What do you think?
Rate this book
Is That True Or Did You Hear It On The BBC?
What exactly is the purpose of the BBC nowadays - to entertain, educate and inform? But is that all? The broadcaster itself claims to be a fearless and independent provider of news tasked with ‘speaking truth to power’ – a true champion of the underdog.
However, as David Sedgwick reveals in his new book the reality is somewhat not only does the BBC diligently protect power from scrutiny, it attacks and attempts to discredit those who dare to challenge the status quo.
Formed in 1922 by the British establishment, the BBC has always been a reliable ally of ultra-wealthy and powerful interests. Indeed, the broadcaster occupies a pivotal position within an international corporate-political alliance which promotes only those narratives which consolidate the ‘global order.’
Using multiple examples of BBC reporting, the author argues that the tax-payer funded broadcaster is a proxy which acts on behalf of a tiny, but very powerful clique - a role which compels it to pump out disinformation on an industrial scale, misleading all those who consume its content.
However, as David Sedgwick reveals in his new book the reality is somewhat not only does the BBC diligently protect power from scrutiny, it attacks and attempts to discredit those who dare to challenge the status quo.
Formed in 1922 by the British establishment, the BBC has always been a reliable ally of ultra-wealthy and powerful interests. Indeed, the broadcaster occupies a pivotal position within an international corporate-political alliance which promotes only those narratives which consolidate the ‘global order.’
Using multiple examples of BBC reporting, the author argues that the tax-payer funded broadcaster is a proxy which acts on behalf of a tiny, but very powerful clique - a role which compels it to pump out disinformation on an industrial scale, misleading all those who consume its content.
293 pages, Kindle Edition
Published July 28, 2022
19 people are currently reading
37 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 - 2 of 2 reviews
March 18, 2023
On the day I purchased this book I watched an American senator in passing state something to the effect of “we all saw with our own eyes what happened in the Capitol and for Tucker Carlson to suggest otherwise was a crime to the population of the USA”
I agree we all saw something with our own eyes but it was a visual depiction - as has been everything we have seen on a screen all of our lives and somehow as per the adage seeing is believing we end up stating it our reality and we all think that if we saw it on the news that we know it’s the truth and we can differentiate it from all other media stimulation.
In The author’s introduction he describes a conversation with his neighbour similar to the above. It’s indisputable that his neighbour saw something on the bbc but what did he see
Upon finishing this book I remember watching a clip of a wrestler in the 80s striking a journalist when the journalist asked if wrestling was fake.
It appears that the BBC and all forms of mass media are now that wrestler whacking us proles across the ear every time someone asks a question.
Like Seligman’s learned helplessness research - fewer people are actually questioning and flinching more, to the point where critical thinking has been outsourced to organisations like CNN, BBC, ABC, meta and google.
I really appreciate this - Sedgwick’s second thought provoking book challenging readers and journalists to step up their games and to be alert to propaganda and misinformation even if it is packaged as “truthiness”.
If I was more musically talented I’d out tro to a parody of American pie that just like in the late 80s when WWF I found to be choreographed - this is definitely the death of news journalism as we thought we knew it.
I agree we all saw something with our own eyes but it was a visual depiction - as has been everything we have seen on a screen all of our lives and somehow as per the adage seeing is believing we end up stating it our reality and we all think that if we saw it on the news that we know it’s the truth and we can differentiate it from all other media stimulation.
In The author’s introduction he describes a conversation with his neighbour similar to the above. It’s indisputable that his neighbour saw something on the bbc but what did he see
Upon finishing this book I remember watching a clip of a wrestler in the 80s striking a journalist when the journalist asked if wrestling was fake.
It appears that the BBC and all forms of mass media are now that wrestler whacking us proles across the ear every time someone asks a question.
Like Seligman’s learned helplessness research - fewer people are actually questioning and flinching more, to the point where critical thinking has been outsourced to organisations like CNN, BBC, ABC, meta and google.
I really appreciate this - Sedgwick’s second thought provoking book challenging readers and journalists to step up their games and to be alert to propaganda and misinformation even if it is packaged as “truthiness”.
If I was more musically talented I’d out tro to a parody of American pie that just like in the late 80s when WWF I found to be choreographed - this is definitely the death of news journalism as we thought we knew it.
August 11, 2025
Sedgwick has identified a number of issues and subjects where he believes the BBC takes up a position, and reports issues in such a way as to back up that position.,
He demonstrates, with multiple examples, that the BBC consistently reports matters in ways which support their pre-conceived notions on these matters.
