Wednesday 23 November 2016


The general point behind this tweet is, surely, a perfectly reasonable one:

James O'B himself was back on Newsnight last night and didn't very too hard to disguise his left-wing views (as usual).

It was perfectly predictable, for example, that during the interview with a Tory backbencher and a Labour frontbencher he'd let the Labour MP talk at length without interruption but challenged, and repeatedly the Tory backbencher.

Less predictable - and quite extraordinary - was the near 40-second LBC-style rant he inserted as a question to the Tory backbencher midway through the joint interview (complete with bizarre moments of emphasis):
Osborneomics, Heidi Allen, I mean, that is the most busted of busted flushes, isn't it? I mean, the whole idea was that the deficit was absolutely crucial, that driving down the debt was the driving force of the entire project. Six years in 11 Downing Street and now his predecessor [sic] has given up on it. What do you say to the people you care so much about who have had wage freezes BECAUSE austerity was the answer to the deficit, WHO perhaps have lost their jobs in the public sector BECAUSE austerity was the answer to the deficit? People who have genuinely been squeezed or jammed, or whatever you want to call them, as a DIRECT result of the policies that your party enacted?
Labour's Chi Onwurah got nothing like that (or even a single interruption).

He then asked (pro-Remain) Heidi Allen, after she'd made an anti-Brexit dig, if her colleagues who campaigned for Brexit had "actually caused the poor, at least in the short term, to suffer more"...a typical leading question from a well-known anti-Brexit, left-wing LBC broadcaster.

Talking of which...

It was also predictable (given that he's so hostile to Brexit) that he'd begin the Brexit segment with some point-scoring, which he duly did:
They called it Project Fear during that Referendum but there are signs now that some of the warnings of post-Brexit trouble could be crystallising into Project Fact. Credit Suisse published its annual global wealth report today and estimated that Britain is $1.5 trillion poorer in dollar terms due to the fall in the pound since the vote to leave the European Union. But even if you are one of those people who don't trust experts it's hard to see a number of that magnitude - my 10 year old tells me there are 12 noughts in a trillion - in the context of our day-to-day existence. Much closer to home Newsnight has been told that because of the value of sterling food prices are likely to rise by more than 5% over the next 6 months. Adam Parsons has the story.
Bring on Iain Dale, or anyone of equivalent stature from the pro-Brexit Right, to balance this kind of thing, Mr Katz, or risk being regarded as hopelessly and irredeemably biased (if you care about such things).


  1. $1,500 billion - or about $60,000 per UK household. Does that sound likely to you, that we are suddenly $60,000 poorer in each household because of the Brexit vote (this is supposed to be while house prices continue to rocket up in real terms).

    1. Oh, it's a nonsense, hysterical statistic deployed by an hysterical remoaner. Last time I looked the currency in the UK is the pound, not the dollar.

      I believe the Mexican peso has fallen since the US election. So in Mexican Peso terms we're all much better off since Trumps's election! Thank you Donald!!!

  2. Samira Ahmed...what can you say? Doesn't she exemplify everything that is self-serving and mendacious about British journalism in 2016?

    Read it and weep at the non sequitirs, the absence of

    1. This is how she begins:

    "You could indirectly trace the current anxiety in journalism to that Gordon Brown moment on the 2010 campaign trail when he was overheard referring to a voter – Gillian Duffy, who had raised concerns about immigration – as a “bigoted woman”.

    Bigoted to whom? How should we debate immigration? "

    Who on earth would start an article of this nature in that fashion. UK journalists had been suppressing discussion of mass immigration and painting a false picture of its impact for many years. This was a crisis for the Labour Party, not journalism, but perhaps that's what she meant: "Should we have covered up Gordon's indiscretions?"

    2. She continues with great conceit: "When I first reported on the rise of antisemitic and misogynist Islamic radicals on Newsnight in 1994, our film didn’t simply put a leader on TV. We interviewed them, but also their critics, including other Muslim students. We explored how they recruited, and their appeal."

    According to that method she should be advising the BBC to interview right wing critics of the alt right whenever they interview so called "alt right" that really what she is proposing?

    3. False equivalence. She references Breitbart’s editor-at-large Joel Pollack as being the equivalent of Anjem Choudary - someone convicted of supporting terrorism through propaganda. As far as I know, Joel Pollack (an Orthodox Jew)has never been convicted of any terrorism related offence, so this false equivalence is nauseating.

    4. Denial of free speech. She criticises Justin Webb for allowing Joel Pollack to defend Steve Bannon by claiming he was being defamed as a white supremacist. What was Justin Webb supposed to do. Is she saying that Steve Bannon or his colleagues should not have the right in a free media to defend themselves against such charges? Hypocritically it would appear, having criticised her article contains the following phrase: "Most importantly, Breitbart News firmly denies accusations that its content and aim is racist or misogynist". Breitbart have threatened to sue and so she is displaying the better part of valour here.

    5. The article is incidentally very poorly written, which makes one wonder how she ever got as far as she did in journalism before she was sidelined into her current programmes.

  3. Free-Kick : as in "He offered Heidi Allen a free kick at her pro-Brexit colleagues"
    The same awarding a "free kick" technique is used by BBC SJW missionaries like R5's Nicky Campbell and R4 Today staff.

    1. Radio 5 Live has turned out to be a huge disappointment since its much heralded move to Salford. There is very little news gathering - just parroting of the messages from London. There is a feeling that presenters are there under sufferance, unable to wait until they have served their time before returning home to London. Some commute anyway.

      Had the BBC allowed R5 a measure of independence, they may have woken up to the reality that the majority of the UK voters do not share their views over Brexit.

  4. Need to be careful about this particular demand for balance. It would give the BBC an excuse to reduce Andrew Neil's contributions on the Daily Politics. Of course, then maybe they'd also have to admit Jo Coburn provides the Left-wing balance.

  5. Did anybody see Iain Duncan Smith being interviewed by Norman Smith on the BBC News Channel at about 2.10pm today? Unlike Norman Smith, IDS had done his homework and was able to state just how many times the OBR has got its predictions wrong and been obliged to revise them up or down. IDS demanded to know why it is that the BBC always opts for the gloomiest outlook when what has been predicted is a range of outcomes. Norman ended up doing a passable imitation of Rod Steiger's Napoleon at the moment he realizes he's lost the battle of Waterloo! Game, set and match to IDS. If anybody has recorded this, please would he or she put it on YouTube? - it deserves to be widely seen - unless you disapprove of blood sports!

    1. Ah! That explains why the 6 pm R4 news has headlined and repeated many times at great length an "independent" economic forecast, I think the IES, that the future is "dreadful" wage growth will be zero until eternity, etc..

      It occurred to me that there was much more interesting news about actual events (rather than more "expert" crystal ball gazing) that should have been headlining (e.g. Paris terrorists funded from UK, using Benefits!), but hey it's more important to Beeb to be always gloomy about a future that contains Brexit and a Conservative government.

  6. I think it was the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Amazing the way bodies we've barely heard of seem to come crawling out of the woodwork when the Beeb spots a chance to spatter the Government and/or Brexit with mud!

  7. Ohits Newsnight-on the BBC-when nobody`s watching who`s not already a bed-wetting Lefty...or else the likes of us who like to see how damp a waterbed can get.
    None of these BBC goons have a brain, it`s all written for them by teenage scribblers on drugs who sniff the highlighter pens until the weekend.
    Don`t give O Brien any houseroom-just wonder how it is we`re paying for these polyps and perverts as license feepayers...some of us will have to admit we also ididn`t have the courage not to pay the dog license either.
    Now then-where`s Leonard Cohen?...that ONLY news (apart from trump and Nigel natch!)


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.