BBC boss says disinformation ‘trust crisis' putting social fabric of UK at risk
Britain's status as a cohesive, democratic society is at risk for the first time in a generation as the rise of social media platforms and disinformation fuel a 'trust crisis', the BBC's director general has said.
In a wide-ranging address about the future of the corporation, Tim Davie said BBC News would start to make special content for platforms such as YouTube and TikTok where disinformation can go unchecked, as he couched the broadcaster as a 'precious national asset' preventing the UK from becoming a society in which there were no shared facts.
'The future of our cohesive, democratic society feels for the first time in my life at risk,' Davie said in a speech in Salford. 'I don't want to catastrophise. We have so much to be proud of in the UK, our tolerance, our innovative spirit, our creativity, our humour, our sense of fairness. But I think that unless we act, we will drift, becoming weaker, less trusting, less competitive.'
In a rapidly changing media world in which less than half of young people watch live TV each week, Davie said the days of the 'old priesthood' of broadcasters deciding and controlling what information people consumed were over. However, he said that it had meant 'disinformation is thriving'.
'There is no doubt that this new age is fostering polarisation and threatening communal trust and putting more power in the hands of global social media platforms,' he said. 'We see profound changes in people's trust in the information that they receive … Many feel there is no agreed backbone of facts upon which to base constructive deliberation.
'Those we disagree with become enemies, not friends who think differently. Empathy withers without understanding.'
Davie's address in effect served as the first major salvo in lengthy talks over how the BBC will be changed as its charter is up for renewal. With the future of the licence fee continuing to be in question, Davie pitched the BBC as a rare unifying force.
He revealed plans to 'dramatically increase' the amount of BBC News content on YouTube and TikTok, both of which were platforms where disinformation could flourish, he said. He said the BBC was 'not being dragged there', but wanted to reach the audiences using the platforms.
He said: 'In the election, we found enormous numbers of young people coming to [BBC Verify] factcheckers because they were just confused. We think [putting] things like that into YouTube will be very powerful.'
However, after the Guardian revealed that the BBC had been asked by ministers to draw up cuts to the World Service, Davie issued a direct challenge to the government – instead demanding 'hundreds of millions' more to boost the World Service at a time when Russia and China alone are spending billions on their state-run media channels, designed to influence world opinion.
'When it comes to funding the World Service, we do need help,' he said. 'There's never been a more important time to invest in this priceless national asset. We believe the UK should be ambitious about its future, and the government should invest for significant growth, not survival … We've got to make a decision as a country, are we in this game or not?'
While he maintained that turning the BBC into a subscription service or one supported by advertising revenue were his red lines in talks with ministers, he suggested that a universal licence fee could be renamed, modernised or adapted.
It suggests the BBC may be looking at whether wealthier households could pay more. 'We keep an open mind and we continue to actively explore all options that can make our funding model fairer, more modern and more sustainable,' he said.
After the Guardian highlighted the crisis inside the TV industry, Davie also backed greater tax breaks for vulnerable areas of television.
He expressed his disapproval about a social media post briefly shared by Gary Lineker on Instagram that was labelled 'Zionism explained in two minutes' and featured an illustration of a rat – historically used as an antisemitic insult and used in Nazi Germany to characterise Jews.
'The BBC's reputation is held by everyone and when someone makes a mistake, it costs us,' he said. 'I think we absolutely need people to be exemplars of the BBC's values and follow our social media policy. Simple as that.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
31 minutes ago
- BBC News
LGBT veterans will not lose other benefits after compensation
Veterans due to receive payments from the LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme will not lose out on other benefits after a change to Scottish government has confirmed that 1,200 armed forces members who suffered under the ban on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) personnel have now applied to the UK government's payment ban was in place within the UK military from 1967 to 2000 and, after years of campaigning, the UK government announced the payments last December. Up to £75m has been set aside to acknowledge hurt and discrimination, with affected veterans able to receive awards of up to £70,000 each. Some veterans currently receive financial help, on a means-tested basis, through the council tax reduction scheme. But Finance Secretary Shona Robison said regulations would be now changed to ensure any compensation payments do not affect eligibility for Robison said: "As we mark 25 years since the lifting of the ban on LGBT people serving in the armed forces, it is important to recognise the hardship that so many faced, with widespread homophobic bullying and harassment."Nothing will make up for the difficulties that LGBT veterans faced, however, our action will ensure those in Scotland receive every penny that they are entitled to."Under the UK government scheme, those who were dismissed or discharged from the armed forces because of their sexual orientation or gender identity could receive £50, service personnel who suffered harassment, intrusive investigations or even imprisonment could receive further payments of up to £20,000. Peter Gibson, chief executive of Fighting with Pride, said the group had "campaigned for justice for LGBTQ+ veterans for many years, helping to secure reparations and financial recognition of their horrendous treatment prior to 2000".He added: "As we slowly see the UK government deal with those financial payments, protected from benefit and taxation impact, it is wonderful to see the Scottish government taking action to ensure other benefits such as council tax benefit is also protected too."We continue to seek out veterans who were discharged or dismissed from the military to support them, and this news is one more step towards helping those in Scotland."
The Independent
35 minutes ago
- The Independent
Who cares that Britain is on course to be ‘minority white'?
Language is a funny thing. This week, a new report appeared to warn that the white British population could be a minority in the UK within 40 years. And it has brought out the worst in some of us. An analysis of migration, birth and death rates by the University of Buckingham suggests the white British population is set to fall from its current 73 per cent, to 57 per cent by 2050, before becoming a minority by 2063. One newspaper's report explained, rather curiously, that white British is 'defined as people who do not have an immigrant parent'. Bad luck, then, all you non-white kids of an Irish, French or German parent. Unlucky, too, King Charles, Winston Churchill and Boris Johnson. By this metric, it seems that you no longer qualify as white British. Beyond this rank stupidity, there is of course something else going on here. This is less dog whistle than plain old whistle. Dodgy extrapolations posing as predictions. Few people are spared. We're informed, presumably with some regret, that there is going to be a rise in the number of foreign-born people and of second-generation immigrants, all of whom could well be British. Further on, Matthew Goodwin, the author of the report, shifts the goalposts one more time, asserting that by 'the end of the current century, most of the people on these islands will not be able to trace their roots in this country back more than one or two generations'. And then, of course, we have the equating of 'foreign-born and Muslim populations', implying, presumably, that if you're Muslim, you just don't cut it wherever you happen to have been born. If the problem that this country simply isn't white enough, someone may as well just come out and say it. Because it's clear the issue here isn't Britishness. There is a serious debate to be had not only about immigration, but also about integration. Happily, the country that most of us inhabit is somewhere where both ethnic and religious integration is a daily reality for millions of families, including my own. While I think we in the UK do rather better at this than many of our Western peers, there is still more that can and should be done. There is also a conversation worth having about what a manageable level of immigration might be, and whether immigration policy is fit for purpose. This, however, is not the way to have those conversations. Indeed, potentially inciting distrust and dislike between different communities is not how anyone sensible would go about, in the words of the report itself, 'informing, rather than polarising'. That is the only conclusion that I can draw from their sloppiness. If, after all, their aim really was to 'inform, rather than polarise', they might spend more time explaining that forecasts are not predictions. They might explain that there is good evidence that the total fertility rate among immigrants tends to fall over time. That the population projections Goodwin has used – calculations based on assumptions about fertility, mortality and migration – are already massively outdated, and become even less reliable the further forward one projects. But no, there is no such nuance to be found. Merely certainty that the findings are certain to spark a 'considerable degree of anxiety, concern and political opposition' from those who oppose immigration. And, let's think about this in a global context for a moment. The world is changing, its balance of power is shifting steadily eastwards. Demographically, and I'm sorry about this, it is becoming less, not more, white. Relatively small countries like the UK will have to work ever harder to compete and to attract talent in this new world order. Do we really think that bemoaning the insidious impact of non-white foreigners who cannot trace their ancestry back several generations is going to help us in this task? But what I do know is that I'm not only not white, but apparently not British, either.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Crystal Palace's European dream is at risk – it's time for football to wake up
