(With my thanks to Charles Veitch and the unknown awesome Rastafarian for the intro line.)
Belief divides, knowledge unites. You can only believe in what you don’t know. Belief is a doubt because you cannot believe something and know it.
In today’s media landscape, outlets often move beyond reporting events to framing, selecting, or even altering content in ways that guide public belief. This can involve editing choices, loaded language, selective emphasis, or amplification of certain angles—practices seen across ideological lines. The result is that audiences frequently receive versions of reality tailored to preconceptions, making it harder to discern what actually happened.
A clear example of editing manipulation came from the BBC’s 2024 Panorama documentary “Trump: A Second Chance?”. It spliced non-consecutive sections of Donald Trump’s January 6, 2021, speech—combining his call to march to the Capitol with a later “fight like hell” line—to suggest a more direct incitement to violence than the full context showed. The BBC acknowledged this as an “error of judgement” in November 2025, apologised to Trump, withdrew the programme from future broadcasts, and stated the edit unintentionally gave a “mistaken impression” of a direct call for violent action. Trump filed a multi-billion-dollar defamation lawsuit in response, which the BBC defended but ultimately highlighted concerns over editorial standards.
The BBC drama series “The Capture” (2019–2022) eerily parallels this vulnerability. It depicts how easily video evidence can be manipulated—through doctored CCTV in Season 1 or deepfakes targeting politicians in Season 2—to alter perceptions of reality. The show serves as a cautionary tale: in an age of advanced editing and AI tools, visual “proof” can be reshaped, eroding trust when media outlets apply such techniques, intentionally or not.
Bias and framing appear in protest coverage from multiple directions. During 2020’s George Floyd demonstrations, right-leaning outlets like Fox News frequently emphasised “riots,” “looting,” and terms like “thugs,” while left-leaning ones like MSNBC and CNN highlighted “mostly peaceful” elements and systemic issues. Studies show media often use more anger- or fear-evoking language for protests involving people of color compared to predominantly White ones (e.g., sports riots framed as “passionate fans”). In 2025 UK anti-immigration protests, the BBC and some left-leaning sources focused on arrests and far-right involvement, often downplaying scale or grievances, while right-leaning outlets like the Daily Mail emphasised “social threat” from migrants, crime links, and confrontations—using conflict frames to portray migrants negatively without broader humanitarian context.
Immigration reporting shows partisan selectivity on both sides. Right-leaning media (e.g., Fox News) often spotlight removals of “criminal illegal aliens,” gang members, or prior offenders in ICE operations, reinforcing enforcement narratives. Left-leaning outlets (e.g., CBS or MSNBC) tend to highlight community impacts, misidentifications, excessive force, or family separations, sometimes using “immigrant” over “illegal” to soften framing. Analyses of U.S. ads and news found over a third depicted borders as “battle zones” with militarised imagery, while terms like “invasion” or “illegals” appeared in 20–30% of right-leaning content. UK studies note right-leaning papers disproportionately focus on “illegal” migration and small-boat crossings, amplifying crisis perceptions, while even some left-leaning coverage echoes enforcement themes over structural causes.
None of the outlets seem particularly interested in differentiating between legal immigration, illegal immigration and asylum seekers. This is an incredibly important differentiation.
Political stories reveal similar divides. The same Trump-era travel ban was framed by Fox as necessary security against threats and by CNN/MSNBC as discriminatory overreach. Headline choices—e.g., “abortion rights” vs. “abortion law”—signal ideological leanings. Ownership, audience expectations, and revenue incentives from polarisation sustain these patterns, with tools like the AllSides Media Bias Chart mapping outlets along a spectrum.
Ultimately, manipulation isn’t confined to one side; it thrives when outlets prioritise narrative over full context. Cross-checking primary sources, diverse reporting, and raw footage helps cut through the framing. Knowledge of these tactics unites us in seeking reality over engineered belief.
This persistent framing and selective presentation of events fuel deeper societal division, intensifying the vitriol between right and left. By amplifying extreme voices, highlighting conflict over consensus, and reinforcing caricatures of the “other side” as immoral or dangerous, media contribute to affective polarization—where people increasingly view political opponents not just as wrong, but as threats to values and society itself. Research shows this dynamic erodes trust in institutions, reduces willingness to cooperate across lines, and heightens hostility in everyday interactions, from family gatherings to online discourse. The result is a self-reinforcing cycle: perceived divisions grow, people retreat into echo chambers, and shared reality shrinks, making compromise or empathy feel impossible.
Yet a path toward greater human harmony emerges when people prioritize shared facts over partisan narratives. Studies demonstrate that exposure to accurate, balanced information—especially when it corrects misconceptions about the other side—can moderate attitudes, reduce perceived distance between groups, and foster more constructive dialogue. When individuals engage with evidence rather than engineered outrage, common ground becomes visible: overlapping concerns on issues like economic security or community safety, or recognition that most people are not extremists. Cross-checking primary sources, seeking diverse reporting, and focusing on verifiable details rebuilds trust, encourages civil engagement, and reminds us that unity through knowledge is possible even amid disagreement. In an age of manipulation, returning to facts offers the strongest antidote to division.
This may not relate directly to the Business of Britain but I make no apology as I “believe” that the sentiment herein can help to narrow the divide. I wish I could know it.
Together, we are stronger. Together, we can make a difference.