Three examples: Donald Trump is someone the BBC never has a good word for: the BBC were desperate for evidence supporting the idea that Trump was a sort of Russian agent. The Mueller report rubbished this theory. The BBC was a major propagandist for Remaining in the EU (without ever giving a coherent reason why people should want to remain in the EU), and after Brexit kept coming up with increasing absurd reasons why Brexit was a mistake. The BBC keeps running stories about global warming, but never asks questions about how none of the predictions about rising seas, failing crops, climate refugees etc ever come true.
Sedgwick gives examples of how people complain about the BBC's inaccurate reporting, and the anodyne replies they send out (if indeed they reply at all). It's always, "We're right, you're wrong". He shows how he trapped the BBC himself when questioning one of their comments - relating to a remark by Emily Maitlis about Trump's visit to Britain when he was president 2016-2020.
There's a lot in the book about the BBC's coverage of Covid. Sedgwick argues that the BBC (eg) disparaged the use of the drug Ivermectin to treat Covid, and implies that they gave good publicity to medicines promoted by Bill Gates - who had given a lot of money to the BBC foundation. I'm not sure if he makes these points as effectively as he does those about Trump, Brexit, climate etc.
However. one thing is certain: whatever horse the BBC backs, it's always the wrong one. And once it has backed it, it keeps insisting it has won, irrespective of evidence to the contrary. And it gets away with it because the public trust the BBC to tell the truth, as at one time it did.
I once wrote a letter of complaint to the BBC. It related to a programme about the death of English student Meredith Kercher in Perugia in 2007. The BBC programme, which effectively stated that American Amanda Knox was one of the murderers, contained a series of inaccurate statements and omitted much vital evidence. I noticed that the person whose name featured most prominently in the credits as maker, editor, whatever, of the programme was an American woman who had already written a book which guilted Amanda Knox, and who therefore very unlikely to give a balanced view of the event. My letter pointed this out, and also listed some of the errors and omissions. And I duly received from the BBC a letter which said, "We're right, you're wrong". Where do you go from here?
Sedgwick makes his points very well, though I felt that at times he wields the sledgehammer a bit too freely - he tends to keep making the same point. Still, we need books like this. I understand he has written others.
He demonstrates, with multiple examples, that the BBC consistently reports matters in ways which support their pre-conceived notions on these matters.
Three examples: Donald Trump is someone the BBC never has a good word for: the BBC were desperate for evidence supporting the idea that Trump was a sort of Russian agent. The Mueller report rubbished this theory. The BBC was a major propagandist for Remaining in the EU (without ever giving a coherent reason why people should want to remain in the EU), and after Brexit kept coming up with increasing absurd reasons why Brexit was a mistake. The BBC keeps running stories about global warming, but never asks questions about how none of the predictions about rising seas, failing crops, climate refugees etc ever come true.
Sedgwick gives examples of how people complain about the BBC's inaccurate reporting, and the anodyne replies they send out (if indeed they reply at all). It's always, "We're right, you're wrong". He shows how he trapped the BBC himself when questioning one of their comments - relating to a remark by Emily Maitlis about Trump's visit to Britain when he was president 2016-2020.
There's a lot in the book about the BBC's coverage of Covid. Sedgwick argues that the BBC (eg) disparaged the use of the drug Ivermectin to treat Covid, and implies that they gave good publicity to medicines promoted by Bill Gates - who had given a lot of money to the BBC foundation. I'm not sure if he makes these points as effectively as he does those about Trump, Brexit, climate etc.
However. one thing is certain: whatever horse the BBC backs, it's always the wrong one. And once it has backed it, it keeps insisting it has won, irrespective of evidence to the contrary. And it gets away with it because the public trust the BBC to tell the truth, as at one time it did.
I once wrote a letter of complaint to the BBC. It related to a programme about the death of English student Meredith Kercher in Perugia in 2007. The BBC programme, which effectively stated that American Amanda Knox was one of the murderers, contained a series of inaccurate statements and omitted much vital evidence. I noticed that the person whose name featured most prominently in the credits as maker, editor, whatever, of the programme was an American woman who had already written a book which guilted Amanda Knox, and who therefore very unlikely to give a balanced view of the event. My letter pointed this out, and also listed some of the errors and omissions. And I duly received from the BBC a letter which said, "We're right, you're wrong". Where do you go from here?
Sedgwick makes his points very well, though I felt that at times he wields the sledgehammer a bit too freely - he tends to keep making the same point. Still, we need books like this. I understand he has written others.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews