Is the chair of the PAC biased? - live blog (up to a point)

Watching the start of the parliamentary Public Affairs Committee's committee grilling of Mark Thompson, Chris Patten et al, I was struck by PAC chairman (and Labour MP) Margaret Hodge's opening declaration of love for the BBC, and her confidence that that love is shared by us, the public - along with her declaration of interest that her daughter works for the BBC.

Indeed she does.

Following a tip from Beeboidal at Biased BBC, Ms Hodge's daughter Lizzi Watson has been a producer at Newsnight, so far as I can see, for well over a decade. (See here for 2001 and here for 2013). She was also a producer on BBC News 24 (around 2004), when the one of the BBC's most prominent political reporters, James Landale, called her “our producer, the indefatigable and incomparable Lizzi Watson.”

Margaret Hodge herself was a minister at the Culture, Media and Sport committee from 2007-10 so, unless Lizzi left the BBC for a while, it looks as if she would have been working at the BBC at that time.

Small world, isn't it?

Margaret Hodge, who seems to be on the BBC more than most other MPs (oh, for some stats to prove that!), has so far dominated this PAC committee, grilling (ex-BBC) Mark Thompson and Lucy Adams (current BBC HR head, who admitted a mistake over the issue) - "I’m not having any more lies this afternoon’" - but treating Lord Patten (ex-fellow politician, current head of the BBC Trust) with the mildest possible rebuke and a smile. ("PAC chairman bias!?!?!")

Ah, as time goes on Ms Hodge is taking a slightly smaller part, though she remains a dominating figure, and getting praise from the Telegraph for so doing  - and she's going after Mark Thompson - and Miss Adams, to a lesser extent - with a vengeance. ("Oh for goodness sake!", replied an exasperated Miss Adams). 

Lord Patten, so far, need not have turned up. He's spoken for about two minutes in the first hour and a half of this committee meeting. Is Margaret Hodge saving her fire for the present head of the BBC Trust for the end? 

Sir Michael Lyons, former Labour councillor, former BBC Trust head, is now (from around 16.45 pm) getting an pretty easy ride from Ms Hodge....

...well, what happened next it's impossible to say. The BBC News Channel pulled away from the coverage at that point.

Update 17.40 Watching Sky News, Tim Luckhurst, journalism professor at Kent University and former BBC editor, said that the committee failed to get to the bottom of 'who said what to who' (which I'd say is a spot-on assessment) and noted that it took one and a half hours (probably just about the time the BBC's coverage pulled away) for one of the BBC current or former staff to mention the concerns of the licence fee payer, which he said didn't reflect well on the BBC.

Update 17.55 Ross Hawkins on the BBC is saying that Lord Patten has been answering questions at the committee and defending the BBC Trust. We heard Ross's review of his defence, but no clips or counter-points. That that the part of the committee I most wanted to watch live. Thwarted!

Update 18.00 Having been thwarted I thought I'd check out the Telegraph live blog. There's nothing much above the line but the newest comments are suggesting to me that Lord Patten continued to get an easy ride:

angermanagement

20 minutes ago The whole tone changed when Patten spoke. Platitudes and blather. Criminal acts with licence fee money were being paraded before our eyes. And lies and cover ups demonstrated. Lyons like Patten started off with platitudes and was shown up for a liar.
Patten would be too if the MPs stopped sucking to him.
The whole bunch seem like underweight second rate and incompetent. You had a guy there on £280000 per annum who couldn't find an e mail. Says he!
Up til 5 mins ago a good attempt by the MPs. But why are they giving Patten a free ride??

The whole think was quite tense but didn't seem to get anywhere. No one's going anywhere as I result of this I'd say.

Margaret Hodge will have struck many viewers as a feisty interrogator, though what she achieved as a result I really, really can't say.

I'm sick of popcorn now. It was disappointing. The schadenfreude in the build up was so much more fun.

Update 18.15 I'll go with David Preiser at Biased BBC's summary here:

In the end, though, Hodge made it clear that nothing will come of this. This was apparently an excuse to air grievances and make a pretence of slapping a few wrists. She got to scold everyone, so can claim to have been tough and got it about right, but she said that this was all about protecting and saving and cherishing the BBC. It was fun hearing people mention DMI and Lonely Planet, but this was all a charade.

Nobody has to resign, nobody forced to apologize, nothing will happen. Job done.

Update 19.30 The award for the funniest review of today's PAC session goes to Iain Martin at the Daily Telegraph. "It was riveting stuff," he said. "I had no idea what on earth was going on, but my God it was gripping." Quite true.

He captures the modesty of that shrinking violet Chris Patten, "one of Britain's leading peerers over spectables", and the sort of man who "just sits there, eating his oysters, modestly". He also captures how Mark Thompson "said 'um' a lot but with such intensity that it was clear he really meant it".

And as for the lovely Lucy, "The HR director got a very tough time from her colleagues and from everyone else. This is the fate of the HR director down the ages". Indeed it is.

He also pinned down the "highly aggressive" "show trial"-like style of questioning from the show-boating MPs who never managed anywhere near that level of ferocity in the build up to the financial crash. If only that had, if only they had.

Clowns v experts

Having been at work all day, I've not heard much of Radio 4 - other than catching up with that Gus O'Donnell documentary and hearing PM as I drove home. 

I did, however, hear Steve Hewlett's interview with former BBC DG Mark Thompson on this afternoon's The Media Show and was struck by two things:

Firstly, the specific examples of 'wrong use of language' that Mark Thompson used to bolster his argument that "something has gone wrong with political language and it's making it harder to have serious public debates about important issues" in the UK and the US included a couple of recent examples from British politics - both from the Leave side of the EU referendum: "take back control" and "our Independence Day".  

And, secondly, that Steve Hewlett pushed a 'Roy Greenslade/Timothy Garton Ash (etc)' line of questioning on how the BBC had reported the referendum, and whether BBC guidelines should be changed to stop the BBC treating both sides of a referendum equally - or as Steve 'n' Mark put it, treating 'Coco the Clown' on one side with the same respect as a 'world-leading expert' on the other. 