Steve Parish 's face at Uefa this week probably said enough. He didn't need to repeat a view he has pressed on people in private - and now to Uefa executives in Nyon - that Crystal Palace are technically not part of a multi-club ownership. A very different interpretation may now cost his club a place in the Europa League, or perhaps European competition altogether. The challenge for the club this week has arguably been more complicated than beating Pep Guardiola's Manchester City in the FA Cup final. They have had to convince Uefa that John Textor does not have 'decisive influence' on the club. This is due to his 43 per cent stake in Palace, while he also holds 88 per cent of fellow Europa League qualifiers Lyon. That situation could fall foul of Uefa's rules that no one may be simultaneously involved in the management, administration or sporting performance of another club in the same competition. The rules evolved out of EU competition law, which is where the definition of 'decisive influence' is so important. In reality, as Textor himself insisted in Switzerland this week, everyone knows that is just not the level of control the US investor has. His 43 per cent equity only translates into 25 per cent of the votes, where it's basically known that co-owners Josh Harris and David Blitzer go with Parish, who has the casting ballot. Textor himself has publicly complained about this many times. That doesn't necessarily hold much weight, however, next to the legal documents that show his stake. It is quite a grim next chapter to one of the most romantic stories of the season, and yet the real tragedy is that this was one of modern football's inevitabilities. The sport is working against itself as a game, and a cultural value, due to its insistence on business. Palace fans themselves warned of this over a year ago, holding up a banner complaining about 'multi-club ownership', and directly criticising Textor. Parish, Blitzer and Harris might now regret leaving the situation unresolved for so long. This is still the kind of mess football was long headed for, because it is not governed properly, and has a lack of proactive regulation. Uefa's ongoing failure to deal with multi-club ownership is the most pressing illustration. And these situations are simply going to become increasingly more common. Current estimates suggest more than 400 clubs around the globe are involved in almost 150 multi-structures. Like state ownership, it was a problem that became embedded before football even realised it existed, let alone the need to address it. There is frustration even within Fifa about this specific issue, as detailed in this writers' book 'States of Play', with one source claiming 'everyone could see multi-clubs coming'. When some staff raised this, there was pushback. It really goes even deeper than that. Despite the club operating as the basic unit of football, due to its social importance, Fifa has never defined exactly what one is. That is one of many reasons that football has developed what is really an ownership problem, which has been discussed on these pages at length. A multi-faceted issue like multi-club ownership is a natural evolution from that. Football has long since been taken over by capitalist and political interests, so this was always going to the next level. The worst part is not just how the clubs are used. It is how their identities are subsumed. They are not just Strasbourg or Troyes anymore, after all, but Strasbourg and Troyes that serve bigger structures in Chelsea and City Football Group. And the model is almost always going to best serve the biggest club in those structures. Now, we reach the next stage of this, where a club's actual dreams might be denied. It should be a wake-up call for football, but will it be? A further problem is that multi-club ownership straddles so many of the game's major faultlines. Above anything, industry sources complain about the 'vagueness' of the enforcement of regulations around this. There's no legal framework in place. Some in football were already pointing to how 'this never happens to the big clubs'. Others have referenced how Parish worked with the Union of European Clubs, a body casting itself as a voice for those clubs not represented by the European Club Association. Paris Saint-Germain's Nasser Al-Khelaifi is, of course, the chair of the latter, who has been locked in a number of battles with Textor in France. It is ultimately galling that Palace may miss out because they didn't meet the March deadline to put the club in a blind trust, as Evangelos Marinakis did with Nottingham Forest to avoid a similar clash with his Olympiakos. On the other hand, Palace's oversight could just be cast as another consequence of the modern game. The wealthiest clubs almost always win, so why tempt fate - and potential schadenfreude - by opting for a blind trust as early as the FA Cup quarter-final? It would certainly have gone against the sense of romance and defiance. And while multiple lawyers and football officials might point to the absurdity of such a sentiment, it is surely all the more absurd that the situation even exists. There is still hope. Uefa might come down on Palace's side, given the pressure, given the sense of romance. Fans didn't want this. Only a certain type of investor wants it. Multi-club ownership goes against everything football should be, to the point it might somehow sour one of football's great modern stories. It's an almost fitting parable for the modern game.
