OMG

Interesting times. 

Nick Robinson has just tweeted a plug to his Mail on Sunday piece, From robots stealing jobs, to mob rule online – and even what it means to be a man or woman, 2018 will be a year of instability and uncertainty. And our so-called leaders have never been more impotent. 

Can you guess the response he's got from the outrage chamber on Twitter? 

Well, it can be summed up in just one phrase: "Oh. My. God. The Daily Mail!!!" 

Here's a flavour:

• You are using #BBC account to promote Daily Mail. Inappropriate use of Public funds. Also trust in #BBC erodes with your actions. 
• What on earth are you doing writing for the Mail?
• Don't work for the Mail.
• Shocking misjudgement to write for this vile rag.
• Too much hatred, anger and intolerance - a large part of which has been fueled by the"Mails" - what on earth are you doing writing for that appalling group - very disappointing. 
• Excellent article: just a shame it was in the Mail
• I cannot believe you write for that hate rag...thought you were better than that.
• I used to respect you. But the Daily Heil? Shame on you.

OMG,  the Daily Mail!!!

*******

I was told at school that pointing is rude

Anyhow, here's part of Nick's 'opinion piece'/'impartial take' (the bit on Brexit and immigration):

Social attitudes are changing not just the roles of men and women but the very definition of what is a man or a woman. Much of this change has liberated millions from misery, poverty and oppression. Very little of it is, though, within the grasp of those who are theoretically ‘in power’. Take migration, and the flood of humanity that now seems perpetually on the move. 

A new forecast suggests that the number of migrants attempting to settle in Europe each year could treble by the end of the century based on current climate trends alone. It is against this backdrop that in 2018 we will have to debate the design of our new post-Brexit immigration system. 

The principles won’t be hard for most to agree to – an end to freedom of movement, open borders for those with the skills we need and new curbs on those with low skills. 

The questions will begin when we must ask what we mean by low skilled – does it include the barista who knows how you like your morning coffee or the waitress in your local pizza place, or what about the carers who look after your mum and dad? 

It will all be so much more complex and so much more important than the divisive and often preposterous row about the colour of our passports. 

Well yes, but if you frame it like that in advance - raising the question of the value of low-skilled immigrants in emotive language about "your mum and dad" - doesn't that already tilt the question in a pro-immigration direction?

Couldn't other questions be at the forefront of the BBC's collective mind, such as the impact of low-skilled immigrants on our own low-skilled population?

The choice of questions to prioritise can suggest bias, can't it Nick?

As for the bit about "the divisive and often preposterous row about the colour of our passports", well, you can read that both ways as far as who was being 'preposterous' over that, but it does betray, doesn't it (despite Nick's attempt to be non-committal), a telling disinterest in something that does matter to many Leave voters who deeply value the UK's sovereignty?