Mark Thompson duly went along with Steve's line of questioning and agree that if there's another referendum it should be conducted differently by the BBC and that 'Coco the Clown' on one side shouldn't be accorded the same respect as the 'world-leading expert' on the other. 

I think it's not hard to guess where that kind of argument is intended to take us - especially if there's another referendum.

Lies, damned lies and the BBC

This week's Feedback featured an interview with Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, one of the four panellists on the BBC Trust's latest impartiality review - one looking at the corporation's use of statistics (and, largely, giving the BBC a clean bill of health). 

When Mr Johnson and Roger Bolton turned to the question of the EU referendum, it wasn't hard to guess where the BBC might take Mr Johnson's call for the BBC to be "braver" in the future: 

Roger Bolton: But you go further than that. You say 'braver'. It's not a question of just being informed, to explain things. It's being braver. Some people would say that would mean you're going to editorialise. 'Go on, tell us what you really think?', that sort of thing, And that's not  really the BBC's job. [Not that doesn't stop lots of BBC reporters from editorialising anyhow!]

Paul Johnson: Well, you can be brave by saying that something is highly likely to be true, as opposed to not. So if you look back at previous reviews that the BBC Trust have done - e.g. the reporting of climate change - there was a period during which what was reported was, you know, 'On the one hand some scientists think this. On the other hand some scientists think that' [Really? That's not how I remember the BBC behaving. They always seemed to be talking about the '97%' or the 'consensus' in the years before that impartiality review], and the braver thing to have done would have been to say, 'Well look. the vast majority of scientists think this thing, and there are these very tiny minority on the other hand who think the other and, therefore, we're going to say, you know, on the huge balance of probability, one thing is true and not the other'. And, actually, there are quite a lot of things were that is terribly important because simply telling people, 'Somebody says this. Somebody else says that', doesn't help inform.

Roger Bolton: Well, that's just what some people have said. There is...the idea of 'false balance'. But, I mean, it's alright talking about that in theory, and maybe it's OK talking about science, but when you're in the nitty-gritty of politics, such as the referendum campaign, and one side, for example, says...talks about the £350 million that we're going to get back [how typical of Roger Bolton to have chosen that particular stat rather than, say, the Treasury's '£4,300 worse off' claim!] then, you know, the BBC journalists are thinking, 'What do I do here?' Do you think they treated that issue properly?

Paul Johnson: Not in all circumstances, though - let's be blunt - the £350 million number was simply untrue, just straightforwardly untrue.

Roger Bolton: And you would like the BBC journalists to say, 'It's untrue'?

Paul Johnson: And there are...

Roger Bolton (interrupting): Would you like the BBC journalists to say, 'It's untrue'?

Paul Johnson: There are some places where they come very close to doing that, particularly in the 'fact check' part of the website [indeed they do - far too much so for some people], where it comes very close to doing that. More often it refers to the number as being 'disputed' or 'uncertain' [or 'controversial'] or what have you, and I think it should have been clear that this is a number that is not correct.

Roger Bolton: My thanks to Paul Johnson from the Institute of [sic] Fiscal Studies, whose statistics are always reliable.

All of which reminds me of something from an edition of The Andrew Marr Show a couple of weeks ago where former BBC DG Mark Thompson and Coco the Clown made their return after an earlier joint appearance on Eadio 4's The Media Show.

Again, it wasn't hard to figure out which side of the Brexit debate Coco was intended to represent (especially given the previous discussion about experts and people being fed up with them, a la Michael Gove):

Andrew Marr: And, of course, referendums change things completely, because here on the newspaper review, and all the rest, we had to balance Brexit versus non-Brexit in every case. 

Mark Thompson: So referendums present, I think, very difficult, possibly even, under the current rules, insuperable problems for broadcasters. You have imaginary parties. They’re temporary, they’re going to cease... 

Andrew Marr: In and Out, yeah. 

Mark Thompson: In and Out. They’re going to cease to exist the day that the vote happens, and yet you’ve got to treat them as if they are exactly equally balanced in the...in the polls. And in a sense, if...if one side, you know, produces an eminent, you know, economist, the other side produces, you know, Coco the Clown, they’re sort of treated as if they’re somehow equal. So I think there may be a case for looking at the rules for how referenda are...are covered in...in broadcasting.

In other words, Coco the Clown on one side shouldn't be accorded the same respect as the eminent economist on the other - a repeated call which continues to echo the gripes of aggrieved Remain supporters like Timothy Garton Ash, Roy Greenslade, and Feedback listeners who wanted the BBC to rubbish every 'clownish' Leave claim and to treat one side differently from the other if the BBC feels that side was right and the other wrong on any particular point....

....rather as Evan Davis did week in and week out during Newsnight referendum coverage anyhow!! (and it was always the Leave side which got the sharp end of the stick from Evan)...

...and just as Paul Johnson was calling for on Feedback.

If such people ever get their second referendum you can bet your bottom euro that they will lobby like maniacs to get the BBC's rules of engagement changed, and this BBC Trust impartiality review will doubtless help them down that road.

Just imagine a BBC that's even more off the leash 'next time around'!

All in the past?

There seems to be a pattern emerging. 

Several senior BBC figures - from Mark Thompson to Helen Boaden - have made various mea culpas about BBC bias in recent years. This is all for the good, and shows that those who criticised them for it at the time were right all along. 

These senior BBC figures, however, always seem to go on to say that such bias, however regrettable, is 'historic', 'a thing of the past', and that the corporation is now getting it about right.

This weekend the BBC's political editor Nick Robinson has backed up Helen Boaden's admission of 'liberal' bias over immigration, telling The Sunday Times's Oliver Thring that the BBC made a "terrible mistake" in the late 1990s and early 2000s in its approach to the issue. However, following the pattern, he goes on to say that things are hunky-dory now:

“In public life, in politics and, I accept, historically at the BBC [we] didn’t have a warts-and-all ... debate about immigration.” Some people at the BBC “thought it would unleash some terrible side of the British public”. But the corporation is “now getting it right”, he says, and his programme should only encourage this.

