This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/introducing-upstream-a-lifestyle-and-culture-section-of-the-daily-wire" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream,</a> The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.
***
It has long been a truth universally acknowledged that a scholarly, studious, or socially awkward young woman must be transformed before she can woo suitors into asking her to prom. From Olivia Newton-John’s Sandy in “Grease” to the late-’90s teen classic “She’s All That,” the glasses must be tossed aside in lieu of contacts. The hair must come down. The sensible shoes must be replaced with six-inch, red-bottomed stilettos. Only then may she be presented to the world as beautiful, desirable, and worthy of male attention.
This familiar glow-up trope is cleverly resisted in the BBC’s adaptation (available for streaming on Amazon Prime) of Janice Hadlow’s “The Other Bennet Sister,” an imagined parallel life for Jane Austen’s most overlooked Bennet daughter, Mary. The series is not an imitation of Austen, nor does it presume to tell us what Austen really intended for her most solemn and least celebrated sister. Rather, it imagines how Mary might have found her own way through the unforgiving constraints of Regency society after a lifetime of being treated as the family disappointment. As a lover of Austen’s novels, I suspect she herself would have enjoyed it; I don’t think there can be a higher compliment.
In Austen’s original novel, Mary Bennet is remembered as little more than the pious and pedantic middle sister who meanders feebly at the piano and lacks the beauty or wit of her sisters. The BBC’s adaptation begins with that familiar figure but asks what sort of inner life might exist beneath the awkwardness.
Portrayed charmingly by Ella Bruccoleri, Mary is curious, earnest, bookish, and she is content to spend her leisure consuming tomes of nonfiction: geology, history, and whatever other volumes might shield her from a world in which she has never quite belonged. Eventually, she moves to London to live with her aunt, Mrs. Gardiner, played by Indira Varma, with precisely the sort of benevolent wisdom Austen gives her in the novel. There, Mary works as a governess and begins, at last, to grow beyond the cramped emotional confines of her trying mother’s nest.
Even Penelope Featherington, in her season of “Bridgerton,” had her hair redone in flattering curls and traded her pastel dresses for a more alluring and seductive silhouette before Colin Bridgerton finally gave her the time of day. “The Other Bennet Sister” takes a gentler and more interesting route.
A pivotal moment comes when Mrs. Gardiner takes Mary to the haberdashery and encourages her to design her own dress. Mary, having slowly mustered some confidence, channels all her wallflower eccentricity into a design she dreams up herself, blissfully indifferent to the fashions contouring society gatherings. The point is not that she will turn every head at the next masquerade ball. It is that the dress is distinctly hers, and she is not shy about it. Mrs. Gardiner does not drag Mary from her mother’s influence merely to place her in the orbit of a future husband. She gives her the freedom to develop taste, preference, and judgment of her own.
It is here that the series triumphs. Romance still matters — this is still the Jane Austen Cinematic Universe — but it is not pursued as a means to an end. Before Mary can be loved properly, she must first accept that happiness is not a privilege reserved for conventionally comelier girls. “Our happiness is in our own hands,” Mr. Collins, strongly cast here as Ryan Sampson, tells her in a poignant scene, and Mary takes the lesson to heart.
Only once she begins to believe this do suitors of substance begin to recognize her. Midway through the series, she encounters William Ryder, played by Laurie Davidson, a kind of Regency bohemian who introduces her to the idea of indulging her impulses. He is charming, unconventional, and exactly the sort of figure who might tempt a woman like Mary into mistaking libertinism for liberation. But it is ardent romantic Tom Hayward, played with endearing conviction by Dónal Finn, who truly appreciates Mary as she is.
That balance is what makes the adaptation work. Mary is not transformed into a spectacled facsimile of Elizabeth Bennet. Nor is she grafted onto some feminist iconoclast, misunderstood only because the world was too cruel to appreciate her brilliance. She remains awkward, self-serious, and frequently absurd.
In that sense, “The Other Bennet Sister” succeeds because it does not flatter its heroine by pretending she was perfect all along. It insists that imperfection is not the same thing as unworthiness. Mary Bennet does not need a makeover. She needs room to make her own choices, occasionally err, and be loved without becoming someone else.
It is not the conventional conceit of Jane Austen’s novels, but if the author of “Persuasion” and “Pride and Prejudice” were around today, I believe she would approve. The series speaks to contemporary anxieties about self-worth and reinvention while remaining close enough to Austen’s moral universe to feel like a contemporary continuation. In a culture fixated on superficial perfection — from gratuitous Botox injections to whatever deranged absurdities “LooksMaxing” entails — “The Other Bennet Sister” offers the more compelling proposition that perhaps Mary Bennet was never the “other” sister; she was only waiting for someone to look at her long enough to notice.
***
Harry Khachatrian (<a href="https://x.com/harry1t6">@Harry1T6</a>) is a film critic for the Washington Examiner. He is a software engineer, holds a master’s degree from the University of Toronto, and writes about wine at <a href="https://www.betweenbottles.com/">BetweenBottles.com</a>.

