Dutch author Rutger Bregman accuses BBC of censorship after Trump comments cut from lecture

Driven "by fear", he says...

Dutch historian and author Rutger Bregman has publicly accused the BBC of censorship, claiming the British broadcaster removed a segment from his prestigious lecture series in which he called Donald Trump “the most openly corrupt president in American history”.

The alleged edit was made to the first episode of Bregman’s edition of The Reith Lectures, titled “A time of monsters”, which aired on BBC Radio 4 on Tuesday morning.

A prestigious platform with strings attached?

The Reith Lectures are no small deal. Each year, the BBC invites a prominent figure to deliver a series of radio talks aimed at contributing to “the intellectual and cultural life of the nation”.

This year, Bregman was chosen to discuss weighty topics: the rise of authoritarianism, the failure of elites across the political spectrum, and the urgent need for what he calls a “moral revolution”.

The first of four episodes was broadcast on Tuesday morning and briefly made available online before the BBC took down the webpage entirely later that day. A transcript, however, is still floating around.

“The decision came from the top”

In a video posted to his social media on Tuesday, Bregman didn’t mince words. He said he’d been told that the decision to cut his remark about Trump came from “the highest levels of the BBC”.

He stressed that the broadcaster commissioned the series themselves and that all episodes “went through the full editorial process”. The lecture was recorded weeks ago in front of a live audience of 500 people at the BBC Radio Theatre in London.

Bregman described himself as “deeply disturbed” by what he sees as an act of “self-censorship driven by fear”, specifically, fear that Trump might sue the BBC. “This isn’t about left or right,” he said. “This is about the health of our democratic institutions.”

A media storm brewed by The Daily Mail

The controversy kicked off last week when British tabloid The Daily Mail claimed, based on a single anonymous source, that Bregman had called Trump a “monster” in his lecture.

Writing for De Correspondent, Bregman dismissed this as a “self-invented story”, just the latest manufactured outrage in what he called “the soap opera of the BBC versus Trump”.

The BBC has been under intense scrutiny in recent months, particularly after incorrectly quoting Trump in a documentary, a mistake that drew sharp criticism and threats of legal action.

British libel laws put broadcasters on edge

It’s worth noting that UK media outlets operate under some of the strictest defamation laws in the world. The burden of proof for any statement lies with the publisher, which means broadcasters like the BBC can face significant legal risks for even mildly contentious remarks.

Still, Bregman argues that caving to that pressure threatens something bigger than one broadcaster’s legal safety. “This concerns all of us,” he said.

The BBC has not yet responded to Bregman’s allegations.

What do you think? Is self-censorship a growing problem for public broadcasters, or is the BBC just playing it safe in a legal minefield? Let us know in the comments.

Feature image:DutchReview

Accuracy, clarity, and a touch of humour — that’s DutchReview. Read our editorial mission.

Abuzer van Leeuwen 🇳🇱
Abuzer van Leeuwen 🇳🇱
Abuzer founded DutchReview a decade ago because he thought expats needed it and wanted to make amends for the Dutch cuisine. He has a Masters in Political Science and IT but somewhere always wanted to study history or good old football. He also a mortgage in the Netherlands and will happily tell you too how to get one. Born and raised in Rotterdam, Abuzer now lives in Leiden but is always longing back to his own international year in Italy.

1 COMMENT

  1. You are right about the UK defamation laws. I heard the Reith Lecture this morning on BBC Radio 4. It was an interesting and challenging listen.
    A key question for the BBC is, before you edited “the most openly corrupt president in American history” did you ask for the evidence for such a statement?
    I, and I expect many others, would be interested in the answer.
    Is it possible the BBC received an answer that did not convince them they were legally ‘safe’?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related posts

Latest posts

Sick of low Dutch savings rates? Here are 3 ways to grow your funds faster

If you're tired of low Dutch savings rates, these are the best and fastest ways to grow your funds, from high-yield savings accounts to...

Dutch DNA: are the Dutch actually Dutch?

If I say the word "Dutch", you probably have a very clear image in your head of what a Dutch person should look like....

Why neobank users in the Netherlands need a local bank as a main account or backup

Neobanks have made international banking faster and simpler, but in the Netherlands, relying on one as your sole account may cause a few financial...

It's happening

Upcoming events