The Telegraph’s BBC hypocrisy
A paper that knows a thing or two about editorial f*ck-ups...
Before I begin…
I’m an independent investigative reporter focused on exposing the populist elite.
There are thousands of people signed up for updates. I hope you’ll consider joining.
It’s free!
Over the past week, The Telegraph has been on a crusade against the BBC.
The newspaper obtained a leaked report into the broadcaster’s editorial mistakes, which has led to the resignation of the BBC’s director-general and CEO – and Donald Trump threatening to launch a $1 billion lawsuit.
The Telegraph has used a handful of BBC errors to claim the corporation is institutionally biased, deceptive, and should be defunded.
But here’s what you won’t find splashed across The Telegraph: in 2025 alone, the paper has been forced to publish over 100 corrections, clarifications, and formal regulatory apologies. These are the kind of breaches that would, if committed by the BBC, spawn days of front-page indignation in The Telegraph itself.
Let’s start with the regulator’s findings. In April, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) ruled against The Telegraph over its claim that the Muslim Association of Britain was “the British affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood”.
The Muslim Association of Britain has said this allegation is false – and, worse, The Telegraph printed it without giving the group any opportunity to comment – a cardinal journalistic sin. IPSO called this a clear breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy), and the paper was ordered to publish a correction. This from the outlet now preaching about the BBC’s “moral collapse” and “failure of impartiality”.
A few months later, The Telegraph was pulled up again – this time for declaring that “one in 12 people in London is an illegal migrant”. The figure was taken from a misreading of a population study. The regulator noted the paper had failed to take care over accuracy, and demanded corrections in print and online.
Yet even that wasn’t enough to dent the swagger of a publication that portrays itself as Britain’s last bastion of truth.
There was another zinger in August: “Quarter of sex crimes carried out by foreigners,” the paper had stated.
The article itself admitted the figure was closer to 15%, but the headline – the part most readers actually see – inflated it to 25%.
IPSO found the headline misleading. Another breach.
Those are just the formal adjudications. The Telegraph’s own corrections and clarifications page reads like an epitaph to the paper’s once proud reputation. I have pasted a few entries below, to give you a flavour.
A short history of The Telegraph’s 2025 corrections
“[Several articles] stated that Mr Miliband planned to build 1 billion solar panels to meet net zero targets. In fact, this target will require more than 100m solar panels.”
“An article ‘We must shake off the progressive habit of national self -flagellation’ reported that in the last Parliament more than 1.3 million humanitarian visas had been issued and a further 1.2 million asylum seekers had contributed to the record rate of immigration to Britain. These figures were inaccurate.”
“An article ‘Raise taxes to fund union demands, says top Labour donor’ reported that Dale Vince, OBE was preparing to provide a ‘wish list’ to government ministers in the lead up to the Budget. This was incorrect, Mr Vince does not have any such wish list.”
“An article ‘Inside the Greens’ war on Bristol’s motorists’ included a quote from Councillor Martin Fodor which was said to be about current proposals for parking schemes in Bristol. In fact, the quote was from January 2024 about a different proposal by a different administration.”
“I’ve been really impressed by Sam’s work – persistently finding story after story exposing wrongdoing and hypocrisy at the highest level. A name to watch!”
– Carole Cadwalladr
The BBC has been forced to make 33 corrections to its coverage overall this year, compared with a whopping 114 from The Telegraph – despite its dramatically smaller headcount and output.
The cumulative picture is of a newsroom that gets things wrong, often and then quietly patches up the damage at the bottom of a heavily paywalled website.
Take this stinker: “The original standfirst, which appeared under the headline of this article – ‘Taxpayer-funded company helps foreign artists secure visas for £100’ – reported that 948,000 creatives had arrived in Britain on a ‘global talent visa’ by the end of 2024. This was inaccurate.”
Yet The Telegraph has the gall to lecture the BBC about journalistic integrity, proclaiming that the broadcaster has “signed its own death warrant”.
The Telegraph’s corrections page makes clear these are not random errors. They are by-products of an editorial culture that values ideological victory over empirical accuracy. It’s no coincidence that the newspaper repeatedly gets its facts wrong on immigration, crime, energy, and the environment – culture war issues of central importance to The Telegraph’s worldview.
Mic Wright gave the following quote for a DeSmog piece I wrote earlier, which nails the issue here:
“Looking to The Daily Telegraph as an arbiter of journalistic accuracy and ethics is like calling on the fox to give you advice on securing the hen house.
“The paper’s attacks on the BBC are not remotely done in good faith and are the result of the publisher’s ideological and commercial interests. There is no world in which The Telegraph’s output would survive the level of scrutiny applied to the BBC’s journalism.”
And yet, when the BBC makes an error – however small – The Telegraph devotes entire articles to incendiary, aghast outrage.