Well, yes, I think things are a bit better now than they were in the late 1990s and the early 2000s, but then the BBC's behaviour at the time was truly terrible and it's a low base for comparison. You many recall the remarkable evidence of last year's Prebble Report about the behaviour of BBC employees during Radio 4's Any Answers:

According to a former producer of Any Answers? who worked on the programme ten years ago, people ringing in to the telephonists who act as a first filter for the programme would probably have found that, if they said they wanted to come on air and say immigration was too high or was harming the country, they would not make it through to the next filter and on to air.

Plus, I certainly don't agree that the BBC is getting it right now, however much some parts of the organisation may be trying. There are still plenty of signs that the squeamishness of the late 1990s and early 2000s is still manifesting itself across the BBC's output.  

It's 'three steps forward, two steps back' all the time, isn't it, with the BBC and their admissions of bias? 


Update 6/1: It's almost as if the Daily Mail reads this blog. Their editorial today seems strangely familiar!:

First came ex-director general Mark Thompson's admission that the BBC had a 'massive' Left-wing bias and, for years, had been 'very reticent' discussing immigration. 

Then, last year, it was the turn of outgoing head of news Helen Boaden to confess that the Corporation had a 'deep liberal bias' that prevented it from taking 'seriously' the views of campaign groups such as MigrationWatch.

Now BBC political editor Nick Robinson says his employer made a 'terrible mistake' in censoring the public's legitimate fears about the strain being put on British society by an unprecedented number of new arrivals. 

'We worried too much about airing views that might offend some viewers and listeners and not enough by the offence caused to people who did not hear their own concerns reflected on air,' he said yesterday. 

Unusually, Mr Robinson made his remarks while still in the prime of his BBC career. 

Normally executives are scurrying out of the door (with a large pay-off from the taxpayer) before they admit just how outrageously slanted their coverage of immigration and the EU had been. 

But what Mr Robinson has in common with his ex-colleagues is the utter delusion that such bias is all a thing of the past and the BBC 'has now changed'. 

Consider, for instance, how the Corporation gave excited blanket coverage two months ago to a heavily spun report by University College London, claiming that migrants have made a 'substantial' contribution to Britain's public finances.

Yet, when the UCL's own Emeritus Professor of Statistics warned last week that the research was 'fatally flawed', a BBC still dominated by liberal bien-pensant opinion did not report a word of it.

As with the Labour Party, we suspect the BBC's only real regret over immigration is that its shameful attempt to silence all public debate on the subject did not succeed.

Tomorrow morning...

Damian Thompson, editor of the Daily Telegraph's blogs, once wrote that Radio 4's Sunday programme "offers perhaps the most undiluted liberal bias to be found anywhere on the BBC". 

After paying close attention to it for some time now, I'm far from inclined to disagree with him.

Thus, I'm expecting a Noah's flood-style deluge of liberal bias on tomorrow's special edition of the programme on the highly-charged subject of 'Religion and Immigration'. 

My heart sank when I heard this was coming up, and reading the programme's website in advance hasn't exactly allayed my fears. 

It looks as if it's going to be a blatantly biased, pro-immigration edition of the programme, and just the kind of programme BBC types - Mark Thompson, Helen Boaden, Nick Robinson - claim is a thing of the biased past.

Well, we'll see.

For starters, it appears that Edward Stourton's three main guests, presumably appearing throughout the course of the programme, will be Rev Rose Hudson-Wilkin, Dame Julia Neuberger and Douglas Murray. 

If so, a pro-immigration tilt will be guaranteed. 

Rev Rose, chaplain to Mr Speaker Bercow and H.M. the Queen, is very keen on immigration, recently saying that immigration had made British people less emotionally cold and blaming "plain ignorance" for opposition to it. Dame Julia is also strongly pro-immigration, and wants us all to welcome migrants with open arms. Only Douglas Murray will provide a contrasting sceptical voice on immigration. 

That makes it a classic biased BBC two-against-one discussion in favour of immigration.

The idea that Edward Stourton might intervene to seriously redress this imbalance strikes me as deeply improbable.

What else is the programme's website promising for tomorrow?

Well, Edward is going to Luton to meet Rev Martin Burrell, "chaplain to the Gypsies, Travellers and Roma people of St Albans, to find out how the Romanian Roma community and the Church of England have been working together." 

So we can expect another strongly pro-immigration voice there, ready (no doubt) to dismiss people's concerns about immigration and the Roma. 

Then there's former coalition minister Sarah Teather who will talk to Edward "to discuss why a month long Jesuit retreat helped her reach the decision to step down at the next election and how religion can inject humanity into the debate on immigration" - i.e. another strongly pro-immigration voice guaranteed to lay into opponents of immigration with a vengeance. 

And next?: "Every year thousands of immigrants travel to the UK to start a new life. Kevin Bocquet meets the chaplains of Manchester airport who minister to people from all over the world" - so, I think we can safely expect yet more sympathetic, pro-immigration voices to add to the...ahem...mix. 

The only other feature mentioned is a piece on child abuse "within the African church community" (i.e. Christians) and concerns about witchcraft related child abuse. "Trevor Barnes investigates what happens when religion and immigration go wrong", the blurb says. A downside to immigration, eh?

From this it certainly looks, doesn't it, as if Damian Thompson will again be proved completely correct in saying that Sunday "offers perhaps the most undiluted liberal bias to be found anywhere on the BBC"?

I won't foam at the mouth about it until I actually hear it though. Perhaps hope will triumph over experience and Sunday will go against type and behave like an allegedly even-handed BBC programme really ought to behave. Maybe, just maybe, the programme's pre-broadcast blurb is giving a seriously distorted take on what's actually coming up. 

I do hope so. I really do. I would really like to be pleasantly surprised by tomorrow's Sunday. 

Roger Bolton v John Humphrys

When former BBC director general Mark Thompson admitted that the BBC had once had a "massive left-wing bias", Feedback presenter Roger Bolton declared himself "baffled and rather irritated" by Mr Thompson's comments, and sounded off in a letter to the BBC's in-house magazine Ariel, dismissing the idea of left-wing bias at the BBC out of hand. 

