'BBC Betrayal'

'The Thunderer' thunders:

The Times view on Tiggy Legge-Bourke and Panorama: BBC Betrayal

The corporation treated Princes William and Harry’s former nanny disgracefully

That the former nanny to Princes William and Harry should have been defamed by a false rumour that she had become pregnant by Prince Charles is scandalous. That this rumour should have emanated from the BBC is appalling. And that in order to extract an apology from the corporation she has had to wait a quarter of a century and take it to court is beyond belief.

Tiggy Legge-Bourke, as she was called when she worked for the royal family, was a victim of a scheme cooked up by Martin Bashir, a BBC reporter, in 1995 to persuade Princess Diana that those around her were in league with her husband and conspiring against her. Bashir hoped this would persuade the princess to grant an interview to the BBC’s Panorama programme.

The plan involved spreading a false rumour that Ms Legge-Bourke, now known as Alexandra Pettifer, had had an abortion as a result of an affair with Prince Charles. According to a joint statement by Pettifer and the BBC, released as part of a court settlement, Princess Diana believed this rumour; not even the sharing of private medical information would persuade her it was untrue. Ms Pettifer says that her life was scarred by it. Ms Pettifer was one of many harmed by Bashir’s wicked scheme, most notably the princess and her family. Prince William said last year, when Lord Dyson’s report into the deceit and cover-up was published, “it brings indescribable sadness to know that the BBC’s failures contributed significantly to [my mother’s] fear, paranoia and isolation that I remember from those final years with her”.

Other victims included those brave enough to question Bashir’s methods. Matt Wiessler, a graphic designer who became suspicious about how his work was being used by the reporter, was never allowed to work for the BBC again. Mark Killick, a Panorama producer, was fired 24 hours after raising concerns about how Bashir had got that interview, and was subsequently defamed.

The financial cost to the BBC is considerable. It is to pay Ms Pettifer £200,000 in damages; it has paid Commander Patrick Jephson, Princess Diana’s former private secretary, £100,000, and Mr Killick £50,000; last year it agreed a settlement with Mr Wiessler worth potentially £750,000. Lord Dyson’s review cost £1.4 million, and the BBC has paid £1.5 million to a charity chosen by the royal family.

The cost to the corporation’s reputation is incalculable. At a time when the rise of streaming platforms is undermining the BBC’s economic raison d’être, one of the main justifications for its continued financing through the licence fee is a moral one. The BBC should represent, at home and to the rest of the world, the highest standards in broadcasting. In the lies told and the pain caused in the making of this programme, it has fallen far from that aspiration.

Tim Davie, the BBC’s director-general, took the opportunity of the settlement with Ms Pettifer to apologise to her, to the Prince of Wales and to William and Harry. The Panorama programme, he said, would never be screened again, in Britain or elsewhere. After many years of near-silence from the corporation’s leaders, Davie’s profuse apology is welcome, but it is not enough. The BBC has yet to come clean about who was to blame for the cover-up of Bashir’s duplicity. If it is to regain the moral authority that a public-service broadcaster should enjoy, it needs to do so now.

'SAS Death Squads Exposed'

Though - especially as a blogger about BBC bias - I really ought to have watched it, I must confess that I didn't feel even the slightest inclination to do my blogger's duty and actually watch this week's Panorama headlined: 

SAS Death Squads Exposed: A British War Crime?

I guessed what it would be like and baulked - especially after reading your comments on the matter.

For starters, headline-wise, is there really any need for that kind of biased, inflammatory language from the BBC? 

Is the BBC anti-British? 

A rhetorical question? 

I must continue to confess that I've merely read lots of people who think like me objecting to this programme and have, possibly therefore, found myself deeply appreciating Jewish Chronicle editor Jake Wallis Simons summing us 'my feelings' in this way:

BBC looking very bad on this. Our SAS troops put their lives on the line for our country without hesitation. If gratitude is too much to hope for, they at least deserve our respect (and freedom from attacks from their own side). 

The BBC and its perennial Guardian chums worked together on this one. Of course.

Sack and smear

The BBC sacked Mark Killick, a senior journalist and reporter on Panorama, for raising concerns about Martin Bashir's interview with Princess Diana, and then smeared him. Now, 25 or so years later, they are paying compensation to him, doubtless out of the licence fee.

What Mr Killick says bears quoting in full:

The BBC's attempt to try and destroy my reputation rather than investigate my concerns shows just how desperate the BBC was to hide what had happened.

It was an extraordinary attempt to cover up wrongdoing and the climate of fear it created may well have stopped other BBC whistleblowers from speaking out for a generation.

I still find it staggering that the BBC was so determined to conceal the truth that it launched a smear campaign against me to protect its tainted scoop.

I am grateful to Tim Davie and his team for finally setting the record straight. But the damage to the BBC's reputation is immense and you can understand if BBC employees no longer have the courage to speak truth to power.

A Look Back

As you've been recording on the open thread, it's been quite a few weeks for the BBC.

I

The one that puzzled me was the Antony Gormley story. Reeta Chakrabarti, with earnestness all over her face and eyebrows raised, read out this 'news' last Saturday evening:

One of Britain's most acclaimed artists, the sculptor Sir Antony Gormley, who created The Angel of the North, is to become a German citizen. Sir Antony said he was giving up his British passport because of the UK's decision leave the European Union. He described the move as "embarrassing" and says he has plans for new sculptures that reflect this view.

Three days later the BBC posted the following on its Corrections and Clarifications page:

BBC One, 4 June 2022, 10.30pm

We reported that the acclaimed British sculptor Sir Antony Gormley is to become a German citizen. We said he was giving up his British passport because of the UK’s decision to leave the European Union and that he had described the move as embarrassing and had plans for new sculptures that would reflect his view.

In fact Sir Antony Gormley is not giving up his British nationality and has asked us to make clear the circumstances behind his application for a German passport.

Sir Antony holds dual nationality as a result of having a German mother and has decided to apply for a German passport, which he will hold alongside his British one.

In a statement he says he remains a proud British citizen and is grateful for the extraordinary support he has received from so many people and institutions across the UK but he is also keen to retain his links with and continue to show his work in Europe.

We apologise for the mistake.

07/06/2022

How did this happen? As far as I can see, the BBC simply picked the story up from their Sunday house journal The Observer and misread it.  

Nowhere in the Observer article did Sir Antony say he was giving up his British passport [and I've checked the Wayback Machine to see if the Observer did say it but then changed it].

So were the BBC 'projecting', seeing what they wanted to see in the story rather than what it actually said?

It certainly looks like it.

II

Meanwhile, following a number of apologies for 'errors' made by the BBC's climate editor Justin Rowlatt - who's far clumsier than the departing Roger Harrabin - there's a new report out by Paul Homewood detailing a dozen corrections/apologies the BBC's had to make in recent years for false claims. 

Justin, who first rose to fame as Newsnight's 'Ethical Man', is now up to three strikes [BBC ECU rulings against him], though naturally he's not 'out' at the BBC:

In 2021 he falsely claimed that the offshore wind industry was now 'virtually subsidy free'.

In 2022 he falsely claimed that the death toll from climate change is rising.

In 2022 he falsely claimed that the recent drought in Madagascar was 'the world's first climate-induced famine'.

I was particularly intrigued by the passages about the BBC's complaints process, including this concerning the false claim about the death toll rising:

A complaint to the BBC was fobbed off with the risible excuse that Panorama was referring to the cumulative death toll, which will obviously rise every year.

I wish I could say that was 'a nice try' by the BBC, but it's so disingenuous as to be anything but. 

As the press release accompanying the report notes, the BBC has a team of reality checkers, including a 'Climate Misinformation' section.  

Yet none of these teams of fact checkers noticed or addressed the long list of false news stories that were only corrected by the BBC after lengthy and protracted complaint procedures.

Those BBC reality checkers are very selective in the 'facts' they choose to 'check'. 

III

Worst of all was the BBC's editing of an online report to change a rape victim's words - replacing 'he' and 'him' with 'they' and 'them' in order not to offend the trans person accused of raping the woman - a truly staggering editorial intervention.

Naga Munchetty wants us to talk about race

 

The BBC Press Team is retweeting the following tonight:

Naga Munchetty: My BBC Panorama team and I have been working on this for a year.

This may give some insight to why we think it's important to talk about race.

#letstalkaboutrace.

@BBCOne 7pm Monday

X

Many, if not most, might very well be thinking, 'Oh, dear God, please no! Please, please BBC, let's not talk about race any more! Just stop nagging us about what you think we should think about race!'

Alas: That's (evidently) not going to happen. X

Naga has been let off BBC editorial guideline breach after BBC editorial guideline breach regarding impartiality over the past couple of years. 

And if you think that's just the BBC being cowardly and scared of offending the 'woke mob', well, the BBC now appears to have gone well and truly above and beyond. They've actually given Naga her own Panorama. 

And, from her very own tweet, we know for a fact that she's going to be pushing a contentious line that advances a particular, divisive point of view, and panders to a small subset of public opinion that the BBC appears determined to attract. 

So much for Tim Davie getting a grip at the BBC. The BBC appears to be getting ever more out of hand.

Why is this even going out?

Frustration at 'Panorama'

 

Sticking with the same paper...

The Mail on Sunday's Jonathan Bucks reports that BBC journalists working on a John Ware-fronted Panorama special investigation into how Martin Bashir obtained his famous interview with Princess Diana - and a possible BBC cover-up over it - "have complained that BBC bosses are unwilling to co-operate". 

They are said to feel "frustrated" after "the Corporation denied them easy access to even the most basic documents". 

Producers trying to access the BBC’s broadcasting guidelines from 1995, when the interview was broadcast, were told they would need to submit Freedom of Information requests – an arduous process that takes up to 20 working days for information to be provided.

Oh dear! Many of us are aware of the BBC's reluctance to give in to Freedom of Information requests anyhow. Wonder if Panorama will get the usual response?

We can advise you that the information you have requested is excluded from the Act because it is held for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature.’  The BBC is therefore not obliged to provide this information to you and will not be doing so on this occasion….

Did 'Panorama' use statistics in a misleading light tonight?

"I can't breathe!" These same words were uttered two years later by George Floyd whose death sparked outrage on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK, if you're black, you're more than twice as likely as a white person to die in police custody.

So said white BBC reporter Mark Daly at the start of tonight's Panorama on BBC One, tying the situation in the USA to that in the UK.

That statistic was repeated later in the programme as well.

But is it true?

Well, the BBC's very own Reality Check last June was doubtful. It pointed out that over the previous 10 years, 164 people have died in or following police custody in England and Wales, of which 141 were white, 13 were black and 10 were from other minority ethnic groups. So vastly more white people died in police custody than black people - a context Panorama should surely have pointed out, shouldn't it? 

Moreover, if you compare these figures to how much of the population these groups comprise (which is how Panorama's figure came about), yes, black people are more than twice as likely to die in police custody than white people but (a) white people die almost exactly in proportion to their share of the population and (b) Asian people are more than twice less likely to die in police custody than white people - two facts which surely complicate Panorama's highly-charged, race-based statistic?  

Furthermore - and this must be the more relevant way of looking at it - if you review figures again of those arrested, 79% were white and 85% of those who died in custody were white, whereas of the 9% of people arrested who were black (which is disproportionally high) 8% of those who died in custody were black. So over this period a white individual who has been arrested was about 25% more likely to die in custody than a black individual who had been arrested - which again casts Panorama's incendiary charge in a highly questionable light, doesn't it?

Also, figures for the past two years available on the 17 custody-related deaths show that 12 were white people and 5 black people (30%), but those figures feed into the same 10 year period in the figures above. And were they because of the use of force? Not necessarily, say the BBC Reality Check. In 2018-19, for example, almost two-thirds of the custody-related deaths were directly linked to intoxication. (Drugs and mental health are other factors).

So what was Panorama up to here? And who at the BBC give the go ahead for that statistic to be used in this way?  

The BBC's "ongoing propaganda war against the Jewish state"

 

On the subject of Sue's Tuesday post, David Collier has now posted a coruscating attack on the BBC over this week's Panorama and BBC Arabic's heavy involvement with it. 

It's too powerful a piece to be read in paraphrase, so you really ought to read the whole thing.

He looks at why the BBC targeted Roman Abramovich ("a wealthy, proud, Zionist Jew who fights antisemitism – what is not for the BBC...to hate?"); argues that the BBC has "amplified beyond recognition" certain fringe Jewish voices through "editorial choices"; and says the BBC is "obsessed with Israel".

He further argues that BBC Arabic's story about Mr Abramovich's funding of an NGO (Elad) that invests in Jerusalem isn't news ("Shock horror – A Jew invests in Jerusalem"):

Jews investing in Jerusalem is like Muslims investing in Mecca or Catholics in the Vatican. It is a non-story.

He then outlines the "usual smears", the loaded language, the "nonsensical propaganda stories" and "the standard deceptive tactics"  used by the BBC - eg:

BBC Arabic [found] a fringe Israeli left-wing politician to claim he was ‘shocked’ on camera. That politician left the scene 14 years ago after his party failed to gain enough votes to see him re-elected. This is truly desperate stuff.

He sets out the historical background to the story behind the BBC "hit piece" in detail before describing how "as always" the BBC tried to make it personal" and then proceeded to "hide most of the story" of the family presented as a victim of Mr Abramovich’s funding and Elad’s activity. David lays out what the BBC "hid" - the exposed forgeries, the wealth of the "poor" family, the legal rulings against them - and the funding for them from "Jewish American billionaire George Soros":

You may not know this, as some backing of Jewish billionaires the BBC don’t want people to know about.

He then describes BBC Arabic as "a propaganda network":

Anyone who doesn’t realise this doesn’t understand the way news is produced and isn’t paying attention. Using mainly locals to create its news, it is entirely subservient to local pressure and norms. When they do get to tell a story about life in Gaza, they spend it talking about fishermen and ancient coins rather than the brutal rule of Hamas. And inside every human interest story like that, they never miss an opportunity to talk about Israeli ‘oppression’.

David has seen the full interview between Doron Spielman of Elad and Rosie Garthwaite of the BBC (the main journalist and producer behind this piece) and describes how the 55-minute exchange was reduced to "just a few seconds for her piece" after "careful snipping":

Anyone who ever wants to see how bad BBC journalism is – should seek out evidence such as this. It exposes an exercise in creating propaganda, ignoring what you are being told and writing the piece they were always going to write anyway.

What points made by Mr Spielman did Rosie Garthwaite omit?  

• This is Jerusalem, the City of David and what we do benefits everyone
• This is an archaeological site of world importance
• Many Arab voices are with us, why are the BBC only using those against us
• Some well-funded NGOs are dissuading Jewish/Arab cooperation
• Suleiman forged documents and has no real claim
• Israel abides by the law
• The EU and some governments fund those dissuading Jewish / Arab cooperation

He adds, "Each of these is a story in itself. None of them made it into the piece." 

He then writes about the BBC's use of an activist from Peace Now "to help with their case during the documentary", noting:

They had all the information necessary to remind viewers Peace Now is financed by foreign governments. If funding on one side is important, then surely it is on both. This isn’t neglect or an accident. The BBC have completely aligned themselves with only one side of the argument. This isn’t telling the truth, it is spreading disinformation. If the BBC knows there are problems with Sumarin’s claim – wasn’t it the duty of a proper journalist to remind viewers his evidence was proven to be forged?

We've already written about Rosie Garthwaite's history of "hard-core" anti-Israel activity on social media (and yet the BBC still went ahead with involving her here), and David adds to that the name of Uri Blau, who he calls "an anti-Israel activist". Mr Blau is 'friends' with numerous anti-Israel activists on Facebook. David concludes:

It is impossible for the BBC to claim impartiality when he is one of the producers of the piece. Uri Blau sits firmly on one side of the argument. He is in the enemy camp. How on earth can the BBC let him produce a news piece and then claim their investigations are impartial? It was a set-up from the start.

He goes on to say, "The truth is that the BBC and the Guardian are at war with the Jews" and then makes a point Sue has often made:

They don’t mind Jews when they are victims of a terror attack or Holocaust, but cannot stand them when they call for Jewish rights to be protected.

 He ends by writing:

It is an old-school British supremacist antisemitic mindset. A Jew investing in an archaeological site in the City of David – the historical biblical Jewish capital is enough to set them off. No longer interested in telling the truth, they sit firmly in the Arab camp, pushing out anti-Israel propaganda at every opportunity. Which makes pieces like the recent BBC piece on Panorama just par for the course. Just another shot in their ongoing propaganda war against the Jewish state.

Please give the whole piece a careful read. It deserves a proper response from the BBC.

And the result is?

You will doubtless recall the furore over the Panorama edition titled 'Has The Government Failed The NHS?'. 

Guido Fawkes led the charge against the BBC for featuring six left-wingers, most with links to the Corbyn end of the Labour Party, three of whom directly criticised the Government for its handling of Covid-19. 

Newspapers took up the charge too. 

Well, large numbers of complaints went in and the BBC's Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) gave its ruling this week. 

Now it has to be said that hhe Daily Mail headline yesterday, BBC admits Panorama DID breach its editorial standards by failing to reveal doctor who attacked government over PPE was long-time Labour member, promised more than it delivered.

Yes, the BBC's Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) ruled that "the nature and extent" of former Labour election candidate Dr Sonia Adesara's political affiliation "was such that it might have been relevant to the audience's evaluation of her contribution insofar as it was critical of the Government, and that it was a breach of the BBC's editorial standards not to have given viewers appropriate information about it", but it caveated that by saying, "her criticism of the Government was in keeping with what might be expected from a doctor with experience of inadequate PPE provision, and that information about her political affiliations would not have called the validity of her concerns into doubt in the minds of viewers." 

And the rest of the ruling clears the programme of all the other charges, pronouncing it innocent over the presentation of and the participation of all the other five people featured in it - including Brian Eno's daughter and Professor John Ashton. 

So in the scheme of things it's the merest crumb of an 'admission' and unlikely to satisfy the programme's many critics, but at least, as the Mail says, the ECU ruled that the programme did breach BBC editorial standards, and that's something I suppose.

Lazy and glib?

Now that there’s Guido, the Daily Mail and many more, does ITBB have a right to exist?  I don’t watch the Beeb very much these days and neither does Craig. Where’s that furlough scheme when you need it?.

Still, fancy Panorama featuring the daughter of obsessive BDS dogmatist Brian Eno without identifying her as such. I misread her name as ‘Trial’ (and error) 

“Irial Eno, was a ‘doctor working with Covid patients’ who has ‘decided to speak out’. She said ‘I feel really angry at the Government’.”

Smoulder away, Dr Trial but public opinion is gradually shifting away from the left and almost imperceptibly creeping towards, I don’t know - let’s call it ‘reason’.  The BBC’s buttresses are crumbling without much help from the likes of us. 

But then, just because you feature the opinions of leftist dogmatists it doesn’t mean you ARE one. Maybe the BBC was just testing? To see if anyone was watching?

Oliver Dowden is on the case. A bit late in the day, but: Coronavirus: Minister Oliver Dowden warns BBC about ‘bias’ after Panorama story

“In his letter Mr Dowden said that he was sure Lord Hall “will agree that at a time of heightened risk of misinformation and disinformation, it is more important than ever that the BBC upholds the values and standards we all expect”.

The BBC has its story prepared. Oven ready.

“Monday night’s Panorama was a rigorous, properly sourced investigation into the procurement and supply of PPE, which posed serious questions for the Government. It also included contributions from health professionals about their frontline experience. 

“The programme spoke to a range of interviewees, including public health policy experts, and those involved in the supply of PPE. Where it was relevant, we indicated that they had been vocally critical of the Government. 

“Some of those interviewed are members of a political party and some are not. We believe that if the doctors featured in Panorama feel their lives are at risk due to lack of proper PPE it is valid, and indeed in the public interest, for them to reflect on that experience, regardless of the political views they may or may not hold.”

This looks like the classic defence that goes: “Never mind the source because we all know this is the kind of thing that goes on.” 

I’ve heard that one before and it’s not really good enough. It’s lazy and glib. ’Posing serious questions’ is not very difficult. Any lazy hack could do that, but listening to, examining, and if necessary debunking the answers (or excuses) is where investigative journalism starts. 

I will level with you. I didn’t watch the programme, so do tell me; when the programme spoke to ‘those involved in the supply of PPE’ did they follow up? 

Lewis to the rescue

Let's have a conversation about the news:

Guido Fawkes: Every single interviewee on Panorama last night was a pro-Labour activist before the pandemic. Every single one. It was a party political broadcast on behalf of the Labour Party.

Iain Dale: I was about to watch this on iPlayer. I don't think I'll bother now. Nothing wrong with being a Labour activist but for a serious current affairs programme to interview them to the exclusion of anyone else is, well, an interesting editorial decision.

Christian May: This does seem a bit odd, to put it mildly.

Claire Fox: A shame. Whole tone of programme far too melodramatic and sensational IMO, but some good investigative work that it's important to reveal.  Dosing it with emotive, personal stories from front line workers who are all activists, may now discredit more useful journalism.

Alastair Stewart: The oddest thing about last night's BBC Panorama is that they clearly had a powerful story of ill-preparedness by the DHSC and the NHS and NHS Providers. They had suggestions of the turning of political blind-eyes. They even had the post-Cygnus data. My point was is that, given what BBC Panorama appeared to have, the programme didn't need to be 'filled' with 'activists' of any persuasion.

Let's not have  a conversation about the news:

Lewis Goodall (BBC Newsnight): Sure we could have a conversation about the news. Or we could have a conversation about carers struggling to get tests. NHS workers struggling to get masks. Care homes struggling with excess deaths. It’s our job to report on people who don’t have the luxury of being “positive”. So let’s not have a conversation about the news. It’s the one conversation which is least useful to anyone right now, except perhaps to some in power, who curiously enough seem very keen to have it. It’s a cliche of journalism but an accurate one to say that we should be here to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Too many on here seem to think it should be the other way around.

Panorama's John Ware sues the Labour Party for libel

John Ware's damning 10th July 2019 Panorama on antisemitism in the Labour Party provoked a predictable outcry from furious Corbynistas. 

Some complained to the BBC - including the Labour Party itself, which compiled 28 objections to the programme. This then went through to Ofcom. 

Well, Ofcom has now thrown out Labour's complaint declaring the programme to have been duly impartial. 

John Ware and some of the whistleblowers featured in the programme are now suing the Labour Party and some of its 'outriders' (gobby people on Twitter no doubt!) for libel.

They've hired Mark Lewis QC.

I wish them all the luck in the world.

Guess who's back?

The Sunday Times has a headline today that really caught my eye:

BBC whistleblower: bosses suppressing Russia stories: 
A top investigative reporter says politically sensitive programmes are buried

How disappointing that the "BBC whistleblower" turns out to be John Sweeney!

He's still obviously bitter after his departure from the corporation and resentful that his Panorama on Tommy Robinson was dropped:

BBC bosses have been accused of pulling the plug on politically sensitive reports into the close links between leading politicians and Russia. 

John Sweeney, a BBC investigative reporter, has turned whistleblower and filed a complaint against the corporation with Ofcom, the broadcasting watchdog. He alleges investigations into Labour’s Lord Mandelson, the former Tory cabinet minister John Whittingdale, the Brexit funder Arron Banks, the oligarch Roman Abramovich and the far-right activist Tommy Robinson were all dropped. 

He claims that other potential reports into “the pro-Russian sympathies of Labour spin doctor Seumas Milne” were never even commissioned by BBC editors and raises more concerns about Boris Johnson’s links with Russian oligarchs.

Wonder if there's any substance to his claims? If not, then he isn't 'a whistleblower'.

(Question: Can you be 'a whistleblower' after you've left your job?)

Anyhow, John Sweeney has his own article in The Sunday Times under the headline:

BBC’s ‘jellyfish’ bosses sting investigative reporting to death. They must go. 

He writes:

I found film of Robinson saying “for too long the German people have lived under the guilt of Adolf Hitler” in a bierkeller in Bavaria. We hoped to let the public see Robinson as the sock-puppet for neo-Nazis that he is. But our Panorama was never broadcast. Instead, the BBC threw the book at me, “jellyfish” charge and all. 

Being attacked by a far-right cult while undefended by the BBC was maddening, literally. I felt bewildered and betrayed and, eventually, I cracked up. 

I am back to my old self but have left the BBC. However, I love it too much to just walk away in silent dismay. 

So, I have complained to Ofcom about our Panorama on Tommy Robinson: not broadcast. Our Newsnight investigation into Peter Mandelson’s undeclared money from a mob-connected Russian firm: not broadcast.

As he's still spinning that yarn about Tommy Robinson in the Bavarian bierkeller, I think we can be forgiven for approaching his other claims with some scepticism.

Impartial, free and fair?

Sweenexit

And so farewell to John Sweeney, who's announced his departure from the BBC today in a string of tweets:

1. After 17 years I'm leaving the BBC. It's high time to make trouble elsewhere. First stop, Malta. With Carlo Bonini and Manuel Delia I've written Murder On The Malta Express: Who Killed Daphne Caruana Galizia, to be published on October 14 by Midsea Books. 

2. Thanks to my great pals at BBC. Together we helped free 5 cot death mums starting with Sally Clark, jailed on wrong evidence of Prof Sir Roy Meadow. Trump got challenged over his links with Russian mob, Putin over the shoot-down of MH17 and I yelled at Church of Scientology. 

3. I'm sorry our BBC Panorama on Tommy Robinson wasn't broadcast. (I paid for all the drinks, BTW.) So after 17 years I can finally say these are not the views of the BBC but he's a complete c**t. I remain an old school reporter, up for the right kind of trouble. I'll be back.

After 'Nick' got nicked

Today's Mail on Sunday has a fascinating piece by Alistair Jackson, the BBC man behind that 2015 edition of Panorama which blew the lid on 'Nick' (Carl Beech) and his lurid lies about a VIP paedophile ring.

It paints a particularly damning portrait of the police. 

I'm proud that we backed Panorama over this at the time, strongly agreeing with Stephen Pollard  that it was "surely one of the most important programmes the BBC has ever broadcast":

Wednesday

It's complicated

The odd thing was that Panorama found itself under not-so-friendly fire from its BBC colleagues at Newsnight. 

Looking back, Newsnight surely has some questions to answer about this now. 

Here's part of what I wrote at the time:

I'm groping in the dark a bit with Wednesday's Newsnight. It all seemed a bit odd.
Instead of leading with David Cameron's big speech at the Tory Party conference it led with the previous night's Panorama...
...which might seem somewhat incestuous ("BBC shall speak peace unto BBC"), except that Newsnight's Nick Hopkins's report seemed to be more a case of sibling rivalry than incest (thank goodness!).
Nick Hopkins himself has pursued angles on the self-same story that Panorama was trying hard to discredit, so it's probably not much of a puzzle as to why he would want to cast such a quizzical eye over Panorama's latest edition.
Then came a strange interview with Mark Watts, the head of Exaro News - the media organisation that Panorama aired so many doubts out.
Evan Davis gave him a bit of a grilling but never seemed to go for the jugular. I thought that Mr Watts came rather well out of it.
The one thing I now about Exaro News, however, is that Newsnight has worked with them on several occasions in the past.
Was that why Exaro's chief was given such a prominent platform to defend his organisation at the start of this edition of Newsnight?
If it was, that puts the issue of 'incestuous behaviour' by Newsnight firmly back on the agenda.

 ...and:

...what with Wednesday night's Newsnight (a) sounding a rather dissenting note about the previous night's Panorama (given the Newsnight reporter fronting this piece's own role in reporting much the same kind of thing as Exaro) and (b) giving the Exaro boss a long 'right to reply' against Panorama.

I also heard an interview on Today the day after that Panorama report with the chief constable of Norfolk slamming the BBC for broadcasting that edition of Panorama.

And then came this week's Newswatch (with Samira Ahmed) which reported the complaints of what sounded like quite a lot of BBC viewers (even if 'quite a lot' in these circumstances means a few dozens, or - at best - a few hundreds out of 64 million people). 

All of them savaged the BBC for betraying the victims and prejudicing police investigations. 

And with no one from the BBC being willing to be interviewed about it (including Panorama editor Ceri Thomas), Samira ended up interviewing the chief constable of Norfolk again, who (again) slammed the BBC for broadcasting that edition of Panorama.

So Panorama really was up against it at the time, from the police, viewers and their own BBC colleagues. 

*******

Incidentally, that once-ubiquitous chief constable of Norfolk, Simon Bailey, is still in place. Checking TV Eyes, it looks as if he hasn't been all over the BBC since the conviction of Carl Beech offering up an apology to Panorama for shooting the messenger four years ago. 

*******

By the way, it was actually the BBC that first put 'Nick' on air whilst breaking the news about Operation Midland getting under way. You can see most of that report in a conspiracy theory YouTube video from 2012, and it makes for fascinating viewing.

Listen out in particular for the way BBC reporter, Tom Symonds, gives credence to Carl Beech's claims in his language - some of which I'll quote here:

London in the late 70s and early 80s. a time and place receding into history. But the darkest stories of the past are returning to haunt modern Britain, and this is one of them: an account of boys picked up by chauffeur-driven cars and taken to meet their abusers.  

Nick, not his real name, has overcome decades of fear to give his testimony. 

He remembers the abusers would send their employees to bring him. 

'Nick', of course, 'remembered' no such thing. He was making it up.

The BBC, abortion, Trump, 'Panorama' and bias

I've not had much time to blog recently but when time permits and the impulse is upon me I sometimes find myself wasting a half hour or so of my life watching something I'd never normally watch just to check out a hunch about BBC bias. (May a host of harmonious angels singing Handel rescue me!)

Thus, having just watched Big Nick Robinson's M. Barnier-friendly Panorama on Brexit, I spotted that the subsequent Panorama edition was a US-based report by Hilary Andersson (not to be confused, despite what you might think, with Hillary Clinton). 

Now, the BBC's Hilary and biased Panorama editions go together like a horse and carriage.

We've already posted two detailed posts on the subject. 

One was a jaw-dropper on the Boston bombers - Chechen Muslim immigrants - where she tried to maintain that the Boston Marathon bombers weren't really jihadists and that America's Muslims were victims too.

The other concerned an edition of Panorama that was originally going to be called 'America's Most Hated President?' until the BBC got cold feet. Guess which President Donald Trump Hilary was asking about! It was broadcast on 14 November 2016, almost two months before The Donald actually became president. Gun-toting stereotyped white male Trump supporters duly got contrasted with young minority students fearful of Trumpian racism and Hilary's narrative cannily managed to imply that the only-just-elected president-to-be was responsible for black people being shot by the US police.

Now, on seeing that the subject was 'America's Abortion Wars' and then spotting Hilary Andersson's name, I expected the programme to make a pretence of impartiality but frame the narrative so as to very firmly push the social liberal rather than the social conservative side of the matter.

And guess what? Well, this is the BBC, so it was inevitable really. Should I bother laying out the evidence then?

Well, why not?

OK.

"We ask, could women here lose the right to abortion?", was the way the introduction framed the Big Question, and Hilary immediately began by talking of abortion clinics being "under siege" and of the "vitriol".

We were then introduced to Dr. Robinson, a black, female abortionist in the Deep South who also delivers babies. She's "regularly harassed" by anti-abortionists and "she has good reason to be afraid". I immediately spotted her as the heroine of the story.

Then we meet 22 year old Sandra, who wants an abortion. She having to move states. And there's sad music to accompany her story. BBC Hilary sat in on Sandra's abortion and confessed "I found it really hard to watch", but she told us that Sandra felt "relief" and Sandra then told us that herself.

What of the change of law in rose-filled Alabamy?. As Hilary narrates the politics there the programme shows a sign commemorating Rosa Parks and her anti-racism bus boycott. Is that just for local colour, or to slyly link anti-abortionists with white supremacists? (about 8 mins in).

"You could go to jail for up to 99 years", Hilary says to our heroine, Dr. Robinson, before going on, "And it's not just Alabama. 11 other states have joined the crusade" [not a positive word in the BBC's world].

Now we meet our first anti-abortion 'talking head'. It's Phil Bryant, Governor of Mississippi . He doesn't get to say much, before it's onto Kathryn Kolbert, captioned as a 'reproductive rights lawyer', and the programme's main 'impartial expert'. She doesn't sound at all keen on the conservative way things are going. 

Next comes Maralyn Moseley, an elderly black women who experienced bad things, abortion-wise, in the bad old days of backstreet abortions and then became a pro-abortion campaigner. You might well guess the gist of what she said.

Time for politics, and conservatives, Trump and the US Supreme Court majority: "So could Americans lose their right to abortion?", asked Hilary. 

Kathryn Kolbert, 'reproductive rights lawyer', appeared again to say, not approvingly, that Republicans will overturn Roe v Wade.

Then it was back to Gov. Bryant: "Won't banning abortion lead to more back street abortions?", asked Hilary. 

Off then to Our Kansas, or - as some call it -Arkansas. "It's not called the Bible Belt for nothing", said Hilary. "Most people here - and most women - oppose abortion". Life begins at conception they believe and, she added, "must be preserved at almost any cost".

Time for a spot of 'BBC balance: Here's white, middle-aged Kandi, a mother of seven who had an abortion at 19 and is "still traumatised" by what happened. "Kandi turned to religion", said Hilary, and set up an adoption agency to provide women with an alternative to abortion. Kandi adopted one such unborn girl herself (Anne Marie) - a girl with an incurable skin disease who's "in constant pain" but who has already lived longer than anyone predicted. 

That sounded sympathetic from Hilary Andersson, but then came: "And even if Anne Marie's mother was raped, it makes no difference to Kandi", and she went on:

In America today the most personal matters have become political. If the Supreme Court ruling is overturned, the abortion bans in nine states will even apply to women who've been raped and to those whose children would be born with severe disabilities.

And, to counter Kandi, here came Dina from Alabama, raped at 17,who found out she was pregnant 8 months in and gave birth to a severely disabled child. She told Hilary that she loved the child, but she constantly brought back memories of the rape and her sense of women's shame, imbibed from her dad's religion (which "crushed her"). Little Zoe "had a short, painful life". Dina's "outraged" that women, even in early pregnancy, may "soon lose the right to abortion here". She would have terminated her pregnancy if she could have.
.

"To Governor Bryant though abortion is simply murder", Hilary said next, before asking him:

• "You want to ban abortion even in the cases where a woman has been raped or the victim of incest. Is that right?"
• "But just looking at the issue itself, it's a very difficult issue for a woman to carry her rapist's child".

Republican Governor Bryant was the baddie 'in the dock' on Panorama. 

So what of the 2020 president election? Donald Trump's recent anti-abortion remarks at a rally led Hilary Andersson to suggest electoral reasons for so doing, and her main 'talking head', Kathryn Kolbert, 'reproductive rights lawyer', accused the President of using "red meat everywhere" because "it riles up his base". Possibly echoing Panorama's use of that Rosa Parks sign earlier in the programme, Kathryn listed "white nationalists" among those supporting President Trump here.

Ah, but, as Hilary then said, "the majority of Americans - around 60% - broadly support the right for abortion". {How broadly?]

And, sticking with Donald Trump and keen to make a 'reality check' point, Hilary continued: 

And now the fight's getting really ugly. President Trump is focusing the debate around the most sensitive issue - abortions in the late stages of pregnancy, which he describes like this: 

"The baby is born, the mother meets with the doctor, and then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby. I don't think so". 

What he described is not a method of abortion used in America. Over 98% of abortions take place before 21 weeks. Very late abortions are rare. Women who seek them out, often desperate."

It was then back to Dina, defending late-term abortions. 

Hilary then talked to a late-term abortion doctor from Washington DC, "one of the most staunchly pro-abortion parts of America" - Dr Leroy Carhart. She called him "one of the most controversial abortionists" and asked him "You don't have a problem with killing a baby?", but was a good deal more sympathetic towards him that she was towards the Governor of Mississippi. "He believes they're [anti-abortionists] trying to push women back into the Dark Ages".

Back then to Gov. Bryant of Mississippi then to repeat that point: "Is there a bigger picture here that you and President Trump are trying to turn the clock back, bring America back to what you see as a more moral kind of age?" 

And then came the programme's concluding passages (minus the 'talking head' clips):

• "Dr Robinson has carried out 24 abortions this week but today it's time to deliver a new life. It's a girl. The abortion bans may be struck down but women's right to choose in large parts of America has not been in this much jeopardy for decades". Dr Robinson fears for the next generation..."
• "For all the politics raging around abortion in America the issue is deeply personal for Kandi - Anne Marie living proof, in her view, that all life is precious..."
• "America's changing profoundly under President Trump. At stake with abortion, what kind of country this will be - one where women can control their own destiny, or a nation where, in the name of God, life always comes first."

I suppose this programme must have passed the BBC's impartiality test - just as the two other Hilary Andersson Panorama programmes must have done, despite neither of them, or this one, being anywhere nearly truly fair, open-minded and impartial.

On the question of abortion especially I'd expect nothing less (or more) from the ultra-socially liberal, anti-Trump BBC.

Nick Robinson, nightmares and glorious simplicity

Talking of Nicks...

Nick Robinson's Panorama - 'Britain's Brexit Crisis' - opened with these words from the BBC man:

This is the story of how something that was supposed to be gloriously simple turned out to be a nightmare.

And these were the words with which it ended: 

What is crystal clear three years after the referendum is that Brexit was never going to be simple. It was always going to involve difficult trade-offs, it had to be based on some sort of deal with the EU. The time for talk about having our cake and eating it is over. What our politicians owe us now is honesty - about that and the challenge ahead. 

From the use of the mocking phrase "gloriously simple" and the allusion to Boris Johnson's famous "having our cake and eating it" quote, it's pretty clear who Nick Robinson is mainly wagging his finger at here when calling for honesty from our politicians: He's berating leading Brexit campaigners, especially Boris Johnson.

That said, the bulk of this fascinating documentary will probably have left viewers wagging their fingers at plenty of others - not least the hapless Mrs May and her disorderly government. 

The featured voices on the UK side were: David Davis, George Bridges, Philip Hammond, Gavin Barwell, Sir Keir Starmer, Arlene Foster, Stewart Jackson, David Lidington, Dominic Raab, Esther McVey and Julian Smith. The featured voices on the EU side were: Francois Hollande, Michel Barnier, Frans Timmermans, Martin Selmayr and Simon Coveney. The latter all sang from the same hymn book, the former not quite so much:

NICK ROBINSON: They weren't the only ones who didn't know what was going on. Theresa May and her officials had finally come up with a detailed Brexit plan but key ministers were kept in the dark until the eve of a crucial Cabinet meeting. 

STEWART JACKSON: On the Thursday afternoon, we are sitting around in David Davis’s office in the department and the phone goes, he puts it on speaker and its Boris Johnson who has just got his pack. This is the Foreign Secretary who's just got 120 page agenda for the Cabinet the following day, and he is absolutely going ballistic, he is apoplectic. And he says, ‘Have you seen this?! It is effing bullshit, David.’ 

NICK ROBINSON: As the Cabinet gathered at the Prime Minister's country residence, her team told journalists any ministers who resign would lose their government cars and would have to take a taxi home. 

DAVID DAVIS: What a small minded attitude! And I just thought to myself, ‘Hmm, I know Jacob Rees-Mogg has got an antique Bentley and if I call up and tell them to put on his chauffer’s cap, he will come and collect me and I can drive up through the assorted TV cameras, probably wind the window down, and say, ‘It’s such a bore to take one’s own car.’

In Nick Robinson's presentation at least, the EU side looked like tactical geniuses, forever disappointed and saddened by the emotion-driven ineptness of their friends in the UK. 

I strongly suspect the EU side will have particularly enjoyed this programme. 

And that, I think, is where the problem lies, bias-wise, with what otherwise was a genuinely interesting programme. Despite the range of voices, we were still being 'steered'. 

Look at the closing segment, for example, and see how the bit quoted earlier in the post is led up to...

Nick Robinson begins with, in his words, those tough-talking, threat-issuing Brits, Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt. He then gives us two, oh-so-reasonable-sounding, 'UK-loving' EU voices (Martin Selmayr, the EU's eminence gris during this period, earlier in the programme called himself "Martin, the friend of Britain" in response to Nick Robinson's invitation). Nick also tells us that the EU will be waiting for us, implying that the EU are oh-so-formidable. And Nick leads Michel Barnier towards a closing 'warning' to the UK not to 'no deal', before himself taking aim at Boris Johnson and demanding honesty from UK politicians (though not, you'll note, EU politicians):

NICK ROBINSON: Britain is about to see another changing of the guard. Both potential Prime Ministers are talking tough and say they will use the threat of no-deal to make the EU think again. 

SIMON COVENEY (Irish foreign minister): This is an issue that requires political compromise based on reality and on the fact that present themselves, which are detailed and difficult. This is not something that should be decided upon on the basis of emotion, which is, unfortunately, when some people have gone with the Brexit debate, and that is my appeal from Ireland, you know, as your closest neighbour and closest friend, make a decision based on the facts. 

NICK ROBINSON:  Whoever the new Prime Minister is, the EU will be waiting for them. 

MICHEL BARNIER (EU chief Brexit negotiator): So why this document is so important, and I recognise it is not so easy to read, 600 pages, because we have put it together with the UK, not against the UK, but with the UK, the legal answers to each and every point of uncertainty created by the Brexit. That is why this document is the only way to leave the EU in an orderly manner. 

NICK ROBINSON: And if we just left, if we just tore up the membership card? 

MICHEL BARNIER: The UK will have to face the consequences. 

NICK ROBINSON: What is crystal clear three years after the referendum is that Brexit was never going to be simple. It was always going to involve difficult trade-offs, it had to be based on some sort of deal with the EU. The time for talk about having our cake and eating it is over. What our politicians owe us now is honesty - about that and the challenge ahead. [Closing credits roll].

Impartial? I don't think so.

*hat tip to the wonderful Andrew at News-watch for the transcript here*

Three to Watch

Panorama 10th July

*******

Public inquiry into the bias in the BBC  Parliament will debate this petition on 15 July 2019.

The impartiality of the BBC is in question and needs addressing so as to protect its charter

You'll be able to watch online on the UK Parliament YouTube channel.

*******

BBC backlash: Beeb facing legal challenge as viewers raise thousands to tackle ‘bias'
THE BBC is facing a legal challenge over the way it monitors its impartiality amid accusations of biased coverage.




Pity the embed above doesn't work, but here's a still of Mark reckless instead. Click on the link to the Express at the top of this section for video with full sound and fury.

Scary

Was Panorama there too?