Old hobby-horse time again (sorry)...
 |
| Frankie |
It's probably a peculiar quirk of this particular, peculiar blog that our very first posts concentrated, in minute detail, on a BBC radio programme most people doubtless sleep through even if they're aware of it - which most people aren't - namely Radio 4's Sunday.
Our very first 'hit' at Is the BBC biased? was to stir up a veritable hornet's nest over what might seem a very recherché issue: the programme's massively pronounced bias towards a particular Catholic magazine, The Tablet, and the total exclusion of its main UK rival The Catholic Herald.
This very heavy bias seemed far worse because of the fact that the programme's main presenter Edward Stourton was (and is) a trustee of The Tablet.
For newbies, and to put it crudely, The Tablet is a liberal Catholic magazine (the Catholic Guardian, so to speak) and The Catholic Herald is a conservative Catholic magazine (the Catholic Spectator, so to speak).
Over 22 months of close monitoring (without deliberately looking or, to begin with, knowing anything about The Tablet or the Catholic Herald) I'd found literally dozens upon dozens of appearances on Tablet trustee Ed's programmes by liberal Catholic Tablet guests and literally no appearances - not a single one! - by Catholic Herald writers.
It was as stark an example of BBC bias as it was possible to imagine (however little it mattered to me or you personally).
It helped that the then head of the Daily Telegraph's blog (RIP), Damian Thompson, was closely associated with the Catholic Herald and a sharp critic of the BBC and that I tweeted him a link to our most damning post.
After the storm broke the programme instantly dropped its Tablet horde for a couple of years or more, and even invited on some Catholic Herald guests for a while.
Things, alas, have begun slipping again recently in the past couple of years. Tablet guests are returning and the Catholic Herald guests have vanished again.
*******
And then (liberal) Pope Francis replaced (conservative) Pope Benedict.
And suddenly on Sunday, the papacy could do no wrong (for a few years).
It often felt like I was listening to puff pieces for Pope Francis after years of hatchet jobs on Pope Benedict.
(Please feel free to scour our archives for very lengthy proofs of that).
And another thing I found in my intense study of Sunday (2010-12) was that the programme, in the years of conservative Catholic pope Benedict XVI, focused with relentless intensity (and quite rightly so) on Roman Catholic child abuse and was never afraid to question Pope Benedict's role in the matter, with Ed Stourton (never a fan of Pope Benedict) often in the thick of that questioning.
And suddenly on Sunday, the papacy could do no wrong (for a few years).
It often felt like I was listening to puff pieces for Pope Francis after years of hatchet jobs on Pope Benedict.
(Please feel free to scour our archives for very lengthy proofs of that).
*******
And another thing I found in my intense study of Sunday (2010-12) was that the programme, in the years of conservative Catholic pope Benedict XVI, focused with relentless intensity (and quite rightly so) on Roman Catholic child abuse and was never afraid to question Pope Benedict's role in the matter, with Ed Stourton (never a fan of Pope Benedict) often in the thick of that questioning.
I've listened to every episode of the programme both before and since that original study and I can say, with total confidence, that the emphasis on Catholic child abuse and the Pope's attitude to it dropped massively after Pope Benedict resigned and Pope Francis took over.
It didn't disappear, but it became much less of a preoccupation.
(And Anglican abuse came into sharper focus).
And the Pope-of-the-day's position on the matter has rarely been raised since.
It didn't disappear, but it became much less of a preoccupation.
(And Anglican abuse came into sharper focus).
And the Pope-of-the-day's position on the matter has rarely been raised since.
 |
| Benny |
So, to put it another way, until today's edition I've never heard anything on Sunday that focused sharp questions on Pope Francis's reaction to clerical child abuse in the Roman Catholic Church.
It's as if, once the hated Pope Benedict had shuffled off this Vatican coil into nearby retirement, and, as a nice, liberal, PC pope was elected in his place, everything came good for Sunday.
It's as if, once the hated Pope Benedict had shuffled off this Vatican coil into nearby retirement, and, as a nice, liberal, PC pope was elected in his place, everything came good for Sunday.
Even last week, when Sunday broadcast a special edition to mark Pope Francis's visit to Ireland, the then-breaking story that Cardinal Viganò - an archbishop of the Catholic Church who had served as the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States from 2011 to 2016 and who had previously served as Secretary-General of the Governorate of Vatican City State from 2009 to 2011 - had accused the present pontiff of covering up a child abuse scandal didn't get a mention on the programme.
Some listening (conservative) Catholics were staggered and wondered why. And Damian Thompson has been tweeting about liberal media double standards all week ever since.
Some listening (conservative) Catholics were staggered and wondered why. And Damian Thompson has been tweeting about liberal media double standards all week ever since.
Well, today the programme finally turned to the issue of Pope Francis and his alleged role in covering-up a child abuse scandal and, knowing what I know of the programme and its past history, I suspected it would come out in support of Pope Francis in much the same-if-also-polar-opposite way it used to come out against Pope Benedict.
So did it focus sharp questions on Pope Francis?
Well, it was balanced enough in that it featured a Catholic guest who thinks Pope Francis has questions to answer (Edward Pentin) and another Catholic guest who thinks it's the Pope's "right-wing" critics who have questions to answer (Austen Ivereigh).
In light of everything I've mentioned earlier in this post (and at this blog since its inception), however, it didn't surprise me in the slightest that Edward Stourton put challenging question after challenging question to Edward Pentin (the conservative Catholic) whilst giving Austen Iverleigh (the liberal Catholic) an easy ride. The difference in tone was palpable.
Nor did it remotely surprise me that Edward Stourton, in a later interview with Vincent Nichols, Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, went way beyond BBC impartiality and, as if in passing, compared the claims of Cardinal Viganò (and Edward Pentin) about cover-ups around Pope Francis to Dan Brown novels - a comparison Ed brought into the conversation.
Nor did it remotely surprise me that Ed introduced Mr Pentin as a "conservative" whilst not introducing Mr Ivereigh as a "liberal". (This was classic 'bias by labelling').
Nor did it remotely surprise me that Ed (Tablet trustee) failed to mention that Austen Ivereigh - the man he gave an easier ride to - used to be a deputy editor of The Tablet.
I feel as if I'm somewhat entering into an ecumenical matter here, but the bias seems very clear to me, especially perhaps because I remain detached from it (not being a Catholic, not being religious).
Please listen to the programme for yourself and this interview and see if you see what I mean.
Well, it was balanced enough in that it featured a Catholic guest who thinks Pope Francis has questions to answer (Edward Pentin) and another Catholic guest who thinks it's the Pope's "right-wing" critics who have questions to answer (Austen Ivereigh).
In light of everything I've mentioned earlier in this post (and at this blog since its inception), however, it didn't surprise me in the slightest that Edward Stourton put challenging question after challenging question to Edward Pentin (the conservative Catholic) whilst giving Austen Iverleigh (the liberal Catholic) an easy ride. The difference in tone was palpable.
Nor did it remotely surprise me that Edward Stourton, in a later interview with Vincent Nichols, Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, went way beyond BBC impartiality and, as if in passing, compared the claims of Cardinal Viganò (and Edward Pentin) about cover-ups around Pope Francis to Dan Brown novels - a comparison Ed brought into the conversation.
Nor did it remotely surprise me that Ed introduced Mr Pentin as a "conservative" whilst not introducing Mr Ivereigh as a "liberal". (This was classic 'bias by labelling').
Nor did it remotely surprise me that Ed (Tablet trustee) failed to mention that Austen Ivereigh - the man he gave an easier ride to - used to be a deputy editor of The Tablet.
I feel as if I'm somewhat entering into an ecumenical matter here, but the bias seems very clear to me, especially perhaps because I remain detached from it (not being a Catholic, not being religious).
Please listen to the programme for yourself and this interview and see if you see what I mean.
Probably suits the BBC religious hierarchy to have one sub-sect of a sect of Christianity at war with another sub-sect.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile they can continue making their plans to abolish Sunday and replace it with a programme called Al Jumah ("Friday")...eventually.
Thank you for raising this issue. I made a similar complaint some time ago, and someone working on the programme actually contacted me. Things did seem to improve for a while, but now they seem to be back to their old tricks.
ReplyDeleteMore generally, the Sunday programme over many years has been simply appalling in its handling of religious issues, especially given the almost total absence now of serious religious coverage on the BBC. Its hostility to traditional Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular, and its promotion of secularist views, is very marked. By contrast, it gives Islam, which has many more issues to address, a notoriously easy ride.