The difference, of course, is that the BBC has an ounce of contrition and self-respect. When things go wrong (as naturally they do at an institution with over 21,000 staff producing dozens of programmes every day), people are held to account.
By contrast, at The Telegraph, its falsehoods are buried in fine print and those spreading them are handed promotions.
So, when The Telegraph next demands that the BBC faces consequences for “misleading the public”, it should take a beat and read its own corrections page. It’s the most honest thing the paper publishes.
About me
I’m an investigative journalist and current affairs writer who has worked with the New York Times, the Guardian, the Mirror, the New European, Novara Media, New Statesman, Led By Donkeys, and others.
I specialise in exposing dark money and radical right-wing ecosystems.
I also write a lot about inequality and elitism, and am the author of two books on those very subjects: Fortress London, and Bullingdon Club Britain.
Why subscribe
Trump, Musk and Farage are on the march – followed closely by Badenoch and an increasingly radicalised Conservative Party. Investigative journalism exposing their funding sources, their plans, and their networks has never been more important.
Cheers, Sam.
We’ve crawled out of a long, caffeine-fuelled autopsy of the BBC and, miracle of miracles, we actually came up with a few recommendations. Not “less bias, more balance” nonsense, but proper fixes, the kind that would make a minister spill their latte and shout “who authorised accountability?”
Policy and Reform Recommendations
Rebuilding independence is not a question of goodwill. It is an act of engineering. The BBC’s predicament was created by design, and only design can undo it. What follows are proposals that treat capture not as scandal but as system.
Reform the Appointments Process
The first step is to end ministerial patronage. Public service cannot depend on a nod from government. Appointments to the BBC Board and Chair should be removed from political discretion and placed under an independent commission drawn from devolved administrations, civic organisations, and media ethics bodies.
Candidates must be publicly questioned, their political and financial histories published before appointment. The current “preferred candidate” procedure invites favour and rewards discretion. Transparency should be treated as competence, not risk.
Legislate for Funding Independence
The licence fee must be insulated from negotiation. Its level should be determined by an independent review body operating on a fixed cycle. Any ministerial change to that process should require a vote of Parliament and a public statement of reasons.
Fiscal control is censorship by quieter means. A multi-year funding formula would end the recurring hostage ritual disguised as review. Dependence on government money is not accountability; it is leverage with a polite face.
Strengthen Editorial Governance
Editorial freedom requires its own constitutional foundation. A restructured Editorial Standards Authority should report to Parliament rather than ministers and publish regular audits on political interference.
The BBC’s internal compliance culture must be dismantled. It breeds caution, not integrity. A new code should measure truthfulness above balance and courage above symmetry. Neutrality is not the absence of conviction; it is the discipline of fairness.
Rebuild Internal Culture
Rules can alter structure, but only culture restores confidence. Training and leadership must present risk-taking as duty, not liability. To challenge power is not insubordination; it is public service.
A revised internal charter should redefine independence as accountability to the audience. Managers who substitute image control for journalism should face review by the Board’s editorial committee. Fear is a management tool only in institutions that have forgotten their purpose.
Create a Permanent Public Accountability Forum
Public trust survives in daylight. The BBC should convene an annual Public Accountability Forum, broadcast live, where executives answer questions from journalists, unions, civic groups, and viewers. Scrutiny must be visible to work.
What is hidden in consultation papers should be debated in public. The BBC’s greatest power has always been visibility; its weakness has been secrecy mistaken for dignity.
Codify Protections in Law
Independence must be enforceable. The next Charter should be enacted as constitutional statute, placing its guarantees beyond ministerial interference. Editorial freedom should carry the same legal standing as judicial and academic independence.
Without law, every future government will be tempted to repeat the pattern under a different slogan.
Reform with Intent, Not Nostalgia
The aim is not restoration but redesign. There was never a golden age, only moments of courage. The BBC must learn from other democracies that independence rests on architecture, not sentiment. The language of reform must replace nostalgia with verification.
If the Corporation continues to rely on tradition for protection, it will drift into ceremonial irrelevance. If it embraces transparency and legal autonomy, it may again become the place where fact resists faction.
The BBC does not need another review. It needs a firewall. Courtesy cannot defend public service. Only structure can.
Independence will not return by invitation. It must be built, brick by transparent brick.
Willy & Bill
https://satiricalplanet.substack.com/p/the-corporation-captured-political
I’ve been critical of the BBC for years but today’s stitch up by the Telegraph, Boris Johnson, Robbie Gibb and the ‘hardly independent’ Prescott sees me defending the BBC. Who’d have thunk. 🤷🏼♀️ If Trump, Putin and Netanyahu are all cheering this on then the BBC is doing something right. Who’d want that Dir Gen job now knowing you’re going to vilified by every right wing mob out there? What a mess.