The Other Bennet Sister New York Premiere

The Jane Austen Twist Taking Aim At Modern Beauty Culture

Upstream

President Donald Trump sues the BBC for billions of dollars as the White House rebuffs a controversial exposé, newly declassified documents cast suspicion on the Mar-a-Lago raid, and the University of Michigan launches an investigation as the Sherrone Moore scandal deepens.
It’s Wednesday, December 17, 2025, and this is the news you need to know to start your day. Today’s edition of the Morning Wire podcast can be heard below, and the video version can be <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mrn-251217-member-exclusive?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+Show+Episodes+Carousel">seen on The Daily Wire</a>:
<iframe style="width: 100%; max-width: 660px; overflow: hidden; border-radius: 10px;" src="https://embed.podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/trump-sues-bbc-michigan-athletics-probed-12-17-25/id1576594336?i=1000741658046" height="175" frameborder="0" sandbox="allow-forms allow-popups allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-storage-access-by-user-activation allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation"></iframe>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">Trump Vs. The BBC</h2>
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone wp-image-1016197 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Trump-Battles-BBC-1024x576.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Trump-Battles-BBC-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Trump-Battles-BBC-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Trump-Battles-BBC-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Trump-Battles-BBC-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Trump-Battles-BBC.jpg 1920w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />
President Trump has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-files-5-billion-lawsuit-against-bbc-over-malicious-documentary">launched</a> a multi-billion dollar lawsuit against the BBC as he continues to clash with media outlets at home and abroad. This week, the president filed a 46-page lawsuit in a federal court in Miami, accusing the BBC of defamation and violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. He is looking for $10 billion from the broadcaster. The suit stems from a documentary the BBC released ahead of the 2024 election titled, “Trump: A Second Chance.” The film spliced together two quotes from Trump&#8217;s speech that were said about an hour apart, making it appear as if the president called for violence at the U.S. Capitol and leaving out Trump’s request to protest &#8220;peacefully and patriotically.&#8221; The lawsuit accused the BBC of “intentionally, maliciously and deceptively doctoring [Trump’s] speech in a brazen attempt to interfere in the 2024 presidential election.”
<h2 style="text-align: center;">Messages Reveal DOJ Pushed For Mar-a-Lago Raid Over FBI Objections</h2>
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone wp-image-1016199 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Mar-A-Lago-Misgivings-1024x576.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Mar-A-Lago-Misgivings-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Mar-A-Lago-Misgivings-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Mar-A-Lago-Misgivings-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Mar-A-Lago-Misgivings-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Mar-A-Lago-Misgivings.jpg 1920w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />
The FBI did not believe it had the proper justification to raid Mar-a-Lago in August 2022, but the Biden Justice Department pushed for it anyway. Messages <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/fbi-agents-worried-there-was-no-cause-to-raid-mar-a-lago-biden-doj-made-them-do-it-anyway?author=Virginia+Kruta&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=2&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=FBI+Agents+Worried+There+Was+No+Cause+To+Raid+Mar-a-Lago%3B+Biden+DOJ+Made+Them+Do+It+Anyway">released</a> by the FBI detail that agents involved in the investigation into classified documents kept at President Trump’s Florida home believed that search warrants obtained for the raid lacked proper predicate. FBI agents also discussed a combative relationship the Biden Justice Department had started with Trump’s legal team, and expressed concern about FBI agents standing in the crossfire between the DOJ and Trump’s team.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible c-link--underline" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" data-sk="tooltip_parent">Christmas Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">Michigan Probes Athletics Department After Moore Ouster</h2>
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone wp-image-1016201 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Michigan-Scandal-Deepens-1024x576.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Michigan-Scandal-Deepens-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Michigan-Scandal-Deepens-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Michigan-Scandal-Deepens-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Michigan-Scandal-Deepens-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Michigan-Scandal-Deepens.jpg 1920w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />
The University of Michigan is looking into its athletics department following the firing of head football coach Sherrone Moore and his subsequent arrest. Moore was fired last week after an inappropriate relationship with a staffer was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/moore-comes-to-light-after-michigan-head-football-coach-arrested-following-surprise-firing">revealed</a>. Now, the University of Michigan has commissioned an investigation into the practices and culture of its entire athletics department. The investigation will be handled by the same Chicago-based law firm that opened an inquiry earlier this fall into Moore’s affair.

MRN_251217_V1

Morning Brief: Trump Sues BBC, More Revelations On Mar-a-Lago Raid, And Michigan’s Sweeping Athletics Probe

Morning Brief: Trump Sues BBC, FBI Objected To MAL Raid, And UM’s Sweeping Probe After Moore Ouster

Department of Justice

Donald Trump

Joe Biden

Michigan

Morning Wire

University of Michigan

President Donald Trump on Monday sued the BBC over a documentary in which it edited the president’s January 6, 2021, Washington address to create a “false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction” of the president.
Trump sued the British broadcaster for a total of $10 billion for both defamation and a violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act over the documentary about the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. The lawsuit was filed in a federal court in Miami.
“This instance of doctoring–in the form of distortion of meaning and splicing of entirely unrelated word sequences–is part of the BBC’s longstanding pattern of manipulating President Trump’s speeches and presenting content in a misleading manner in order to defame him, including fabricating calls for violence that he never made,” the lawsuit states.
“The BBC, faced with overwhelming and justifiable outrage on both sides of the Atlantic, has publicly admitted its staggering breach of journalistic ethics, and apologized, but has made no showing of actual remorse for its wrongdoing nor meaningful institutional changes to prevent future journalistic abuses,” it continues.
The documentary spliced together two small parts of a lengthy speech to “make it appear that President Trump explicitly called for violent action and rioting,” the lawsuit states. The two clips are separated by 55 minutes in Trump&#8217;s original speech, and the documentary also left out Trump’s explicit calls for supporters to protest “peacefully and patriotically.”
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible c-link--underline" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" data-sk="tooltip_parent">Christmas Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
Last month, two BBC executives <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bbc-execs-resign-after-j6-doc-twists-trump-footage-out-of-context">announced</a> their resignations after controversy erupted around the broadcaster over an internal memo that said the documentary characterized the president of the United States dishonestly. The memo was written by a former outside editorial standards adviser, Michael Prescott, and leaked to the media, throwing the BBC into turmoil as members and allies of the Trump administration blasted the U.K.-backed media outlet with accusations of bias.
The BBC later apologized to Trump for his portrayal in the documentary.
“[W]e accept that our edit unintentionally created the impression that we were showing a single continuous section of the speech, rather than excerpts from different points in the speech, and that this gave the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action,” the statement said.
“The BBC would like to apologize to President Trump for that error of judgement. This programme was not scheduled to be re-broadcast and will not be broadcast again in this form on any BBC platforms,” it added.

