The War Against Deception Through the Mainstream Media

The past couple of days (let alone this entire year) has been amongst the most challenging for the mainstream media. First, the presumption of credibility that they’ve enjoyed has eroded significantly. In addition, many viewers are moving more and more away from the mainstream media, thus affecting its profitability. But furthermore, it has become ironically mainstream for the mainstream media to no longer be exempt from accountability: we saw this with people fact-checking them in the presidential debates and regarding numerous news developments, BUT we also saw this with the recent settlement between ABC and President Trump.
This is incredible to note because from the Scriptures we understand that deception is the harbinger of the end, HOWEVER, while the watchers and restraints are still in the world, the truth certainly continues to shine in the hearts of men; and let’s discuss this further in light of the war against deception through the mainstream media.
Let’s begin with some context. In essence, Trump sued ABC and Stephanopoulos in federal court in Miami days after the network aired the segment, in which the longtime “Good Morning America” anchor and “This Week” host repeatedly misstated the verdicts in Carroll’s two civil lawsuits against Trump. During a live “This Week” interview with Represetative Nancy Mace, Stephanopoulos wrongly claimed that Trump had been “found liable for rape” and “defaming the victim of that rape.” BUT, neither verdict involved a finding of rape as defined under New York law. In the first of the lawsuits to go to trial, Trump was found liable last year of sexually abusing and defaming Carroll. A jury ordered him to pay her $5 million. Then, in January, at a second trial in federal court in Manhattan, Trump was found liable on additional defamation claims and ordered to pay Carroll $83.3 million. Of course, president Trump is appealing both verdicts – and understandably so because in these cases there was no eye witness testimony, no video footage (from a high end store), there was no police report, no DNA evidence – in fact, this case also only came approximately 30 years later though a memoir written by Caroll – right before the 2020 election. AND in light of this, democrats conveniently pass a law to allow this case to be heard even after the statute of limitation has passed, and proceed to apply that law in retrospect so it would specifically affect president Trump.
I will say: rape allegations are a serious issue of concern on both sides: whether you’re the victim of this violation, or the man being falsely accused. But, it is also quite abhorent when rape (which is obviously a sensitive issue) is used a tool in the weaponisation of the justice system against a person.
THIS SETTLEMENT EXPOSES HOW TO DEAL WITH DECEPTIVE MEDIA WITHOUT INFRINGING ON PRESS FREEDOM
Well, now ABC News has agreed to pay $15 million toward president Trump’s presidential library to settle a defamation lawsuit over anchor George Stephanopoulos’ inaccurate on-air assertion that the president-elect had been found civilly liable for raping writer E. Jean Carroll. As part of the settlement made public on the 14th of December, ABC News posted an editor’s note to its website expressing regret over Stephanopoulos’ statements during a March 10 segment on his “This Week” program. The network will also pay $1 million in legal fees to the law firm of Trump’s attorney, Alejandro Brito. The settlement agreement further describes ABC’s presidential library payment as a “charitable contribution,” with the money earmarked for a non-profit organisation that is being established in connection with the yet-to-be built library.
But, it is worth asking: Why did Stephanopoulos say those remarks about President Trump when they were so obviously untrue? On the one hand, it is perhaps he genuinely thought president Trump was found guilty of rape. But, this could then also result from either willful ignorance (which is dangerous for a journalist or news presenter), or (and perhaps more concerningly) it would be a consequence of the group think introduced by the #BelieveWomen and #MeToo culture, where women are believed when making sexual abuse allegation without a fair trial, and therefore, any man who is accused is automatically seen as guilty, despite what the courts say. It was essentially a culture where being accused of rape became synonymous with being found guilty of the crime. So, these are the reasons on the one hand – which also do not reflect well on George Stephanopoulos.
On the other hand, I would also argue that George Stephanopoulos made those remarks because for the longest time, it was part of the mainstream media playbook to say any misguided and defaming narrative about president Trump, without having to worry about being held accountable. However, this method of reporting on Trump gained traction when the mainstream media largely controlled the narrative without significant competition from platforms like X.  The mistake that George Stephanopoulos then made (in addition to lying) was not recognising the time he was in when he made those remarks, because it is in a time where the likes of ABC have their credibility already under scrutiny. But, now, they have to be careful because they are no longer believed without critical assessment of their statements! In fact, their lawyers are hyper aware that they are no longer exempt from accountability. Remember when Sunny from ‘The View’ (which is a production by ABC) had to read legal notes to balance remarks that were made earlier on two accounts, first regarding Matt Gaetz, and also regarding Pete Hegseth while on air?
