November 17, 2025 ✓
BBC have many donating money to them. In a way, this is no surprise, but still…
Besides USAID, European Commission, UNICEF, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, there are, of course, Scandinavian donors.
Among the top 10 donors 2023–24:
• Swedish International Development Coorperation [SIDA]
£1,625,000
• SIDA & Swiss Agency for Development Coorperation
£1,188,000
————————————————
Among the top 10 donors 2022–23:
• Swedish International Development Coorperation [SIDA]
£2,915,000
• Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
£1,079,000
• Norwegian Agency for Development Coorperation
£1,547,000
Source: BBC
What a mess!
November 14, 2025 ✓
Today [November 13] in Swedish media:
Avslöjar: Här klipper SVT också ihop Trumps tal
[machine translation]
US President Donald Trump is threatening to sue the BBC for ten billion kronor after the public service broadcaster edited together various parts of his speech before the storming of the Capitol.
Now Kvartal can reveal that SVT has also published a video in which different parts of the speech have been edited together in a way that gives the same impression as in the BBC's much–criticized version.
US President Donald Trump is threatening to sue the British BBC for one billion dollars—equivalent to ten billion Swedish kronor—for editing together different parts of his speech on January 6, 2021…
————————
SVT ändrar Trumpklippet – med svarta rutor.
[machine translation]
SVT has updated its publication about Trump's speech after Kvartal's revelation. An explanation has been added to the article and black boxes with pause marks have been added to the clip between the different parts of the speech.
"It's good that SVT has been called out," says SVT News director Karin Ekman.
On Thursday, Kvartal revealed that SVT—just like the BBC—had edited several parts of Donald Trump's speech from January 6, 2021, in a way that changed the overall impression. The part where Trump urges his supporters to march "peacefully and patriotically" was missing, while other parts of the speech were rearranged to reinforce his message of struggle and resistance…
Source: www.kvartal.se
——————————————
More Thoughts
As far as I know, Kvartal is the only Swedish media touching on the BBC scandal.
However, if you want to read more—besides the intro—you have to pay—and, of course, give Kvartal all your personal info.
Jörgen Huitfeldt, editor & Kvartal: just another Third Estate gatekeeper—just one more covering Swedish "news" selectively—with only one eye.
November 12, 2025 ✓
Skandalen på BBC gäller även Sverige.
[machine translation]
When one of the world's most important media houses is caught engaging in systematic disinformation and ideological bias, it affects Sweden.
The two most senior executives at the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) have been forced to resign. They are Director–General Tim Davie and Head of News Deborah Turness. The reason is a leaked letter sent by journalist Michael Prescott to the BBC's board of directors. Until June, Prescott was an advisor to the BBC's internal editorial council, the Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee (EGSC).
The letter lists a number of errors committed by the BBC in recent years. In some cases, the BBC has made corrections or removed news items. But as Prescott often points out, much of the internal criticism has been completely ignored, which is why he felt it was important to summarize the problems at the BBC, which he also considered to be "systematic" and "even more extensive than this summary suggests."
The content of this letter is relevant not only to the BBC but also to Swedish public service broadcasting. A large proportion of Swedish foreign reporting relies on the BBC's international reporting. In addition, several of the problems raised by Prescott have also affected Swedish reporting.
In Swedish news coverage, the BBC scandal has mainly focused on a single case: the manipulation of a clip from Donald Trump's speech on January 6, 2020. Two completely separate passages were edited together to give the impression that Trump was actively inciting his supporters to violence.
But if you read Prescott's letter, it is clear that this is just one in a series of cases where the BBC has been ideologically selective in its reporting, distorted events, or engaged in misleading quoting. A couple of examples:
In February 2024, BBC Verify (equivalent to SVT's "Faktakollen") published a report claiming that people in areas with large minority populations paid more for car insurance, despite similar accident and crime rates to other areas. The review was widely circulated but was based on old and incomplete data, drew incorrect conclusions, and omitted key facts. After an internal review, it was removed entirely, but no one was held accountable. The thesis was that the high costs were due to structural racism, even though there was no evidence to support this.
It doesn't stop there. In recent years, several BBC employees have made internal complaints about reporting on trans issues. According to the reports, this has been characterized by bias and internal censorship from the LGBTQ editorial team, which often stopped or toned down critical perspectives. Reviews showed a systematic imbalance: accounts from those who regretted gender reassignment or were concerned about the quality of care were missing, while positive or superficial stories dominated.