Trump Files $10 Billion Lawsuit Against BBC Over ‘Malicious’ Documentary

Trump Files $5 Billion Lawsuit Against BBC Over ‘Malicious’ Documentary

January 6

Media

Miami

World

Many people blame the troubles of the world on the news media. Many say that journalists have become out-of-touch elites, so committed to the destructive lies of leftism that their minds have become gnarled and pocked with hatred of those everyday Americans whose better values threaten to expose journalists to themselves as Gollum-like creatures eaten away by their own corruption until they look into the mirrors of their imaginations and see horrific images of their bodies riddled with leprous decay as a physical representation of the spiritual degeneracy that clearly foreshadows an eternity of desolation in bleak and endless severance from the God who created them and who now, even in his omniscience, himself turns to alternative forms of media in the hopes of getting some honest news once in a while.
Of course, many people still trust the news media and softly murmur to themselves that Walter Cronkite seems awfully nice, before they retreat into a corner of the assisted care facility and stare at the blank wall with rheumy eyes, fondly watching a parade of misty memories from a distant past that now seems much better than it really was.
Recently, unseemly revelations have detracted even more from the news media’s reputation so that trust in the honesty of journalists has now sunk to just 28% of journalists, and they’re journalists, so they’re obviously lying and don’t trust journalists any more than the rest of us do.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974735 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now-1024x171.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now-1024x171.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now-768x128.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now-1536x256.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now.jpg 1800w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
In formerly Great Britain, for instance, the British Broadcasting Corporation has recently become mired in scandal. The once-respected news organization, often affectionately referred to as “Auntie,” because it reminds viewers of the sort of grey-haired old lady whose silhouette can sometimes be seen at the second story window of a gothic mansion while her delusional, hectoring high-pitched rants drift down to the desolate motel below until, in the last reel, we find out the silhouette is really Norman Bates in a dress and a wig, and the real Auntie is the rotten corpse of a once respected news organization…
What was I talking about? Oh yeah…
Recently, the BBC was exposed for deceptively editing a speech by Donald Trump for a 2024 report that was clearly meant to influence American voters against Trump’s re-election. In Trump’s original speech, delivered to a group of protestors on January 6th after Trump’s 2021 election loss, Trump said, “God bless America, land that I love, stand beside her, and guide her through the night with a light from above.” In the BBC version, Trump said, “Kill them all! Storm the Capitol and kill them all! Kill, Kill, Kill! Insurrection now! Destroy Democracy and kill them all!”
BBC President Cor Blimey issued a statement saying that the minor discrepancy was the result of an innocent mistake in which producers confused the Trump speech with the film “Starship Troopers” because they think of Americans as just so many gigantic alien bugs.
To be fair, not all news organizations have sunk out of sight into the BBC’s tarpit of disgrace, shame, corruption, decadence, degradation, and vice. With some outlets, you can still just see the tops of their heads for a few final moments before the tar closes over them. 
For example, the New York Times, a former newspaper, was recently awarded the Pulitzer Prize for linking Donald Trump’s name to Jeffrey Epstein’s name a record number of times, without once explaining that no one has ever plausibly accused Trump of doing anything wrong with Epstein. The Pulitzer Committee says it hopes the Times prize for irrelevantly linking Trump and Epstein will encourage other former news outlets to distract people from the fact that Trump has closed the border, brought peace to the Middle East, drawn in trillions of dollars of new investment to the U.S., lowered inflation and bettered our trading deals in ways that promise to cut the deficit, not to mention the fact that he barred Epstein from Mar-a-Lago for being a creep while sleazy journalists like George Stephanopoulos and Katie Couric were still attending dinners in Epstein’s honor.
In a statement carved into the clay of a goat-headed idol, the Pulitzer Committee said it would continue to give news outlets like the Times awards for what they do best, namely, lie.
* * *
This excerpt is taken from the opening satirical monologue of “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Andrew Klavan Show</a>.”
Andrew Klavan is the host of “The Andrew Klavan Show” at The Daily Wire. Klavan is the bestselling author of numerous books, including the Cameron Winter Mystery series. The fifth installment, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/After-That-Cameron-Winter-Mysteries/dp/1613166869/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3EGZUC370LG46&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.Y_NI0mDOKeowShheDQTVx5NH-fAeimJoCD56_T0Acpl8C0mup7uJf-nGGSRLEItaaekoDnvS2vWLMa4Zd2UBXQ8Y-g-P502jOWz-Y8IX3ZQsdlO7WMLrg1xIhNoKmjCorSWUR4C2l_RbiZ7apJ1MfPzGOrrEf7AdAXX6xwnJRVP_XqUfWuMuVthTWscaU3P4vgmS86-96n-721enHfX12CFQWTajqFbVnrsDkexfUf4.6_gTH6h1Bb9Pn375QdF_VAVZSayDvjQBBKGXE-MTiFo&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;keywords=klavan&amp;qid=1754049918&amp;sprefix=%2Caps%2C80&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">After That, The Dark,</a> is NOW AVAILABLE. Follow him on X: <a href="https://x.com/andrewklavan" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@andrewklavan</a>
The views expressed in this satirical piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
* * *
<h4>Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are fifty percent off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at <a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible c-link--underline" href="http://dailywire.com/blackfriday" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="http://dailywire.com/blackfriday" data-sk="tooltip_parent">dailywire.com/blackfriday</a>.</h4>

New York Times

NY Times Wins Pulitzer For Linking Words ‘Trump’ And ‘Epstein’ Record Number Of Times

NY Times Wins Pulitzer For Linking Words 'Trump' And 'Epstein' Record Number Of Times

