The whole Jeremy Corbyn phenomenon is very strange.
From the way some people tell it, it's as if Beatlemania has been reborn in the cause of an elderly, bearded far-leftist.
Of course, much of that mania may be down to the distorting efforts of left-dominated social media echo chambers like Twitter, whose views bear very little resemblance to what most people actually think, as well as a lot of media hype and a few probably dodgy opinion polls....
...but there's no denying (I think) that Mr Corbyn is doing himself proud at the moment.
His quiet, earnest, straightforward manner seems to be 'authentic'. His temper when questioned too strongly (as on Channel 4 News) also seems 'authentic'. His lack of a sense of humour seems 'authentic' as well.
And politicians being 'authentic' really does seem to matter, to varying degrees, to many people. Nigel Farage does it for some; Jeremy Corbyn does it for others. (Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper, it seems, less so).
Jeremy Corbyn became an MP just about the time when I began to be interested in politics. He's been around a long time, and in all that time I've never thought of him as anything other than a very-far-left, Israel-loathing, Hamas-Hizbollah-friendly, pro-Sinn Fein Labour Party fringe player, part of the 'awkward squad', utterly contemptible and unimportant.
And, yet, now here he is, apparently poised to win the leadership of the UK's main opposition party - which is truly extraordinary.
And, even more extraordinary to me, is the fact that - like Sue - I've found him oddly plausible and weirdly appealing. Given how little large parts of the public know or care about party politics, couldn't he be onto a potentially popular thing, if he keeps this up? Could those Tories4Corbyn be laughing on the other side of their faces in years to come?
(My guess is 'no, they won't be', but what do I know? The Tories could self-destruct into civil war after the EU referendum. UKIP might fail to get it together despite the open goal given to them by both main parties. The Lib Dems might revive a bit. The SNP could fall back (if Jeremy C is Labour leader). Who knows what will happen in 2020?)
Anyhow, Mr Corbyn's interview with Andrew Marr today was very oddly plausible. He's absolutely mastered the knack (if knack it be) of sounding moderate and commonsensical when saying all manner of (when you step back a bit) extreme things. No wonder the sort of journalists who fling the term 'populist' at UKIP are now flinging it at Jeremy Corbyn too.
And that brings me (at last) to the question of BBC bias.
That left-wing echo chamber on Twitter is going mad at the BBC for being anti-Corbyn. They are beginning to outnumber the cybernats in dominating the #bbcbias hashtag.
Even Andy Marr got it in the neck today on Twitter (en masse) for being anti-Corbyn.
That said, I've also seen a comment at another place (one strongly tending to the Right) accusing Andrew Marr of giving Corbyn the Magnificent a "cuddly" interview, "a cosy fireside chat".
"Complaints from both sides. BBC must be getting it about right, #BackingtheBBC", as Professor Brian Cox et al might say.
No, Professor Brian Cox, Not at all. It means absolutely no such thing. It might mean than Andrew Marr got it about right on this occasion, but it doesn't mean that the BBC as a whole is getting it right. There could be an anti-Corbyn bias at the BBC, or pro-Corbyn bias. The only way to find out is to listen and judge the matter as fairly as possible (given that the BBC won't be doing so, publicly at least).
I, frankly, haven't seen enough of it to judge. Given the tenor of, say, Gavin Esler's comments on Dateline London yesterday and Andrew Marr's questioning of Mr C. today, however, I can see why some pro-Corbyn viewers and listeners might have detected an anti-Corbyn tone. Gavin was a little bit sneery about him yesterday and Andrew Marr did try, rather gently but nonetheless persistently, to paint Jeremy Corbyn as a communist today (but isn't he?)
Yet both also seemed fascinated rather than out-and-out horrified by the Corbyn phenomenon, in a way that they never seemed about, say, the Nigel Farage phenomenon. And the same, from what I've seen and heard, with Newsnight and Broadcasting House and PM.
So let's speculate: The BBC probably would, I think, have been far more comfortable with boring, snoring Yvette, or mascara-wearing NHS-loving Mids Staffs guy Andy, or Blairite Liz. Though many of them (the vast majority of them, by most accounts) swing left, Jeremy Corbyn is too left even for them, despite him having a certain lingering (radical chic) appeal (memories of their student days perhaps).
Am I onto something here? Or not?
Is the BBC pro-Corbyn, anti-Corbyn, confused or just being impartial?
Even David Vance at Biased BBC seems as uncertain and confused as I am about this. "So where does the BBC stand?", he asks.
A good question, David. Where does the BBC stand (if anywhere)?
