BBC's Twisted Reporting Finally Meets Its Match: Grovels to Trump After Getting Caught Red-Handed

A big-name broadcaster doesn't automatically equal credible journalism. Just ask the BBC. 

Despite its global reputation, the British giant has been caught scripting reports with predetermined narratives, manipulating footage, and fabricating stories to paint their targets as villains. The victims? Too many to count. But mess with the wrong guy and karma comes knocking. The BBC made the fatal mistake of taking on Trump, splicing together speech clips to falsely claim he openly incited the Capitol riots. Trump, being Trump, hit back hard. And what did the BBC do? Folded like a cheap suit. Two senior executives resigned in disgrace. 

Hong Kong has suffered the exact same treatment. During the 2019 Black Riots, BBC whitewashed violent mobs, demonized police, and later painted national security offenders as tragic heroes. This Trump debacle has finally ripped the mask off their so-called professionalism.

BBC fabricated news in their program, falsely pinning the Capitol riots on Trump. Their senior management quickly folded—Director-General Tim Davie and others resigned in disgrace. BBC's deceptive tactics have torched its credibility.

As someone who knows how media works, the BBC's fabrication of the Trump incitement story was utterly shameless. Before the U.S. election, their flagship program Panorama aired footage showing Trump saying: "We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore." Cut to: angry crowds storming Congress. The implication was crystal clear—Trump used inflammatory rhetoric to incite his supporters into attacking Congress and sparking riots.

Except that's not what happened. The speech clips came from completely different contexts and different moments. The actual timeline was January 6, 2021, when Trump told his supporters: "We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them." Only later, when discussing election fraud as a separate issue, did he shout "We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore."—which had absolutely nothing to do with the Capitol Hill riots. BBC editors and reporters clearly chopped up this footage and inserted it into their Panorama report to create a false narrative, framing Trump as the mastermind behind riot incitement.

Getting caught red-handed left the BBC with zero wiggle room. White House Press Secretary Leavitt could confidently declare their report "100% fake news," and the BBC had no comeback. Senior executives immediately threw in the towel—Director-General Tim  Davie and News CEO Deborah Turness both resigned in disgrace. The BBC simply couldn't maintain its position and had to sacrifice its top brass to contain the crisis.

A Pattern of Deception

According to an internal BBC document recently leaked to British media, the news department has committed numerous errors—and this Trump fabrication is just one item on a long list. Clearly, BBC's problem with using unprofessional methods to report news has always been there. It just took messing with the wrong guy—Trump—to blow the whole thing wide open.

When I look back at BBC's coverage during Hong Kong's 2019 riots, I see the same scripted reporting—biased framing and twisted cause-and-effect designed to portray the Black Riots as righteous action while smearing police efforts to restore order as the source of violence. In their footage, they glossed over rioters vandalizing property, setting fires, and assaulting people in the street, but zoomed in on police dispersing violent protesters. Take this article titled "A Man in Black on Hong Kong's Protest Frontlines: Our Ideals and the Price We Pay (香港示威衝突前沿的一名黑衣人：我們的理想和代價)"—the reporter followed a black-clad protester for several days, painting him as a hero bravely resisting police brutality. The predetermined stance and bias couldn't have been more obvious.

BBC's coverage of Hong Kong's 2019 riots was riddled with extreme bias, framing violent rioters as heroes resisting tyranny.

A more recent example came when the Police National Security Department announced a new round of wanted individuals last December, including 19-year-old Chloe Cheung Hei-ching. She had fled to the UK and joined the anti-China organization "The Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation." The BBC acted like they'd struck gold, immediately conducting an exclusive interview with her titled "The A-level student who became an enemy of the Chinese state". They portrayed her as a persecuted innocent student, a tragic figure. But conveniently avoided explaining which laws she violated and failed to publish the Hong Kong government's responses to their questions.

Hong Kong's Turn to Speak

Secretary for Security Chris Tang Ping-keung expressed his strong dissatisfaction with this biased report, sending the BBC a stern rebuttal stating that they had deprived readers of the right to know the truth. He said it was shocking and disappointing that the BBC allowed such a biased article to be published.

Similar problematic reports are too numerous to count. BBC reporters don't just violate professional ethics due to political bias—they frequently make inexcusable technical errors too. I remember in January 2022, when riot instigator Edward Leung Tin-kei was released from prison, the BBC published a report that mistakenly used a photo of Legislative Councilor  Edward Leung instead. An embarrassing blunder. Turns out both have the English name Edward Leung, and the editor carelessly mixed them up.

BBC's news fabrication targeting Trump has destroyed its credibility. Hong Kong has been falsely accused by the BBC even worse than Trump was. Seeing them finally face consequences? Absolutely satisfying.

What Say You?

What Say You?