Andrew Klavan

Humor

Journalism

Legacy Media

Satire

The New York Times

President Donald Trump said on Friday he would likely sue the BBC next week for as much as $5 billion after the British broadcaster admitted it wrongly edited a video of a speech he gave but insisted there was no legal basis for his claim.
The British Broadcasting Corporation has been plunged into its biggest crisis in decades after two senior leaders resigned following accusations of bias, including over the editing of Trump&#8217;s speech on January 6, 2021, when his supporters entered the Capitol.
Trump&#8217;s lawyers had initially set a Friday deadline for the BBC to retract its documentary or face a lawsuit for &#8220;no less&#8221; than $1 billion. They also demanded an apology and compensation for what they called &#8220;overwhelming reputational and financial harm,&#8221; according to a letter seen by Reuters.
The BBC, which has admitted its editing of Trump&#8217;s remarks was an &#8220;error of judgement,&#8221; sent a personal apology to Trump on Thursday but said it would not rebroadcast the documentary and rejected the defamation claim.
&#8220;We&#8217;ll sue them for anywhere between $1 billion and $5 billion, probably sometime next week,&#8221; Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One as he headed to Florida for the weekend.
&#8220;I think I have to do that, I mean, they&#8217;ve even admitted that they cheated,&#8221; he said. &#8220;They changed the words coming out of my mouth.&#8221;
Trump said he had not spoken with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, with whom he has built a solid relationship, about the issue, but that he planned to call him this weekend. He said Starmer had tried to reach him, and was &#8220;very embarrassed&#8221; by the incident.
The documentary, which aired on the BBC&#8217;s flagship &#8220;Panorama&#8221; news program, spliced together three video excerpts from Trump&#8217;s speech, creating the impression he was inciting the January 6, 2021, riot. His lawyers said this was &#8220;false and defamatory.&#8221;
In an interview with British right-leaning TV channel GB News, Trump said the edit was &#8220;impossible to believe&#8221; and compared it to election interference.
&#8220;I made a beautiful statement, and they made it into a not beautiful statement,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Fake news was a great term, except it&#8217;s not strong enough. This is beyond fake, this is corrupt.&#8221;
Trump said the BBC&#8217;s apology was not enough.
&#8220;When you say it&#8217;s unintentional, I guess if it&#8217;s unintentional, you don&#8217;t apologize,&#8221; he said.
BBC Chair Samir Shah sent a personal apology on Thursday to the White House and told lawmakers the edit was &#8220;an error of judgement.&#8221; The following day, British culture minister Lisa Nandy said the apology was &#8220;right and necessary.&#8221;
The broadcaster said it had no plans to rebroadcast the documentary and was investigating fresh allegations about editing practices that included the speech on another program, &#8220;Newsnight.&#8221;
The dispute has escalated into the broadcaster&#8217;s most serious crisis in decades. Its director general Tim Davie and head of news Deborah Turness quit this week over the controversy amid allegations of bias and editing failures.
Starmer told parliament on Wednesday he supported a &#8220;strong and independent BBC&#8221; but said the broadcaster must &#8220;get its house in order.&#8221;
&#8220;Some would rather the BBC didn&#8217;t exist. Some of them are sitting up there,&#8221; he said, pointing to opposition Conservative lawmakers.
&#8220;I’m not one of them. In an age of disinformation, the argument for an impartial British news service is stronger than ever.&#8221;
The BBC, founded in 1922 and funded mainly by a compulsory license fee, faces scrutiny over whether public money could be used to settle Trump&#8217;s claim.
Former media minister John Whittingdale said there would be &#8220;real anger&#8221; if license payers&#8217; money covered damages.
(Reporting by Nandita Bose and Andrea Shalal in Washington, Costas Pitas in Los Angeles and Sam Tabahriti in London; editing by Leslie Adler, Tom Hogue and Shri Navaratnam)

Trump Says He’ll Likely Sue BBC For Up To $5 Billion Over Edited Speech

Courts

Media Bias

The BBC issued an official apology to President Donald Trump on Thursday for a misleading edit of his January 6 speech, though it rejected his allegation of defamation.
In its apology, the BBC admitted to splicing together portions of Trump’s January 6 speech in a way that made it appear that he was calling for violence. The apology comes after Trump threatened to file a $1 billion defamation suit against the media outlet over its “Trump: A Second Chance?” documentary broadcast by BBC Panorama. 
“This program was reviewed after criticism of how President Donald Trump’s 6th January 2021 speech was edited,” the outlet said in a statement on its Corrections and Clarification page. “During that sequence, we showed excerpts taken from different parts of the speech. However, we accept that our edit unintentionally created the impression that we were showing a single continuous section of the speech, rather than excerpts from different points in the speech, and that this gave the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action.”
“The BBC would like to apologize to President Trump for that error of judgement. This programme was not scheduled to be re-broadcast and will not be broadcast again in this form on any BBC platforms,” it added. 
In a separate letter to the White House, BBC Chair Samir Shah again apologized to Trump. 
&#8220;While the BBC sincerely regrets the manner in which the video clip was edited, we strongly disagree there is a basis for a defamation claim,” he <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c874nw4g2zzo">said</a>. 
For the last week, the BBC has been roiled over the controversy, with two executives <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bbc-execs-resign-after-j6-doc-twists-trump-footage-out-of-context">announcing</a> their resignation on Sunday over the incident and a leaked internal memo discussing problems of “systematic bias” at the outlet. 
&#8220;Like all public organizations, the BBC is not perfect, and we must always be open, transparent and accountable,” said Tim Davie, one of the executives who stepped down last weekend. “While not being the only reason, the current debate around BBC News has understandably contributed to my decision. Overall the BBC is delivering well, but there have been some mistakes made and as director general I have to take ultimate responsibility.”
In a separate <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/13/bbc-doctored-trump-speech-second-time-newsnight/">report</a> on Thursday, The Telegraph said that BBC Newsnight had edited Trump&#8217;s January 6 speech in a similar manner in a 2022 episode. A lawyer for Trump told The Telegraph that it was “now clear that BBC engaged in a pattern of defamation against President Trump.&#8221;
Trump has filed numerous lawsuits against news outlets over defamation allegations. In one instance, he was paid $15 million by ABC News after he sued the outlet over false claims made by anchor George Stephanopoulos.

MixCollage-14-Nov-2025-07-28-AM-8897

BBC Apologizes To Trump For Misleading Jan 6 Clip, But Won’t Own Up To Defamation

