What Influence Has the Bbc Had on History?

Keeping out communists from a state broadcaster at the height of the Cold War sounds sensible.

> propagate elite opinion

I can't speak of the MI5 accusation but the elite opinion one is comically of the mark. The (economic/political) elite famously hate the Beeb for its "leftie" views (really, it's just being balanced and telling the facts that they object to). The Tories would love an excuse to tear it apart but historically it's been too popular for them to get away with that.

If you had meant intellectual elites then maybe you would have a point but I don't think that's what you were saying.

When you're attacked from all sides, it's either you're doing it all wrong or all good. Obviously I want to think it's the latter.

> The Prescott memo is just the latest observation of how the BBC has been used as a tool to propagate elite opinions and accomplish intelligence objectives. Of course you like it, it's for you.

I think this kind of criticism is in bad faith. Because there's an implication that you're comparing the BBC to some kind of ideal unbiased news outlet.

In reality, the alternatives to the BBC are much more obviously nefarious and make far less steps to remove bias.

If the BBC is a tool to "propagate elite opinions", then how would you describe Fox News, the Daily Mail, The Times (UK), or even CNN?

>>the BBC coverage of the Scottish independence referendum, Corbyn, and Brexit was embarrassing.

Yes, they were clearly pro-Remain and anti-Corbyn and anti-Scottish independence.

>> The Prescott memo is just the latest observation of how the BBC has been used as a tool to propagate elite opinions and accomplish intelligence objectives.

Yes, it demonstrated examples of bias in favour of those elite opinions.

An aside:

I always understood that Broadcasting House was inspiration for Room 101 (Ministry of Love) rather than the MoT.

It's well-known that the University of London Senate House building was the inspiration for the Ministry of Truth. Both the interior and exterior have appeared in many films and TV shows. Seems to come out of the visual creative toolbox when there's a need to evoke oppression or technocratic stultification through architecture, which is a shame as it's rather nice to visit!

Somewhat off on a tangent but George Orwell got mentioned (possibly ”invoked") and he literally sent names of communists that couldn't be trusted to be involved in broadcast to the government:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwell%27s_list

The goal there is similar to why the US state department sponsored the Tor project. They want a democratic society in Russia, and they want the Russian people to have friendly views of the west. The objective wasn't so much to teach them their ways, but to establish rapport with the journalism community in Russia. Journalists decide if for example Putin's power grabbing and dictatorship is covered as a negative or a positive thing. That rapport goes a long way with influencing their unavoidable bias. I think "influence" is correct, not "propaganda" unless there was specific messaging being disseminated.

Also, look up "confucius institutes" all over the US and the world setup the Chinese government to do something similar.

The UK government used to greatly believe in “soft power” in that their global influence would be improved through familiarity with British media, values and teaching, using the BBC World Service and organisations like the British Council.

So yes, essentially propaganda, but in the same way Hollywood is.

The BBC has a wide commitment to help run training courses in many developing countries.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/historyofthebbc/media-action/

> Why would BBC want to teach their methods in Russia? How do they benefit from that?

The BBC's mission is to inform, educate, and entertain, not to benefit themselves.

> How does Soros benefit from that?

I'm more anti-Soros than most, but he is fairly open that he wants to prevent a recurrence of the Holocaust and a free press and western-style civil liberties are things he sees as supporting that. Even if you want to see it in selfish terms, the guy is rich and Jewish and wants the kind of society that doesn't victimise people like him; that doesn't mean he's part of some kind of cloak-and-dagger conspiracy.

Two things are both true: the Soros Open Society foundation and BBC activities were pro-Western propaganda, and that does not make them bad or wrong or false. If they had succeeded in turning Russia into a pluralist liberal democracy, that would have been better for millions of Russians and everyone else. Instead Russia turned into a petro-state oligarchy, sponsored a number of wars, and finally threw hundreds of thousands of young Russians into a meatgrinder war in Ukraine.

>>Why would BBC want to teach their methods in Russia?

Why does US benefit from every kid on the planet being able to name the avengers and instantly recognize Coca-Cola cans?

I'm not saying this is some grand conspiracy orchestrated by the elites - but projecting your power by making sure everyone is aligned with you ideologically and culturally helps long term, both in making allies and in avoiding wars.

It seems somewhat obvious that more democratic Russia would be in the interests of the rest of the Europe. Similarly self evidently, the former KGB is against it. Freedom of press is rather important part of democracy, and the state controlled media is an important part of an authoritarian play book.

The lack of democracy in Russia has now ended up costing millions of lives and trillions in damages, so maybe we should have actually invested more?

The polling suggests Farage absolutely does have that support. BBC coverage reflects that. And I hate the man