Legal threats against the BBC over an edited interview highlight that an independent, taxpayer-funded, public broadcaster is anathema to Trump and his administration.

In a world seeking reliability from journalists, the usually trusted BBC is under siege from right-wing media competitors and the president of the United States.

The BBC’s alleged serious mistakes have to be acknowledged, so too the bullying and hypocrisy of the broadcaster’s accusers who might just recall that biblical saying to behold the mote in your own eyes, meaning “don’t criticise another’s faults while ignoring your own”.

In addition to the BBC being accused of undue “liberalism”, the current controversy revolves around a 12-second clip of edited Trump speeches from a Panorama program shown a year ago about which no one complained at the time. Revelations about the editing have whetted the Trump taste for bullying and hypocrisy, but as in response to all bullies, the question arises, how to respond? Ignore? Be defensive? Or identify a political context which has made public institutions ripe for attack?

The BBC’s mistakes will be investigated and will result in a detailed official report, but support of the BBC merits as much kick-back as analysis. Supporters of fearless journalism and of the BBC need to expose the bullies and hypocrites. They should assess how a once free speech culture has been poisoned by Trump intolerance and by his claims about fake news.

The legal barrage from Trump — withdraw by Friday or I’ll sue for a billion dollars — characterises bully boy litigation practice in the US but should not become a feature of democratic governance.

Charges of fake news are central to Trump’s efforts to stifle any version of events that do not flatter him. Surrounded by sycophants who don’t dare to question, his lying and bullying have cancerous effects unless there is resistance, unless the dangers from his lying are exposed.

The BBC happens to be the latest target – a public institution made vulnerable in a selfish and violent political context.

It is not alone.

Life on earth faces an existential threat from climate change but Trump withdraws from the 2015 legally binding Paris agreements to limit global warming and declares climate change a hoax. In the past month, he has scuttled international efforts to combat pollution from plastics and from merchant shipping. Who cares? Disparaging the interests of vulnerable nations is a US entitlement and there is no immediate sign of multi-billion law suits against the Trump administration.

Instead, we are presented with a Trumpist version of journalism as in the daily shrill performance from the president’s press secretary who declares “the BBC is 100% fake news, it’s a leftist propaganda machine”, and “a disgrace to democracy”.

A state of anomie prevails: only the rules of the bullies should be heard, history can be concocted, claims that a transparently fair election was stolen must be repeated and anyone who opposes that judgment should be pursued and punished.

Attacks on the BBC come from sources other than Trump. A culture of Trumpism spews from two lobbies: conservative media and think-tanks who use the accusation “leftist” as though they have found the missile to destroy any notion of a common good; and Zionist forces intent on stifling criticism of Israel by labelling critics antisemitic. Surprise, surprise: persistent criticism of the BBC is that it has not been sufficiently supportive of Israel.

Accusations of leftism are boosted by derision of human rights, by indifference to humanitarian law and by acceptance that those who commit war crimes and crimes against humanity, should be treated with impunity.

Reverse reasoning is underway. The vulnerable should be punished, architects of genocide must be protected, even rewarded.

The BBC’s record was never unblemished but it mostly represented high standards. These are now depicted as so irresponsibly leftish that renewal of the BBC charter is at risk.

Who cares if a self-satisfied, selfish way of thinking is to be a new norm? Atlas shrugs. Poor people should be denied assistance. The BBC is an easy target and you could make a fortune by suing them.

The Zionist influence is there too, decades old and with huge political and corporate influence in the UK and in the operation of public institutions in other countries, notably Australia.

In lock step with Trumpism — all the way with Israel whatever it does — Zionists also have a tradition of sending threatening legal letters to almost anyone whose concern with fair comment about the horrendous slaughter in Gaza could be judged antisemitic.

In university management, as with BBC defensiveness, targets of Zionist legal threats have not been sufficiently assertive. They have even been cowardly. Free speech on campuses is discouraged. Despite The Lancet now estimating deaths from the Gaza war as at least half a million, mostly women and children, the public can be distracted by claims about antisemitism. A cowed BBC and Israel-compliant university managers fall foul of this culture which says that to defend the human rights of Palestinians, let alone be critical of Trump bullying and hypocrisy, is to be too liberal.

The idea that a public broadcaster, paid for by UK taxpayers, should be independent and free of political interference is anathema to a Trump-like human rights disparaging corporate world.

Response to attacks on the BBC can begin with an exposé of the bullying and hypocrisy which feeds a divisive, derisive culture. Deal with the lawyers’ threatening letters after that.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.