While the BBC’s mis-editing of Donald Trump’s words has dominated the headlines, less attention has been paid to another example of the corporation’s bias: its coverage of history. The BBC’s latest blockbuster history series, Empire, fronted by David Olusoga, shows the extent of the problem.

This slanted and biased version of history is nothing new

No one watching these three programmes, which were broadcast this month, could be in any doubt that a negative view of British history pervades everything. The series is not a balanced history of the empire, but rather a collection of some of its most controversial and violent episodes. When Olusoga himself isn’t telling us what to think, we switch to a panel of largely young people (whose backgrounds and qualifications for reflection are not made clear) who continue in the same largely negative vein.

This slanted and biased version of history is nothing new. Michael Prescott’s leaked report into bias at the BBC focuses on six history broadcasts on slavery, colonialism, and famines in Ireland in the 1840s and Bengal a century later. Prescott described the detail History Reclaimed provided in its criticisms of the BBC as ‘fascinating’. He wondered why the BBC hadn’t bothered to reply to our ‘moderate’ suggestions for improvement. It’s a good question.

The History Reclaimed report found that the BBC fostered ‘a negative view of British history…It is as if the BBC is choosing interviewees who are intended to give a particular slant.’ We asked for greater accuracy; that BBC programmes reflect the range of historical interpretations; that programme-makers use acknowledged experts; and that the Corporation establishes an advisory panel of qualified historians to assist its work.

If the BBC had taken some of these thoughts on board, Olusoga’s series might have offered some semblance of balance. Instead, Empire focuses, unsurprisingly and rather unfairly, on the history of the British Empire alone.

There is little or........

© The Spectator