Whenever that sniffy tone enters his voice on Feedback when the subject of political bias crops up, I always remember that Roger Bolton thinks I'm wrong about the BBC's political bias - its left-liberal mindset - and that he doesn't believe there is any such problem, and has said so. 

Indeed, his views are so well-known on this subject that he should, perhaps, absent himself from any interviews on Feedback where the issue at hand is 'liberal bias at the BBC', in the same way that John Humphrys absents himself from interviews on the subject of assisted suicide (on which he has strong public views).

Such thoughts arose during this week's Feedback. 

I began by wondering if he found himself equally "baffled" and "irritated" by John Humphrys's admission (to the Radio Times) that the BBC did have [past tense] a "broadly liberal" bias, especially on such issues as immigration and the EU, and that it was "over-managed".

I'd say from his tone on this week's Feedback, the answer to that sounded very much like 'Yes'. 

In his introduction he said that John Humphrys's remarks had been "seen by the Daily Mail and some listeners as confirming their long-held suspicions" (obsessed with the Daily Mail, aren't they, these liberal BBC types!), and this is how he introduced John Humphrys later on:

The BBC's long-standing critics lapped it up and his comments were - predictably - headline news in a number of papers, many of which are keen to see a smaller BBC and the end of the licence fee. Was Mr Humphrys accurately reported and, if so, does he regret the timing of his remarks? 

I'll transcribe the actual interview, for posterity's sake: 

Roger Bolton: [I] asked him first whether he has been correctly quoted. 

John Humphrys: Pretty much. Well maybe not the "grotesquely", maybe that was a little bit of hyperbole, but "seriously"...let's substitute "seriously" over-managed.

Roger Bolton: Seriously over-managed. 

John Humphrys: It used...it is getting better. I have to say that, Roger. Things are improving. You do see...(laughing)...You don't necessarily see the odd head rolling but you do see a few changes and slightly fewer managers - though I haven't counted them all. It's the sense you get. 

Roger Bolton: There is a question mark about whether you should say it publicly at this time, because...

John Humphrys: Why not? Public money!

Roger Bolton: Well, some people would say (1) because there's a campaign going against the BBC and, therefore, you're aiding its enemies. that's one argument...

John Humphrys: Well, I think that's nonsense. Can I deal with that? 

Roger Bolton: Yes please do.

John Humphrys: ...because of course it's nonsense...aiding its enemies! The idea that presenters like me [just listen to Roger Bolton's heavy breathing here. It sounds like he's hyperventilating] or anybody in the BBC should take the view that the BBC is owned by the managers or by some other force than the licence payers is...and that is grotesque. The BBC...and this will sound pompous, forgive me...The BBC is owned by the viewers and the listeners, the licence payers, and they should be told what people who work for the BBC think about it. They've a right to know that, it seems to me, and it's not being disloyal. It's being exactly the opposite - it's being loyal.

Roger Bolton: And it's mood music to my ears [it didn't sound like it!]...and..er...

John Humphrys: (laughing) It ought to be!

Roger Bolton: ...and when I also read in the paper you occasionally contribute to, the Mail, that David Dimbleby's being told to go easy on...

John Humphrys: Really?

Roger Bolton: ...on the Labour Party person in a Question Time discussion, well you know what David would do to that, what you would do to that, what I would do to that....

John Humphrys: Yes. There'd be a very short sentence delivered, I think, the second word of which would be "off". 

Roger Bolton: So when people say "admit conspiracies on the BBC about this and that", have you been part of a conspiracy on Europe or on immigration or on anything like that?

John Humphrys: No I haven't but what I've detected...and more importantly, much more importantly, what a very large number of our viewers and listeners have detected over the years...is that we have been broadly liberal...that's the phrase I use...

Roger Bolton (incredulously): What do you mean by that?

John Humphrys: What I mean by that is that when we have considered Europe for instance we've considered it...Look, let me go back just a step. I was born during the war and I was brought up in a country that was terrified of war happening again. That was the thing that scared us all. It was always there. The spectre was always there during my childhood, and my youth as well for that matter. And anything that came along that might result in no more wars in Europe was to be welcomed, was to be embraced, was to be encourage, and so when the European Union came along a lot of us thought, "Absolutely wonderful! No more wars...

Roger Bolton: Yes but you're inviting..but John..the point surely is this: It's not what people may feel in the BBC. It's whether they control those feelings and remain as objective as possible. So to make the claim that the BBC was liberal is to say that its policies and its decision-making were liberal, not necessarily that those....

John Humphrys: No, not really. I made the claim that the mindset was liberal. So, when somebody suggested...might suggest on this programme or others, 'Let's do so-and-so', a particular politician who was known for his anti-European...his sceptical views...people would tend to say, 'Urgh, a bit bonkers, isn't he? Hmm, well maybe not', and maybe he wouldn't then be interviewed. So it wasn't rampant. I'm not suggesting...I didn't suggest in that conversation...that Radio Times conversation...that it was rampant, that we were kind of foaming-at-the-mouth pro-Europeans, you know, federalists to a man and women. We weren't, but there was a mindset that thought that the right approach to Europe should be supportive. So, no, of course there was no conspiracy, but it was a mindset, it was an approach. And I think if you do an analysis of our coverage during those years, I think that's the impression you would gain as well.

Roger Bolton: Isn't the problem, for you in particular. You've expressed the view that the BBC is "grotesquely over-managed" [Roger had obviously already forgotten the opening of the interview] and has "a liberal bias"...or had "a liberal bias"...and people will remember how tough you were with the former director general...no suggestion you were on his side or the BBC's side there...but isn't the problem the next time you do something about the future of the BBC, which is a really contentious issue, there's a danger that those who want to cut down the BBC will say, "And John, you agree with this, don't you, because you said it's "grotesquely over-managed". So by expressing your views on this issue, haven't you compromised your ability to conduct a discussion about the future size, make-up and nature of the BBC?