Defamation

Executive

Politics

The BBC is in dire straits. 
The BBC is a state-funded enterprise in much the same way that NPR is a state-funded enterprise. The BBC has been the dominant broadcast platform in the United Kingdom for decades, going all the way back to World War II.
For the last several decades, they have just been a left-wing agitprop organization. But now they are absolutely falling apart thanks to their extraordinarily dishonest attacks on President Trump.
According to <a href="https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/bbc-chairman-apologizes-for-error-in-edit-of-trump-speech-0fe74118?gaa_at=eafs&amp;gaa_n=AWEtsqf781o2BxWmESpy94akpjS_SOnvktxokVenvnnMPy6tJ-fywHqZCCn9uJ3C1xM%3D&amp;gaa_ts=69138fec&amp;gaa_sig=kc-AZqr5Ns4_DEx0ceuxv-1KbM20bCfSonvth9cyYdEk3d0ZpXL-gT6wLovg8uQpQ_IJ8IQY6HUYgz6HF0v35Q%3D%3D">The Wall Street Journal</a>:
<blockquote>President Trump has threatened to file a $ 1 billion lawsuit against the BBC over the way the U.K. state broadcaster edited one of his speeches in a documentary last year. BBC Chairman Samir Shah apologized Monday for the controversy, which has plunged the broadcaster into crisis. The apology came a day after BBC Director-General Tim Davie and BBC News Chief Executive Deborah Turness said they were leaving the organization following criticism from the White House. </blockquote>
What happened? There was an episode from the BBC’s flagship investigative series called Panorama, which ran one week before the 2024 United States election.
You may ask, did that affect the election? It doesn&#8217;t matter. The job of the BBC is to cover the news, not make the news up. 
One week before the election, they ran a piece in which they spliced together things that President Trump said on January 6, 2021, to make it look as though he himself personally was leading an armed insurrection at the Capitol building.
That was not true.
In order to achieve this effect, they had to cut out 24 pages of material. They cut from one part of the speech, and then they fast-forwarded 50 minutes and cut together the last part of the speech to clip them together, and then basically put in ellipses in order to make it seem as though President Trump himself was personally calling on people to follow him to the Capitol building and to assault the Capitol building.
If you watch that original clip, they had a music bed underneath, which connected the first part of the statement to the last part of the statement. It is not as though they had some sort of interpolation from a narrator explaining that much later in the speech, President Trump made the second part of the statement.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2315-member-exclusive?elementPosition=4&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974957" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-300x50.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-768x128.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1536x256.webp 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-2048x341.webp 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
The Journal continued:
<blockquote>According to a letter from Trump’s lawyers, the BBC faces a legal claim for at least $1 billion unless the documentary is retracted, an apology published and compensation paid to the president. The letter set a deadline of Friday. The broadcaster said in a statement that it would “respond in due course.”</blockquote>
This follows hard on a <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/06/read-devastating-internal-bbc-memo-in-full/">19-page memo</a> that was put out by a top staffer at the BBC named Michael Prescott. He was an independent adviser to the BBC&#8217;s Editorial Guidelines and Standards Board, and he wrote a 19-page memo pushing the idea that the BBC had become a biased and ridiculous organization. He wrote: 
<blockquote>Dear Board Members,
You may know that I have been one of the two independent external advisers working alongside the EGSC. I held this role for three years and stood down in the summer.
I departed with profound and unresolved concerns about the BBC. Since leaving, I have thought long and hard about what, if anything, to do about this.
My conclusion is that these concerns are serious enough for me to draw them to your attention, in your oversight role of the BBC.
What follows is a summary of what were, in my view, some of the most troubling matters to come before the EGSC during my term.
My view is that the Executive repeatedly failed to implement measures to resolve highlighted problems, and in many cases simply refused to acknowledge there was an issue at all. </blockquote>
Prescott pointed out that there was tremendous bias with regard to the U.S. election. He specifically pointed out that edit in the Panorama program. He said, “This was one of the most shocking sets of issues uncovered during my time with the EGSC. If BBC journalists are to be allowed to edit video in order to make people ‘say’ things they never actually said, then what value are the Corporation’s guidelines, why should the BBC be trusted, and where will this all end?&#8221; 
And yet top members of the staff said, “There was no attempt to mislead the audience about the content or nature of Mr. Trump’s speech before the riot at the Capitol. It’s normal practice to edit speeches into short form clips.”
These kinds of shenanigans occurred repeatedly. They did this with comments that President Trump made about Liz Cheney. There are reports in which the BBC routinely ignored its own guidelines, giving excessive coverage, for example, to that rogue Iowa poll that suggested that Kamala Harris was going to win the state by a substantial margin. Of course, President Trump won the state pretty easily.
“During my time as an advisor to the EGSC it became clear the BBC fell too easily for putting out ill-researched material that suggested issues of racism when there were none,” Prescott wrote. Then he listed chapter and verse across the BBC in which they basically manufactured a bunch of racial issues where no racial issue existed.
They went out of their way to promote idiocies about biological sex and gender. Prescott noted:
<blockquote>I was told that time and time again the LGBTQ desk staffers would decline to cover any story raising difficult questions about the trans-debate. The allegation made to me was stark: that the desk had been captured by a small group of people promoting the Stonewall view of the debate and keeping other perspectives off-air. Individual programmes had come to lack their own reporters as a counterweight. &#8230; 
There was also a constant drip-feed of one-sided stories, usually news features, celebrating the trans experience without adequate balance or objectivity. &#8230; There&#8217;s a constant drip feed of one sided stories, usually news features celebrating the trans experience without adequate balance or objectivity.</blockquote>
One example of this might be a report that happened in 2024 from the BBC, in which they reported that male breast milk was just as nutritious for babies as female breast milk. You may be asking yourself, what is male breast milk? The answer is that if you pump men full of estrogen, you will get some secretions from the nipples that are not actually like female breast milk.
But the BBC had an interest in pretending that males can become females. And so <a href="https://x.com/millihill/status/1987836199969382892">they ran with this report</a>.
This is what the BBC is. It’s true on a wide variety of issues.
It&#8217;s particularly true about the Hamas-Israel war. According to the UK Telegraph, the BBC was forced to correct two stories every single week about the Gaza conflict since the October 7 attacks on Israel.
That’s insane. How many stories can you retract before you finally lose all credibility? BBC Arabic had to make 215 corrections and clarifications over the past two years on stories that were found to be biased, inaccurate, or misleading.
The BBC despises Israel, and it’s not possible for them to make it any clearer. For example, in November 2023, BBC editor Jeremy Bowen falsely reported that Israel had blown up the Al Ahli Hospital in the Gaza Strip.
That wasn’t true. He later <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/bbc-jeremy-bowen-admits-got-194844026.html">admitted he got it wrong</a>, but said he didn’t feel bad at all that he got it wrong, saying, “I don&#8217;t regret one thing in my reporting, because I think, I think I was measured throughout. I didn&#8217;t race to judgment.” 
Interviewer: “But you said that the building had been flattened.”
Bowen replied, “Oh, yeah. Well, I got that wrong because I was looking at the pictures and like, what I could see was a square that appeared to be flaming on all sides. And there was a, you know, sort of a void in the middle. And it was, I think it was a picture taken from a drone. And so, you know, we have to piece together what we see. And I thought, ‘Well, that looks like the whole building&#8217;s gone.’ And that was my conclusion from looking at the pictures. And I was wrong on that. But I don&#8217;t feel too bad about that.”
It doesn&#8217;t feel bad at all, because this is the way the BBC operates. They start with the conclusion, and then they backfill the news in order to reach that particular conclusion.
So, is it any surprise that the BBC is a disaster area or that they&#8217;re in serious trouble now?
It is long past time for the BBC to admit what it is, which is an agitprop organization on behalf of the political Left. They have been for decades. Nothing has changed.
And this latest brouhaha is just more evidence that the government should not be subsidizing media organizations such as NPR, PBS, or the BBC in Britain, because you wind up with left-wing media sponsored by taxpayers.

Trump Threatens $1b Lawsuit Against BBC Over ‘Defamatory’ Coverage

How Bias And Dishonesty Brought Down The BBC

Ben Shapiro

England

Great Britain

Lawsuit

Opinion

Television

According to the BBC, President Donald Trump has <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/11/10/britain-bbc-crisis-trump-panorama/8fe0a43a-be1e-11f0-8eee-a78486b4c797_story.html">sent a letter</a> to the news outlet threatening legal action after the network aired an edited clip of Trump’s January 6, 2021, remarks in a documentary that was presented out of context.
BBC Director General Tim Davie and CEO of News Deborah Turness have both <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3vn25d5dq7o">stepped down</a> following revelations that the documentary misled viewers by deceptively editing Trump’s speech.
According to <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/03/bbc-report-reveals-bias-donald-trump/">The Telegraph</a>, a leaked internal BBC memo revealed that the program spliced together separate portions of Trump’s remarks, making it appear he explicitly encouraged chaos at the Capitol. The memo also reportedly warned of “systemic problems” of bias within the BBC&#8217;s coverage, including its Arabic service’s reporting on the Israel-Gaza conflict.
The fallout was immediate. Davie, who had served as director general for five years, admitted, “There have been some mistakes made and as director general I have to take ultimate responsibility.” Turness, who ran the BBC’s News and Current Affairs division, followed suit, saying that the documentary controversy had “reached a stage where it is causing damage to the BBC &#8230; The buck stops with me.”
The edited clip showed Trump saying, “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.”
In reality, Trump stated, “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re gonna cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.” More than <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial">8400 words later</a>, he declared, “Most people would stand there at 9 o&#8217;clock in the evening and say I want to thank you very much, and they go off to some other life. But I said something&#8217;s wrong here, something is really wrong, can have happened. And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don&#8217;t fight like hell, you&#8217;re not going to have a country anymore.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
NEW &#8211; Internal whistleblower memo claims BBC edited footage of Trumps Jan 6 speech by splicing footage together to mislead viewers, in a documentary aired last year — Telegraph <a href="https://t.co/5vhtP8l35B">pic.twitter.com/5vhtP8l35B</a>
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) <a href="https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1985388625480090070?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 3, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
BBC Chair Samir Shah has since apologized, admitting the broadcast represented an “error of judgment.” But critics argue the damage is already done, pointing to years of mounting accusations that the BBC’s news division has drifted leftward.

MixCollage-10-Nov-2025-09-43-AM-9060

Trump Threatens To Sue As BBC Scrambles Over Misleading J6 Documentary

deceptive editing

Fake News

Two BBC executives announced their resignations on Sunday after controversy erupted around the U.K. public broadcaster over its portrayal of President Donald Trump in a documentary on the January 6 Capitol riot.
BBC Director General Tim Davie and CEO of News Deborah Turness announced their resignations less than a week after an internal BBC memo surfaced, saying a documentary on the events of January 6, 2021, painted Trump dishonestly. The documentary removed key context from Trump’s rally speech that day, falsely portraying Trump as having encouraged rioting at the Capitol.
“Like all public organisations, the BBC is not perfect, and we must always be open, transparent and accountable,” Davie said in a <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1k02vr1my2o">statement</a>. “While not being the only reason, the current debate around BBC News has understandably contributed to my decision. Overall the BBC is delivering well, but there have been some mistakes made and as director general I have to take ultimate responsibility.”
Turness released her own statement, saying that the controversy around the BBC Panorama, which created the documentary, “has reached a stage where it is causing damage to the BBC.”
“In public life leaders need to be fully accountable, and that is why I am stepping down,” she said, adding in defense of the BBC, “[w]hile mistakes have been made, I want to be absolutely clear recent allegations that BBC News is institutionally biased are wrong.”
The documentary at the center of the departures is titled “Trump: A Second Chance?” and it first aired a week before the 2024 presidential election.
Last week, the contents of an internal memo written by former outside editorial standards adviser Michael Prescott were leaked and published in <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/03/bbc-report-reveals-bias-donald-trump/">The Telegraph</a>.
The documentary “completely misled” viewers, the memo said. It had included Trump telling his supporters to “fight like hell” while omitting that he had encouraged rally-goers in Washington, D.C., that day to protest “peacefully and patriotically.”
The report in The Telegraph sparked a response from Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., who suggested that the BBC is “FAKE NEWS.”
“The FAKE NEWS ‘reporters’ in the UK are just as dishonest and full of s*** as the ones here in America!!!!” Trump Jr. <a href="https://x.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1985415134903161307">posted</a> on X after the contents of the BBC memo were published.
The memo has motivated backlash in the U.K. from the country’s opposition Conservative Party.
“These are extremely concerning revelations that could seriously undermine the brand and reputation of the BBC,” Nigel Huddleston, the shadow culture secretary, told The Telegraph. “The BBC license fee is justified on the basis of impartiality and trust. There can be no justification for this kind of deliberate manipulation and the spreading of misinformation.”

BBC Execs Resign After J6 Doc Twists Trump Footage Out Of Context

BBC Execs Resign As UK Broadcaster Roiled Over Doctored Trump Footage In J6 Documentary

A BBC TV news host may face consequences for making her “disgust” obvious when being forced to use the phrase “pregnant people” while reading from a teleprompter earlier this year.
Martine Croxall had twenty formal complaints lodged against her following a June broadcast. 
“London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine has released research, which says that nearly 600 heat-related deaths are expected in the U.K.,” Croxall said during the broadcast in question.
“Malcolm Mistry, who was involved in the research, says that the aged, pregnant people… women,” she went on after a pause, “and those with pre-existing health conditions need to take precautions.”
“I have a new favorite BBC presenter,” J.K. Rowling <a href="https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1936720618478805251?lang=en">wrote</a> in June after the segment aired.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
I have a new favourite BBC presenter. <a href="https://t.co/l2gkThccty">https://t.co/l2gkThccty</a>
— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) <a href="https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1936720618478805251?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 22, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
BBC News reps initially defended Croxall’s delivery, saying her reaction was because of “scripting which somewhat clumsily incorporated phrases from the press release accompanying the research.”
But now that’s changed. The BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3epwz08ewzo">announced</a> Thursday that Croxall had indeed violated its prescribed editorial standards of impartiality.
“The phrase ‘pregnant people’ was followed by a facial expression which has been variously interpreted by complainants as showing disgust, ridicule, contempt or exasperation,” the news release from the ECU <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/ecu/news-1230pm-news-channel-21-june-2025">said</a>.
“…The ECU considered the facial expression which accompanied the change of ‘people’ to ‘women’ laid it open to the interpretation that it indicated a particular viewpoint in the controversies currently surrounding trans identity, and the congratulatory messages Ms. Croxall later received on social media, together with the critical views expressed in the complaints to the BBC and elsewhere, tended to confirm that the impression of her having expressed a personal view was widely shared across the spectrum of opinion on the issue,” it said.
While the statement did not detail any punishments Croxall will receive for her actions, social media has been congratulating her for taking a stand for team sanity ever since the incident occurred.
Piers Morgan said, “The BBC expects a female presenter to use the words ‘pregnant people’ about pregnant WOMEN, and then reprimands her when she rolls her eyes?! Pathetic.”
“She should have her own news channel,” one commenter <a href="https://x.com/WilshawSheana/status/1986771953470804012">suggested</a>.
“I loved that. It was so well done. Such a small thing, but it was a powerful reality check. She deserves a raise and a promotion,” another <a href="https://x.com/Nobody78787878/status/1986660817631130006">said</a>. “The Emperor’s New Clothes have hereby been exposed to the world.”

Martine Croxall

BBC Finds News Anchor In Violation After Showing ‘Disgust’ At The Phrase ‘Pregnant People’

BBC Finds That News Anchor Showing 'Disgust' At The Phrase 'Pregnant People' Was A Violation

Entertainment

LGBT

News

U.K.

In a <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/04/bbc-arabic-bias-pushed-hamas-lies/">blistering internal report</a> that reads like an indictment of the BBC’s own integrity, whistleblower documents reveal that BBC Arabic deliberately downplayed Israeli suffering in the Gaza war while racing to air unverified, Hamas-sourced claims designed to cast the Jewish state as the villain. The memo, written by Michael Prescott, a former adviser to the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines Committee, accuses the Arabic service of systemic bias, misinformation, and a shocking tolerance of antisemitic voices.
According to the report, BBC Arabic repeatedly parroted Hamas talking points while omitting or minimizing Israel’s perspective — even when evidence contradicted militant propaganda. Allegations against Israel were rushed to broadcast “without adequate checks,” suggesting not mere carelessness but, as Prescott wrote, “a desire always to believe the worst about Israel.”
The BBC’s English-language coverage told one story; its Arabic wing, quite another. In July 2024, after Hezbollah rockets killed nine children in the Israeli town of Majdal Shams, the BBC’s English site mentioned the victims and Israel’s retaliation. BBC Arabic? It omitted the children’s deaths entirely, highlighted Hezbollah’s denials, and the next day suggested Israel might have faked the attack.
Prescott’s letter accuses BBC Arabic of providing a platform to extremists who openly glorify violence against Jews. One contributor, Samer Elzaenen — who once posted “We shall burn you as Hitler did” — appeared on the network 244 times. Another, Ahmed Alagha, who called Jews “devils” and “not human beings,” appeared more than 500 times. Yet BBC executives defended these individuals as “eyewitnesses,” not staff reporters. Prescott wasn’t buying it: “Most viewers would consider hundreds of appearances… to amount to being part of the BBC’s reporting team.”
The report also blasted the BBC for amplifying Hamas propaganda about Gaza’s death toll, long after the United Nations revised down its own inflated statistics. BBC Arabic continued to treat Hamas-run agencies as credible sources, even after internal reviewers warned that claims of Israeli “mass graves” and “genocide” lacked any independent verification.
In one instance, BBC coverage suggested Israeli forces buried thousands of Palestinians in hospital courtyards — a narrative later disproven, as the graves were dug by Palestinians themselves. Another blunder involved a claim that 14,000 babies were “hours from starvation,” when the real number referred to children at risk over a year. The BBC quietly corrected the article online — but repeated the falsehood the same night on “Newsnight.”
Perhaps most damning, the BBC misreported that the International Court of Justice had ruled Israel’s war a “plausible genocide.” That was false — and took months to correct. Former BBC television director Danny Cohen condemned the leadership’s response: “Having made such serious and misleading errors, BBC executives chose to hide them from the public rather than correct the record.”
When internal reviewers flagged these issues, senior managers brushed them aside. Jonathan Munro, the BBC’s news content chief, praised BBC Arabic’s “exceptional journalism” and even bragged it was “almost as trusted as Al Jazeera.” Prescott shot back: “Is Al Jazeera the new gold standard? The BBC exists to reflect British values — not echo Qatar’s propaganda outlet.”
The scandal follows another major credibility crisis for the corporation — a Panorama documentary that doctored a Donald Trump speech to make it appear he incited the Capitol riot. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy and media regulator Ofcom now face growing calls to launch a full investigation into the BBC’s bias and editorial collapse.
As the memo concludes, “The BBC is prone to claiming it gets equal complaints from both sides. But looking at the evidence, it’s hard to argue the BBC is biased toward Israel. Quite the opposite.”
At a time when Britain’s taxpayer-funded broadcaster is supposed to counter global disinformation, it is helping Hamas craft its narrative and eroding trust in one of the nation’s most sacred institutions.

