabulously paid staff.)
In any case, using public funding as a defence makes the BBC sound like state media. The BBC claims its independence is guaranteed by charter, but government approves its charter (around every decade) and its chairman and director-general (around every five years).
Read more at this link
March 14, 2019
Es increíble que la BBC pueda ser tan parcial en en la interpretación de los acontecimientos actuales y en el mundo de las ideas.
La BBC debería de ser un ente sin intereses personales ni con vocación de adoctrinar. Pero desgraciadamente no es así y está permanentemente tomando posturas que no le corresponden, sin ninguna intención de buscar la verdad. Si a la BBC no le interesa la verdad a quien le va a interesar?
Su postura siempre es en favor de un liberalismo progresista que no entiendo como se puede denominar así porque son gente que cuando alguien discrepa de sus pensamientos se le denomina fascista inmediatamente.
El autor desenmascara a estos liberales progresistas y dice verdades como templos, algo que no dicen los medios de comunicación porque no quieren ser políticamente incorrectos.
June 30, 2020
Fantastic read.
I didn’t agree with everything in the book but ultimately found it well written, thought provoking and very well argued. The book gets right to the heart of some serious issues, how they’re reported in the media and the damage that this is doing in terms of the quality of dialogue we’re able to have as a society.
The book deals with complex issues in a brave and fair way, and faces into the big problems society is currently grappling with from a lens of how the media’s reporting on them can present a very distorted view of reality.
Ultimately, the message is a positive one - we should value and protect free speech more than ever and not be afraid to stand up to those who would seek to silence, deplatform, intimidate and rule by mob, guided by their own ideologies.
Well with a read, even if you disagree with some of the points.
I didn’t agree with everything in the book but ultimately found it well written, thought provoking and very well argued. The book gets right to the heart of some serious issues, how they’re reported in the media and the damage that this is doing in terms of the quality of dialogue we’re able to have as a society.
The book deals with complex issues in a brave and fair way, and faces into the big problems society is currently grappling with from a lens of how the media’s reporting on them can present a very distorted view of reality.
Ultimately, the message is a positive one - we should value and protect free speech more than ever and not be afraid to stand up to those who would seek to silence, deplatform, intimidate and rule by mob, guided by their own ideologies.
Well with a read, even if you disagree with some of the points.
July 23, 2020
An enjoyable book that will perhaps reinforce, or challenge one's current perception of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).
A great compilation of past events that have undoubtedly influenced the BBC's agenda throughout the years since it's inception. The Noble Liar touches on many issues such as Christianity, the nuclear family, progressivism, meritocracy, feminism, technological advancements, inter-media rivalries, the permissive society, societal breakdown, and many more.
However, in some sections, it takes a ranting approach that I disagree with, the indirect (but not subtle) bashing of Atheism. In parts, it seems like an advert for Christianity and the re-adoption of Christianity's "objective moral code". This approach does compromise the supposed objectivity of the book as it's somewhat difficult to distinguish between claims based on facts and the author's own viewpoints.
Overall, the book helps the layman understand why the BBC continues to propagate "the noble lie" and helps clarify the current status of the working-class, middle-class, politicians, BBC & other institutions. With a particular emphasis on the disparity between the views of social-conservatives (often the working class) and the views of the liberal/progressive politicians and institutions.
A great compilation of past events that have undoubtedly influenced the BBC's agenda throughout the years since it's inception. The Noble Liar touches on many issues such as Christianity, the nuclear family, progressivism, meritocracy, feminism, technological advancements, inter-media rivalries, the permissive society, societal breakdown, and many more.
However, in some sections, it takes a ranting approach that I disagree with, the indirect (but not subtle) bashing of Atheism. In parts, it seems like an advert for Christianity and the re-adoption of Christianity's "objective moral code". This approach does compromise the supposed objectivity of the book as it's somewhat difficult to distinguish between claims based on facts and the author's own viewpoints.
Overall, the book helps the layman understand why the BBC continues to propagate "the noble lie" and helps clarify the current status of the working-class, middle-class, politicians, BBC & other institutions. With a particular emphasis on the disparity between the views of social-conservatives (often the working class) and the views of the liberal/progressive politicians and institutions.
April 4, 2024
A fascinating read, but not without rants!
This book certainly opened my eyes to the historical causes and long term presence of bias within the BBC and other media outlets, as well as the nature of that bias. It's one of those books which makes everything click into place. It was less focused on the BBC than I had expected, and there were some protracted passages which veered away from the book's main premise. As an atheist, I was surprised to find myself at least partly won over by the argument the Christianity once provided a special, unifying foundation to British society which has now been largely lost. I did think the author's angry criticism of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion was wrong, revealing and disappointing. However, I recommend this nuanced and detail exploration of bias in the BBC and the wider media.