John Humphrys: I don't think so, because I was talking about the BBC is it was and I also said it is changing, so that if I were to interview somebody who said "You think it's grotesquely over-managed"...let's get over the word "grotesquely" if we can..."therefore what should be done about it?", well, I would say "I'm not going to answer that question (laughing) because...I don't provide the answers, just the questions".

Roger Bolton: No, they'll quote you. The point I'm making, John, and it is difficult for all presenters. If they express themselves forcibly on a matter of public contention and debate [just as Roger Bolton himself did in strongly dismissing claims that the BBC has a strong political bias] when they come to chair something in which they're required to be seen as objective they are compromised [such as presenting 'Feedback'?].

John Humphrys: Well, on some issues you'd be absolutely right. I don't, for instance, conduct interviews on assisted dying, which is a hugely contentious area, and I've written a book about it, and I have views about it, and I told the BBC I was writing the book and they said 'Fine!' and I agreed without hesitation. I suggested that I shouldn't do interviews on it, and of course I don't. So, the BBC is different. We are ALL the BBC. That's my point. And I am entitled, even as a presenter on the BBC...I'm as entitled to have a view, which is that it was over-managed, we are beginning to get on top of it now, the director general thinks it was over-managed, everyone in the BBC thinks it was over-managed, maybe still is, maybe some more work needs to be done. I don't think that's contentious, and I think it would be po-faced for me to say, "Oh, I am not going to express a view on that". Everybody knows what I think anyway, certainly in this place they do. I've not made a secret of it for the last...

Roger Bolton: And just finally, and just finally for the record: Has any editor ever told you to go soft on a political interviewee?

John Humphrys: No, nope..

Roger Bolton: And has anyone ever told you to go soft on the subject of immigration?

John Humphrys: Nope.

Roger Bolton: Has anyone ever told you to go soft on the subject of Europe?

John Humphrys: Nope. But that doesn't prove the point, Roger, because I don't edit the programmes. I don't decide who gets interviewed. And that is crucial to it.

[Update: For an autonomous take on the same interview, please also try Autonomous Mind. 

I'm prepared to be unautonomous is agreeing with his point that John Humphrys only makes things worse for the BBC in this interview:

...what the BBC hadn’t counted on was Humphrys inadvertently making the hole even deeper, with comments about the editors and how they work, which confirms all we have asserted over the years about ‘bias by omission’, where voices that dissent from the BBC worldview are deliberately denied airtime, effectively censoring the counter viewpoint. 

The bias problem at the BBC that Humphrys is at pains to tell us is a thing of the past, is still very much alive and all too apparent. But thanks to Humphrys’ candid comments, we now have helpful confirmation that the BBC treats with contempt and frequently excludes from its programmes those who do not share its worldview (unless they are so poor a speaker or utterly disagreeable that they put people off) and that contributor selection is what counts.]

"Pretty relevant I think"

Certainly the common assumption after the end of the Cold War that liberal democracy would sweep all before it and spread all over the world has been shattered. On the eve of a New Year at the end of the politically tumultuous one that was 2017, we're asking if we are at a critical tipping point all over the world. For there's also the rise of the hard-right in Europe, Brexit and the election of Donald Trump. That's forced some to question basic assumptions about the wisdom of the rule of the majority. Of course, Winston Churchill once said this: many forms of government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise; indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." But he also said this: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter". (Mark Mardell, The World This Weekend, 31/12/2017)

Just nipping back a year to yesterday again and Mark Mardell's The World This Weekend, which devoted the bulk of its programme to asking if, worldwide, democracy has seen its brightest days already. Given "the rise of the hard-right in Europe, Brexit and the election of Donald Trump", "some" have been "forced" to "question basic assumptions about the wisdom of the rule of the majority", said Mark (without telling us who this "some" are). His programme then duly "forced" itself  to do the same.

It was interesting, and had a varied guest list of experts (the excellent Niall Ferguson, the excellent Helen Thompson and, er, Yascha Mounk) and plenty of necessary disagreement (especially between Niall and Yascha). 

That said, Mark Mardell can't help revealing his own opinions. After citing a quote from Honest Abe...:

I want to throw in a quote from former American president Abraham Lincoln; "Elections belong to the people. It's their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds then they will just have to sit on their blisters". 

...he added:

Pretty relevant I think.

Now, what did he mean by that? In what way is Lincoln's talk of voters burning their behinds and getting blisters 'relevant' now? 

Well, Mark went on immediately to mention "the election of Donald Trump and the triumph of Brexit", so that's obviously what he was alluding too. 

I very much doubt that anyone who wasn't negative towards Brexit and Trump would have ever thought of applying Abraham Lincoln's quote in that way. 

What Meghan Wants

“The BBC has an eleven-year Charter — our mission is secure until 2027. But we also have a mid-mission is secure until 2027. But we also have a mid-term review process for the spring of 2022.

WTF? As someone pointed out, the BBC is too vast not to have appointed a proof reader - (oops nearly forgot the ‘r’ ) -  to glance through the DG’s resignation letter before it went to press. The coffers have probably been drained by Sarah Montague’s massive payout. 

Anyway, I just thought I’d mention Tony Hall’s resignation in the light of his remarkably self-deluded cloth-earedness: 

“In an era of fake news, we remain the gold standard of impartiality and truth. What the BBC is, and what it stands for, is precious for this country. We ignore that at our peril.”

Beryl the Peril.

Which brings me to Mark Thompson who has evidently gained a huge amount of personal confidence since he left the Beeb to turn the NYT into a sanctuary of lefty anti-Britishness. 

On Marr yesterday Thompson showed no sign of the stammering hesitancy of old. If it’s that good at boosting one’s ego maybe we should all join Harry and Meghan across t’pond in their new aspirational 'commoner' role. (Pity Harry when Meghan decides she wants “a brahn baby”.)

Harry and Meghan

Buy popcorn!

QPR defender Richard Dunne is known for being a record-breaking Premier League goal scorer. Unfortunately, the record he holds is for scoring the most own goals, currently standing at an impressive ten. 

When it comes to scoring own goals though, the BBC is fast catching him up. 

From the 'fake footage' scandal at Panorama, the fake 'dog being stoned to death in Israel' story, the various rows over excessive pay for top stars and the widely-panned Golden Jubilee coverage right through to the self-inflicted disasters of Savilegate and the false accusations against Lord McAlpine on Newsnight, the corporation has certainly been giving Mr Dunne a good run for his money and, indeed, with the latest farrago over executive payoffs (following a damning report from the National Audit Office), may actually have overtaken him.

Former DG Mark Thompson (now ensconced at the New York Times) accuses Lord Patten and fellow BBC trustee Anthony Fry of lying to parliament over the issue. Lord Patten strongly denies that with that, but this morning other former BBC bigwigs - Lord Patten's predecessor Sir Michael Lyons and Marcus Agius, a former member of the BBC executive - have given credence to Mr Thompson's claims. It's an ugly row.

On Monday, parliament will haul the warring BBC bigwigs, past and present, before a select committee and it could be brutal. By the end of Monday, important heads could be on guillotines and ready to roll. 

Plenty of people have already cracked open the popcorn. Others are getting their knitting needles out.

Public trust in the BBC has been falling for some time, largely thanks to the BBC's capacity for self-harm. These kind of governance scandals seem to wound trust in the corporation more than anything else (especially if pay is the issue at hand). The BBC's reputation is likely to take another tumble over this.

Who needs anti-BBC campaigners when the BBC can do so much damage to itself by itself?

Christmas leftovers

As the effects of that enormous Christmas turkey continue to wear off (and, no, I don't mean Still Open All Hours), here's a little pre-New Year BBC-related reading from the newspapers to while away a few minutes of your tedious post-Christmas Saturday morning. I leave you to form your own opinions. 

1. Sir Tim Berners-Lee banned from having atheist on Radio 4's Thought for the Day (Daily Telegraph)

The BBC has banned Sir Tim Berners-Lee from having an atheist deliver Thought for the Day as he guest edited Radio 4’s Today programme, saying it must be spoken by a believer.

Sir Tim, who was invited to edit the flagship news programme on Boxing Day, had intended to employ an atheist to read the traditional Thought for the Day, in order to best represent Britain as a whole.

But, he has disclosed, the move was prohibited by the BBC, which insists the slot must be filled by a religious leader.

2. 'The BBC think we are a Neanderthal lot' (Daily Telegraph)

Sir Barney [White-Spunner, head of the Countryside Alliance] is particularly exercised about the BBC and its coverage – or lack of it – of rural issues. “We do not think the BBC is balanced or fair. It gives a view of rural England as seen from central London and when the BBC say we try to give a balanced view they mean a balanced view between two people in central London, not between central London and the countryside.”

The Countryfile programme, for example, gives a “metropolitan view” of rural England, and skirts around important farming issues such as shooting. He wants the BBC to appoint a rural affairs editor to rebalance its coverage. The corporation, he complains, is “redolent of an attitude that says we are in some way a rather Neanderthal lot”. 

3. Blunkett calls for new rules on TV satire of politicians (The Times)

David Blunkett has suggested that comedy shows such as Mock The Week and Have I Got News For You should be reclassified as current affairs programmes in order to face tougher scrutiny from libel lawyers.

The former Home Secretary said that the line between what is considered comedy and what is targeted abuse towards politicians has become blurred and may now require tougher regulation.

Mr Blunkett said: “The protection that broadcasters in particular have is ‘Well, everybody knows this is comedy don’t they?’ So it’s not libellous, it’s not dangerous in the sense that it’s targeted and therefore vicious towards an individual. And I think we need to watch that.”

The Labour MP for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough told the Radio 4 documentary, When Comedy and Politics Collide: “Sometimes actually it isn’t comedy, it’s comment and current affairs in the middle of what is supposed to be a comedy programme. There’s a bit more of that going on at the moment.”

Mr Blunkett’s blindness was targeted in the BBC comedy Mock The Week two years ago. A joke in a 2010 episode said: “Sometimes Ministers would break up boring Cabinet meetings by convincing David Blunkett he was black.”

4. BBC would be better off without ‘busted flush’ Patten, says Greg Dyke (The Times)

Lord Patten of Barnes is a “busted flush” and must resign as the chairman of the BBC Trust after being damaged by scandals over Jimmy Savile and payoffs to executives, according to Greg Dyke, the broadcaster’s former director-general.

“The BBC has a problem in the sense it’s got a busted flush as chairman,” he said. “I am surprised (Patten) is still there. It would probably help if he wasn’t.”

Mr Dyke, who ran the corporation between January 2000 and 2004 and is now chairman of the Football Association, denounced the confusion in the BBC’s leadership and called for its supporters rally in its defence.

He is the second former director-general to round on Lord Patten after Mark Thompson, who left the job last year, accused him of misleading Parliament over payments to departing executives.

5. OLD HEFFER'S ALMANAC 2014: As is traditional at this time of year, Old Heffer brings out his trusty crystal ball (Daily Mail)

January:

Latvia becomes the 18th nation to adopt the euro with a promise of huge bail-outs if its economy fails.

February:

Six weeks after entering the euro, Latvia applies for a €5 billion bail-out.

March:

The first same-sex marriages take place in Britain, with Sir Elton John going top of the charts with his new song, Kiss The Groom. 

June:

The first same-sex divorces take place in Britain.

November:

David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband pose for a ‘selfie’ in front of the Cenotaph on Armistice Day.

December:

On the anniversary of Nelson Mandela’s death, the BBC repeats all 100 programmes it had broadcast to mark his passing in 2013, and screens several dozen specially commissioned new ones. 

Ian Hislop; the ballerina

Did we dutifully watch Ian Hislop’s piece about Fake Noos? I did but unfortunately kept dozing off -  partly due to the previous night’s insomnia. 

I hope you’ve got access to The Times’s (£)  review by Carol Midgley because this is going to be a review of a review. Ms Midgley usually comes out with fairly perceptive analyses of programmes I’ve watched. 

While her take on “Motherland’ is spot on, in my humble opinion the Hislop review lacks a certain something. 

