Suspicious minds

Spain has said it will take in a rescue ship which has been stranded in the Mediterranean with more than 600 migrants on board after both Malta and Italy refused it permission to dock. Italy's new hardline interior minister said he would not allow his country to turn into what he called a "huge refugee camp". The ship, the Aquarius, which has hundreds of women and children on board, has been waiting in the sea between Malta and Sicily. 

That was how BBC One News at Six introduced this widely-reported story tonight. 

I'll now quote it again and add bold lettering to highlight some of its interesting use of language:

Spain has said it will take in a rescue ship which has been stranded in the Mediterranean with more than 600 migrants on board after both Malta and Italy refused it permission to dock. Italy's new hardline interior minister said he would not allow his country to turn into what he called a "huge refugee camp". The ship, the Aquarius, which has hundreds of women and children on board, has been waiting in the sea between Malta and Sicily. 

Who wouldn't feel deep sympathy for "hundreds of women and children" in a "rescue ship" who have been "stranded" by a "hardline" ruler? It's like something out of an ancient Greek play, isn't it?  

The use of the term 'rescue ship' is intriguing. It usually refers to military tugs who come to the aid of stricken vessels and was most commonly heard of during World War Two. The Aquarius is a private ship operated by a couple of NGOs whose activities off the coast of Libya have proved controversial. The use of the term 'rescue ship' to describe them doesn't seem to be a neutral term given that it's a term used by supporters of the NGOs. Isn't the BBC taking sides by using it?

The emotional impact of the word "stranded" doesn't need spelling out, and neither does the value judgement contained in the word "hardline" to describe Matteo Salvini.

The most striking phrase though is "which has hundreds of women and children on board" - which, given that 629 people are said to be on board the vessel ("with more than 600 migrants on board"), clearly implies that the bulk of those on board are "women and children". 

Like most of you, perhaps, I've seen enough of these kinds of BBC report to be instantly sceptical about such claims.

I've spent a good hour or more tonight trying to corroborate the BBC's claim but keep finding everywhere the same phrase to outline the claimed statistics about those 629 rescued migrants - "123 unaccompanied minors, 11 children and seven pregnant women". 

I've not been able to find any more detail about the breakdown of those rescued, though the "unaccompanied" minors are said to be between 13 and 17 years of age and the British-sounding NGO rescue coordinator quoted by the BBC talked (vaguely) of "multiple" women being on board (whatever that means). 

And yet if you scan the fast-panning closing panorama of the migrants shown on tonight's News at Six do you see many "women and children" (click to enlarge)?

I'm seeing lots and lots of adult men there. 

With good reason, many people now take the claims about the ages of "unaccompanied minors" in this kind of story with a gargantuan pinch of salt. Wherever I look for images of the story tonight, I'm not seeing minors who look to be aged 13 to 17. 

Yes, there are lots of close-ups of the same handful (or less) of women with babies, so there must be a fair number of women on board - including those seven pregnant women. But even the formulation being used, via the NGOs, that there are "123 unaccompanied minors, 11 children and seven pregnant women" only cites "11 children", suggests that the number of actual women and actual children is probably fairly low. 

So I can see no justification whatsoever for the BBC's main early evening news bulletin to boldly assert that the Aquarius "has hundred of women and children on board". 

What is the BBC's evidence for that? Have they fact-checked it? (They've been no nearer to that boat than I've been.) 

And I suspect that it will turn out that the vast majority of the 629 people on this 'rescue ship' are men over the age of 17 and that there aren't actually, as the BBC claims, "hundreds of women and children" on board. 

Are there any proper journalists out there who will actually check when the boat eventually arrives in Valencia?

I believe this is yet more proof that the BBC has a knee-jerk 'progressive' take on stories about immigration. 

And I think their bias on the issue led them to use biased language and to exploit the plight of what James Reynolds, reporting for the News at Six, unflinchingly and unequivocally called "vulnerable" people. 

And I also think that's why they over-claimed the numbers of 'women and children' left 'stranded' on that 'rescue ship' by those 'hardline' Italian populists.