british broadcasting corporation Archives -

The murky origins of the BBC – Part 4

This series of posts covering the topic of the unsavoury origins of the BBC is re-posted by kind permission of The Occidental Observer, where the original article can be found in full at this link.
The fourth of four parts of this series covering the murky origins of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).

Press and advertising ban

While the Post Office granted royalty rights, protection and licence enforcement to selected radio manufacturers, it also helped secure the revenue of the major newspapers. The BBC was prohibited from broadcasting “any news or information in the nature of news ‘except such as they may obtain from one or more of the following news agencies, viz.: Reuters Ltd, Press Association Ltd, Central News Ltd, Exchange Telegraph Company Ltd, or from any other news agency approved by the Postmaster General’.” 70 The intention was to ensure that the BBC could not make newspapers obsolete. The ban on advertising on the BBC worked to the same effect.

The BBC’s monopoly on broadcasting obviated the threat of commercial radio stations competing with the newspapers for advertising space. No wonder, then, that the Newspaper Proprietors’ Association under Harry Levy-Lawson, the first Viscount Burnham and owner of the Daily Telegraph, who sat on the Sykes Committee, “thought that newspapers had nothing to fear from broadcasting” and supported a single broadcasting authority. 71

The leading newspapers benefited from the existence of the BBC long after its formation. From 1929, commercial stations based in continental Europe began to gain the use of relay stations in Britain, a combination which “could break the BBC’s monopoly with the ordinary British listener”. As Briggs notes:

“Two conceptions of broadcasting… — public service broadcasting by a public corporation — the other, commercial broadcasting … were in danger of clashing … . In the conflict of conceptions the BBC had the full support of the press, which sent deputations on its own account to the Post Office to protest against foreign commercial broadcasts. It also agreed through the Newspaper Proprietors’ Association and the Newspaper Society that newspapers would not make use of foreign stations for advertising or publicity purposes.” 72

Thus, the BBC’s monopoly, granted by Parliament, was a pretext for the prohibition of commercial broadcasting which would have competed with the press for advertisers. The press, or at least the largest and most organised section thereof, lobbied to maintain it even as the BBC gradually eroded the founding restrictions on its own news operations. 73

Royalties

Reith’s advocacy for the BBC in its earliest and most commercial phase secured for the wireless cartel most of the profits available in broadcasting’s most rapid period of growth. These came from royalties on devices sold and a share of each licence fee paid. As McIntyre says, the BBC board “saw the royalty system as ‘the cardinal principle on which broadcasting was established’ ”, i.e., as “the bulwark that protected the manufacturers against competition from foreign sets and components”.

In June 1923, fortunate to deal with the new, sympathetic Postmaster-General, Reith secured an extension of the royalties and a higher share of revenue from each licence fee paid. The agreement with the Post Office caused the number of licences issued to rise from 180,000 at the start of October 1923 to 414,000 just ten days later and more than 1.1 million by the end of 1924. 74 In October 1923:

“Godfrey Isaacs, by far the toughest of the members of the Board, made a special telephone call to Reith congratulating him and telling him that he could not find adequate words to express his admiration. Reith was surprised, for Isaacs was usually ‘so undemonstrative’.” 75

As we have seen, the “main interest of the manufacturers was not in broadcasting” but rather in selling receiver sets. 76 Reith appears to have delivered receiver sales far beyond their expectations.

He also presented the BBC to Parliament and the public in a better light than they could have done themselves. Reith’s own interest, beside pleasing his directors, was increasingly in broadcasting as such, and he had, according to his own precepts, higher ambitions for it.

According to Briggs:

“In retrospect the company shell in which broadcasting was so successfully developed between 1922 and 1926 appears at best as temporary, something to be discarded when the organization grew and when the radio industry had ceased to have a compelling motive for continuing to sponsor broadcasting.” 77

That motive diminished as the increase of receiver sales passed its steepest phase. Reith’s ambitions grew, and by his own description he acted more and more on a “high conception of the inherent possibilities of the service”. 78

Beneficiaries

Until 2018, historians typically credited the founding of the BBC to that “high conception” and to Reith personally. 79 The role of Godfrey Isaacs was only partially known and was generally condoned. In light of the transcript of the May 1922 meeting, it became clear that Isaacs, primarily supported by Hirsch and armed with essential patents, effectively presented the market and the state with a choice between a manufacturers’ cartel and a continuing prohibition on broadcasting, a field in which other countries were rapidly advancing. Directors of Marconi and GEC then falsely asserted that the advantageous scheme had been pressed upon them by the Post Office.

In fact the Post Office under Frederick Kellaway acted as though it had been bought. Kellaway professed openness to multiple broadcasters in 1922 but assisted in fulfilling Isaacs’ demands. Before the meetings of the Big Six, Kellaway refused requests for permission from any other prospective broadcasters. At the meetings, though alternatives were discussed freely, Marconi’s control of essential patents predictably ensured that Isaacs’ scheme prevailed.

The best outcome for Marconi was one in which sales as a manufacturer were guaranteed; that is what Kellaway and Isaacs’ actions delivered as if by design. Within two months of leaving his post, Marconi rewarded Kellaway with a directorship; a month later he speciously attributed the creation of the cartel to his successor, Neville Chamberlain.

How fortunate it was for Kellaway and his new employer that his then-assistant F. J. Brown brought back from America just the right misinformation to forestall the emergence of ‘chaos’, i.e., an open market. Though the manufacturer’s cartel lasted only five years, and in its most lucrative form only for two, those were the plum years. 80 Marconi, GEC and the other founding companies appear to have had little complaint when the BBC became a ‘public corporation’ in 1927. 81 GEC went on to become one of the biggest companies in Britain and, under its managing director Arnold Weinstock, acquired Metropolitan-Vickers and British Thomson-Houston in 1967 and Marconi in 1968. 82

A diligent investigator of what could be called the second Marconi scandal would inspect afresh the affairs of one of the suspected would-be beneficiaries of the first, the Prime Minister, David Lloyd George. Kellaway’s proposals for prohibiting advertising and imposing a licence fee were initiated by Sir Henry Norman, Chairman of the Wireless Sub-Committee of the Imperial Communications Committee and an old ally of Lloyd George. 83 John Reith’s first appointment at the BBC, his secretary, was Miss F. I. Shields who had been recommended to him by Frances Stevenson, the secretary, lover and later second wife of David Lloyd George. 84 Recall that Reith met Lloyd George two months earlier between applying for the BBC job and his cursory interview.

The BBC’s relationship with the press through the 1920s was negotiated at a joint committee presided over by Lord Riddell, a long-standing friend and benefactor of Lloyd George; it was under Lloyd George’s premiership that Levy-Lawson had been made Viscount Burnham by the latter’s friend, King George V. 85 Levy-Lawson’s father Edward, the first Baron Burnham, had been a rare member of King Edward VII’s ‘Jewish court’ who continued in royal favour after the “cosmopolitan king’s” death. Baron Burnham’s father, Joseph Levy, owned the Daily Telegraph at the time of the 1881-82 riots in the Russian Empire; the paper echoed the alarmist reporting of the Jewish World and The Times, helping sway British public opinion in favour of accepting tens of thousands of Jewish ‘refugees’.

Lloyd-George with Balfour

Lloyd George had much in common with his ally of several decades Winston Churchill, including wanton spending and personal dependence on favours and gifts. Like Churchill, Lloyd George was a friend and comrade of wealthy and powerful Jews, including the Isaacs brothers, Herbert Samuel, Chaim Weizmann and others, and like Churchill could generally be relied upon to side with Jews, especially Zionists, in all matters. He secured British control over Palestine at the Versailles conference in 1919. And in the following year, he appointed Herbert Samuel as the first High Commissioner of the British administration there.

Churchill became the Colonial Secretary in 1921, and in 1922 issued his famous white paper on Palestine calling for the greatest possible increase in the Jewish population. Churchill became more explicit in the 1930s about his intention to make Jews the majority. In 1923, Pinhas Rutenberg founded the Palestine Electric Corporation with Rufus Isaacs as a director; the Corporation was a joint venture between Rutenberg, the British state, the British element of the World Zionist Organisation, the aforementioned American General Electric and others. The senior Liberal peer Alfred Mond, the first Baron Melchett, later a founding member of the Focus along with Churchill and Lloyd George, was another director.

The BBC broadcast “a tribute on 11 April 1931 by Sir Herbert Samuel and Chaim Weizmann, who spoke at a dinner in honour of Lloyd George in recognition of his services to the ‘Jewish people’.” 86 Weizmann credited Lloyd George with co-initiating the Balfour Declaration. 87

Isaacs, Hirsch, Kellaway and Reith got what they wanted; Britain was saddled with a state broadcaster which, ever since, has worked to indoctrinate and discipline the public. The BBC today avows an anti-White ideology and pacifies the public in favour of foreign rapists of British children. It avoids the need for revenue from external advertisers (though it advertises favoured books gratis).

A century after the original agreement with the Post Office, the BBC is spared from having to satisfy customers, instead drawing upon the sordid racket referred to as the licence fee, which entails thousands of ordinary Britons being fined and imprisoned every year for their lack of “sportsmanship”. Still, its supporters can remind us of the corporation’s benevolence in sparing Britain from “the chaos of the ether”.

Footnotes

70 Coase, Origins, p204. Reuters had been founded by Paul Reuter (born Israel Josaphat) and came under the control of Roderick Jones; Jones’ acquisition was financed by Mark Napier and Starr Jameson, the latter being chairman of the British South Africa Company, an imperial company chartered by the British state and closely associated with the De Beers company and Cecil Rhodes, Alfred Beit, Nathan Rothschild and Ernest Oppenheimer.

71 Briggs, BBC, p48-9 and Coase, Origins, p58

72 The Golden Age of Wireless, Asa Briggs, 1965, p359. My emphasis.

73 Reith was able to liberate the BBC from its newscasting restrictions in stages over the 1920s and 30s. Briggs, Golden Age, p159. The BBC also created its own press: Radio Times became one of the best-selling publications in the country (nearly 3 million weekly sales in 1938) and it, World Radio and The Listener became very profitable for the BBC. Briggs, Golden Age, p281

74 Briggs, Birth, p192

75 Briggs, Birth, p199-200 and McIntyre, p129-30

76 Coase, Origins, p200

77 Briggs, Birth, p401

78 Briggs, Birth, p180-2

79 Reflecting on his early days at the BBC, Reith wrote in 1949 that:

“The trade had put me in office, [he wrote in his autobiography,] expected me to look out for them; there was a moral responsibility to them. But I had discerned something of the inestimable benefit which courageous and broad-visioned development of this new medium would yield. There lay one’s commission; and there need be no conflict of loyalties. Whatever was in the interests of broadcasting must eventually be in the interests of the wireless trade.” Briggs, Birth, p176

80 According to Briggs, broadcasting “was a curiously competitive industry, despite its continued pressure for protection.” Briggs, Birth, p196. It would be truer to say that broadcasting was curiously protected despite pressure for competition. The pressure for protection was from Marconi, GEC and their allies, precisely because the industry would otherwise have been competitive.

81 Marconi continued as a major supplier of microphones, recording equipment and other devices to the BBC throughout the 1920s and 1930s. Briggs, Golden Age, p97/100. Kellaway faithfully continued Marconi and Isaacs’ patent-centric approach: “[W]ith the demise of the Company some of the old issues of 1922 were re-emerging in the relations between the constituent companies which made up the BBC. At the meeting of 12 November Kellaway on behalf of the Marconi Company argued that the British Broadcasting Company was in no way obliged to transfer the use of its patent rights to the new Corporation. The question of patents remained troublesome and complicated long after the new Corporation was founded, although the Corporation itself escaped serious difficulties: it was fortunate that its sole concern was with broadcasting.” Briggs, Birth, p387. Unfortunately Briggs does not elaborate on the continuing patent question.

82 Metropolitan Vickers and British Thomson-Houston had merged in 1928.

83 Norman also sat on the Sykes Committee in 1923 along with Reith and Viscount Burnham. He wrote an article which “cleared the way for a small number of wireless manufacturers to be favoured over other potential applicants in the award of transmitter licences. He explicitly linked advertising, dismissed as ‘chatter’ about clothing, to interference in the United States. As for who would pay for broadcasting, ‘since the organization and cost – no trifling matter – will be with the commercial object of selling receiving apparatus, the answer is obvious’: the manufacturers.” Prosser, p10

84 McIntyre, p120. Frances Stevenson was the second wife of David Lloyd George both in the sense that he was in a relationship and had a separate home with her before his first wife died and that she became his wife in law after his first wife died.

85 Briggs, Golden Age, p154

86 “The BBC motto, Nation Shall Speak Peace Unto Nation, is… derived from an early Semitic language exhortation, from the Old Testament prophet, Isaiah, an Israelite [Isaiah 2:4].” Jews and the British Broadcasting Corporation (1922-1953), Michael Jolles, 2004.

87 Jewish Telegraphic Agency report, April 13th 1931.

For the previously posted parts of this study, click here for Part 1, click here for Part 2, and click here for Part 3.

Support independent scholarship. Subscribe to Horus.

The murky origins of the BBC – Part 2

This series of posts covering the topic of the unsavoury origins of the BBC is re-posted by kind permission of The Occidental Observer, where the original article can be found in full at this link. This is Part 2 of 4 parts.

Chaos of the ether

The American government and its favoured business partners had effectively nationalised wireless technology to an extent sufficient for the needs of the navy. The private, small-scale use of the same technology was of doubtful legality but had occurred sporadically in both the US and UK after it became possible. The US Secretary of Commerce from March, 1921, Herbert Hoover, a ‘co-operationist’ (between the government and the largest businesses), issued a hopeful decree: “There were … an estimated 14,000 amateur radio operators and in January 1922 the Department of Commerce ordered them to stop sending signals[.]”. 21 He had already attempted unsuccessfully to deprive small companies of radio licences, but for his purposes the Radio Act of 1912 had been found wanting. Thus “Hoover called his first radio conference in Washington DC from 27 February to 2 March 1922 to ask for industry advice on regulation.” 22 David Sarnoff had by then already been a leading ‘industry adviser’ for the best part of a decade and was an advocate for the interests of RCA, which were then largely in manufacturing and selling wireless equipment.

In Britain, according to Asa Briggs, “[d]uring the first years of broadcasting experience it was not distaste for American advertising which influenced the first British critics of American broadcasting, but alarm at the ‘chaos of the ether’ in the United States.” 23 That alarm was carried across the Atlantic by F. J. Brown, the British Post Office’s Assistant Secretary, who attended the conference in February 1922 and transcribed a speech by Hoover. Hoover argued for broadcasting to be distinctly more restricted and centralised than the press and raised the threat of “material of public interest” being “drowned in advertising chatter”, though he “did not say that it was already happening. … The conference recommended an outright ban on ‘direct’ advertising citing a shortage of wavelengths; a decision Brown would highlight upon his return to London.” 24

As Ian McIntyre says, in Britain “…the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1904 vested the power to license all transmitters and receivers in the Post Office”; the Post Office was not yet licencing any transmission other than occasional experiments. 25 The BBC-approved historian Briggs treats Brown’s portrayal as accurate:

“The multiplicity of radio stations and the scarcity of wavelengths led to interference and overlapping, ‘a jumble of signals’ and a ‘blasting and blanketing of rival programmes’. Even in America itself, despite its tradition of free enterprise, there was pressure for government ‘policing of the ether’. The government’s powers… were quite inadequate to control the new medium. A few Americans were even tempted to look with approval on the British Post Office.” 26

Yet, according to David Prosser, who attends more closely to the details,

“ ‘…so-called interference by amateur radio operators was exaggerated’. The real problem was that early radio transmitters could not adhere to a wavelength with any degree of accuracy and receivers similarly tended to drift.” 27

Interference among stations appears to have been imaginary at the time Brown reported back. “Reports of actual interference between stations would not appear until October (by which time negotiations to establish the BBC were concluded), and then only on one occasion in New York.” 28 Brown himself reported hearing radio in America without interference. “That Brown was ‘certain’ stations interfered with one another, yet what he heard was ‘quite clear’, remains a puzzle. Pressed on this question in later evidence to a parliamentary committee, Brown admitted ‘chaos’ may have been an exaggeration but ‘experts’ had assured him ‘there was a good deal’.” 29

The ‘chaos of the ether’ was less an empirical statement than an implicitly normative one based on growing opposition among businessmen and politicians to competition; the “tradition of free enterprise” mentioned by Briggs had already been partially supplanted by ‘progressive’, cartelist ‘co-operation’ from Morgan, Rockefeller, Kuhn, Loeb and other major business interests and politicians since at least the turn of the century. 30 To allow a market in broadcasting would go against their wishes. Additionally, from the start, the manufacturers of wireless equipment were important military contractors. The broadcasting operations established on either side of the Atlantic became seen as strategic assets by the state, as became especially evident in the Second World War.

Difficulty of selection

According to Prosser, when Brown returned to London, he found that “the Postmaster General faced mounting pressure from manufacturers and amateur enthusiasts to allow regular broadcasting. … By April, twenty-four firms had applied for transmitting licences”. Brown anonymously briefed The Times, saying that “…wireless has become a ‘perfect craze’ with ‘a great deal of mutual interference between stations … [that] the [U.S.] Government has had to appoint a committee with a view to imposing restrictions’.” 31

Brown’s selective reporting helped make the case for a highly restrictive application of the broadcasting laws in Britain, the likes of which Hoover wanted for the USA but was at that time unable to secure. Briggs attributes to Brown’s advice an answer by his superior, the Postmaster-General, Frederick Kellaway, in Parliament in April 1922.

Kellaway asserted that “a large number of firms broadcasting … would result only in a sort of chaos” which would compel him “to lay down very drastic regulations indeed for the control of wireless broadcasting”, which, nevertheless, Kellaway said was “what we are now doing at the beginning”. 32 The deception succeeded. “Within three weeks, the Wireless Sub-committee agreed that broadcasting should be allowed between the wavelengths 350-425 metres from 5 PM – 11 PM weekdays and all day on Sundays and the decision was made that advertising should be prohibited.” 33 “[N]ews not previously published in the Press” would “be banned”. 34 Most aspiring broadcasters were ruled out. “In early May, Kellaway announced that a ‘limited number of radio telephone broadcasting stations’ were to be permitted, but this time added that only ‘bona fide manufacturers of wireless apparatus’ were invited to… ‘cooperate’,”,a euphemism for forming a cartel. Kellaway stated that, faced with “the difficulty of selection” among applicants, limiting the number of providers was necessary. 35 Thus, in the first place, “the problem to which a monopoly was seen as a solution by the Post Office was one of Civil Service administration. The view that a monopoly in broadcasting was better for the listener was to come later.”36

Frederick Kellaway Kellaway stated that he wanted “no danger of monopoly”; Prosser says this was an allusion to “Marconi’s market dominance”. 37 A statement from Godfrey Isaacs in April had implied that he expected or intended that Marconi would be granted sole control of broadcasting, probably because of its patents. 38 This did not eventuate, but at any rate, as Ronald Coase says, “the manufacturers’ main interest was not in the operation of a broadcasting service but in the sale of receiving sets” 39 The scheme soon to be agreed on and approved by the Post Office would oblige the public to buy from an approved list of suppliers. As McIntyre says, “[t]he origins of British broadcasting … were almost purely commercial” in that the manufacturers’ profits were a priority.40

Formation of the company

The Marconi company was ideally positioned to be the prime beneficiary of the Post Office’s scheme. Isaacs, more than anyone else, also determined what the scheme would be at a meeting of the ‘Big Six’ manufacturers in May 1922. A written account of the meeting was only discovered or revealed in 2018 and, according to Prosser, “[a]lthough the meeting was chaired by Sir Evelyn Murray, the Secretary of the Post Office, it is Godfrey Isaacs, the managing director of Marconi, who emerges from the pages of this transcript as the dominant force in the room.” 41

Godfrey Isaacs Contrary to myths prevailing before the transcript was discovered, the Post Office “was prepared to issue multiple licences”, or at least to allow discussion along such lines, and “Metropolitan Vickers, the Manchester-based company formed out of British Westinghouse and still associated with its American former owner, resisted the idea of a single provider and called for competition”. 42 ‘Met-Vick’, “along with the Radio Communication Company … and the Western Electric Company … constituted the nucleus of a possible ‘second group’.” The ‘first group’ comprised Marconi, the General Electric Company plc (unrelated to the US firm of similar name), and British Thomson-Houston. As Briggs says:

“There were definite business links between the Marconi Company, GEC, and BTH. The Marconi Company and GEC jointly owned a valve-manufacturing company, while BTH, linked with the American General Electric Company, had a common interest with the Marconi Company through the Radio Corporation of America and a patent-sharing agreement.” 43

The Marconi group had the trump card. “Isaacs made clear that he didn’t believe a ‘transmitting station can be erected to work efficiently’ without using Marconi patented technology, which he would only make available to a single scheme.” 44 The strongest concurrence to Isaacs’ view came from Hugo Hirst (born Hugo Hirsch), chairman of GEC, which he had co-founded with his fellow Jewish immigrant from Germany, Gustav Binswanger. 45 After strenuously protesting, Metropolitan Vickers, the last resisters, “[fell] into line behind a single scheme” in June.46

Isaacs also successfully demanded a licence fee scheme that would guarantee revenue for the manufacturers. Thus “[w]hat emerged was a single broadcaster operating at arms-length from the Post Office providing a ‘public service’ with national content shared between regional stations, funded by a licence fee with advertising prohibited.” 47 Historian of the Marconi company Tim Wander credits Isaacs with “deftly negotiat[ing] a coming together of the disparate wireless-producing companies … in order to create the new British Broadcasting Company” and lauds him as “[t]he man who made the BBC”. 48

Footnotes

21 Marconi Proposes, David Prosser, Media History, Volume 25, Number 3, p5

22 Prosser, p3

23 The Birth of Broadcasting, Asa Briggs, 1961, p64

24 According to Hoover, “…the wireless has one definite field, and that is for the spread of certain pre-determined material of public interest from central stations. This material must be limited to news, to education, to entertainment, and the communication of such commercial matters as are of importance to large groups of the community at the same time. It is, therefore, primarily a question of broadcasting, and it becomes of primary public interest to say who is to do the broadcasting, under what circumstances, and with what type of material. It is inconceivable that we should allow so great a possibility for service, for news, for entertainment, for education, and for vital commercial purposes, to be drowned in advertising chatter, or to be used for commercial purposes that can be quite well served by our other means of communication.” Prosser, p4, 6. “Note also here the morphing of Hoover’s original phrase that it is ‘inconceivable’ that the ether should be used for ‘advertising chatter’ to there being already a ‘mass of “advertising chatter”’.” Prosser, p10

25 The Expense of Glory, Ian McIntyre, 1993, p120

26 Briggs, Birth, p64

27 Prosser, p5. Prosser is a BBC employee.

28 Prosser, p5. “The first issue of Radio Broadcast in May 1922 (published several weeks after Brown’s visit) counted ‘altogether, according to present available information … more than twenty stations which broadcast extensively’.” The magazine described the experience as one of “watching and waiting”, which “does not suggest the editor of Radio Broadcast felt the airwaves were overly congested by this time. In New York, where 15 stations operated on a single frequency, an agreement was reached in July 1922 for allocation of time. Reports of actual interference between stations would not appear until October (by which time negotations to establish the BBC were concluded), and then only on one occasion in New York.”

29 Prosser, p1-2. Brown “…failed to communicate another, and ultimately for American broadcasting, more significant development. Toll broadcasting, defined as ‘broadcasting where charge is made for the use of the transmitting station’…” Prosser, p6

30 See The Progressive Era, 2017, by Murray Rothbard which draws heavily on The Triumph of Conservatism, 1963, by Gabriel Kolko.