Yes, the example of the false-flag fake story planted merely to hook a rival’s plagiarism was entertaining and informative, as was the tale about the child sex-ring fake noos linked to Hillary Clinton and the near-fatal consequences of the hatred engendered by it - but did Hislop allude to the fall-out from the equally apposite ‘credible and true’ business? If so, I missed it due to one of my unconscious phases. 

Then Ms Midgley says:

“Hislop was variously playful, concerned, droll and exasperated in an intelligent film that treated viewers as if we have a brain, which makes a nice change. Donald Trump’s version of “fake news”, Hislop said, is “real news that he doesn’t like”. By denouncing real news as fake, he added, Trump and his supporters allow real fake news to flourish. “

Here we go. Trump. 

Hislop did indeed mention the alarming tendency we all have to believe what we want to believe regardless of ‘facts’, and I’m reliably informed that while I only was half-awake he cited ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ as an example of debunked, disproved and demonstrably fake news that still refuses to be put to sleep by those that ‘like’ it.  But he also cited that great authority on impartiality, Mark Thompson. It’s a wonder he didn’t bring in John Sweeney while he was at it.

The Times is veering further and further away from us. (me.) (eg., Caitlin Moran? She has a way with words, granted, but will she ever grow up? 

Does Carol Midgley treat readers as if we have a brain? Let’s assume she watches HIGNFY. Is the BBC  still regarded as impartial? Does The Times still pass for a right-of-centre paper? Does Carol Midgley really think Ian Hislop is a balanced and thorough adjudicator of purveyors of the truth?  A credible and true authority on Fake Noos? 

There are too many elephants silently squatting within Hislop’s world view. Maybe I should just have resigned myself to my slumbers.

Complaints from both sides (again)

The BBC must be happy today.

Yesterday came Boris at the Conservative Party conference saying (accurately) that the BBC is sometimes "shamelessly anti-Brexit" before adding (doubtless to the BBC's delight), "I think the Beeb is the single greatest and most effective ambassador for our culture and our values".

Today in strode (Sir) Craig Oliver in The Times saying that David Cameron had pressured the BBC in the other direction for “mistaking balance for being impartial", demanding that "BBC editors should have been stamping their own independent authority and analysis on the output" (thus echoing the BBC's very own John Simpson).

Inevitably, in response, in rides the BBC - bugles blaring, banners raised high - crying out its favourite mantra: "We're getting complaints from both sides; ergo, we must be getting it about right!"...

...and Politics Home quotes a BBC source as saying that very thing:

There’s nothing new in people having strong views about our coverage, but the public will notice a distinct irony in the BBC being accused of failing to do enough to stop Brexit on the one hand while being criticised for being anti-Brexit on the other. As we’ve said before, our job is to challenge politicians from all sides and interrogate the arguments. That’s what we’ve been doing and what we’ll continue to do.

Of course, the two complaints are different in kind. The first is saying that the BBC is biased; the second is saying that the BBC is impartial, but too impartial and ought to be taking sides - i.e. its side. Neither is saying the BBC is pro-Brexit (of course, as that would be ridiculous).

Where the BBC's 'complaints from both sides' argument falls down (as so often) is that anyone claiming that the BBC has been either balanced or impartial over Brexit since the referendum result is arguing from a very sticky wicket. (To put it poetically, in the manner of Sir Andrew Motion, "The evidence is strong/That they are wrong".) The BBC has had a heavy anti-Brexit bias since June 23 (as demonstrated by Radio 4's Brexit Collection, for example).

And, despite the bias being not as severe before the referendum result, the bias even then still ran overwhelmingly against one side (the same side) - as (hopefully) both Is the BBC biased? and News-watch demonstrated (in considerable detail, and despite honourable exceptions).

Boris was right. The BBC is sometimes shamelessly anti-Brexit.

The campaign from the likes of John Simpson, Mark Thompson, Chris Patten, Paul Johnson of the IFS, Roy Greenslade, Timothy Garton Ash, (Sir) Craig Oliver and David Cameron, etc, however, for the BBC to become even more biased in their direction goes on and is evidently gathering pace. And they are probably knocking at an open door.

'Today' - the first half hour of bias

Just taking a listen to the first half hour of this morning's Today programme on BBC Radio 4 let to the following thought: My goodness, it's amazing how much BBC bias can be found in just half an hour of BBC broadcasting! (Especially if you're looking for it.) 

Justin Webb and John Humphrys presented. Here's how it went.

The first paper review

After the news bulletin, the first hour of this morning's Today programme began with the paper review. Justin and John kicked off (as so often happens) with the Guardian (56 seconds) on Syria, then the Times (59 seconds) on bank 'rip-offs' over interest rates for savers, followed by the Independent (16 seconds) on the BBC's troubles and a funny Matt cartoon in the Telegraph (37 seconds), also on the BBC's troubles.

The BBC at the PAC

The BBC's troubles were next up. Justin interviewed his BBC colleague, David Sillitoe. David gave listeners his opinion. Mark Thompson "left convincing most of the MPs that he'd done his best" while Chris Patten gave "a pretty convincing argument". [To paraphrase Young Mr Grace, "You've all done very well."] He noted Lord Patten's "musing" about the replacing of the BBC Trust, warning it would be a long and complex process. David said said that "the Conservative government" [sic] has been saying they don't want to go through that process again [after seeing the 3-year process to set up the BBC Trust in the first place after the Hutton report.]

The IOC's new president will be a man

Next up was some speculation between John and the BBC's Dan Roan about the new Olympic president, to be elected today in Buenos Aires. Names were discussed. "All six are male candidates", noted Dan [just as you would expect a BBC reporter to note]. German Thomas Bach "is expected to win".

Business News: The Arms Trade

Business news, with Simon Jack. It's the International Arms Fair in London today, so the BBC put in a call to Kaye Stearman from the Campaign Against Arms Trade. 

[Yes, there really is no "the" in-between "Against" and "Arms", which is a shame because it's difficult to know how to pronounce the acronym CAAT (presumably like 'cart'?), whereas CATAT would pose no such problems - though it would sound a little like a machine gun beginning to fire which might not be the effect they're after. #justsaying.] 

