Saturday, 4 March 2017

Rough Dymond (continued)

This week's Feedback tackled the topic of Jonny Dymond's "satirical" pieces about Donald Trump's 100 Days on The World at One - including the notorious bit about Sweden, quoted above.

Many of the complaints aired echoed views aired hereabouts - that the piece was "very opinionated, emotional and ultimately uninformative", that it "seemed to cross the line from objective analysis into something more like derision or invective", and that it was" an error of judgement by the BBC" to include this type of content in a news programme. 

Two listeners then discussed the matter (both making their cases well). The more critical of the listeners described Jonny Dymond's pieces as "sneering" and more the kind of thing that Jeremy Hardy might do on The News Quiz than what you'd expect from WATO, adding:
The issue I have is that that sort of satire, it allows Jonny Dymond to present things maybe designed to come across fact. So when Jonny Dymond said about Sweden...I mean, obviously Trump got his facts completely wrong, but Jonny Dymond is mocking him for getting his facts wrong but then he goes on to claim that nothing ever happens in Sweden. He's presenting that as a fact, which isn't actually a fact.

Now, all credit to Feedback for discussing this in some detail, but  just read the response given to them by the makers of The World at One
Jonny Dymond's weekly reports for The World at One on the latest news from the White House are just part of our extensive coverage of the Trump presidency. We use a range of different reporting styles to engage with our audiences, providing impartial and accurate information. And it is no different for Jonny's reports.
None of which answers the point that Jonny's reports were neither impartial nor accurate.


  1. I expect 'feedback' needn't necessarily be critical so if the BBC want to turn the programme into an Archers love-in they can. It certainly is becoming less critical than in the past and the BBC certainly becomes less likely to admit that it got it wrong.
    I think Caroline Raphael was the last, (and only), person to admit that the listeners might have a point.

  2. We use a wide range of reporting styles. Some of these are reports which have been checked to reasonable degree, and are believed to be true. This is what was once referred to as “news’. But we are also including items in which we have allowed the reporter's imagination to roam freely. We are now also referring to this as news. We remind our listeners and viewers that truth is relative.

  3. Name any style - Jonny can be biased in it. He's versatile.

  4. I heard this at the time and thought it the most biased piece of ad hominem crap that has been spouted by the BBC in its "news output"-and there is plenty competition.
    Utterly disgraceful...and felt Bolton used Chomsky Rules- limit the debate between really narrow parameters...but then argue it as it it matters, with lots of heat and noise. But no light.
    It wasn`t funny-wan`t helpful-wasn`t insightful-was simply a sound off from one of the BBCs drugs casualties able to traipse the world at our expense.
    And a pack of lies in that Sweden HAS had one or two issues-but it being a threat to the EU, an unwelcome look at Muslim crime and jihad?...well, let`s not lift THAT particular stone will we?
    Apart from all that?...fair and impartial as usual.

  5. Isn't "nothing ever happens in Sweden" clearly a "no famous Belgians" style joke? I mean, yes it's unhelpful to intermingle reporting and opinion, but I doubt anyone left with the impression that Sweden is literally crime-free...