When the BBC launched its shiny new “fact-checking” initiative, BBC Verify, it was with the sort of self-congratulatory fanfare we’ve come to expect from the national broadcaster.
Sixty highly trained journalists armed with “forensic investigative skills” were set loose, ostensibly to combat disinformation and keep us informed with nothing less than the unvarnished truth.
Yet, just a year later, cracks are already showing. Far from being the unbiased guardians of truth, BBC Verify seems to operate with the agility of a hippo in a tutu and the impartiality of a barrister already paid by the other side.
Verify or Vilify?
Consider the chaos surrounding BBC Verify’s coverage of the Southport riots this summer. In a now infamous report, Verify claimed an angry mob of white men had attacked a car filled with men of Asian heritage. The allegations, bolstered by open-source intelligence and facial recognition software, were presented as cold, hard FACT.
Except they weren’t. Days later, the BBC quietly issued a correction noting that the men in the car were Eastern European, rendering the “racist mob” narrative entirely baseless. A footnote was added, headlines were adjusted, and the nation moved on. But by then, the damage was done – millions had already consumed the original, inflammatory version of events. In the world’s eyes Britain was full of racist “far-right thugs.”
A Mouthpiece for Labour?
BBC Verify has also been caught out on economic matters. When defending the Labour Government’s farm inheritance tax policy, the BBC cited Dan Neidle, a self-styled “independent” tax expert. Neidle, it turns out, is a Labour activist, hardly the unbiased voice the BBC claimed.
Worse still, Verify bungled basic facts, confusing hectares with acres and parroting Labour’s lowball estimate of affected farms while dismissing industry figures. Despite their vast resources, BBC Verify stumbled into the kind of errors one might expect from a novice blogger, not a publicly funded institution with 60 dedicated “fact-checkers.” What on earth are they playing at?
Jacob Rees-Mogg: The BBC as Labour’s Mouthpiece
It’s no wonder Jacob Rees-Mogg quipped, “Of course the BBC backs the Labour Party. It is after all its mouthpiece, much as the China Daily is for the Chinese Communist Party.”
The comparison may raise eyebrows, but the sentiment resonates. The BBC has long struggled to shake accusations of bias, and its coverage often appears to lean into narratives that suit the establishment – provided the establishment wears the right rosette.
The Pandemic Precedent
The BBC’s one-sided narrative is far from a recent development. Simply tune in to a news report or observe the unmistakable political slant of debate show audiences, whether on Newsnight or other flagship programmes. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the broadcaster discarded any semblance of balance. Lockdowns were treated as untouchable doctrine, face coverings were above scrutiny, and vaccine scepticism was dismissed as outright heresy. Even when credible concerns surfaced—such as MPs raising early warnings about post-vaccination health risks—the BBC’s response was conspicuously muted, leaving critical questions unanswered.
This is the same broadcaster that touts itself as the ultimate arbiter of truth, yet wields its vast platform to smear dissenting voices and dismiss alternative perspectives with a single stroke of a headline, branding them as “disinformation.”
Who can forget when then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson called for freedom and an end to lockdowns? The BBC led the charge, with Labour and the unions in tow, pitchforks at the ready, painting Boris as a heartless villain. Extensive segments accused Boris of allegedly saying, “let the bodies pile high,” whipping up a full-blown witch-hunt.
It’s worth remembering that no one pushed harder for longer and harsher lockdowns than the BBC, the left-wing unions, and the Labour Party. Yet now, these same voices have the audacity to endlessly complain about the cost of living crisis—a crisis largely fuelled by the very restrictions they so fervently championed.
I can’t see BBC Verify ever verifying that. Yet we all lived through it and saw it with our own eyes.
A Monopoly on Truth?
This is where the real danger lies: organisations like BBC Verify wield a monopoly on narrative control. By positioning themselves as the ultimate authority on what is true or false, they stifle debate and delegitimise independent voices. Independent news outlets like Dan Wootton, investigative teams like Guido Fawkes, and even platforms like The Conservative Post are often dismissed as “fake news,” while the BBC’s own errors are quietly amended in the shadows.
This isn’t so much about fact-checking; it’s about gatekeeping. The BBC has the largest news platform in the country and the implicit backing of the state as we’re all forced to pay for it. So when it gets things wrong—as it so often does—the consequences are far-reaching.
The Way Forward
The BBC must remember its charter and return to its founding principles: accuracy, impartiality, and accountability. If BBC Verify is to become credible, it needs rigorous oversight and transparency about its processes and biases.
Until then, we must ask the crucial question: who verifies BBC Verify? If the BBC continues down this road, it risks becoming less the nation’s broadcaster and more Labour’s PR machine—propped up by the taxpayers it claims to serve.
However, the British public’s patience is wearing thin, and the BBC is perilously close to digging its own grave. As it stands, I’d sooner trust a fox to guard my henhouse than trust BBC Verify to guard the truth.
Claire Bullivant, Editor
Claire is the founder and editor of the Conservative Post and was a co-founder of the Conservative Democratic Organisation. Claire is now setting up www.GreatBritishPAC.com. Pre-register today.
