Sunday, 3 November 2019

A Tale of Two BBC Reporters


Jon and John

Oh, you don't often hear from David Morris, Conservative MP for Morecambe, especially when it comes to criticising the BBC. He's usually silent on the issue. Ah, there's must be an election on! Anyhow, the Mail quotes him saying "Barely has the Election campaign begun and already the BBC is betraying its pro-Corbyn leanings and its anti-Boris bias." 

This was in reaction to a BBC One News at Ten report last week. 

BBC bosses were last night accused of blatant ‘anti-Boris bias’ for failing to nail Labour’s lie that the Tories will sell off the National Health Service to Donald Trump after Brexit. 
Conservatives angrily accused BBC1’s flagship News at Ten of promoting Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘ridiculous’ claim last week – even though the US President specifically ruled it out on the very same day. 
Tory MPs demanded to know why Mr Trump’s trenchant denial was not included in the BBC report on Thursday night. 
They also took offence at what they saw as ‘pro-Corbyn’ references, including BBC deputy political editor John Pienaar reporting how ‘Jeremy Corbyn has offered real change’.
Here's a transcript of some of it:


Newsreader: President Trump wades into the election campaign with an extraordinary attack on Jeremy Corbyn. In a radio interview, Donald Trump tells the Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage exactly what he thinks of the Labour leader. 
Donald Trump: Corbyn would be so bad for your country. He'd be so bad, he'd take you in such a bad way. He'd take you to such bad places. 
The president's criticism came just hours after Labour launched its election campaign, vowing to transform Britain by taking on the establishment elite. 
Jeremy Corbyn: This election is a once-in-a-generation chance to transform our country, to take on the vested interests that are holding people back. 
Laura Kuenssberg: The campaign is barely a day old, but already it's the American President weighing in. 

NewsreaderGood evening. President Trump has waded into the general election - just hours after Labour launched its campaign - with an extraordinary attack on Jeremy Corbyn, breaking all conventions. The US President said Mr Corbyn would be bad for the country - and would take the country into "such bad places". Meanwhile he heaped praise on Boris Johnson and called him a "fantastic man." He was speaking to the Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage during an interview for LBC. Tonight Jeremy Corbyn has hit back, accusing the president of trying to interfere in the election. Here's our North America editor Jon Sopel. 
Jon Sopel: The US president and Nigel Farage are close. 
Nigel Farage: We made June the 23rd our Independence Day when we smashed the establishment! 
The Brexit Party leader has spoken at rallies, and today, the US president returned the favour and appeared on Mr Farage's radio show. And he waded into the British general election with alacrity, in breach of all normal tradition. His first target was the opposition leader, Jeremy Corbyn. 
Donald Trump: Corbyn would be so bad for your country. He'd be so bad, he'd take you in such a bad way. 
Mr Corbyn tweeted this in response. 
"Donald Trump is trying to interfere in Britain's election to get his friend Boris Johnson elected. It was Trump who said in June, the NHS is on the table, and he knows if Labour wins, US corporations will not get their hands on it. Our NHS is not for sale." 
In the interview, the President also seemed to advocate a Johnson-Farage marriage. 
Donald Trump: I have great relationships with many of the leaders, including Boris. He's a fantastic man and I think he's the exact right guy for the times, I know that you and him will end up doing something that could be terrific if you and he get together as, you know, an unstoppable force. 
Three and a half years ago, Brexiteers were incensed when Barack Obama came to London at David Cameron's request to argue why Britain should vote to remain in the European Union. 
Barack Obama: Our focus is in negotiating with a big block of the European Union to get a trade agreement done. And the UK is going to be in the back of the queue. 
But that sparked a backlash, and may well have been counter-productive. For all the proclaimed closeness between the President and Prime Minister, the real test of US-UK relations will come with the negotiation of a post-Brexit trade deal, and here the President had another little grenade to toss. He warned that the withdrawal agreement negotiated by Mr Johnson and EU leaders might, under certain circumstances, make a trade deal with America impossible. This is a president who takes the view that norms are there to be shattered and unmistakably this is a direct intervention in the UK election and unmistakably this is a breach of the norms of behaviour. It is clear who Donald Trump was hoping to help and who he was hoping to harm with this interview, but as Barack Obama found out three and a half years ago, there can be unintended consequences, and these things can easily backfire. 
Newsreader: Jon Sopel, thank you.

NewsreaderJeremy Corbyn says Labour will put forward what he called "a radical and exciting plan for real change". Our deputy political editor, John Pienaar, looks at what Labour's key campaign pledges could mean for you. 
John Pienaar: Jeremy Corbyn's offered real change, and his plans for rights and rewards for people in work certainly offer that. Take pay. Under Labour, over time, they would be negotiated centrally, sector by sector, nationwide. That's a much bigger role for trade unions, which would be recognised by law. But some say that some companies can't afford to pay as much as others. You would risk pricing people out of work. On staff ownership, more people would own a stake in their company under Labour. 10% of shares in companies with more than 250 staff. Would that deter investment, maybe put bosses off growing their workforce? Or if you owned a stake in your company, would you work harder, maybe push up profits? Other big changes, a 32 hour working week over ten years. Sceptics say if you cut working hours people end up paid less. A Corbyn Government would renationalise, meaning the state owns it, on a huge scale. Mail, rail, water, energy. There hasn't been a Labour plan so far-reaching and radical in nearly 40 years. Critics like the CBI say the cost would be eye-watering, nearly £200 billion. Labour say that is over-the-top and fanciful, and anyway that the profits could go towards paying off interest on the money borrowed to buy the assets. We are still waiting for detailed costing, but more cash for schools and hospitals is on offer. The party is in something of a bidding war with Boris Johnson who is making rival promises to end austerity and invest in our services. Jeremy Corbyn want to build what he calls a fairer country, with higher taxes on corporations, the rich and the better off. Labour would target those he calls dodgy landlords, greedy bosses and polluters. It is a long list. He is promising stronger rights for tenants and for workers. The big argument's about whether higher taxes that make the big argument is about whether higher taxes punish success. Labour says it's about fairness, more from those who can afford it, and anyway most people won't have to pay any more. In this election so much could come down to the question: Who do voters trust? Boris Johnson's personal ratings in the polls are low compared to past leaders but just now Jeremy Corbyn's are far worse, worse than any Labour leader in decades. Now that can change. Whether it does could have a big influence on the outcome of what will be the most unpredictable general election we've seen. 


Hmm. I think these transcripts show two things: one, that Jon Sopel's report was very characteristic of the BBC North America Editor's snide and loaded style of reporting and, two, that John Pienaar's piece was actually carefully balanced and, in my view, fair.  I much prefer the latter.

1 comment:

  1. It's interesting to note those differences in reporting of - or rather BBC news reader's and editor's comments on - Presidents' interventions.
    OF TRUMP:
    Newsreader: '...breaking all conventions'
    Editor: '...in breach of all normal tradition'
    Editor: '...This is a president who takes the view that norms are there to be shattered and unmistakably this is a direct intervention in the UK election and unmistakably this is a breach of the norms of behaviour.'
    'It is clear who Donald Trump was hoping to help and who he was hoping to harm with this interview...'

    OF OBAMA:

    NO censorious comments characterising it as a breach or intending harm.

    In contrast, the BBC comments were primarily about the effects of what Obama did:

    'Three and a half years ago, Brexiteers were incensed when Barack Obama came to London at David Cameron's request to argue why Britain should vote to remain in the European Union.'

    'But that sparked a backlash, and may well have been counter-productive.'

    ' but as Barack Obama found out three and a half years ago, there can be unintended consequences, and these things can easily backfire...'

    And anyway, it was all Cameron's fault.

    It sort of was but that's not the point.

    Unmistakably we now know, because it has been iterated several times, what the BBC thinks and which of them was beyond the Pale.

    Incidentally, why 'Brexiteers'? Isn't that a bit too too something? 'Brexiters' would be more of a standard and neutral formation.

    ReplyDelete

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