Trump versus the BBC. Can it survive as we know it?

By: Ricardo Israel - 24/11/2025

The BBC is not only the UK's public broadcaster, but undoubtedly one of the world's most prestigious and best-known news organizations. However, today it faces the very real threat of being taken to court by Donald Trump.

The issue isn't even new, as it arose in the days leading up to Trump's reelection last year. At that time, it was acknowledged that there was bad faith involved when the well-known program "Panorama" aired a documentary titled "Trump: A Second Chance?" which removed the phrase in which, during the events of January 6, 2021, the president asked his supporters to demonstrate "peacefully." Instead, it combined separate fragments of the speech to imply the opposite: that the call was for violence.

Considering the virulence of what was being said for and against in those days, this fact went unnoticed and if it has now exploded with force, it was because of an investigation by the conservative British newspaper The Daily Telegraph that showed that this situation was known and accepted at a high level of the BBC, reporting an internal investigation that proved it.

This is why it only now has become a scandal, escalating to Parliament, and at the BBC leading to the resignation of Director-General Tim Davie and Head of News Deborah Turness. For his part, Chairman of the Board of Trustees Samir Shah issued a formal apology in a letter to the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, its supervisory, but not controlling, body. Undoubtedly, if such consequences have occurred, it is due to the BBC's prestige and tradition; so much so that upon resigning, Director-General Davie insisted that mistakes had been made, but that there was no institutional bias, although this very point now seems to be at the heart of the current questioning.

In Washington, the US president announced his intention to sue the BBC for an amount between US$1 billion and US$5 billion, including damages. However, despite the notoriety of this dispute and the media attention Trump attracts, I believe this situation is not the cause of the BBC's current problems, but rather an expression of something much deeper. Ultimately, it raises the question of whether, given the current state of news worldwide and the prevailing polarization and bias in information, it is possible to maintain a model of public television, of which this renowned institution was once a global symbol, yet no other rival has been able to match it. Above all, more than a conflict with Trump, the real danger to the BBC's model and history lies in whether, as its critics claim, it has now succumbed to the very institutional bias it managed to avoid for so long.

The BBC is officially called the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and operates as a public corporation protected by a Royal Charter, thus guaranteeing its independence from political control. It also has a funding system that protects it from commercial pressures. Its origins date back to October 18, 1922, when a consortium of British radio manufacturers created the British Broadcasting Company Ltd., whose purpose was to transmit an experimental radio service. John Reith was its first chief executive, and on June 1, 1927, through the aforementioned Royal Charter, it became the BBC we know today, with Reith as its first director general. Experimental television signals were added in 1932, and regular television broadcasting began in 1936.

It remained a monopoly until 1954, when private television emerged in the United Kingdom, although competition in radio was not permitted until the 1970s. The institution is primarily financed through a television license fee, paid by those who own a television set in the UK, the value of which is set annually by the British government in agreement with Parliament. In fact, a tax on radios also existed until 1971, when it was abolished. Incidentally, although a smaller contribution, revenue also comes from the marketing and sale of programs produced within the network, where its acclaimed historical series, high-quality dramas, and documentaries are particularly popular.

During the years I lived and studied in England (1976-1980), I was always surprised, in addition to its enormous institutional prestige at all age and social levels, that the tax was paid without protest, with lines that were visible at post offices as well as vans that traveled the streets with instruments to capture the residences that evaded the payment.

However, times have changed, it no longer has that same level of support and/or applause, so it is not just a political crisis, internal resignations or a dispute between the US president and the BBC that will soon reach the courts, probably in two scenarios, one in the UK and another in the US, as happened in the case of the actor Johnny Depp and his ex-wife, which moreover originated in an opinion column written by her in a newspaper.

No. The underlying issue isn't between Trump and the BBC, but whether, in the current global climate, a media outlet like the BBC can survive without major changes and adaptations, or whether it will follow the path of so many public television and radio stations around the world that tried to emulate the British only to disappear or become irrelevant or have minimal listenership. And this phenomenon, well-known in regions like Latin America and the former communist countries of Europe, seems poised to claim new victims in the medium that came closest to the BBC in prestige in past decades, namely Spain during its transition to democracy. Today, the biases at TVE are so evident in what is shown on screen that a future change of government could very well lead to its privatization.

Another example that seemed to work in the transition to democracy was the case of Televisión Nacional de Chile, where there is funding that depends partially on commercial advertising; however, social, commercial, and, above all, political biases, which are shared there not only in the dictatorship, but also by different governments in democracy, have led them to a situation of deterioration that today could be terminal as a model of public television.

It is clear that no other case is entirely comparable to its prestige, but in recent years, the BBC has also been affected by a growing bias in its journalistic coverage and documentary content—precisely what it had avoided and what had sunk those who tried to imitate its model. According to its critics, in the last five years it has even suffered from a "Wok-like" bias regarding values that are rejected and values that are promoted and sometimes even imposed.

It's not just a public television issue, as similar phenomena of loss of prestige have also occurred in private television, as demonstrated by the case of CNN, which for years has been affected by a sharp drop in advertising revenue as well as in the number of viewers who watch its programs, mainly due to its association with certain political biases, both in the US and in its global signal, so much so that it has been unsuccessfully offered for sale, and as reported it was even offered to Elon Musk after he acquired Twitter to transform it into X.

In a way, CNN wanted to replicate, in a progressive version, the conservative model that was successful in audience and revenue as Fox News, but with a difference, since anyone who follows Fox knows the biases they are going to encounter, while CNN's failure was probably due to the fact that it wanted to present itself as what it was in its beginnings, an objective and uncommitted media outlet, something that it no longer was and is not today.