31 Prosser, p7-8

32 Briggs, Birth, p67-8

33 Prosser, p8

34 The BBC, Asa Briggs, 1985, p29

35 Coase, Origin, p208. See also Briggs, Birth, p159. The Daily Mail and Daily Express were among newspaper applicants for broadcasting permission. In the 1950s, selection must have ceased to be perceived as a difficulty, as the state selected various private consortia to broadcast alongside the BBC.

36 Coase, Origins, p210. My emphasis.

37 Prosser, p9 and McIntyre, p120

38 “A noteworthy omission in Mr. Isaacs’ statement is that he makes no reference to the repercussions which the Marconi Company plan would have on those of the other companies which desired to start broadcasting or to the problem of how the wavelengths would be allocated between the various companies.” British Broadcasting – A Study in Monopoly, Ronald Coase, 1950, p9

39 Coase, Study, p18-19

40 McIntyre, p120

41 Prosser, p11

42 Prosser p11, 13

43 Briggs, Birth, p108

44 Prosser, p11, 13, 16 and Briggs, Birth, p108

45 Prosser, p12. GEC was originally named after Binswanger.

46 Prosser, p13

47 Prosser, p16

48 Godfrey Isaacs and the BBC, Tim Wander, 2024. “We can identify the exact moment the BBC was conceived. It was not the Post Office that proposed the BBC, but Godfrey Isaacs of Marconi.” Prosser, p16

For the remaining parts of this study, click here for Part 1, click here for Part 3, and click here for Part 4.

The murky origins of the BBC – Part 1

Horus

This series of posts covering the topic of the unsavoury origins of the BBC is re-posted by kind permission of The Occidental Observer, where the original article can be found in full at this link. This is Part 1 of 4 parts.

Chaos of the Ether, Or “The Second Marconi Scandal”: On the origins of the BBC

In the last article I discussed the role of the press and broadcast media in undermining peace in the years preceding the British declaration of war against Hitler’s Germany. My research led me to examine the origins of the British Broadcasting Corporation, which I found to be closely related to the forming of the Radio Corporation of America (owner of the National Broadcasting Company) and the Columbia Broadcasting System, long-dominant and first two broadcasting corporations in the USA.

The role of the small Jewish minorities in the USA and Britain in the forming of each of these corporations, and in ownership and management of major media organisations ever since, has been of historic importance. By the late 1930s, the BBC, NBC and CBS were all actively assisting the forces aiming at war with Germany. In the cases of both Britain and America, the first two decades of what came to be called public broadcasting set the trend for the relationship between the media, the public, and the state that exists now.

Marconi and Isaacs

The BBC was intentionally founded as a broadcasting monopoly reliant on technology patented by Marconi’s Wireless Telegraph Company. The BBC’s founders followed the example of Guglielmo Marconi himself. According to James Crowther, Marconi “aimed from the first at a monopoly of wireless”, following “his first patent, the first in wireless, with every possible patent of each conceivable improvement”, trying to “establish an impregnable defensive position” around his innovations.1 His family wealth and connections “helped him to secure financial support for founding the first wireless company in 1897”.2 An American subsidiary followed. The Marconi Company produced a series of innovations but was of limited financial success under Marconi’s management.3 Looking to delegate so as to focus on research, in 1909 Marconi was recommended “a very young but fairly experienced businessman”, Godfrey Isaacs, by whom he was impressed, “chiefly because of [Isaacs’] City connections, and his influence with finance houses in London and Europe.” After a trial period, Isaacs became Marconi’s managing director.4 In March the following year, his brother Rufus, Liberal MP for Reading, became Solicitor-General in the government of Herbert Asquith, and in October the same year became Attorney-General and the second professing Jew in a British cabinet.5

Marconi and Godfrey Isaacs

Godfrey Isaacs “set out first to consolidate the Company’s hold on the key wireless patents. Then he sought to increase turnover by offering new technical services, by using aggressive salesmanship to capture business from rivals in established markets, and by building up the financial interest of the parent company in associate companies abroad.”6 Guglielmo Marconi had lobbied the British government to adopt his ‘imperial wireless chain’ project, which would create a vast state monopoly with his firm as the sole supplier. Largely due to the persistence of the new managing director and his “vague threats about the possibility of selling the Marconi system to Germany if the British government was not interested”, the government took the proposal with increasing seriousness, eventually contracting Marconi as the construction supplier—less than the full monopoly sought but a lucrative and prestigious contract.7

In March 1912, “having virtually concluded the dealings with the English government”, Isaacs and Marconi travelled to New York, “ostensibly for a legal action against the American Marconi Company’s chief rival, the United Wireless Company of America, over a question of patent infringements.” United Wireless was in a perilous state due to corruption and mismanagement and the Marconi action aimed to “eliminate their rival” before new owners could revive it and “obtain the assets” of the company; in order to benefit by making use of the newly-acquired assets, Marconi needed to increase its working capital by issuing new shares. “The directors of American Marconi insisted that, before they would agree to the increase in capital, the English company should guarantee the ‘whole amount to be subscribed’.”8

The assets were acquired successfully. The parent company’s aggressive attempts to enact the guarantee, and the coincidence of the RMS Titanic disaster in April, which caused a surge of demand for Marconi’s ship-to-shore communication devices, led to the infamous Marconi Scandal of that year; Godfrey and Rufus Isaacs, with their brother Harry, along with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, David Lloyd George, and a senior government whip, Alexander Murray, were accused of insider trading, though were not found by Parliament to have done wrong.9,10 The Postmaster-General, Herbert Samuel (born Eliezer ben Pinchas Shmuel), the first professing Jew in a British cabinet, was accused of favourable treatment of Marconi’s imperial wireless project.11

Herbert Samuel

David Sarnoff and RCA

The career of David Sarnoff, a Jewish immigrant to the US from a village near Minsk, began at the American Marconi Company. Sarnoff appears to have excelled as a wireless operator when wireless technology was primarily used for shipping communication. Guglielmo Marconi had expected his own innovations to result in ‘wireless telephony’ between two individual parties. According to Ronald Coase, in about November 1916 Sarnoff wrote to Isaacs envisaging “the possibility of a broadcasting service”, wherein sound would be transmitted openly to all those with the ability to receive and listen to it. 12

Sarnoff, at the age of 25, had in the US already become a “spokesman for the industry, in his capacity as secretary of the Institute of Radio Engineers”. 13 When the USA declared war on Germany in April 1917, the government “took control of all high-powered radiotelegraphy stations, including those of the Marconi Company”. 14 By the end of 1919, the government, especially the Department of the Navy and the protectionist element in Congress, compelled American Marconi to yield its assets to the new Radio Corporation of America, which, according to Eugene Lyons, was “the old American Marconi Company in a revised corporate form, with major ownership and dominant control vested in General Electric”. RCA’s articles of incorporation obviated foreign control. 15 Owen Young, the first chairman of RCA, was a senior executive at General Electric, which was firmly aligned with the business and political interests centred upon J P Morgan. 16

David Sarnoff began at RCA as the commercial manager, but with great influence over the whole company. As Eugene Lyons describes:

“At the time RCA was born, research engineers … were concentrating on a transmitter for radiotelephony. Point-to-point communication still seemed the essence of the challenge. Almost at once Sarnoff began to press them to switch priorities, to concentrate their energies on apparatus for household reception and transmission geared to the same purpose.” 17

Sarnoff’s intention of bringing about a broadcasting service required the ‘pooling’ of patents held by RCA with those of other, potentially rival, firms. As Lyons says,

“Young’s business acumen solved the problem by drawing Westinghouse into the GE-RCA pool. Through an agreement that became effective in mid-1921, the Westinghouse storehouse of radio patents and licenses became accessible to GE and RCA. In return, Westinghouse won a 40 percent share in all manufacturing for RCA, with GE retaining 60 percent for itself.”

United Fruit also owned some important wireless patents and joined the ‘Radio Group’ patent pool. 18

David Sarnoff

Sarnoff’s long-term strategy consisted of gathering and leveraging patents and excluding most, or if possible, all rivals from being able to compete; thus, though RCA separated from Marconi, both companies were led by men driving at very similar cartelist or monopolist strategies relying on Marconi’s patent power.19 Historians, especially Lyons, portray Sarnoff as a public-spirited visionary, but even the most laudatory accounts clearly show that he resembled a baron ruling a fief, and was as willing to deprive the public of the benefits of innovation as he was to deliver them. 20

Footnotes:

1 Six Great Inventors (3rd ed.), James Crowther, 1960, p138

2 TheMarconi Scandal and Related Aspects of British Anti-Semitism, 1911-1914, Kenneth Lunn, 1978, p1

3 Lunn, p2

4 Lunn, p3

5 The ability of Jews to sit in Parliament owed to the lobbying of Lionel de Rothschild in the previous century. Lionel’s friend Benjamin Disraeli was of Jewish ancestry but professed Christianity.

6 Marconi, W P Jolly, 1972, p190

7 Lunn, p222

8 Lunn, p4-5

9 David Sarnoff, Eugene Lyons, 1966, p60. Also see Lunn, p4-5. Eugene Lyons, a biographer of Sarnoff, was also a Jewish immigrant from the same village and was Sarnoff’s junior by seven years.

10 “[GK] Chesterton… made much of the fact that Godfrey Isaacs had been at the head of or implicated in no less than twenty bankrupted companies, and someone with a sandwich board with words to this effect had wandered up and down the street outside Godfrey’s office.” https://counter-currents.com/2016/03/the-marconi-scandal/

11 We mention five different Postmaster-Generals in this essay; it was a vital position in relation to telecommunications.

12 Coase adds “doubtless the same idea had occurred to others.” The Origin of the Monopoly of Broadcasting in Great Britain, Ronald Coase, Economica (New Series), Volume 14, Number 55, August 1947, p190.

