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. **

London just dropped a classic good news, bad news bombshell on Hong Kong BNO holders.

The headline grabber? The path to permanent residency remains a five-year trek—the so-called "5+1" deal is safe. But here is the kicker: to actually cross the finish line, applicants must now survive a gauntlet of "extra spicy" new conditions. We are talking tougher English tests, strict income floors, and proof of continuous tax payments.

Think of it as a mouthful of sugar followed by a shot of hot chili. The anxiety on the ground is palpable. The South China Morning Post cites a survey warning that nearly 30 percent of these migrants do not meet the new bar. Unless London blinks, thousands will be screened out at the doorstep, leaving them empty-handed after five wasted years. Agitated Hong Kong people in UK are scrambling with petitions, but make no mistake: for the British government, utility is the only metric that matters.

Survey Warning: 30% of Hong Kong BNO holders fall short of London's new "permanent residence" rules and face being screened out at the finish line.

Here is the bait-and-switch: getting the visa was easy, but staying is going to cost you. Previously, income checks were nonexistent. Now, the rules have tightened: you need a fixed job, a tax record, and an annual haul of at least £12,570 (HK$128,000) for three to five years. That might sound low, but for many Hong Kong BNO holders, it is a high wall to climb. Not everyone is punching the clock in a full-time gig.

The SCMP-cited survey breaks it down. Of the 690 interviewed: 19 percent are housewives, 8 percent are retirees, and 3 percent are students. That is 30 percent of the total population right there. No job, no income, no tax record. If the Home Office sticks to the letter of the law, this entire group is going to fail the assessment cold.

Even the working class is standing on shaky ground. The data shows that only 42 percent of respondents have full-time jobs, while another 20 percent are scraping by with part-time work. Do the math: stable, salaried Hong Kong BNO holders are not the majority. Many are hustling in "casual work," where income fluctuates wildly and often falls short of the new government mandates.

Speak to anyone on the ground, and they will tell you the housewife trap is real. Families move over with young kids, find they can’t hire help, and suddenly the mother is housebound. It is a forced choice. Even if they pick up part-time shifts to help make ends meet, those meager earnings inevitably miss the strict income targets London has set.

The Wealth Illusion

Then there are the cash-rich, income-poor migrants. These are the folks who sold their Hong Kong properties at the peak, sitting on millions of dollars to fund a quiet life in the UK. Some are retired; others just don’t need to work. They are slowly "pinching" their savings to get by. But under these new rules, their wealth is irrelevant. No employment income means no tax record. And no tax record means they are not getting past the gatekeepers.

Smart professionals are also about to get caught in their own loop. I know of Hong Kong BNO holders who aren't unemployed—they are just working "on the sly," taking remote gigs from Hong Kong to dodge UK taxes. It used to be a clever way to save a buck. Now, it is a liability. Without a UK tax footprint or local employment record, they have technically earned nothing in the eyes of the Home Office. When application time comes, they are going to face big trouble.

The education gap is another ticking time bomb. The survey reveals that 16 percent of respondents only have a secondary education. Let’s be realistic: hitting the B2 English level—roughly A-Level standard—is a pipe dream for this demographic. This single hurdle is going to cull a significant herd of applicants before they even get started.

The Language Barrier: With 16% of surveyed migrants holding only secondary education, the "B2 barrier" for English proficiency is set to trigger a wave of failures.

Panic is setting in as families realize they might be kicked out at the last minute. Distressed and confused, Hong Kong BNO holders are mobilizing. A petition demanding the government lower the bar—keeping the easier B1 English requirement and scrapping the income test—has already gathered 28,000 signatures. They are even planning a protest march for December 6.

Utility Over Humanity

London, sensing the rising heat, offered a vague olive branch yesterday. Officials claim the consultation is not yet finalized and teased a potential transitional arrangement. But do not hold your breath—nobody bothered to explain what that transition actually looks like.

Let’s call this what it is: habitual duplicity. When the chips are down, the British government puts utility first. A sharp analysis in Singapore’s Lianhe Zaobao hit the nail on the head: by piling on these conditions, London is downgrading the BNO route from a special humanitarian channel to a high-threshold, ordinary immigration path. It has morphed into a policy demanding economic tribute, not a sanctuary.

The writing is on the wall. Don't expect them to lower the bar for permanent residence. Smart Hong Kong people should know better than to have high expectations.

Lai Ting-yiu