BBC Announce Plans For A Major Shake-Up Of The Corporation

Damning Report Accuses BBC Of Whitewashing Hamas And Fueling Anti-Israel Bias

anti-Israel

Bias

Hamas

Pro-Hamas

In yet another attempt to vilify Israel by claiming they are starving Gazans, the BBC published an <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce87n455dvxo">article</a> initially titled, “Malnourished Gaza woman flown to Italy dies in hospital.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Israel helps evacuate cancer sufferer from Gaza to Italy. She dies there of leukaemia. BBC suggests Israel starved her to death. To the BBC, even cancer is Israel’s fault.<a href="https://t.co/9EbFskcHm4">https://t.co/9EbFskcHm4</a> <a href="https://t.co/3f2YJ2qQwL">pic.twitter.com/3f2YJ2qQwL</a>
&mdash; Melanie Phillips (@MelanieLatest) <a href="https://twitter.com/MelanieLatest/status/1957051258394595457?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 17, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The article revolved around Marah Abu Zuhri, and the article began, “A Gazan woman who was evacuated to Italy for treatment while severely emaciated has died in hospital.”
The article continued, “The University Hospital of Pisa said she suffered a cardiac arrest and died on Friday, less than 48 hours after arriving. It said she had a ‘very complex clinical picture’ and had suffered severe loss of weight and muscle. Italian news agencies reported she was suffering from severe malnutrition.”
In the fourth paragraph, the BBC finally acknowledged, “Cogat, the Israeli military body in charge of aid, said on Sunday that she had suffered from leukaemia.”
But then the BBC returned to this: “The UN has warned of widespread malnutrition in Gaza, with experts backed by the organisation warning last month in a report that the ‘worst-case scenario’ of famine is playing out in Gaza.”
The BBC made sure to vilify Israel’s war effort, writing, The statement came days after Israel&#8217;s government announced troops would occupy Gaza City. Several days of heavy bombardment of the Zeitoun, the largest district in the city, have since followed. A spokesperson for the municipality told the BBC that the situation in Zeitoun was ‘catastrophic,’ with mass displacement taking place after six days of relentless Israeli air strikes, shelling and demolition operations.”
And as expected, the BBC followed by twice quoting the Hamas-run Gaza Health ministry as to the number of casualties.
<a class="c-link c-link--underline" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=summer&amp;utm_content=editorialsummersale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=summer&amp;utm_content=editorialsummersale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-10042">End of Summer Sale &#8211; Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
Last month, a leaked internal memo at the BBC revealed the news corporation instructed its staff to slant its reporting of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza to vilify Israel and the U.S.-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), which is trying to feed the citizens, a new report stated.
As Jonathan Sacerdoti of The Spectator <a href="https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-leaked-email-that-blows-apart-the-bbcs-impartiality-claims-over-gaza/">reported</a>, “A leaked internal email from a BBC executive editor reveals that the Corporation has issued prescriptive instructions to staff on how to cover the humanitarian situation in Gaza. The memo, titled ‘Covering the food crisis in Gaza,’ amounts to a top-down editorial diktat that discards impartiality, elevates one side of a deeply contested narrative, and imposes a specific anti-Israel legal-political framing as settled fact.”
The email was sent on Friday, June 25. It commenced by contending that “the argument over how much aid has crossed into Gaza is irrelevant,” while enjoining the staff that “we should say” the current distribution system “doesn’t work.”
“It explicitly favours a particular explanation of suffering in Gaza: one that blames the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a relatively new aid body established with US and Israeli cooperation, while glossing over the role of Hamas, the rulers of Gaza and a proscribed terrorist organisation under British law,” Sacerdoti wrote, adding that by arguing that the amount of aid doesn’t matter, the BBC ignores that Hamas has been widely reported to be hijacking, obstructing, or reselling aid.
“The BBC’s memo labels the GHF system a failure and instructs staff to say so,” Sacerdoti reports, pointing out, “The BBC – which declined to comment on the email – appears content to accept casualty figures and starvation claims from Hamas-linked bodies or sympathetic NGOs as definitive, while dismissing or omitting Israeli data and counterclaims. The email directs staff to reference ‘mounting evidence’ of starvation and deaths around aid centres, yet makes no mention of Hamas operatives looting convoys, obstructing access, or even firing on civilians attempting to collect food – allegations which have been made publicly by Israel and backed at times by video and eyewitness testimony.”
In March, the BBC once again displayed its inveterate hostility toward Israel, as a producer for the network contacted the Israeli Embassy in London and asked if it could supply &#8220;an Israeli military voice&#8221; who would &#8220;be critical of&#8221; Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu&#8217;s military offensive against Hamas.
Orly Goldschmidt, the spokesperson for the Israeli Embassy, published the message that requested the anti-Netanyahu guest. It read:
<blockquote>
Hi, (redacted) this is (redacted) from Newshour on the World Service. Our presenter (redacted) would like to interview a (sic) an Israeli military voice (can be former) about the latest ground offensive in Gaza. We want someone who is going to be critical of Netanyahu and the ground offense (concern about remaining hostages, stretching the IDF capacity, destruction of Gaza or any other reason). Do you think you could help with this? Thank you. 
</blockquote>
The message ended with a praying hands emoji.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
🚨BBC BIAS (yet again)
Today my team received this remarkable message from a <a href="https://twitter.com/BBC?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BBC</a> producer at <a href="https://twitter.com/bbcworldservice?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@bbcworldservice</a>.
They don’t want to interview someone knowledgeable, nor someone relevant, just someone who fits the predetermined narrative.
There is nothing balanced or impartial… <a href="https://t.co/pm0loEeUFG">pic.twitter.com/pm0loEeUFG</a>
— Orly Goldschmidt 🎗️ (@Orlygoldschmidt) <a href="https://twitter.com/Orlygoldschmidt/status/1902668733899825646?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 20, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

MixCollage-18-Aug-2025-11-22-AM-9289

BBC Claims Gazan Woman With Cancer Died Of Malnutrition

BBC Anti-Israel Bias Rears Head Again: Insinuate Cancer Sufferer Died From Israeli Starvation

Menu

BBC