13 Lyons, p75

14 Lyons, p76

15 Lyons, p80-4

16 J P Morgan, son of the famous financier of the same name, had influenced the US in favour of joining the Great War on Britain’s side and profited enormously from the outcome. Morgan partners, and Morgan senior himself, had since the start of the century been leading advocates of ‘progressivism’, ‘preparedness’ for war and ‘elasticity’ in money.

17 Lyons, p97

18 Lyons, p94-5. “All manufacturing was to be done by GE, all marketing and communications services rested with RCA. By means of a cross-licensing arrangement, each organization had full access to wireless patents held by the other. Not a word was said, forthrightly, about broadcasting; even at the end of 1919 its business potential was underrated or ignored—except by the commercial manager.” Lyons, p84

19 Sarnoff became president of RCA in 1929.

20 To be discussed in a future article (On theoccidentalobserver.net).

For the remaining parts of this study, click here for Part 2, click here for Part 3, and click here for Part 4.

THE CONSENSUS IS GROWING – THE BBC IS NO LONGER FIT FOR PURPOSE

It should be obvious to anyone who reads this blog that the BBC is heavily biased in favour of everything that is destructive of our values, our culture, our nation and our race. Not only that, but that it has been so biased since at least the early 1960s, when the obnoxious Hugh Greene was appointed as Director-General.

"We don't really care if they complain." - Hugh Greene, Director-General BBC 1960-69.

Greene was reputed to have said in private, at the time of his appointment, “We are going to use this organisation to change the way the rest of the country thinks. We want them to see stuff they don’t like. We don’t really care if they complain” (italics added). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Greene. It was he who made the presumptuous statement in 1968 that “we are all Marxists now”.

To understand what has been going on, we must remember that, like all national institutions that have been captured by the Left, the BBC has to continually engage in a policy of deception, so that its nefarious activities can remain hidden from the public.

What they tell us….

For example, the BBC regularly assures everyone that it maintains the highest standards of impartial news reporting and analysis. It tells us that its drama and other entertainment programmes reflect life in modern Britain. It would have us believe that its treatment of contemporary history is objective and untainted by any bias for or against any particular point of view or political affiliation. And they protest that in matters that are controversial, all sides are represented in debates, discussions, and interviews.

If any listener or viewer feels that any programme or presenter has contravened this high standard then a complaints procedure is in place, including the right of appeal. Now we have Ofcom too, as an extra layer of protection, supposedly.

The BBC’s 2016 Charter commits the Corporation to “provide duly accurate and impartial news, current affairs and factual programming to build people’s understanding of all parts of the United Kingdom and of the wider world”. The same Charter also commits the Corporation to “championing freedom of expression” (ha,ha).

… and what they do

The reality is quite different. The BBC routinely ignores its Charter. Whilst hiding behind a veneer of respectability, the Corporation spews out heavily biased news and views, the re-writing of history, woke poison, and misinformation designed to confuse its viewers and listeners, especially vulnerable young people.

Even establishment figures are seeing through it all

Lately there’s been a development that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. Some establishment politicians and former BBC employees are accusing the Corporation of being heavily biased in favour of allowing a never-ending stream of foreign migrants into Britain.

That such a policy is turning into a disastrous large-scale catastrophe for Britain hardly needs saying here. People like us have been saying that since at least the 1960s. Recent migrant riots in France, where cities like Paris have had large areas reduced to smoking rubble, and anarchy reigns, only underline the insanity of “open door” immigration policies.

Now we have Sir Iain Duncan Smith, the former Conservative Party leader, saying that the BBC’s ingrained political bias has led to an “instinctive cultural sneer” when covering news about immigration. According to him, the BBC is now a branch of the “liberal Left”, completely out of tune with the public that it is supposed to serve. For such a long-standing and senior member of the Conservative Party to say that, things must be extremely bad.

An “institutional liberal bias”

And who would have imagined, even just a few years ago, that John Humphrys, the leading BBC newsreader and presenter of the odious Today Programme for many years, would now be accusing his former employers of having an “institutional liberal bias” and, again, of being out of touch with public opinion. Needless to say, he made these sack-worthy accusations on his retirement from the BBC.

Helen Boaden worked for the BBC for over 30 years as a news director at BBC Radio and BBC News, and Controller of BBC 7 and BBC Radio 4. She said as far back as 2013 that the BBC had a “deep liberal bias”, and did not take seriously the views of organisations that were opposed to mass migration into Britain (such as Migration Watch).

A glance at our Campaign to Abolish the BBC will show that the corporation

1. has abandoned all pretence at being impartial,

2. is engaged in a serious and sustained attempt to rewrite history from an extreme left wing viewpoint, and

3. has a so-called complaints procedure that is nothing but a sick joke.

In view of all this, we at Anglo-Celtic are running a series of posts, of which this is the first, to enlarge on what we say in our Campaign to Abolish the BBC.