This book certainly opened my eyes to the historical causes and long term presence of bias within the BBC and other media outlets, as well as the nature of that bias. It's one of those books which makes everything click into place. It was less focused on the BBC than I had expected, and there were some protracted passages which veered away from the book's main premise. As an atheist, I was surprised to find myself at least partly won over by the argument the Christianity once provided a special, unifying foundation to British society which has now been largely lost. I did think the author's angry criticism of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion was wrong, revealing and disappointing. However, I recommend this nuanced and detail exploration of bias in the BBC and the wider media.
March 12, 2022
BBC NEWS
Breaking news! Dr. Ojamo the holistic natural healer has cured 26 people suffering from Herpes, aids and std’s with his natural detox remedy, a lady testify about his product and how he have been healing people from diseases, reach his website. ;👇
EMAIL: drojamoherbalremedy@gmail.com
Website;
https://drojamoherbalhome.wixsite.com...
Also subscribe to his YouTube channel ::: https://youtube.com/channel/UCCxH_M_q...
🌿 🪴
#herpes #hpv #hsv2 #alkaline #chronicdisease #drojamo #bbc #bbcnews
Breaking news! Dr. Ojamo the holistic natural healer has cured 26 people suffering from Herpes, aids and std’s with his natural detox remedy, a lady testify about his product and how he have been healing people from diseases, reach his website. ;👇
EMAIL: drojamoherbalremedy@gmail.com
Website;
https://drojamoherbalhome.wixsite.com...
Also subscribe to his YouTube channel ::: https://youtube.com/channel/UCCxH_M_q...
🌿 🪴
#herpes #hpv #hsv2 #alkaline #chronicdisease #drojamo #bbc #bbcnews
June 6, 2019
Excellent book which provides a thorough understanding of the BBC's ideological stance, and shortcomings, on a range of key issues. From this you gain a superb insight into the times in which we live and the problems with the accepted morality. Author speaks with experience and authority but with a genuine concern.
October 1, 2019
Good for History
I suspect many readers buying this book already agree with the author and premise of this book, nothing new here in that regard. What certainly is of value is the historical context of how we came to this juncture is explained in a coherent and accessible way. It’s a great read and will leave you much better informed than before you took on the venture.
I suspect many readers buying this book already agree with the author and premise of this book, nothing new here in that regard. What certainly is of value is the historical context of how we came to this juncture is explained in a coherent and accessible way. It’s a great read and will leave you much better informed than before you took on the venture.
May 11, 2020
This is something of a polemic - a rant at the BBC and the uber-woke socially liberal force it has become. Some of the discussions are interesting - the nature of Islamic Britain, divorce, family values, socially conservative standpoints and others.
While the topics are interesting, and relevant, I'm not sure that the discussion was hugely sophisticated. This is a good one to spped read!
While the topics are interesting, and relevant, I'm not sure that the discussion was hugely sophisticated. This is a good one to spped read!
January 20, 2021
I thought this book would be interesting in the age of Fake news and Lame media. But this book soon became boring with a nagging voice of a bitter Christian that wants the BBC to hold onto Christian values. Lacks interesting examples of the media lie but focus on general positions of the network that the author does not think fit with his Christian belief. Would not recommend.
May 8, 2021
I love the BBC and the authors conclusion that Brexit would appear to be a proof of a popular enlightenment against the secular liberal agenda, which he conflates with Christianity is a somewhat disingenuous.
However the author deserves to be listened to and especially people of left persuasions that take everything that we are normalised to accept as being a voice for consideration.
However the author deserves to be listened to and especially people of left persuasions that take everything that we are normalised to accept as being a voice for consideration.
May 17, 2019
Well written and thought provoking, making arguments rarely heard in our media.
While I didn't agree with everything, and no doubt some would find this book extremely controversial, those prepared to listen and think will find a challenging case made.
While I didn't agree with everything, and no doubt some would find this book extremely controversial, those prepared to listen and think will find a challenging case made.
January 29, 2020
If you pay the Licence Fee for the BBC then you need to read this book. It shows that the liberal outlook so permeates the BBC that it skews the reporting of the news with a bias against conservative opinions. He takes, for example, the reporting of Brexit.
March 18, 2020
From a Christian and conservative perspective, this was a chilling book. The BBC has moved a long way from its original aims and now is clearly shown to be driving a very non-Christian and liberal perspective.
August 26, 2021
Pile of shit. Some good points were raised, but clearly just another white man aiming to push his conservative Christian values as the main agenda. As a Muslim, I found the chapter on Islam very ill-informed and heavily biased backed with ahistorical facts.
May 17, 2019
A must-read!
June 13, 2019
Fascinating read, and fascinating perspective to n the grand national institution of the BBC, from a former BBC journalist. Well worth a read!
Read
June 14, 2019Appalled and intrigued as to how low the BBC has gone. I had my suspicions but wow what an expose. A solid piece of research and well written.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews