A chat about Any Questions, Chris Mason & Peter Hitchens

For those who listened to Any Questions on Radio 4 last night (or are about to do so again when it's repeated shortly), here's a little Twitter chat about it. 

It's a rather civilised one by the standards of Twitter, and I think that fair points were made all round.

Chris Mason is a great improvement on Jonathan Dimbleby. I think he'd also make a great replacement for Anita Anand on Any Answers - though, alas, I don't think my prayers will be answered on that front. 

Moreover, I do hope that the Monster Munch story below is true. I rather like pickle onion-flavoured Monster Munches, and haven't had one for aeons. I think I would have gratefully accepted Chris's kind offer.

Ron Swanson: Might actually be worth listening to Any Questions tonight. The BBC have, reluctantly I’m sure, invited Peter Hitchens on.
Chris Mason (to Ron Swanson), retweeted by Peter Hitchens): Thanks for listening. We don’t invite anyone onto the programme reluctantly. Peter is a brilliant debater and I’d love to have him back soon.
Ron Swanson (to Chris Mason): Chris, I don’t want a row with you, and this isn’t even aimed at you or Any Questions which has people from all views on. My issue is with the BBC in general. Have a good day.
Mike Wilson: Peter always gives his honest opinion with no flannel, you don’t have to agree with him to see he’s genuine, which is a breath of fresh air these days.
Ron Swanson: Chris is much better than Dimblebot too, IMHO. He actually lets people talk and doesn’t constantly interrupt. A good appointment. Thumbs up. As for Peter, I don’t always agree - which is good! I don’t want to always agree with someone. How boring. But what he says he believes. Rare.
Sir Radfoot Strongdoctor: I once encountered Mr Mason in a long queue at a post office in Hounslow. He was eating noisily on a packet of pickled onion flavoured Monster Munch. On catching my gaze he offered the packet to me and invited me to take one. I politely refused. "Suit y'self" he said.
Robert Miller (to Chris Mason): You gave him a fair hearing too. More than some other programmes did.

Ee ba gum

A Yorkshireman

Many people were taken aback by the appointment of Chris Mason to replace the younger Dimbleby as host of Any Questions? 

People were expecting a 'diverse' person to be appointed. 

A headline at The Conservative Woman summed it up: White man gets BBC job. What went wrong? 

If. however, you thought this was a rare example of the BBC not following its 'diversity'/'identity' obsession, you were a bit premature. Today's Times interview with Radio 4 controller Mohit Bakaya confirms that The Great Chris Mason (™ Andrew Marr) wasn't just chosen on merit. He was chosen because of his Northern accent:

One of the reasons I put Chris Mason in on Any Questions was just to start to see if we could get more voices from around the UK on the network.

Ashwatch

For fans of 'Literally a Communist' Ash Sarkar, you'll be pleased to learn that the BBC invited her onto another of its flagship programmes this week - Radio 4's Any Questions? 

I have a question: Why?

How did THIS happen?

The news that Chris Mason is to the next permanent presenter of Any Questions? has gone down pretty well. 

Understandably so. He's a likable chap. 

Gary Oliver at The Conservative Woman is still surprised though:

[Chris Mason] is a mildly irreverent, self-deprecating and congenial character, as well as being an experienced and highly competent political broadcaster. However . . . Yorkshire-born Mason has a peely-wally complexion and white privilege enabled him to attend a high-performing grammar school followed by Cambridge University. For the past 39 years Mason’s preferred pronouns have been he/his/him and this unapologetic patriarch appears unwilling to join the inordinate number of BBC employees who identify as transgender. The cisgender man is married – but to a woman, for heaven’s sake!  

Yet despite ticking none of the Corporation’s crucial boxes, somehow Chris Mason has landed the prestigious role as host of Any Questions? How on earth did the BBC’s diversity auditors approve the appointment of this white-privileged, heteronormative man?

*******

Meanwhile Roger Bolton interviewed Chris Mason on Feedback and asked him if he was also going to be presenting Any Answers? - as Jonathan Dimblebly did in his early years - but, alas, he's not.

So, folks, it looks as if we're stuck with 'The Anita Anand Show' for the forseeable future. 

Any Questions. The one about Islamophobia

This is pretty much the same topic as the previous one, but I might as well create a separate post for the edition of Any Questions already noted below the line, in which Iain Dale disgraced himself with some unadulterated gobbledegook about Islamophobia:

 “Everybody knows what it means, and just because someone has a different coloured skin and prays to a different God it doesn’t make them your enemy” 

But what if they are pale-skinned, and their God has stated unequivocally that they are your enemy and they should hate you?   And what about Andy McDonald MP, who expressed exactly the view I mentioned in my previous post, namely that all written or spoken criticism of Islam automatically implies the author's approval of murder.

“look at some of the writings that take place. it’s not just on social media. It’s on our Main Stream Media! Where people are writing with bile directed at people of the Islamic faith… […] but it seems to have got into the box of “It’s ok to say this”. We have got to eradicate (the rhetoric) from our national and international life otherwise these things will happen again.

 Even Jonathan Dimbles noticed what he did there. 

“Andy McDonald, those individuals whom you describe who write in a very ugly and prejudicial way, clearly are not the individuals who would commit the kind of atrocities that occurred in Christchurch. Are you saying that you think there is some kind of linkage between their writings and the uh uh um disordered, demented behaviour of the people like this person who is going to be charged very probably with this crime?

Undeterred, McDonald expanded his point thusly:

“I think undoubtedly so, if people who are writing for what are otherwise respected publications and which have wide circulation, and there are many people who have been on panels such as these, who’ve had those views and have written articles in those terms, I think they’ve got to look at themselves in the mirror today and say what contribution does that make in fomenting that level of antagonism and prejudice and discrimination against people, and they are playing a very very active role in that and I think they’ve got to question how they behave and the sorts of languages (sic) that they indulge in and I really do urge them to think very carefully about this because they are part of the issue. 

Perhaps realising the serious implications of what he just said, he appeared to row back:

“I’m not saying for one minute that they would sanction or approve such horrific events, but it’s the sort of environment that they establish, of acceptable discrimination or denial of the problem of Islamophobia, and those are the sort of things that have got to be addressed.

On antisemitism, it’s quite a different story.

“While the incidences of antisemitism are restricted to what is thankfully a very tiny proportion of what is a huge membership of over half a million, when accepted for what it is, we’re not in denial about it, and we will deal with it and we’re doing everything in our power to eradicate from our movement we have an absolute zero tolerance, what I would - I think that’s how we should approach it but I would - in terms of Islamophobia there’s a different attitude to it - it’s almost ‘casualised’, as if it’s acceptable, and Baroness Warsi has spoken out very loudly and long about that being rife in the Conservative Party and I just would urge colleagues across the house to take that seriously and root it out because at the moment, not enough is being done.  

Responsibility rests with politicians, responsibility rests with the media as well - to express themselves in appropriate terms, because it’s ‘othering’ and scapegoating of others is disastrous for a cohesive society.

Andy McDonald has some gall. As if antisemitism hasn’t been rife in the left for years.  As if it's restricted to a very small proportion of the party. As if the Labour Party hasn’t been in the business of ‘othering’ Jews for years. As if the Guardian hasn’t been spouting antisemitic bile for years. As if Seamus Milne isn’t a rabid Jew-hating anti-Zionist fanatic. As if antisemitism hasn’t been "casualised" as if it’s acceptable. As if the Corbyn’s Labour Party hasn’t  got to look at themselves in the mirror today and say what contribution does that make in fomenting that level of antagonism and prejudice and discrimination against Jews and Israel, and playing a very very active role in that.” As if Baroness Warsi expressed herself in appropriate terms.

Above and below: examples of people slamming each other.

As for double standards on 'terrorism', well,

I couldn't listen to Any Answers all the way through - but as far as I could tell, they skipped this topic altogether and leapt straight to Brexit. Correct me if I'm wrong, please do. If not, I can hardly believe that no-one at all had anything to say about the tenor of this discussion. Even the M.P. who is always identified as "of Palestinian origins" (impeccably sacred credentials there) avoided answering the question in a similarly Islamophillic fashion. She deviated, almost immediately, onto a mini-diatribe about poverty and deprivation. 

Jacob Rees-Mogg gets the full Jonathan Dimbleby treatment

Jacob and the other one

On this morning's Today, just before the 8 o'clock news, Jonathan Dimbleby (brother of the more famous David) previewed tonight's Any Questions:

An airport shuts down; more homeless die; Trump drops another bombshell; Putin backs Brexit; Theresa May turns pantomime dame; Jeremy Corbyn provides rich pickings for lip-readers; cabinet ministers are openly at odds with each other but reassure us that troops will be on standby if needed. So a festive mood for our last programme of the year with Jacob Rees-Mogg, leader of Brexit's militant tendency; Joanna Cherry for the 'don't leave at any price' SNP; Shami Chakrabarti speaking for Labour's 'we have yet to decide' option; and former president of the CBI now chair of London First Paul Drechsler, who would just like some certainty please. This evening at 8 o'clock. 

Of the phrases used to describe the four guests, you'll spot that Jacob Rees-Mogg got the insulting one and that, as far as the other guests go, Baroness Chakrabarti got a critical one, while - in contrast - Joanna Cherry and Paul Drechsler both got helpful ones.

Why was that? Was it because the latter pair are the clearest opponents of Brexit, so merit such 'helpful' introductions, while Jacob Rees-Mogg, as the clearest supporter of Brexit, merits nothing but mockery? And did Shami end up with a (gentler) ribbing because of her party leadership's refusal to come down clearly on the same side as Ms. Cherry and Mr. Drechsler over Brexit? Or is this all just conspiracy-theory-mongering?

Whatever, it wasn't a one-off from the BBC man today.

Here's Jonathan Dimbleby's introduction to the programme itself, coming live from London. And note who this time is the only guest to get belittled and mocked. (Spoiler alert: It's Jacob):

Joanna Cherry is a QC by profession but, nowadays, virtually fully engaged in speaking for her party, the SNP, at Westminster on justice and home affairs. Shami Chakrabarti came to prominence as the director of the human rights charity Liberty/ She's now in the Lords and serves the Labour Party Shadow Attorney General. Jacob Rees-Mogg chairs the European Research Group, which was instrumental in failing to topple Theresa May as his party leader last week. No less significantly he says, admits, acknowledges, he's never changed one of his six children's nappies. Paul Drechsler is deputy president the CBI (he was president before that), chair of the Bibby shipping line and, after running a number of major businesses, is now chair of London First, which campaigns to make the capital the best city in the world to do business. Our panel. 

Yes, Ms. Cherry, the Noble Baroness and Mr. Drechsler got straightforward introductions, which none of them would have felt displeased by, from their BBC host. Only Mr. Rees-Mogg got the full 'Jonathan Dimbleby treatment'.

Besides the outright derision of "...was instrumental in failing to topple...", there was also the loaded 'colour' about him not changing his six children's nappies ("says, admits, acknowledges") .

And (girding our loins and listening on) who do you think got interrupted the most by Jonathan tonight? Yes, Jacob Rees-Mogg.

And who got asked the most challenging questions by Jonathan? Yes, Jacob Rees-Mogg - by a large margin (more than twice any one else).

And which panellist did Jonathan mockingly impersonate during one of the BBC man's many interventions? Yes, Jacob Rees-Mogg.

And who was the only panellist to get repeated questions about his personal integrity from BBC presenter Jonathan Dimbleby? Well, you might have thought Baroness Chakrabarti would have been first in line for that kind of treatment but, no, this is the BBC....so, yes, it was Jacob Rees-Mogg again.

My take on the stats for tonight's Any Questions runs as follows:

Jacob Rees-Mogg

Questions - 12

Interruptions - 4

Joanna Cherry

Questions - 2

Interruptions - 1

Paul Drechsler

Questions - 5

Interruptions - 1

Shami Chakrabarti 

Questions - 4

Interruptions - 3

Anyhow, another very vital statistic was pointed out by Mr Rees-Mogg himself (on Twitter):

And when the Brexit question came up it very clearly was 3 Remainers (and the most vocal part of the audience) against 1 Brexiteer.

As I've said before, I rarely listen to Any Questions these days (having been a great fan in my youth), mostly because of what I felt was the bias of its presenter and production team. I dipped in tonight (purely for the blog's sake) - as I did a few weeks back - and found it exactly how I remember it: Biased. 

For Old Time's Sake

Jonty Dimbles

It's been a long while since I've listened to Any Questions (at least without switching off within minutes). 

I first listened to it in the days of gentle John Timpson, but have got ever less inclined to listen to it during the eternity, boundless and bare, that Jonathan Dimbleby has been presenting it. 

Tonight, for the first time in years, I decided to listen to it in its entirety.

Why? Well, I wanted to test a hunch.... 

I'd seen that UKIP leader Gerard Batten was on and wanted to see if Jonathan treated him considerably worse than he treated his three other guests (Labour's Caroline Flint, Conservative Anna Soubry and the GMB's Tim Roache).

And, just as I expected, yes, he did. 

Much worse.

I counted 'unhelpful', 'helpful' and 'neutral/undecidable' interventions from Jonathan, and found: 

2 'helpful', 1 'unhelpful' for Anna Soubry

1 'neutral' and two 'unhelpful' for Tim Roache

1 'helpful', 1 'neutral' and 1 'unhelpful' for Caroline Flint

1 'neutral' and 4 'unhelpful' for Gerard Batten 

And the 'unhelpful' interventions from the Any Questions host to UKIP's Mr Batten were several degrees of 'unhelpfulness' more 'unhelpful' than the 'unhelpful' interventions to the other three guests. 

Indeed, I'd re-label them 'hostile' rather than 'unhelpful'.

BBC presenter bias proved. QED. Onwards and upwards. 

And the Middlesbrough audience was fascinating too. With the Brexit vote going 65.5% to 34.5% in favour of Leave the audience would be expected to be heavily pro-Brexit, and Anna Soubry was duly heckled. But the applause she then got for her anti-Brexit rhetoric, despite that heckling, was strikingly loud - and much louder than that given to any of the three less-anti-Brexit panellists. Peculiar.

And the anti-Gerard Batten, anti-Tommy Robinson contingent in the audience was extremely vocal. With a highly hostile contingent in the audience against him, his three fellow panellists reviling him and BBC presenter Jonathan Dimbleby bating him with considerably more 'hostile' interventions than he put to the others, UKIP's Mr Batten is highly unlikely to have come away from tonight's proceedings with an improved view of the BBC or a changed view on the question of BBC bias.

Please listen for yourselves here (if you can bear it) and see if you want to persuade Gerard to think otherwise.

Cat Among the Pigeons

A Guido Fawkes post yesterday has raised a few hackles at the BBC:

BBC FLAGSHIP SHOWS STILL HAVE REMAIN PANEL BIAS

Brexiteers always like to complain about Brexit bias on the BBC, so Guido has crunched the numbers on the BBC’s three flagship panel shows, Question Time, Politics Live and Any Questions to see if they have a point. They certainly do…

Since the start of the political season in September, 72% of the official panel guests across the three shows have been Remainers, while a mere 28% have been Leavers. A whopping 87% of the panels had a Remainer majority – only 13% of shows had a panel equally balanced between Leavers and Remainers. Not once have Leavers outnumbered Remainers.

Eight shows since the start of September have seen Brexiteers outnumbered 4 to 1 by Remainers, while two shows in the last two weeks managed to feature four Remainers and no Brexiteers at all. No-one is disputing that the Remainer elite are the majority in the Westminster politico-media bubble, the Beeb should try however to reflect the majority of the country…

As you might expect the BBC's head of live political programmes has had something to say in response.

Here's a flavour of what's been going on:

Media Guido: BBC Flagship Shows Still Have Remain Panel Bias.

Rob Burley: Am I right to assume that you are counting as Leave or Remain based on where a guest stood over two years ago on 23/06/16? You do know that political programmes have to by law reflect party support not the position of guests on a vote in 2016?

Media Guido: We do know Rob. We also know that you don't have any role in #BBCqt or #BBCaq. All we would like to see from you is that when say #PoliticsLive discusses Brexit related issues that there is a balanced panel. Is that too hard for BBC current affairs to manage? Just once?

Rob Burley: You ask just once. So let’s take today for example: 2 pro-Brexit and 2 Remain. #facts

Media Guido: It wasn't Rob, as a matter of #facts John Bird supports a second referendum, the Baroness and Shakira were Remainers as was Chris Philp (until recently). Brendan was your only Leaver. 4-1 or 3-2 to Remain allowing for Chris Philp's recent change of mind.

Rob Burley: This just shows the nonsense of your position. Bird was talking about businesses in railway arches and didn’t utter a word about Brexit. And whenever Philp became a Brexit supporter he is one now. So it was 2-2 as I said. Still awaiting your methodology.

******* 

Gw: Well here is one to answer. You had Greening, Morgan and Wollaston round the table at the Tory conf over 3 consecutive days, all support a 2nd ref yet only about 7 of 316 Tory MPs do. Bias much.
Rob Burley: If you tallied up all of the others on those days those 3 would be minority. But we aren't working towards the impractical numerical balancing of a range of nuanced positions on Brexit. We credit our viewers with more intelligence, not us playing daft numbers game. 

*******

Rob Burley

Media Guido: BBC Flagship Shows Still Have Remain Panel Bias.
Rob Burley: Claptrap. No methodology provided but almost certainly counts guests as “Leave” or “Remain” based on where they stood on 23/6/16. Result: all Lab front bench and most of Con one - including the PM - will count as “Remain” despite both parties pledged to carry through Brexit. Daft.
BBC Waste: The problem is @RobBurl this flawed methodology Ken Clarke who will actively speak as a Remainer against the government on BBC political output will be classed as as Brexit supporting column in BBC stats as that is his party's position. You can't deny that is bonkers.
Rob Burley: Fair point BUT if we were counting - and I think that’s both impossible and undesirable - I’d count Clarke as Remain. My point is that this “research” counts May, Javid, Hunt etc as Remain despite the fact that, unlike Clarke, they have changed their minds since the referendum. To be clear I’m not suggesting a methodology that attempts to capture the truth of people’s myriad and evolving positions on Brexit - e.g Gove backs Chequers, Johnson doesn’t, May does, Greening doesn’t - I’m just pointing out the glaring inadequacy of the GF methodology.
BBC Waste: I am in violent agreement. The BBC should make this argument:
1. We follow the rules.
2. The rules are inadequate.
Instead BBC makes strategic error of saying, our output is balanced, without that essential context.

Ooh, and here's a lovely 'complaints from both sides' comment (what post would be complete without one of those!):

Steven Kettle: This is simple for me. I see the right complain of BBC bias towards the left and the left complain of BBC bias towards the right. Result = BBC is doing an excellent job of being balanced, I apply the same logic to brexit and arrive at the same conclusion. Keep up the good work.

Rob Burley: Thanks Steven.

I hope Rob was just thanking Steven for the best wishes there and not for his main point - which remains, as ever, a fallacy.

Well, all in all, I take Rob Burley's point that the balancing of Remain/Leave guests by labelling them simply from their public positions in June 2016, if that's what Guido Fawkes did, is too crude a measure and that consideration needs giving to their public positions now, such as on whether they want to stop Brexit or go through with Brexit. You do get into obvious difficulties with, say, Labour Sir Keir Starmer and Barry Gardiner, both Remainers in 2016 but both saying that they will respect the referendum result - the added complication being that Mr Gardiner really sounds as if he means it and Sir Keir sounds as if he doesn't really mean it. And, yes, only people who talked about Brexit should have been included in the stats. So Guido's methodology does needed spelling out - especially when you see how he reacted to the Chris Philp question. 

But as the BBC follows its legal obligations to balance party political guests by counting (yes, by "playing a daft numbers game") and is obsessive about 'playing a number's game' when it comes to promoting diversity in its workforce and across its output, then surely it isn't right to dismiss 'counting' per se? 

However imperfect, counting remains one of the best ways to check if balance is being achieved, whether that be on Question Time, Any Questions on the one Rob has responsibility for, Politics Live. Unless you count (to some consistent degree) how can you really be sure you're 'getting it about right'?

And I don't think Rob properly answered Gw's point either.

Kerry-Anne Up the Khyber

I'm all for broadening the range of voices on the BBC, so I've no objection whatsoever to Kerry-Anne Mendoza of the alt-left The Canary being invited onto Any Questions. 

And besides, it looks as if she might give us even better entertainment value than Diane Abbott. 

This, however, was embarrassing to listen to...which I why I felt the immediate need to re-listen to it and then transcribe it for you!

It all began with a question about whether we should boycott the World Cup in Russia in response to the poisoning of Yulia and Sergei Skripal:

Jonathan Dimbleby: Kerry-Anne Mendoza?

Kerry-Anne Mendoza: Erm.....I hate that Sergei and his daughter died. It's appalling, and it reminded me of the horror that I felt when Litvinenko...(heckle)....sorry, what? (heckle: "They're not dead"). Sorry, I just assumed they were by now. It's absolutely...But the point is...(boos from the audience). No, I mean it.

Jonathan Dimbleby: Sorry, sorry. I should have pointed that out immediately. They are very ill...

Kerry-Anne Mendoza: Yeah, I know. 

Jonathan Dimbleby: ...and they are absolutely alive.

Kerry-Anne Mendoza: Yeah, thank you. I apologise...erm...(long pause) I find it terrifying. I find it terrifying when Litvinenko was killed...erm...(long pause) and this stuff happens. We don't know....(long pause)...(etc)

Ironically, around half a minute later Kerry-Anne then implored people to get their facts straight!:

Kerry-Anne Mendoza: But often what the best thing to do is to wait until you have the facts, wait until you have those facts clear and then take careful and delicate action. 

Most playwrights would probably sell their souls to Satan to be able to make up dialogue as darkly comedic as this (including such gems as "Sorry, I just assumed they were by now", "But often what the best thing to do is to wait until you have the facts" and, my own favourite, "Yeah, I know."). If it wasn't actually real, you'd surely take it for satire.

Roll on Kerry-Anne's next BBC appearance!

Are 'Question Time' and 'Any Questions' biased against Leave supporters?

Last month came that Civitas paper The Brussels Broadcasting Corporation? which laid bare, in considerable detail, twenty years' worth of material proving that pro-withdrawal voices were consistently marginalised by the BBC despite large percentages of the British public (just-as-consistently) wanting us to leave the EU. It's main focus was Today.

Then, on the very last day of last month, came an Institute of Economic Affairs study into the same subject which focused instead on Question Time and Any Questions and which also found systematic bias against Leave supporters. 

Looking at 281 Question Time panellists and 297 Any Questions panellists over an 18 month period from June 2016 to December 2017, it found that: 

Balancing on the basis of whether panellists voted for Remain or Leave, both programmes favour Remain by about 68% to 32%.  

Even if you were to re-categorise Remainers who are now supporting Brexit from the government benches into the Leave column, the balance is still 60% to 40% in favour of Remain.

The statistic in the second paragraph is a useful one. That was something The Sun failed to consider when it tried a similar (but far more inept) thing with The Andrew Marr Show and The Sunday Politics last year. It's only right and proper that the IEA includes those 'Releavers' as the first statistic by itself wouldn't be enough now. 

The IEA goes on: 

The imbalance on the two programmes is substantial, consistent and at odds with public opinion. The analysis reveals a two to one bias in favour of those who voted for Remain. 

Brexit is probably the most defining issue of the UK policy debate at present and as such should be vital in balance. For the vast majority of both programmes, Brexit has been the most dominant issue discussed on both programmes. Both shows appear to accept the predominance of Brexit as an issue, but by the selection of panellists seem to attach a low priority to balancing the panel on the topic.

The BBC's response is typical. It runs as follows:

Neither Question Time nor Any Questions are ‘single issue’ programmes and panellists are expected to address a range of subjects each week. 

Aside from politicians, the rest of the panels consist of political commentators, journalists, and other public figures who represent a range of viewpoints. 

The BBC is no longer reporting on the binary choice which faced the electorate in the referendum 18 months ago. 

Question Time and Any Questions – with due impartiality – are giving audiences the opportunity to hold to account politicians from government and opposition parties for the way they are carrying out Brexit.

This restates the Nick Robinson line that "the war is over" and that the BBC doesn't have to balance both sides of the Brexit debate any more. It's all about that fuzzy phrase 'due impartiality' now. 

I can see the logic of the BBC's defence. Given that our political class is overwhelmingly 'not keen' on Brexit and that these programmes have to balance panellists across a whole range of issues, an imbalance in favour of various shades of Remainers is probably inevitable when programmes aren't 'single issue' programmes and we aren't in a pre-referendum period (and Question Time, at least, was pretty much exemplary in balancing its panels in the months leading up to the referendum, with 39 Remain, 35 Leave and 3 undecided panellists, and 6 panels biased towards Remain, 6 panels biased towards Leave and 3 balanced panels - which shows it can be done!). That said, it looks as if the IEA saw the BBC coming here by saying that Brexit was the dominant issue on both programmes for "the vast majority" of the time. 

This kind of study is different though to that carried out by Civitas. The Civitas study focused only on the BBC's coverage of EU membership/Brexit-related issue so the BBC couldn't counter it by saying that Today isn't a 'single issue' programme. The Civitas study made it into an entirely 'single issue' matter. The BBC's defence doesn't work at all with that kind of study. 

Despite Brexit

Alan at Biased BBC poses me an interesting question: Was Charles Moore correct to claim, during his spat over BBC Brexit bias with Jonathan Dimbleby (and the usual booing AQ audience) on Any Questions today, that the BBC uses the phrase 'despite Brexit' "whenever there’s a business story on the BBC"? Or was Jonathan Dimbleby right to cast doubt on his assertion and demand proof?

Well, I have been half-keeping my eye on this ever since the referendum - and ever since people I like began claiming that the BBC was using the phrase 'despite Brexit' a lot - and I've found very few BBC News website cases where the BBC uses the specific form of words 'despite Brexit'. 

To the three headlines Alan quotes in his post (Obama: Special relationship remains despite Brexit; UK construction rises despite Brexit vote; and Siemens promises UK investment despite Brexit warning). I've only found one more: Ryanair raises passenger growth forecast despite Brexit. 

The fact is that there's been a heck of a lot of 'despite Brexit' reporting from the BBC but very little use of the actual phrase itself. 

As Alan notes though, that form of words isn't the only form of words used. He's spotted examples of that, and I've also heard many a turn of phrase that means or suggests 'despite Brexit' but never specifically uses the precise words 'despite Brexit', plus many a report that implies as much without ever using equivalent turns of phrases.

I've harboured the suspicion for a while (a sensible suspicion I believe) that the BBC spotted all the complaints about the BBC's 'despite Brexit' reporting in the weeks immediately after the referendum result - specifically the multitude of claims that the BBC was actually using that very phrase - and warned their staff against ever using that form of words again, knowing that people would be monitoring them closely for their use of that phrase and would make hay with any such evidence that they were using it a lot. (And if I'd found it, yes, I would have made hay with it!) The BBC is constantly doing things like that, with their endless style guides, memos and meetings about language.

Of course, there have been examples of the BBC using it on air and on official BBC Twitter feeds but the BBC is very good at enforcing language rules and their reporters/presenters are very good at following 'suggestions' when it comes to such matters.

So despite the vast amount of 'despite Brexit' reporting that the BBC has put out in the light of recent decent economic news (etc), Jonathan Dimbleby doubtless felt completely confident in making that challenge to Charles Moore, knowing that Mr Moore wouldn't be able to provide enough examples to back up his point if the challenge was confined to finding specific uses of the exact phrase 'despite Brexit'. 

Despite that, Mr Moore was correct in the broad point he was making.

Give the BBC any flotsam or jetsam to cling onto though - such as by claiming that the BBC uses the phrase 'despite Brexit' "whenever there’s a business story on the BBC" - and they will grab onto it and whack you over the head with it without mercy.

If that deflects attention away from the real essence of the point you are making, all the better for them.

P.S. For proof that Charles Moore is correct in the broad point he was making you only need to read News-watch's Today business news report which showed that pretty much everything they said amounted to things being 'despite' or 'because of' Brexit. 

Anita Anand and Tom with the velvety voice.

The Any Questions from Crickhowell High School was a lively affair. Somehow the audience was entirely made up of shouty Corbynites who heckled and whooped loudly whenever anyone said something unCorbynist, so that once again Jonathan Dimbleby felt obliged to plead that the composition of the audience was Nothing To Do With The BBC. (“NTDWTBBC” )

The Shadow Defence Secretary Nia Griffith didn’t seem to agree with her leader on the matter of the link between terrorism and ‘our participation in conflict’.

Of course there is a link between terrorism and “our foreign policy” in as much as the cause-and-effect  theory is the pretext routinely parroted by Muslims to justify or rationalise terrorism. They know they can get away with it, since no-one knows history these days.

Unfortunately Anita Anand is back in the Any Answers chair, her voice as strident and her opinions as intrusive as ever. She’s a female version of James O’Brien.

“Julian Biddlecombe, I hope I pronounced your name properly William - from Gloucester”  she announced, though why the name ‘William’ should be pronounced ‘Julian’ escapes me. There were gremlins on the line so she moved on to Valerie Ward from Plymouth who skated on very thin ice by mentioning Ed Husain and Ayaan Hirsi Ali while Anand huffed impatiently in the background. Shortly she couldn’t resist interrupting to say that more Muslims have been killed by ISIS than by terrorists.

William came back, but faded away again, then onto the call that really brought out the morality police within Anita Anand.

“Tom Walsh is calling us from Wigan. Good afternoon Tom?”  

“Hello Anita.”  

“There’s a velvety voice. Tom what did you want to comment on?”  

“Too much time is spent pussyfooting around, not wanting to cause offence. We ought to tell it as it is. Some people want to harm us, to kill us.”.

“Mmmmm.”  

“Politicians keep going on [...] my mother used to say you can’t turn a bad apple ripe.”  

“I’m trying to understand what you’re saying. So who are the apples you’re talking about here, Tom?”  

“Well, we can’t go on as we are. Something different must be tried. Civil liberties have to be curtailed for the duration and I’m sure the vast majority of people would be prepared to forego some freedoms for safety.”  

“Tom what do you want them to do? What are the freedoms you want curtailed? Let’s put it out on the table. What is it you want done!”  

“Well we must be - we’re going to have to think the unthinkable.”  

“What is that?”  

“Limited internment." 

“For who, Tom?”  

“For terrorists?”  

“Yeah well, once somebody’s a terrorist I meant there’s a pretty final kind of internment, and that’s prison.”  

“Yes. But you sound like you want to go further than that, I’m trying to understand what it is you’re talking about.”  

“Something different.”  

“Which is what?”  

“Internment. House arrest. Greater powers for the police. I know people say this will act as a recruiting sergeant but we can see there’s no shortage of recruiters. Also life should mean life for terrorist offences, and they should be isolated from other prisoners. Going back to the apple theme, one bad apple spoils the barrel.”  

“Right. So you’re talking abut internment but for those people who’ve been tried as terrorists and identified as terrorists, I mean that happens when they go to jail doesn’t it?”  

“No, no, internment’s a different thing. People would be interned without trial actually for a limited period and only the more serious - during the war there were three categories.”  

“Mmmm.”  

“Ah, ones that were known to pose a threat and they were interned immediately and b, were the darker ones who had restrictions placed on them, no radios, they needed permission to travel etcetera and these are the things they’re going to have to try.” 

“So the 3,000 who are on the radar, pick them up immediately and put them in a - a what, a camp or something?”  

“Well the ones that we know, and don’t forget the authorities know lot of these people that are definite threats, and they should be interned. We’re fighting a war. Not a religion. we’re not fighting a religion, we’re not fighting a people, we’re fighting an ideology.”  

“Okay. Alright Tom, thank you very much indeed let’s go to another caller”.

Self-selecting audience

Oh dear. Did anyone listen to this week’s Any Questions from Scarborough? “Mostly Leave voters,” said Jonathan Dimbles. 

The applause from the floor for Diane Abbott was uproarious  - every single time she opened her mouth - whoops and cat-calls, that kind of thing. It got so extreme that Dimbles had to assure the listeners at home that it was a ‘self-selecting’ audience. “We didn’t ask about their political persuasion beforehand, honest we didn’t” he pleaded, almost apologetically. 

He must be more aware of all those accusations of biased or rigged audiences than we thought.

That audience evidently consisted of 99% Corbynistas. Somehow. Maybe they should start asking, like they do on Question Time. Not that it seems to have the desired effect (whatever that is)

Diane Abbott seems to have turned her LBC car crash interview into a kind of badge of honour. “Of course I’ve done my figures” she giggled, “I always do” as though being made to look an absolute fool is a virtue.  All publicity is good, in politics, is what she probably believes, and she might be right.

Boo!

True story. Sue let me know that The Conservative Woman's Laura Perrins (above) was on this week's Any Questions. I have a low opinion of Radio 4's Any Questions, associating it with the kind of loaded activist-filled, anti-conservative audiences that would make even BBC One's Question Time blush, so I quipped, "Was she booed?" Well, the joke's on me because, yes, she was booed (for defending grammar schools and condemning standards in schools). How very typical of an AQ audience!

Still, at least one well-known BBC reporter was impressed by Laura:

Dimblespeak

Someone who shares my dress sense

On this week's Any Questions Jonathan Dimbleby appeared to be channelling the spirit of Mark Mardell, whilst simultaneously 'echoing' the list of BBC targets some of you were posting about on an earlier thread.

The question from the audience was:

When Pontius Pilate was faced with the problem of Jesus he called an instant referendum. How far is populism a help or a danger to democracy?

Jonathan duly 'translated' that into Dimblespeak for the listening audience:

Populism is on the rise, discernibly on the rise in most people's judgement, not only in Britain but also in the United States, in Europe, Hungary, Poland, Germany, and elsewhere. In general terms rather than going into referenda issues specifically perhaps, how far is populism a help or a danger to democracy?

And here's one of his (somewhat-sycophantic-sounding) questions to Stephen Kinnock (son of Neil), where his 'echoing' of Mark Mardell was at its clearest: 

If you could go back, Stephen...You spent a lot of time in Europe. You touched on one or two European leaders...and you will remember, with a sense of history, the rise of populisms - not least in Germany after the First World War, which led to - through populism,  and a referendum incidentally - to the rise of Hitler. So in answer to the question broadly, if you can briefly, is populism a help or a danger to democracy? You did a very interesting elucidation, but do you regard it as a threat or a promise?

Though I believe he's still alive Godwin will be turning in his grave today.

A man of principles and honour

I don't watch Question Time these days because I always seem to be asleep by 10:45.

Of course I could catch up next day.  I did so yesterday out of mild curiosity after noticing that Question Time was to have an unusually balanced panel. (Having dropped a controversial guest at the last minute and brought in Caroline Lucas instead.) 

The only thing I've got to say about it is that there was strange and wonderful diversity-of-audience as well. A genuine mixture. It was heartwarming to see Caroline Lucas getting a cool response and Jacob Rees-Mogg a comparatively warm one. He’s a bit of a pin-up these days, in a retro, shabby chic, kitsch, ironic kind of way.

Dimbles (D) said next time they'd be in Boston, 'A strongly Leave' area. (I must say the people who decided to separate voter trends by area have a lot to answer for. I thought it was supposed to be a yes/no referendum, not a rerun of the G.E.) If everyone had just accepted the result in the proper spirit of referendums and left it at that we wouldn't have to go through all this "We Londoners/Scots/ Educated People voted Remain so we should be allowed to remain" malarkey.

Anyway, this all pales into insignificance in the light of today’s historic vote for Jeremy Corbyn as Labour’s forever leader, and I must say my heart is still sinking. As I said to Craig, my trepidation about Brexit is down to a deep concern over the exact nature of the “we” who will be taking back control of ‘our country’. 

Don’t forget, they all laughed when Hitler first reared his unelectable little head, and I know, I know, gratuitously mentioning Hitler immediately turns one into Ken Livingstone.

Anyway, despite this I listened to Any Questions last evening, which will by now have gone out on its Saturday slot and anyone listening to Radio 4 will know that there won’t be the usual Any Answers this week because of the aforementioned cataclysmic event. 

Before I start on Any Questions, let’s just mention that Shami Chakrabarti appeared on last night’s BBC News with her colours firmly nailed to the mast. She hoped and believed that “Jeremy” will win, and then she said something about ‘mugging a decent 67 year-old man in cold blood’. You couldn’t make it up.

Well, I transcribed the whole A.Q. section devoted to antisemitism, apart from the last bit which got awfully long-winded and I feared I had bitten off more that I could chew -  so I skipped the dullest bits.

Jonathan Dimbles began by asking:

“Do you like being called Baroness Chakrabarti of Kennington?”

“No” replied Shami in a very sullen voice.

Here is the question:

"Andrew McMillan: Is it right that Jeremy Corbyn, supposedly a man of principles and honour should preside over a party where a Jewish Labour MP feels the need for personal protection when she attends her party’s own conference?"

Tim Farron was given the first shot at this question. You’d need to read the transcript to get the full effect, but do bear in mind that the Lib Dems are the party of David Ward and Jenny Tonge. Predictably, Mr. Farron (or Gollum as he is affectionately known) banged on about racism of all kinds.

Next in line was a young Sikh lady called Harsimrat Kaur (me neither) who wears a very tall turban, beehive style, oddly reminiscent of the ‘Bomb’ in that oh so provocative Mohammed PBUH cartoon.  She has experienced racism too, particularly on social media, and she criticised the leader of the party for not standing up for Ruth Smeeth.

Jonathan turned to the good Baroness:

"Shami Chakrabarti of course, many of you will know that you produced - wrote a report for Jeremy Corbyn the issue of allegations of antisemitism within the party."

SC:

“So I’ve had a pretty miserable summer looking into this pretty awful subject” 

she began, evidently feeling sorry for herself. Poor her. Oh, not for the opprobrium she got for her whitewash, as one might assume. No, it’s antisemitism (and all other forms of racism) that has made her miserable. 

“There is some antisemitism, no question, and there is also incivility and toxicity and misogyny and all the things we talked about, and it’s not unique to any one party, but my view is that we don’t have a competition about this” 

she continued, now well into her stride. Hang on, it wasn’t a competition till Shami and her cohorts brought Islamophobia into it. 

Throughout this and all her other answers, she does her best to herd the conversation away from antisemitism and towards anything else she can think of, which clearly demonstrates that she really doesn’t get it.  Doesn’t even want to. 

Now we know that she’s a devoted, nay besotted Corbynista, out and proud, how can anyone take her ‘report’ seriously

Full (ish) transcript over the page:

On Jo Cox

It's proving hard to take in the horrific murder of Jo Cox, isn't it? 

I'm still struggling to find something helpful to say two days later.

I'd never heard of her before she was killed but, like many, I've been in shock at her murder ever since.

I just keep thinking of the hideous way she was murdered and about her poor children - her three-year-old daughter and five-year-old son. Plus how everyone in politics, from whatever side, seems to have liked her.

And then everyone else piles in with their suffocating agendas and I find myself getting lost again. (I don't cope well with piles).

But it's time to at least try to say something, probably - for what it's worth...

******

I drove home on Thursday listening to the moving reactions to the murder of Mrs Cox from Labour's Joan Walley and the Conservatives' Andrew Mitchell on Radio 4's PM, sensitively handled by Carolyn Quinn.

Then I watched the BBC One News at Six, which did an excellent job. It (and Nick Robinson, who the programme interviewed) managed to convey the sheer horror of what had happened whilst keeping a cool, cautious manner of reporting. It didn't seek to speculate or score points, and even held back from mentioning the 'Britain first' (or 'Britain First') claims then widely circulating in other parts of the media (and on social media).

I then went online. Some of what I read helped. Quite a lot didn't. There were more touching articles in the online newspapers but also quite a lot of unhelpful speculation. 

One thing is certain though: The agenda-pushing started very early. Almost immediately, in fact.

I felt so annoyed by that agenda-pushing that part of me felt like posting about it at the time, but I thought better of it. It would have felt too much like me agenda-pushing. And it was far too soon anyhow.

Former senior Sky journalist Tim Marshall held back a day or so before registering similar feelings of disgust:

Remainers point to the Leave campaign’s dog whistle politics. Leavers now argue that Remainers are politicising the issue to score cheap points. Some people argued that there was a reluctance to call the attack terrorism. All sides have valid arguments but minutes after the confirmation of the death of Jo Cox was not the time to make them.  

Looking back, Tim certainly had a point. A lot of people just couldn't help themselves. The bees in their own bonnets appear to have trumped everything else, including common decency.

******

And so it's gone on: Remainers are still pointing to the Leave campaign's dog whistle politics and Leavers are still arguing that Remainers are politicising the issue to score cheap points.

******

I garnered - from comments on other 'anti-BBC sites' - that the BBC had behaved much more cautiously that day than Sky (and many of the newspapers) when it came to airing speculation about the political motives of the killer.

(Not that any of those comments directly said as much. It was just that all their fire was, for a while, squarely aimed at Sky, the Telegraph, the Guardian, etc. 'BBC bias' was largely forgotten for a few hours).

That matched my experience of what I'd just heard and seen that evening. 

Elsewhere things were falling apart though. The Guardian, on one side, was starting to smear the pro-Brexit side. And Breitbart London, on the other side (and then some), was desperately seeking to discredit the idea that the killer might have far-right links.

Agendas were seriously, disgracefully and very vigorously being pushed....

....and both of those media outlets have continued down their respective paths ever since, to their great discredit.

******

I won't go into to much detail about Polly Toynbee & Co's contributions at the Guardian, about which they should be ashamed of themselves (and regular readers will know what to expect from them), but Breitbart's coverage (which has spread onto other 'anti-BBC sites') has been at least as shameful.

Breitbart's feverish attempts, while Mrs Cox was still breathing, to promote the 'nothing to see here' line regarding the alleged killer's alleged links to the alleged far-right and promote the counter 'it's all about his mental illness' line have been frankly jaw-dropping and appalling.

And after all their desperate 'debunkings' of the mounting evidence that the alleged killer might actually, allegedly, have a far-right distant past and even a far-right recent past - plus his responses in court, "'Death to traitors, freedom for Britain'" -, they've still kept on grimly trying to assert that 'it's all about his mental illness' and that it's everyone else who's biased and behaving shamefully.

It may well be. Or it may not be. The suspect's alleged motivation is for the law to decide now. Accusing others of pre-judging while furiously pre-judging yourself just isn't good though.

And quite a lot of people on our 'wing' on the blogosphere have been doing it just as much of that as those on the opposite 'wing' of the blogosphere. They should all be ashamed of themselves. (Not that any of them will be).

(And Louise Mensch hasn't exactly done herself proud either, railing against the Left for speculating and pre-judging whilst simultaneously speculating and pre-judging herself).

Plus now a surprising large number of the commenters below the line at Breitbart are indulging and furthering disgracing themselves (and their blog) by group-hugging themselves in a crazy 'false flag' conspiracy theory that the EU/Remain murdered Jo Cox to derail the pro-Brexit campaign.

(I'm not joking, I'm afraid. They really have been saying that in large numbers over there.)

It needs to immediately stop - as this piece by Iain Martin makes clear (please click on the link!)

******

As for the BBC, I also watched Thursday and Friday nights' editions of Newsnight and found both of them, taken together, absolutely exemplary. They were duly cautious about things they ought to have been cautious about, and kept sounding those cautions whilst giving voice to various non-controversial and controversial points-of-view from various angles. Their reports were honest and fair. And if Thursday's edition gave more of a platform to those who wanted to push the 'dog whistle politics' line, Friday's edition gave more of a platform to those (including Danny Finkelstein and Douglas Murray) who eloquently dismissed such charges. I was relieved and heartened by Newsnight's behaviour.

******

The one BBC reporter who struck me as seriously letting the BBC down was Mark Easton. His blog was barely distinguishable in content from those articles and tweets from those partisan pro-Remain types who have absolutely disgraced themselves in the past couple of days (like Polly Toynbee):

The phrases "political class", "the establishment" and "the metropolitan elite" are almost routinely deployed to undermine respect for our democratic representatives, for Parliament and for public servants.
Anti-politics is now a recognised force, particularly online.
Social media can be the most antisocial place. Good manners and decency are drowned in a sea of bile and hostility.
The EU referendum campaign has seen the normal rules of political engagement suspended, traditional party lines washed away as supposedly honourable members trade insults and foster contempt.
Facts and expertise are dismissed as self-serving fictions, the cry of "liar!" echoing from both camps.
And with immigration the dominant theme of the referendum debate, there have been moments when the "respect for other cultures" the prime minister wishes to promote has been replaced by statements that sound more like inflammatory xenophobia.
There are, of course, very real concerns about the impact of immigration on our country.
But the rhetoric has shifted from concerns about the phenomenon to the threat from "foreigners".
I have heard it repeatedly from voters on the streets in recent weeks.
It is certainly unedifying and, perhaps, dangerously subversive.

Not that Mark Easton's liberal bias on immigration has ever exactly been well concealed, but here he's being blatant in focusing his criticism on the rhetoric of one side of the present EU argument, and in linking "xenophobia" and the word "unedifying" to the views of "voters on the streets". He's taken us right back to exactly the kind of ultra-biased BBC worldview that various 'repentant' BBC types have kept assuring is now a thing of the past.

He even uses a word I doubt he's ever used before in a BBC article - at least without putting it in heavily inverted commas. He calls such views "perhaps, dangerously subversive".

When was the last time you ever heard/read a BBC reporter describing any contemporary strand of British opinion as "subversive"? I'm betting - like me - you've never heard it before. It's not the BBC way, is it? And, if I may be so bold, m'lud, he's talking about us.

I've not watched the BBC One News at Ten or much else on the News Channel so I don't know if it's true, as I've read elsewhere, that Mark Easton was the BBC journalist most eager to report the 'Britain first' claims - i.e. to push the political angle to the murderous attack. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if that was the case though.

******

Today's I've watched Dateline London and listened to Any Questions. 

Dateline focused on the Mark Easton/Polly Toynbee angle. Fortunately leading Brexit campaigner Alex Deane was on and argued robustly - and admirably (to my mind) - against that angle - and against the combined onslaught of Marc Roche and Stephanie Baker and BBC presenter Gavin Esler - and, albeit much less strongly, Brian O'Connell (who tried to strike a middle way between them and, unusually, found himself in the line of fire for so doing).

Alex took it in good spirit though:

It's well worth catching up with, if your blood pressure will stand it. It will make you think.

And talking of threats to your blood pressure...

Any Questions, in reaction to the killing of Mrs Cox, was an audience-free studio discussion. It featured Polly Toynbee and Max Hastings (both Remain), and Claire Fox and Peter Oborne (both Leave). It's also well worth listening to.

Polly, as ever, was the biggest threat to my blood pressure. She railed about the wickedness of one side of the EU referendum debate but I note she didn't answer Claire Fox's point about the demonisation of Nigel Farage, UKIP and UKIP supporters from her side.

I had that in mind especially because of a point from Sarah AB at Harry's Place regarding Alex Massie's original piece at the Spectator all-but-smearing Mr Farage with a charge of culpability for the murder of Jo Cox: How would the likes of Mr Massie (and Polly Toynbee) feel if Nigel Farage was assassinated by a far-left extremist, 'as a result of' all the hatred aimed at him?

Jonathan Dimbleby controlled the discussion fairly, though his own contributions clearly placed him as not being on Claire Fox and Peter Oborne's side (and he embarrassed Max Hastings too). Though he wasn't too biased, I'd put him as clearly 'pro-Establishment' and 'pro-Remain' on this evidence (unsurprisingly).

******

Sorry. I know this isn't a post that gets anywhere close to doing justice to any of the issues at hand, but it's all I can manage. Whether 'something' is better than 'nothing' I'll let you judge.