The best part about this is that it demonstrates that there truly is a constructive way to deal with deception and lies without censorship and infringements on press freedom. In essence, the likes of George Stephanopoulos and the anchors on ‘The View’ are not restricted to speak as freely as they would like, as long as they are prepared to deal with the legal accountability and embarrassment of having to acknowledge the wrong they committed against a person they persistently painted so poorly. So let this be a lesson for the democrat party and the ultra-liberal who support a censorship industrial complex: free speech (including press freedom) can certainly co-exist with legitimate and just legal accountability.
MILLIONS CONTINUE TO CANCEL THE BBC LICENCE FEE
But, ABC is not the only mainstream media or news outlet that is having to reconcile with its now lack of popularity. More specifically, 650,000 people have cancelled the BBC licence fee in a year. This is in addition to millions more cancelling in previous years. But, recently, this is said to accelerate as yet another story of sexual misconduct breaks with BBC’s Gregg Wallace being accused. However, this is also tied to the highly biassed reporting from the BBC. For instance, many protested that the BBC was fear mongering against the Trump campaign and incoming administration, calling Robert Kennedy Jr “dangerous” and hinting at “criminals” being given jobs in the White House.
But, in addition to recent anti-Trump fear mongering, there’s clear and long context for why the BBC finds itself in this position. More specifically, the BBC has regularly been accused of bias. Over the years, there has been sustained criticism of the BBC’s coverage of a number of issues, including Britain’s membership of the EU, while independence campaigners in Scotland said that they believe that the BBC’s referendum coverage was biassed towards the union. And this perception of bias in the BBC extends even to other political matters such as immigration, the National Health Service (NHS) reforms and (as just alluded to) American politics.
But, this culture of bias towards liberal elitism in the BBC is not based on abstract observations from outsiders – interestingly, it is coming from people who have worked within the BBC. For instance, the presenter Andrew Marr, has said that the BBC is ‘a publicly funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people,’ creating ‘an innate liberal bias’. Peter Sissons has described a ‘“mindset” … a way of thinking firmly of the Left’. Rod Liddle, the former editor of the ‘Today’ programme, wrote on the BBC’s coverage of the euro that ‘the BBC’s bias was arrived at through a sort of inherent wet liberalism, rather than an actual plot as such’. Also, Roger Mosey, a former editorial director, suggested the BBC has a ‘liberal-defensive’ bias. These are all direct quotes from people who have worked in the BBC. In fact, we see all of this play out when journalists and reporters from the BBC represent this mindset. For instance, you’d recall this interaction from 2018, when Hungarian foreign minister Péter Szijjártó challenged the BBC’s Emily Maitlis on her bias – as she was seething with rage because Hungary dares to oppose mass immigration!
Now, the counter that is often given to this critique of the BBC is that sometimes the BBC exhibits a deep-rooted small ‘c’ conservatism (which moderate conservatism) when it comes to a range of issues such as constitutional coverage of the royal family and the armed forces. However, what is not appreciated by those who give this counter as a defence for the BBC is that: under an institutional explanation of bias, an innately liberal culture coupled with some mild conservatism on some issues is not directly contradictory (they are likely to be the same thing, to inspire the same content or world-view). And so, the fact that the BBC has a liberal elite bias and sometimes takes a mildly conservative stance is consistent with the view that, institutionally, the BBC might reflect a liberal or so-called progressive but broadly pro-elite establishment opinion.
Unsurprisingly, the BBC itself is quite defensive about all of these (quote-un-quote) ‘accusations’. In fact, it has used the fact that it gets criticised from the left and the right ends of the political spectrum to defend itself against charges of political or ideological favouritism. Yet, few suggest that the BBC is overtly and deliberately biassed at all times, particularly towards or against a certain political party. RATHER, it is more argued that in the BBC an institutional (or establishment) world-view is what actually appears to shape coverage: whether through decisions on what to cover, what to include in a story or what to admit. Therefore, just because figures on the left AND right sometimes protest about the effects of this world-view does not implicitly make the BBC ‘neutral’. The following clip, despite seemingly problematising more of a conservative influence in the BBC exemplifies just this.
