BBC comes last in poll of trust for Brexit debate

The BBC has come bottom of four broadcasters in an informal poll of Twitter users for trustworthiness.

Asked which TV broadcaster they would trust to conduct a fair debate, an overwhelming majority of over 11,000 respondents chose Channel 4, with ITV News a distant second but still with almost three times the votes of the BBC in last place:

broadcast poll.png

While not a scientific poll, it provides eloquent commentary on the public perception of the BBC’s abandonment of impartiality since David Cameron began the process of stuffing Tory supporters into key positions at the Corporation and especially its news and current affairs teams.

The BBC has been at the centre of controversy again this week, with accusations of attempting to ‘bounce‘ Labour into accepting it as the host of Jeremy Corbyn’s Brexit debate with Theresa May in a format more likely to hide May’s weakness – and of featuring, twice, an actress dressed as a vicar in Brexit-related debates.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.


  1. The bbc putting up ‘vicars’ to sycophantically fawn over the toerags on newsnight; in reality an actress employed by the pederast enabling- and-infested, profligate, avaricious and morally defunct bbc.

    ‘Vicar’? pastor of her own weirdo cult, more like. And they want to go around schools ‘teaching’ kids how to spot fake news?

    Not only would I not permit my kids to attend those ‘lessons’ unless I was physically present, but I’d tell them to start with their own bullshit about tv licencing threats & extortion.

    The sooner it’s made subscription only the better. I can quite happily live without it. They’re not getting a cent off me. Period.

  2. Lord Reith, first director general of the BBC had some ‘interesting’ opinions:

    Attitude to fascism:

    In 1975, excerpts from Reith’s diary were published which showed he had, during the 1930s, harboured pro-fascist views.[28] On 9 March 1933, he wrote:

    “I am pretty certain … that the Nazis will clean things up and put Germany on the way to being a real power in Europe again. They are being ruthless and most determined.”

    After the July 1934 Night of the Long Knives, in which the Nazis ruthlessly exterminated their internal dissidents, Reith wrote: “I really admire the way Hitler has cleaned up what looked like an incipient revolt. I really admire the drastic actions taken, which were obviously badly needed.”

    [ After Czechoslovakia was invaded by the Nazis in 1939 he wrote:

    “Hitler continues his magnificent efficiency.”

    Reith also expressed admiration for Benito Mussolini.

    Reith’s daughter, Marista Leishman, wrote that her father in the 1930s did everything possible to keep Winston Churchill and other anti-appeasement Conservatives off the airwaves


  3. It’s been more than obvious for years that the BBC has been heavily under the influence of Zionists and the right wing, often one and the same. Tony Ben highlighted it when the BBC refused to give details of the DEC appeal when Israel slaughtered innocent men, women and children during Cast Lead.

    There is no way the BBC would allow Jeremy Corbyn to appear on any programme which wasn’t biassed against him.

    1. For those unaware, Margaret Hodge’s daughter, Lizzi Watson, is deputy editor of the BBC 6 and 10pm news broadcasts.

      That’s how MH got a platform during the AS hoo-hah to denounce Corbyn to the nation as “the problem”…

      1. True.

        We were not told that by MSM.

        Surely, she should have recused herself.

      2. As if……!

        That would be true if our politicians had integrity. The last place you’ll find it is in the Blairite ranks!

  4. How anyone is fooled by Ch4 is beyond me. Crick is a Tory, Hilsum’s an Atlanticist neocon, Snow and Newman are Liberals. The whole package is much the same as the Huffington Post….media leftys loving identity politics with Russia and Trump as the bogeymen.

    1. That’s as maybe, lundiel.

      It’s still infinitely more balanced than the state’s very own government mouthpiece’

      And why? Because it isn’t a publicly-funded, public school failure’s monopoly.

    2. Crick was Labour in his youth. I think he may have been in LPYS.

      He denied that his book ‘Militant’ was a ‘hatchet job’.
      Having read that book, I agree. It is an interesting book.

    3. How on Earth do you peg Lindsay Hilsum as a neocon? She mostly reports on the devestation caused by interventionist neocon policies

  5. Did Tory Fibs use a polling company and get a balanced selection of people? If the poll was conducted online by Tory Fibs, it will be a very self selected group of participants, and tells us nothing about what the wider population thinks.

  6. British Bullsh-t corporation – better no televised debate than a rigged one.

  7. For those who (rightly) get exercised about the BBC News and Current Affairs output, can I suggest one simple short-term solution : just don’t listen or watch. I never get wound up by ‘Today’, or ‘Newsnight’, or ‘Question Time’ or ‘Any Questions’ – because I don’t get involved.

    The answer is in the future – to establish some independence from political control (and that won’t provide wall-to-wall agreement.

    Meanwhile – take advantage of the wider output of the BBC, which is an object lesson in the advantages of public service. It provides the only variety in a morass of commercial gunge. Keep the wider view.

  8. Apart from their obvious biases, it’s difficult to see the usefulness to the LP or the electorate of a televised debate on any of the channels at this juncture.

    Much of the protest against May’s deal is founded on the fact that it doesn’t make a clean enough, or convincing enough break from the EU: We all know the picture, rule takers, no leverage re a future trade deal because of the backstop veto, etc. etc.

    Perhaps Keir Starmer’s “plan” appears neater and offers more certainty: it gets round the backstop problem and offers something more focused re workers’ rights and regulatory frameworks. Will that be enough? With its customs union and single market element, I don’t see how it can successfully address that same, fundamental, weakness that is about to scupper May’s deal, as in why bother with Brexit at all if it’s only ever going to be about damage limitation?

    Then there is the added disadvantage of Labour’s compromised version of a withdrawal deal not having been tested/validated in Brussels – easy to demolish May’s deal yes, but another way in which it won’t be so easy to present convincing alternatives.

    The LP manifesto is to be applauded for trying to make something positive out of some of the possibilities that might be afforded by some kind of a Brexit and Corbyn is to be applauded for respecting democracy. Currently, though, I would have thought that a Brexit “debate” (in which someone is supposed to be the winner) will be a very tough call for him, on any channel. Perhaps someone can persuade me otherwise.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: