Sunday 20 May 2018

Tweet, tweet

Meanwhile, our old blogging friend DB is still out there in the badlands of Twitter, binoculars at the ready, watching BBC twitterers going about their daily activities and faithfully recording their Twitter deposits (for science's sake). 

It certainly is a bit rum for a senior BBC reporter to derisively tweet snowflake symbols to someone else

And as I follow Mike's Twitter feed I know it's far from the first time that he's tweeted derisively to and/or about the alt-right like this. It's a real habit of his, and - as DB says - it really is pretty much all one way. Maybe his alt-right targets deserve it but, nevertheless, it still makes him look like an activist rather than a scrupulously impartial BBC reporter.

And, of course, the never-knowingly-non-derisive Anthony Zurcher has been in action too. Here he is following up on a CNN tweet:

Yes, there's the BBC man saying that President Trump's language - using "animals" to describe a violent gang - "edges towards the language of genocide". 

But, as DB replied to him:

And, of course, Anthony Z wasn't the only BBC reporter pouncing on this. Here's the BBC's senior foreign affairs reporter, their World Affairs Editor, John Simpson sending forth an ever-so-impartial retweet:

The thing about this is that all three senior BBC reporters - Mike Wendling, Anthony Zurcher and John Simpson - have been known to reflect their Twitter views in their 'proper' BBC reports (though I must add that Mike Wendling was impeccable on his Radio 4 documentary last year - as we noted at the time). They don't always hang up their 'coats of one opinionated colour' at the BBC office door. 

And they are meant, as per BBC guidelines, to maintain the impression of BBC impartiality on social media too, so there's even less excuse for this kind of thing (especially given how many people read their tweets).

Update: Justin Webb has an interesting article in The Times about 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' in the media. He could be talking about many of his BBC colleagues. 


  1. I've referenced Wendling's appalling bias before now. He came from the States to set up a kind of Village Voice mag for London (and failed) but found a home at the BBC which welcomes all sorts of failures. The left don't like humans referred to as animals? What about that Momentum Tory Rat T-shirt on Question Time? What about Nye Bevan's Tory vermin remark? If you read up on Q Anon you will realise why US Democrats are so worked up about MS 13 and seemingly keen to respond to Trump's attacks on them. It is alleged there is a link between MS 13 and the Democrats.

    1. I've not heard about the allegations about MS 13 and the Democrats. Too much time watching BBC output maybe!

    2. The allegation is that MS 13 do the really dirty jobs for the Dems.We know from undercover filming the Dems do farm out dirty electioneering tricks such as disrupting Trump events and bussing in illegal voters. We know historically Dems were associated with the Mob so it's not that fantasticAl . The sites making these claims would be dismissed as "conspiratorial" by the BBC but they have been much better than the BBC in predicting developments re Korea, Russia-Trump (as the BBC calls it) , China trade issues and Iran.

    3. ...also - why have the Dems gone out of their way to defend the humanity of a gang whose motto is "rob,rape, stab, control"? Pretty odd thing for a mainstream party to do .

  2. And here's the BBC's great Anthony Zurcher on Twitter:


    The great thing is this construction can be used for pretty much any allegation. Is the government controlled by the Illuminati? Did the US fake the moon landing? Is Soylent Green made of people? "I think it would be very troubling to millions of Americans if that took place."


    Zurcher is quoting Pence on reports of FBI surveillance of the Trump campaign. His intent is clearly to rubbish Pence's comment.

    However, the evidence of surveillance of the Trump campaign by moles in the Trump campaign working for the FBI or other agencies has been growing by the day and has been taken seriously by that august publication much beloved by the BBC, the New York Times.

    Is Zurcher really impartial and non-partisan as required by the BBC's formal rules? Or is he really a fake news merchant just spinning Democrat talking points?

    1. And here is Zurcher having his own views for a change...

      "Telling the descendants of slaves, whose ancestors were brought into a country against their will, that if they don't stand for that nation's anthem then perhaps they shouldn't be in the country."


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