This skewed angle extended, Prescott claims, to news and features on biological sex and gender identity. An internal report warned of a lack of balance, the language used was strikingly ideological, and political positions were treated as uncontroversial and self–evident.
Another problem that Prescott returns to with many examples is the BBC's inadequate reporting from the war in Gaza.
In July 2024, a senior news editor at BBC World Service concluded an internal review of BBC Arabic, the Arabic–language editorial team, without finding any editorial problems. However, the EGSC questioned the findings and commissioned a more in–depth review of the reporting on the conflict between Israel and Gaza.
The final analysis, which covered over a thousand articles between May and October 2024, revealed clear differences between BBC Arabic and the BBC's English–language news site.
For example, BBC News published 19 articles on Hamas hostage-takings—BBC Arabic published none. At the same time, BBC Arabic republished all critical articles about Israel, but almost completely omitted material that highlighted suffering in Israel. In many of the texts published, there were major differences between the English and Arabic news coverage, with the latter either omitting important information or adding entirely new elements.
The BBC scandal also affects Sweden. In many cases, news about the US or the war in Gaza has been copied from English–language sources, which is not unusual in Swedish media, as a supplement or in the absence of correspondents or local freelancers on site.
But in some cases, what has happened at the BBC also has a more direct Swedish counterpart. Take the example of local journalists and eyewitnesses in Gaza.
In June 2025, the BBC conducted an internal review of BBC Arabic after revelations that several regular journalists they had used in Gaza had expressed gross anti–Semitism and support for Hamas. Among them were Samer Elzaenen, who had published hate posts about Jews, Ahmed Qannan, who had praised a terrorist as a "hero," and Ahmed Alagha, who had called Jews "devils." Despite this, the BBC consistently described them as journalists.
Compare this with Swedish Radio's use of Baraa Lafi, who was an employee at Swedish Radio. Like the journalists hired by the BBC, she had also been used on a number of occasions to report on the conflict. Doku revealed that they had collaborated with a high–ranking Hamas official and led boycott campaigns against Israel. The information was "new" to SR, which is why they ended their collaboration with Lafi.
The main focus of Prescott's letter is the BBC's reporting on the war in Gaza. On this subject, SVT, SR, and TT, which account for most of Sweden's foreign reporting, have reason to engage in a bit of self–criticism. Information has not been verified and in many cases the sources have been Hamas itself.
The BBC now faces important internal work and political discussions are underway about the future of the British licensing model.
There is no simple solution for the BBC. The problem at the BBC is ideological and not just a matter of isolated missteps. The ideological problem is not conspiratorial in nature. No one has actively decided to deliberately distort what has happened in order to achieve a political goal. It has happened more unconsciously, automatically, as Prescott's letter clearly shows.
The ideology that has prevailed at the BBC has been expressed as a matter of course, something that those responsible do not even reflect on. It is something that is ingrained in the walls; no one needs to tell reporters how to angle something, it has happened anyway. This problem is more insidious and difficult to access than the deliberate conspiracy where those involved constantly need to hide and actively deviate from the truth.
"The BBC plays a vital role in this era of disinformation," said British Prime Minister Keir Starmer after the departures from the BBC. He unknowingly makes two very important points. It is important that the BBC functions well and delivers reliable news from around the world at a time when disinformation is rampant. But that mission becomes difficult if the BBC itself becomes an example of what it claims to be fighting against.
Source: GöteborgsPosten, Adam Cwejman, "journalist"
——————————————
Thoughts
These institutions—UK/Sweden—would never hire someone who's not in tandem with their values—that's how "ideology ingrained in the walls" work.
This has NOT occurred by itself—it never does (they just say that)—it's as deliberate as it can get.
And, of course, instead of explaining [the whole truth] what BBC did in regards to President Trump's speech on January 6, 2020, Adam Cwejman will weave the text & put focus on the "anti–semite" part—all part of his "assignment."
It's not that complicated.
Adam Cwejman, GöteborgsPosten, SvT: all Swedish media, have been/are complicit in the propaganda—from the beginning.
The propaganda Adam Cwejman et al., now want and wish deflected on BBC.
Note: This is very traditional for a "Swede" to do: Expect the responsibilty to fall on someone else.
——————————————
While reading this, certain words came to mind: Red Bee Media, FRA, Intelligence, Ericsson, German–British–Swedish, Royals, Mossad, CIA and so on…
Adam Cwejman is fully aware of these words.
However, we do understand why some [many] of his words are always left out.
Note: Everyone [in this world] who should know about the truth surrounding Swedish media, already know.