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

Today, December 7, marks the second election since the Legislative Council finally got back on track. Today, I can’t shake the memory of how a "deformed democracy" ravaged this chamber for years. It was a malignancy—a tumor growing from within—that trapped us in endless chaos and nearly destroyed Hong Kong. This nightmare remains burned into my mind.
 
Let’s look at the receipts from those insane years. Three absurd realities prove how a tidal wave of radicalism washed away a functioning Council. First, post-"Occupy Central," a crop of "political stars" rode a wave of extremism to besiege LegCo, degrading election quality for years. Second, during the "Black Violence" era, District Councils devolved into a "destroyers' paradise" of unprecedented disorder. Third, to appease radical voters, Pan-democrats hijacked the House Committee election for six months, paralyzing governance. The Council became an endangered structure on the verge of collapse, dragging government operations down with it. Without the Central Government stepping in to restore order, Hong Kong was finished. To stop history from repeating, everyone needs to vote on December 7.
  
The truth is, this "deformed democracy" was rotting the soil of Hong Kong politics long before "Occupy Central." The British government deliberately planted "election landmines," allowing politicians using unorthodox methods to rise. They realized the game: be radical, be outrageous, be uncouth, and you get votes. Figures like Wong Yuk-man, Albert Chan, and "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung seized power this way. Once that door opened, the Council’s normal operations were destroyed, turning the chamber into a mud-wrestling pit.
  
That was just the prelude. The subversion peaked with the 6th Legislative Council election following the 2014 "Occupy Central" movement. Driven by a passion for "rebellion," masses of young people blindly voted for fresh faces who built their brands on radicalism, ignoring their complete lack of ability or track record. The result? First-time winners included "Localist" figures dripping with "Hong Kong Independence" sentiment like Baggio Leung and Yau Wai-ching, alongside "Occupy" student leader Nathan Law.

Oath-Taking Circus: Post-"Occupy" radicals Baggio Leung and Yau Wai-ching stormed the chamber advocating independence, turning solemn oaths into a disgraceful farce.

The "Open House" of Radical Chaos
Worse still, opportunists within the Pan-democrat camp saw this worked and jumped into the fray. The prime examples were the notoriously "uncouth and aggressive" Ted Hui and the self-proclaimed radical environmentalist Eddie Chu.
  
When Baggio Leung, Yau Wai-ching, and Nathan Law stormed the Council, political insiders told me the candidacy door had been flung too wide. It became an "unguarded open house"—easy to enter, hard to clear out—guaranteeing chaos. Fortunately, their greed for victory blinded them to the risks. They played games with their inaugural oaths, effectively playing themselves into a corner and getting disqualified (DQ).
  
Even after they were ousted, the "miracle" of their election accelerated the degradation of our politics. Fanatical voters continued to back incompetent politicians just to vent rebellious angst. Even younger members of the traditional Pan-democrats started acting out to cater to this new taste. Ted Hui is the textbook example: violently snatching a female civil servant's phone and throwing foul-smelling filth in the Chamber. It became a competition of who could be the most radical, obstructing bills and making livelihood administration nearly impossible.
 
By 2019, when the anti-extradition bill unrest broke out, the Council became a disaster zone. Then came the second absurdity. During the November District Council elections, held amidst turmoil, radical candidates swarmed to grab seats. At the same time, "black-clad people" physically attacked Establishment opponents with beatings, arson, and intimidation. They won the majority, reducing the District Councils to a "destroyers' paradise." Long-serving community councilors were wiped out, marking an unprecedented and unbearable degradation of our institutions.

Filth in the Chamber: "Uncouth" politician Ted Hui proved his disruptive intent by literally throwing foul-smelling rot during a Council meeting.

Paralyzing the System From Within
Inside LegCo, Pan-democrats brought the street riots into the Chamber, competing to perform "radical shows." The most absurd spectacle was Civic Party member Dennis Kwok holding the House Committee Chairman election hostage. He "played games" for over half a year. Sixteen meetings passed without electing a chairman, blocking massive amounts of government bills. Forced by the situation, even moderate Pan-democrats joined the madness, turning the Chamber into a real-life version of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest."
  
Recently, some claim the reformed Legislative Council has lost its monitoring function. This is 100% a fallacy. The Council back then was thoroughly wrecked; normal operations were paralyzed. What monitoring was there? Government administration was dragged down, pushing us to the brink of "mutual destruction" (laam caau).
  
Thankfully, the Central Government stepped in at the critical moment to pull the Council back on the right track. If "deformed democracy" had continued, Hong Kong would have derailed and fallen off a cliff, destroyed in a single day.
 
To prevent this painful history from repeating, everyone must vote enthusiastically on December 7. Support the Legislative Council moving forward on the correct track.

Lai Ting-yiu