The BBC is under attack. Democracy could very well be next
The nation's broadcaster is facing a coordinated assault that threatens public accountability.
The BBC is not simply a broadcaster; it is a cornerstone of British democracy. It provides a space for public scrutiny, debate, and accountability, staffed by people committed to truth rather than ideology. It has no shadowy funders, no inescapable agenda. It’s publicly funded, and its independence is central to the health of our democratic ecosystem. Without it, debate narrows, misinformation fills the vacuum, power goes unchecked, and donor interests are prioritised over that of the people.
A few months ago, I warned that America’s darkness was spreading across the Atlantic: authoritarian rot taking root in our politics, media, and public discourse. Some readers thought I was being alarmist. But the events of the past week at the BBC suggest my concern was, if anything, understated.
Our media landscape without the Beeb is stark: foreign money, “disruptor” broadcasters that peddle conspiracy theories and hatred, and techno-fascists like Elon Musk controlling the flow of information. This is how authoritarianism takes root: with the incremental undermining of truth and objectivity, then the swift decapitation of the institutions that hold power to account.
What we are witnessing is precisely such a strike. The resignations of BBC director general Tim Davie and head of news Deborah Turness are not the result of vast editorial misjudgements; rather, they are the consequence of a long-standing campaign to weaken the BBC and delegitimise its output. Any decent government that values liberal democracy cannot remain passive, Starmer and Nandy must defend the corporation, reaffirming its independence, resisting attempts to delegitimise it, ensuring stable funding, and upholding the principles of public service broadcasting that allow it to hold power to account.
This did not start with the memo from Michael Prescott, a former Murdoch journalist and adviser to the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee. Leaked to the Telegraph, it stitched together ideological complaints (from coverage of gender identity issues, to reporting on Gaza) with minor editorial errors, framing them as evidence of institutional bias. The BBC produces thousands of hours of journalism each week, under huge amounts of pressure. Inevitably, mistakes happen. To suggest the BBC is uniquely compromised is disingenuous.
In fact, the knives that launched this coup had been sharpened long before the Prescott report. The BBC’s top appointments are effectively government picks: the chair, half the non-executive board members, and the Treasury’s control over funding create a system in which political influence inevitably seeps in. Past appointments, from Richard Sharp under Boris Johnson to former Tory advisor Robbie Gibb acting behind the lines, show just how political loyalties shape governance. Coupled with the looming charter renewal and politicisation of the license fee, the beloved corporation has become vulnerable to attack and capture.
But what might have been an ideological infiltration of the Beeb has evolved into something far bigger – and uglier – and it begins with the toddler in the White House. The Prescott report claimed BBC Panorama “doctored” a speech by Donald Trump, making it appear as though he directly called for violence. Sections of the speech were edited together without clear indication: an editorial lapse, certainly. But now Trump is threatening to sue the BBC for £1 billion, accusing the corporation of “defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory statements.” The prospect of the President turning his ire to the UK is frightening, and the absurdity glaring. Trump tried to overturn a democratic election, stoked conspiracy theories, and mobilised a violent mob. Now, we must cower to this same man and treat the minor editorial error as proof of systemic bias.
Fueling the attack is the People’s Millionaire, Nigel Farage, who reportedly spoke to Trump over the weekend. Farage has long sought to delegitimise the BBC: from testifying before Congress about the UK’s free speech laws, to commentary on GB News, he imports American-style culture-war tactics, politicising truth, vilifying journalists, and normalising scepticism about institutional independence.
Meanwhile, right-leaning media outlets, now clamouring for the BBC’s head, routinely flout standards of accuracy and impartiality without consequence. Earlier this year, GB News received 1,227 complaints for one episode alone, where a guest appeared to suggest the LGBT community included paedophiles.
The BBC is a democratic institution, not a luxury. Does that make it immune to scrutiny, mistakes, or accountability? Of course not. It must reform, review, and accept legitimate criticism where necessary. But its independence is the thin line between accountable government and unrestrained power. If the government values public service, pluralism, and truth, it must defend the BBC – against those who seek to weaken or dismantle it.
If the creeping influence of transatlantic authoritarianism is to be resisted, if we are to keep the President’s hands off our democracy, whether through surrogates or his own means, defending institutions like the BBC is not optional: it is imperative.■
About the author: Zoë Grünewald is Westminster Editor at The Lead and a freelance political journalist and broadcaster. Zoë then worked as a policy and politics reporter at the New Statesman, before joining the Independent as a political correspondent. When not writing about politics and policy, she is a regular commentator on TV and radio and a panellist on the Oh God What Now podcast.
If you’ve enjoyed reading Zoë’s latest story then consider subscribing to The Lead or sharing this so others can read it to.
It was always an irony of journalism that if nobody was moaning about your coverage - you weren't doing much of a job. Complaints are like campaign medals - look at the way Private Eye flaunts the writs and complaints it receives. But with that comes an extraordinary responsibility, to make sure you are beyond criticism and if you do drop a goollie the only course of action is to fess up and take the criticism. It soon goes away, anyway - but the smell of a cover-up hangs around much longer. Deborah Turness is a hard-boiled journalist. She knew what had to be done and she wanted to hold up her hands on behalf of her department. Enemies within, who lurk in the blancmange layer of "Governance", foiled her. That will always be the case while the heart of the BBC - its journalism - is trapped inside the great gooey pudding of bureaucracy which the Corporation has become. Let's rescue the world's most outstanding news organisation from suffocation inside a middling entertainment company, which is far more interested in glitterball game shows than shining a light in to the murky corners of life. Support great journalism with Licence fees - let the rest pay for itself!
The Prescott letter cites the exact opposite bias: that then BBC was anti- Israel. This neatly exposes the almost impossible position the BBC is permanently in: caught between two diametrically opposed views.