Now balance was ensured by having defence analyst Howard Wheeldon along too, especially as he used to work for the security and defence industry and gave the opposing point of view.  Balance was marred, however, by Simon giving Mr Wheeldon a much harder time - the full BBC 'interruptions' and 'sarcasm' treatment.  

Business News: Bad Banks, Bad Accountancy Firms and Good News from Jaguar

Next up on business news, that story about banks and building societies fleecing savers over interest rates - a practise that Simon's introduction described, not entirely impartiality I think, as "a mean practice". His guest, economist Cornelia Meyer, thought it was very good that action is being taken against the banks. A fine for an accountancy firm, who did "wrong", was the next topic. 

So far this was looking more like 'anti-business news' than 'business news', but new jobs courtesy of Jaguar were hailed as "better news". ("A remarkable success story since Ford sold it"). 

Business news: Bad Bews for George Osborne, plus Immigration and UKIP

It was soon back to bad economics news though as, just when George Osborne thought it was safe to come out of the water, "a report out today from the right-leaning Institute for [sic - it's 'of'] Economic Affairs is warning the UK economy could flat-line over the next few years". 

Andrew Lilico from the IEA came on. Simon Jack pounced on him over immigration - and I do mean 'pounce', as this was the question he really wanted to ask and interrupted Mr Lilico to do so:

"Well, I'm glad you mentioned immigration because on your seven reasons to be not cheerful, to be miserable, you include 'the arithmetical effect of low-productivity immigrant workers being added to the working population'. Many people would disagree with you. Jamie Oliver came out the other day and said his immigrant workers were some of his best workers. Are you sure about this?" 

Quite a few hostile interruptions and sceptical noises-off then followed, as Mr Lilico gave his response, until Simon interrupted yet again and pulled out his trump card - an 'Aha!' moment:

"This is a patchwork paper, a number of different contributors, Tim Congdon among them, who's a member of UKIP. Was that his two pennies' worth?" 

Simon Jack, of course, knew full well that it was, as he could see that from the report - as you can too, here - so this was a classic BBC ambush.

I think we can safely say that for the likes of Simon Jack of the BBC, the fact that Professor Congdon supports UKIP, and that UKIP are bad, m'kay, and that they hold bad views about immigration, m'kay, means that any credibility he might have is automatically well and truly scuppered. That's not necessarily a view I, or plenty of others beyond the BBC mindset, would automatically take. 

Still, it's good to have a BBC reporter outing the political background of a report author. I look forward to hearing Simon Jack doing the same the next time a Resolution Foundation report comes his way.

P.S. Simon himself tweeted that he gave Andrew Lilico "a fairly hard time". I tweeted back to agree. He sure did.

Robert Peston accuses the BBC of having a pro-establishment, right-wing bias

Do you believe that the BBC has a left-liberal bias, and that it tends to follow the lead of the Guardian more than it does the Mail and Telegraph? 

I've spent some five years arguing that kind of thing - as have the massed ranks of other posters and commenters from blogs like Biased BBC to the Spectator, from the Telegraph to Breitbart London. 

Several present and former BBC presenters have also said as much - from Peter Sissons to John Humphrys, from Jeff Randall to Andrew Marr, from Helen Boaden to Mark Thompson.

Another famous BBC name has now joined the debate though - the BBC's Economics Editor, Robert Peston, no less.

Except that he's saying the exact opposite.

The left-wing Twitterati are lapping it up.

Robert Peston was giving the 6th Charles Wheeler Lecture  at the University of Westminster. In the Q&A session that followed [with a left-biased audience, by the sound of the questioners!] he was asked whether he agrees with Jeff Randall's oft-quoted remark that the corporation has an "institutional left-wing bias". 

He replied:

Look, I love Jeff. He's a great mate of mine. But it's bollocks really.

If I'm honest, the BBC's routinely so anxious about being accused of being left-wing, it quite often veers in what you might call a very pro-establishment, [a] rather right-wing direction, so that it's not accused of that.

Later, he added

There's a slightly 'safety first' thing at the BBC - that if we think the Mail or the Telegraph is gonna lead with it, then we should lead with it. I happen to think that's mad.

I don't know about you but I'm inclined to say, "Look, I like Robert. He's great at playing Mr Punch, and his thing with Eddie Mair is quite funny. But it's bollocks really." 

Still, what he says is what surveys show that quite a lot of people believe [unless you think they're being disingenuous].

You will, no doubt, recall that YouGov poll from last year:

Do you think that, overall, the BBC's coverage of British politics is fair or biased?
Fair 35%
Biased towards the left-of-centre 17%
Biased towards the right-of-centre 4%
Biased towards "establishment' views rather than left or right 16%
Not sure 28%

I would still say that the startling figure there is that only 35% of respondents believe the BBC to be fair (as far as its coverage of British politics is concerned) - i.e. 65% of respondents don't think it's fair (for one reason or another - including uncertainty). 

Those who don't agree with what Robert Peston said though can, perhaps, take comfort from the possibility that a disgruntled anti-BBC Left and a disgruntled anti-BBC Right might, though attacking from completely different directions, so scupper the BBC's precious reputation for impartiality that the license fee becomes even less feasible than ever. (Our enemy's enemy is our friend).

Of course, Robert Peston says he, himself, isn't biased:

I suppose the thing which gives me most comfort in all of this is that if you make the mistake of looking at my Twitter stream you will see that I am unbelievably passionately attacked by certain people for being too right-wing and by other people for being far too left-wing, and it just seems to me that if one is in the position of being attacked from all sides one might be in the right place.

BBC editors are always appearing on Newswatch saying that very thing, repeating the mantra that 'We get complaints from both sides, which shows we're getting it about right', over and over and over again. They clearly think it's a knock-down argument. It isn't. It ignores the quantity and the quality of the complaints from either side. 

OK. I'll now leave it to the unbelievably passionate types out there to get out their slapsticks and tell Robert, "That's not the way to do it!"