Naga Munchetty: who do we trust when we can’t trust the ‘institutionally racist’ BBC?

Naga Munchetty: Why do a gang of old, white men think they understand racism better than her?

There’s no business like show business, is there?

That’s what politics is – at least, as far as the BBC is concerned – and the Naga Munchetty scandal is simply evidence of that fact.

To demonstrate my point, I’ll come to it at a tangent: Yesterday evening (September 28) I was watching a thought-provoking Doctor Who story (stay with me!) in which people living a slave-like existence in a dystopian regime were distracted from their hellish lives by government-controlled media that played video “nasties” at them constantly, with viewing compulsory.

They were given an illusion of democracy, being asked to vote on the decisions of their governor – but none of their choices made any difference to the real balance of power, which was held by corporate interests who were unaffected by the vote.

It struck me that this show, made more than 30 years ago, is a frighteningly accurate comment on the situation in the UK today.

How many of us go to the BBC for our news? The last statistics I saw suggested 70 per cent of us consider it our primary news provider.

That’s because it is described as our “public service broadcaster”.

But it seems the BBC is providing its services to somebody else.

Look at Ms Munchetty: she has been censured after voicing an un-approved opinion about US President Donald Trump’s racism towards women of colour.

“Every time I have been told, as a woman of colour, to go back to where I came from, that was embedded in racism,” Munchetty told viewers in July, during a discussion with her co-host Dan Walker. She went on to add that she was “absolutely furious a man in that position thinks it’s OK to skirt the lines by using language like that”.

This triggered a complaint – from an unnamed source. One wonders who this person was, as they seem to have been able to influence the BBC’s mostly white, middle-aged-or-older, complaints unit members in a way that most people find impossible. Theirs was the only complaint about this issue.

Kerry-Anne Mendoza got it right when she criticised the BBC’s actions in this tweet:

This is correct; Trump’s words were racist and Ms Munchetty – a woman of colour herself – had every right to call them what they were. It is the BBC’s decision that is racist – and this creates problems for it in more ways than one.

BBC editorial standards director David Jordan tried to defuse the row on Radio 4’s Today show, saying that, while Mr Trump’s comments were racist, Ms Munchetty had breached editorial guidelines because she appeared to make a judgement on the US president’s personality: “In the politics of the present, when we are in a politics of name-calling and insult, I think it’s probably unwise of the BBC to be calling out people for being liars or racist. What is really important is that we look at the things people say, we analyse them, we describe them objectively.”

But the official finding of the complaints unit shows that Ms Munchetty did not directly accuse Mr Trump of racism in the brief exchange, which took place in response to questions on her personal feelings from her co-host, Mr Walker.

Mr Jordan’s words seem to suggest that BBC political coverage is little more than an act, with presenters told to keep to a pre-arranged script – as satirised by Channel 4’s Krishnan Guru-Murthy in response to a tweet by veteran broadcaster John Simpson:

Now the BBC has put itself in a situation where it has been forced to accept a review of the decision by Ofcom, measuring it against the regulator’s own broadcasting code. A team is already reviewing the footage and a verdict is expected next week that could potentially undermine the BBC’s complaints process.

This is particularly interesting for people like myself who have made complaints to the BBC that have been rejected – and in particular to the BBC’s attitude toward racism.

After the BBC broadcast its Panorama documentary, Is Labour Antisemitic in July, it received more complaints about that programme than any other during the following 14 days.

Yet it has steadfastly rejected those complaints, which concerned the quality of the evidence used by the Panorama programme-makers, and many of which were made by people who had been through the disciplinary procedure that the BBC claimed to have been investigating.

So it seems the BBC is happy to accuse Labour of a form of racism on the basis of unreliable evidence – and to defend its claim against thousands of people who know better – and is also happy to make a false accusation against one of its own presenters, on the basis of a single complaint.

Clearly the BBC’s definition of racism changes to fit individual situations. That is, in itself, institutionally racist.

And this supports the claim (in the Doctor Who story I was watching – remember it?) that people are kept down by a complicit media. The BBC wants people to think Labour is racist so it suppresses complaints that undermine that position; the BBC wants people to think Donald Trump isn’t racist, so it smears its own presenter.

Now, the big question:

Who tells the BBC to do these things? And what is their motive?

Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


7 thoughts on “Naga Munchetty: who do we trust when we can’t trust the ‘institutionally racist’ BBC?

  1. timfrom

    You’re only allowed to voice a personal opinion masquerading as fact as a BBC news talking head if you’re white and from an aristocratic family.

    In other words, Laura Kuenssberg!

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      I did not. Are you suggesting that, because you’re not a racist, none of these BBC complaints unit members can be? It seems to me that, even if your race politics may be unimpeachable, your logic is not.

    2. Jeffrey Davies

      I’m a very old Oldman with sum colour left in my hair but the BBC is a farce a Brian rix it’s made the peasants hate a decent man who put fairness back but then

  2. Jeffrey Davies

    The BBC like most media is run by those faceless rich who plague us with false news complain has you now will get you nowhere yet we pay for it’s upkeep yet get sh*t back has those running it whot would they do if all the peasants didn’t pay would these rich come to their rescue hmm

  3. Zippi

    I have viewed the clip many times and I cannot, for the life of me, see what she did that was wrong. According to Newswatch, despite the fact that her co-host appeared, in my view, to instigate that particular line, in the discussion, no complaint was made about him therefore, the B.B.C. was not only not obliged to investigate his part but was not allowed. This seems ridiculous, that a complaint could be investigated without context? Certainly, the complainant gives the impression of being a racist. Also, we were told that there was more than one complaint but this single complaint was upheld. Why? What were the other complaints and why were they not upheld? Some transparency on this issue would be helpful.

Comments are closed.