The BBC long enjoyed a prestige that resulted from having reached levels of adherence to the truth and the facts that perhaps few achieved in history, since, in the second world war, it became an unparalleled source of reference, as it was always able to accurately report what was happening on the battlefield, not only British triumphs but also their defeats.

But it seems its current problems aren't just related to the prestige of what appears on screen; they also manifest in its funding. The Public Accounts Commission, which oversees the use of taxpayer funds, reported that between April 2024 and April 2025, the BBC lost $1.4 billion due to a decline in viewership and, above all, a sharp increase in non-payment of compulsory licenses. This reflects the changing times and further evidence of the crisis facing the model. Measured by the decrease in viewership and the fact that many people are evading a payment that currently amounts to £174.50 annually (about $223) per taxpayer, who contributed £3.8 billion ($4.864 billion) through these licenses to ensure the institution's financial independence.

The future is complicated, as this parliamentary commission reports that refusal to pay the license fee has already reached 12.5%. Furthermore, with the technology available today, the home monitoring system is increasingly ineffective in enforcing payment, as demonstrated by the fact that visits to unlicensed homes increased by 50% last year, although with no impact on additional payments or successful legal action.

Furthermore, the Trump case is a high-impact news story, however belated it may be, but by no means unique, especially in the coverage of local politics, where Nigel Farage's populist right-wing sector, with its growing popularity, is already announcing legal changes, feeling harmed by the coverage of such sensitive issues as illegal immigration or what they perceive as the Islamization of the United Kingdom. In any case, however much media coverage Trump receives, he has no power to change the BBC's legal status. His situation is more a matter of pressure than decision-making, more about influence than anything else. The reality is that every US president has influence in the UK, much like Mexico. Although very different nations, they share a commonality: whoever is in power in London will try to please whoever is in Washington. However, in this case, it's unlikely that this will translate into any change or pressure on the BBC, given the negative electoral consequences for anyone attempting it from 10 Downing Street, the official residence and office of the Prime Minister.

Trump has recently been successful in lawsuits against major media outlets, including American television networks, reaching settlements for substantial sums in court, reportedly earmarked to fund his future presidential library. Some observers attribute this success to the possibility that judges might order the release of emails exchanged between owners and executives. However, in this case, the greatest danger to the BBC doesn't come from Trump, but rather that this case reflects a shift in society and politics resulting from a loss of prestige for the media outlet, itself a consequence of biases that were not previously so pronounced.

Personally, I confess that my former admiration for the BBC has shifted towards a certain distance, due to the way its World Service programming has changed. While living in England, I followed the BBC daily, both on television and radio. It was an important part of my life for many years and significantly contributed to shaping my worldview. I became accustomed not only to its television news programs but also to its hourly newscasts, delivered in such impeccable and neutral English that it was known as "BBC-style English."

Furthermore, I felt its presence when I needed it, especially since in 1978-1979 I had to complete a postgraduate diploma program offered by the United Nations in Warsaw in conjunction with the university of the same name. Traveling to a communist country with no freedom of expression, I bought a shortwave radio to follow the BBC news from there. I will always be grateful for that decision, and that beloved radio also accompanied me when I decided to return to my country, Chile, at the end of 1980. At that time, Chile also lacked freedom of expression, still living under the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet. This allowed me to learn about situations in Chile that weren't being reported in the national media, even though they were present in Spanish-language broadcasts on Radio Moscow.

Even before the transition, when Chile returned to normal news coverage, I stopped listening to those radio broadcasts, and today, I feel a great distance from their international television coverage, in some cases distorting and straying from the professional standards I knew and admired, especially on topics where there is a very deep bias, such as their marked and continuous attacks on everything Israel does and represents. To cite just one example, I am also bothered by their coverage of Venezuela and their portrayal of Maduro as if it were a normal government.

It's primarily painful to see how journalistic standards have declined at a media outlet that was once so important in my life. Today, I avoid watching it as much as possible; the comparison saddens me. I believe, therefore, that Trump's situation—whether he wins or loses in court—isn't the most important thing. Rather, due to changes in society, politics, the world, the UK, and especially within the BBC, the very model of the BBC is now in trouble. Today, a media outlet like the BBC should be more necessary than ever, but the future looks uncertain.

I regret this more than anyone, because what's needed is someone with global reach and who broadcasts in many languages, sets minimum standards and is an example, but I think the BBC, which marked and enriched an era that is now disappearing before our eyes, is no longer that, since everything indicates that the snake lives inside its corporate building.

As Alexis de Tocqueville said in the 19th century, the health of a democracy depends on the quality of its institutions, and the BBC that I miss and that had so much prestige, is no longer the same as when, without being state-owned, it was a solid, stable, and exemplary institution.

It is necessary, it is needed, but it is not appropriate to ask for something that no longer prevails within it. Words are not enough; the facts belie the ideal that once existed, as demonstrated daily by its biased coverage of something as complex as the Middle East, where, moreover, so much responsibility still lies with the country that is the successor to the British mandate.

“Verba et facta”, words and deeds, both together, added up, said the Romans at the zenith of the empire, which is still valid for the BBC, regarding which I cross my fingers that it will once again imitate that past that is fading away before our eyes.

@israelzipper

Master's and PhD in Political Science (University of Essex), Bachelor of Laws (University of Barcelona), Lawyer (University of Chile), former presidential candidate (Chile, 2013)

«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».