THE BBC’S PROBLEM WITH ELITE LIBERAL BIAS
However, if we concede that any entity or country inherently has an agenda, we then should discuss why the bias in the BBC’s agenda is detrimental – especially because some acknowledge that bias of this kind might be inevitable in any media organisation. Well, there are clear arguments to be made against the liberal bias in the BBC – especially when we consider that this bias is part of an unqualified presumption of left ideals and positions being adopted as inherently correct or credible, thus influencing even how journalists conduct their investigations and research. In fact, while there do exist some media organisations, which exhibit conservative biases, the overwhelming majority of national news outlets – like the BBC – tend to lean to the left IN COMPARISON with not just conservatives, but even the views of the general population.
The first argument concerning the detriments of the bias in the BBC pertains to the danger of the BBC’s reputation for fair coverage, especially since this reputation is stronger than that of other media organisations in the UK. Which is not necessarily to say that the BBC has a great reputation for credibility – rather, it is to say that the BBC ranks higher than other media outlets such as The Times or ITV. In fact the lack of popularity of the BBC exemplified in a 2023 poll by YouGov that says that only 44% of Britons consider the BBC “very trustworthy” or “trustworthy”. However, even that 44% is at risk of influence from bias, because any biases from the BBC could potentially have a much more significant impact on altering these individuals’ understanding of an issue than biases arising on other media platforms. This is likely why so many people believed the false science that was distributed by the BBC during the covid plandemic – it is because people who viewed the BBC as trustworthy disproportionately listened to the BBC more, and thus would not consider as of importance contrasting views.
The second argument pertains to accountability. More specifically, unlike its broadcast competitors and newspapers, the BBC is thus GUARANTEED its funds through a compulsory licence fee. However, as far as direct accountability is concerned, this means that consumers are not able to punish the institution financially for perceived coverage bias. This thus puts the BBC in a privileged position, one in which TV viewers are made to pay for the content, irrespective of their views on it. In addition, the method through which the BBC is funded means that the organisation itself has a vested interest in the political process. It uses a significant portion of its guaranteed revenue to lobby for the maintenance of the licence fee. And so, if a government had a manifesto commitment to radically slash or abolish the BBC licence fee, the BBC’s coverage of that issue could be used to frame that debate. And this is not a mere theoretical point: Andrew Marr interviewed then BBC Director General Lord Tony Hall on just this issue.
So, beyond the niceties of “programming that brings people together”, what then Director Lord Hall was saying, is that the BBC should have a say in how it is funded and, subsequently, how it is therefore held accountable. And it is worth noting that these remarks were made in May 2020 – a time when establishments and the lamestream media were eroding accountability and trying to create a monopoly on truth and science. But, this ability of the BBC to shape debate on the licence or its attempts to create a monopoly on truth ought not to be taken lightly. We have spoken quite extensively here, on ‘The War Room’, about the ‘Online Safety Act’ in the UK – which criminalises the publishing of what is defined as “misinformation”, while concerningly exempting mainstream media outlets, such The Guardian or the BBC! More specifically, while section 179 makes it illegal for anyone to publish false information with intent to cause harm – section 180 of the same Act, goes on to exempt all MSM outlets from this new law.
It reads that:
“(1) A recognised news publisher cannot commit an offence under section 179. (2) An offence under section 179 cannot be committed by the holder of a licence under the Broadcasting Act 1990 or 1996 in connection with anything done under the authority of the licence. (3) An offence under section 179 cannot be committed by the holder of a multiplex licence in connection with anything done under the authority of the licence. (4) An offence under section 179 cannot be committed by the provider of an on-demand programme service in connection with anything done in the course of providing such a service. (5) An offence under section 179 cannot be committed in connection with the showing of a film made for cinema to members of the public.” But, here’s more on the political bias and misinformation that these MSM bodies are capable of, and the measures they have to make it difficult to hold them accountable.
Ultimately, while we can concede that every entity or nation has an agenda, what influences that agenda and what it is used for is a simple litmus test for how plausible that agenda is. And so, when the BBC is influenced by elite liberalism against other perceptions and voices, when it uses its influence to mitigate accountability from viewers, and when it influences legislation that enhances its platform – at the expense of critical discourse and free speech – then there is a problem. And so ultimately, what is happening as the BBC is having to reckon with millions cancelling their licence fee, is that the viewers are holding the platform accountable.
But, we have surely prayed, and continue to pray. They will live in our world, and we will not live in theirs. AND, when we make the agenda of the adversary plain, the veil of deception is indeed being broken – in fact, Proverbs 11:9 tells us that “…through knowledge shall the just be delivered.”
Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso