Katya Adler's latest BBC News website piece 'Why Brexit Stage Two may turn into a rocky ride' is typical of her output.
Yes, she's the BBC's Europe Editor, but her focus is far more narrowly focused on the EU (and a certain country that's about to leave the EU), so she might better be described as the BBC's European Union Editor.
That being so, she's bound to report very heavily the views of those in charge of the EU, even at the risk of sometimes sounding like a parrot - which would be fine if she also maintained a healthy scepticism about their pronouncements and treated UK government statements in the same fashion.
But she hasn't done that. She reports the words of EU leaders and UK leaders but treats the former as if they're written on tablets of stone while casting a sharply sceptical eye on the latter. Taking the pronouncements of EU leaders at face value while treating statements from UK leaders with caution has become her trademark.
This latest piece - reporting on the Ursula von der Leyen/Boris Johnson meeting - is very much a case in point. It asks sceptical questions of only one them: Boris Johnson.
So is he right? one subheadline reads. What will be the price of a Johnson 'victory'? another asks.
Indeed, the main point of the piece is to prove Boris wrong when he talks optimistically about a trade deal within a year. No, it's going to be "a rocky ride", insists Katya.
Why not 'fact-check' Ursula von der Leyen too? Well, that's not Katya's way, is it?
And that's why she's been caught out several times after predicting the resolute EU' implacability against the useless Brits before the EU has then changed its mind and re-opened discussions it said it wouldn't re-open and renegotiated deals it said it wouldn't renegotiate. She doesn't seem to take on board that the EU might be weaker that she thinks, and could just sometimes be blagging it.
And that bias is betrayed by her language. Just look at it in this very piece. Look at her talk of Ursula's "clear words of warning" and how the EU Commission "pointed out" something and how Ursula "went on to warn" something. It's the language of the prophet and the teacher. Boris and the UK side don't get this kind of language. The EU is "warning" the UK and "pointing out" to the UK. We're merely "saying" things.
Katya Adler ought to be as sceptical about the EU side as she is about the UK side. She isn't.
Yes, she's the BBC's Europe Editor, but her focus is far more narrowly focused on the EU (and a certain country that's about to leave the EU), so she might better be described as the BBC's European Union Editor.
That being so, she's bound to report very heavily the views of those in charge of the EU, even at the risk of sometimes sounding like a parrot - which would be fine if she also maintained a healthy scepticism about their pronouncements and treated UK government statements in the same fashion.
But she hasn't done that. She reports the words of EU leaders and UK leaders but treats the former as if they're written on tablets of stone while casting a sharply sceptical eye on the latter. Taking the pronouncements of EU leaders at face value while treating statements from UK leaders with caution has become her trademark.
This latest piece - reporting on the Ursula von der Leyen/Boris Johnson meeting - is very much a case in point. It asks sceptical questions of only one them: Boris Johnson.
So is he right? one subheadline reads. What will be the price of a Johnson 'victory'? another asks.
Indeed, the main point of the piece is to prove Boris wrong when he talks optimistically about a trade deal within a year. No, it's going to be "a rocky ride", insists Katya.
Why not 'fact-check' Ursula von der Leyen too? Well, that's not Katya's way, is it?
And that's why she's been caught out several times after predicting the resolute EU' implacability against the useless Brits before the EU has then changed its mind and re-opened discussions it said it wouldn't re-open and renegotiated deals it said it wouldn't renegotiate. She doesn't seem to take on board that the EU might be weaker that she thinks, and could just sometimes be blagging it.
And that bias is betrayed by her language. Just look at it in this very piece. Look at her talk of Ursula's "clear words of warning" and how the EU Commission "pointed out" something and how Ursula "went on to warn" something. It's the language of the prophet and the teacher. Boris and the UK side don't get this kind of language. The EU is "warning" the UK and "pointing out" to the UK. We're merely "saying" things.
Katya Adler ought to be as sceptical about the EU side as she is about the UK side. She isn't.
Katya’s blatant bias has probably done the BBC more harm during Brexit than any other journalist on their payroll.
ReplyDeleteAs her defence, she claims that she has to tell the story from an EU perspective - that’s her job.
But instead of keeping a healthy journalistic scepticism, she has gone native - and it shows.
She clearly believes everything her sources tell her and is now a fully paid up member of the EU project. Being based in Brussels and interacting solely with EU officials means she is inhaling the very essence of the project all the time and it has permeated her mind.
All her one-sided reporting is now through that prism, the BBC bosses turn a blind eye because they are also converts and believers. She can’t change even though the battle is lost in the UK.
Sorry, some mixed metaphors but you get my drift.
If only the BBC had a 'UK Editor' that was on our side. Then the ethnic German Adler and 'our' female ethnic Pakistani, (I'm being realistic here), could argue it out on-screen.
ReplyDeleteMark Easton as 'Home Editor' seems to be the nearest the BBC gets to having a 'UK Editor', and he's as biased as they come.
DeleteIt's partly too that they all fall into a kind of common BBC mode and vocabulary, such as all those 'warning' and 'warned' repetitions. They use them in a range of programmes and in News bulletins too. And the mode is striving to adopt a serious and earnest stance and tone.
ReplyDeleteGood point. What they strive for is not what they achieve. Earnest yes, but lecturing, manipulating and crafting news by omission means they can never be taken as a serious news broadcaster.
Delete