Profiling

You may have read at Guido Fawkes or in the Daily Mail that the BBC had to temporarily withdraw their latest Radio 4 Profile of Conservative cabinet minister Kemi Badenoch.

The programme has now been edited and made available again, but the BBC is being tight-lipped about what they've changed, according to the Mail:

The BBC would not reveal what had been changed in the episode, but it is understood that a claim in the original broadcast, that Mrs Badenoch, 42, had stuck 'male' and 'female' signs on the doors of gender-neutral toilets at her leadership launch venue, was corrected.

This story has a few interesting implications, especially concerning journalism. 

Firstly, I'm intrigued that the Daily Mail couldn't find out what the BBC changed. I've been able to find out though, thanks to TVEyes.

The Mail correctly 'understood' the first change - concerning these signs:

The original broadcast said:

This summer, after Boris Johnson quit as PM, Badenoch threw her hat into the ring to become leader, sticking 'men' and 'ladies' signs on the doors of gender-neutral toilets at her launch venue.

This caused a stir on Twitter with many people quoting a Twitter thread on 12 July - the date of Mrs Badenoch's leadership launch - by leading 'gender-critical' voice Maya Forstater. This called journalists out at the time about it:

This story is not what you think: These are the toilets at Policy Exchange. I first noticed these signs on 17th of May at meeting about sex based rights with various gender critical groups. At first i thought the paper signs had been put up specifically for our benefit. What I think is happening here is that Policy Exchange (or their landlords) put in nice new gender neutral toilets and the staff don't like them. They probably feel uncomfortable. Men leave the seat up etc.. so they've put the signs up for everyone's comfort.

Yet here was BBC Radio 4 repeating this discredited claim four months on.

The edited version goes like this:

It was reported that 'men' and 'ladies' signs were cellotaped on the doors of gender-neutral toilets at her launch venue but evidence later emerged that this had been done before the event.

Even this edit risks being misleading. "Evidence later emerged that this had been done before the event" might suggest that rather than Kemi herself 'sticking' up the signs, it was done "before the event" i.e. done for the launch. What Maya Forstater, and others, showed is that those signs were up a couple of months before the launch, so not connected to Kemi Badenoch in any way.

Indeed, it's so potentially misleading that Guido Fawkes apparently misread the revised version as a simple repetition of the debunked claims from the original version:

Despite the editing, the profile still reeks of W1A’s woke inclinations. It repeats debunked claims about Kemi removing gender-neutral toilets at her campaign launch, albeit with a caveat.

Maybe the programme needs withdrawing and re-editing again to remove this ambiguous wording?

What both Guido and the Mail missed though was the second edit. The original broadcast said:

It's not just race. LGBTQ activists have accused Kemi Badenoch of being anti-trans Ben Hunte, a senior reporter with Vice World News. "I've had for a number of organisations and individuals who are really concerned about Kemi Badenoch's behaviour in government. I've exposed a leaked recording of Kemi Badenoch saying that trans women are men", the government insisting her comments had been taken out of context. "I have released a report about the equalities minister saying she doesn't care about colonialism." She's been criticised for abstaining on a vote to extend same sex marriage rights to Northern Ireland. And this week, ITV News reported that Bedenoch has now paused work on a promised ban on the use of conversion therapy. "There have been a number of situations over the past year that really do kind of raise your eyebrows about what it means to be an equalities minister when you don't necessarily believe in all forms of equality within your portfolio".

The revised version edited out this line:

And this week, ITV News reported that Bedenoch has now paused work on a promised ban on the use of conversion therapy.

That concerns a 'scoop' by ITV's Paul Brand that the Government took to Twitter to dismiss. BBC Radio 4 clearly got cold feet about Paul Brand's journalistic 'scoop' too.

Both Guido and the Daily Mail note the inclusion of the activist-like Ben Hunte. The Mail uses the c-word about him - "controversial":

That made me smile because of how Radio 4's website introduces this programme. They also use the c-word about Kemi Badenoch, asking "Is the controversial trade secretary and equalities minister a future PM?":

Another thing that struck me about controversial Ben Hunte's controversial inclusion is that Radio 4 - unlike the Mail - didn't mention that Ben used to work for the BBC [and got the Corportation into quite a few scrapes]. Profile simply introduced him as "a senior reporter with Vice World News". None of his contributions were re-edited.

A final thing is that the version you can now here on BBC Sounds - which begins by saying that the programme has been edited, but not why ["This programme has been edited since broadcast"] - ends with quite of list of BBC staff behind this edition of Profile: the researcher, producers, production co-ordinators, and editor. 

Not sure I'd have wanted my name on this piece of BBC broadcasting. Maybe they'll be tempted to edit those out next?

John Bolton's moustache

It's not every day that a piece of facial hair gets a whole BBC Radio 4 Profile to itself, but the subject of this week's Profile was US National Security Advisor John Bolton's moustache. 

I'm joking of course, but only just. That moustache got plenty of mentions! 

Fans of BBC hatchet jobs will need to give this a listen, as it's fine example of the form. I'll just quote its opening passage: 

US news reporter: Is John Bolton the most dangerous man in the world? 

Mark Coles: Hmm. Good question! John Bolton,  Donald Trump's National Security Advisor, has been upping the ante with Iran of late, threatening military action - a tactic some fear could lead the two countries to war. "The new Dr. Strangelove", the Washington Post branded him this week. But to others he's an American patriot - a tough-talking hero, albeit one with a slightly silly moustache.

My ears pricked up at this passage from John Peel-impersonator Mark: 

[John Bolton] developed ties with a number of controversial groups, like the right-wing Gatestone Institute, which some have accused of anti-Muslim bias.

You'll see the Gatestone Institute on our side-bar. For the BBC though, it seems, it's "controversial" and "right-wing" and, oh no!, "some" have accused it of "anti-Muslim bias". We'll have to remove it then. (Not).

Lockdown at the BBC

(h/t StewGreen). 

Paul Homewood of the 'Not a Lot of People Know That' blog calls it "a case of the biter bit!". 

Having "given unwarranted prominence to Extinction Rebellion in recent weeks", Extinction Rebellion turned up at the BBC's front door yesterday and demanded to see Lord Hall. 

They want the BBC to make climate change their top editorial priority and to broadcast about it "with the level of urgency placed on informing the public about the Second World War". 

The BBC went into lockdown.

(Poor Simon Mayo, on his last day at the BBC, was trapped inside, unable to leave). 

Paul (no fan of this group) continues:

News reports have regularly given the impression that the group are a large, serious organisation who we should be paying attention to, rather than the tiny ragbag of eco nutters which they really are.

And he posts a screengrab showing a slew of BBC articles about them. (I note that Radio 4's Profile got involved too).

Meanwhile, the BBC's World Affairs Editor was characteristically not silent on the matter: 

This prompted quite a discussion among Extinction Rebellion supporters on Twitter

Heather Luna: I read this Tweet as though he is supporting Extinction Rebellion despite misgivings. He realises this is too important to follow by the normal rules. How are you guys reading it differently? He said "but".
Dr Heidi Edmonds: That's how I read it too.
Ian Edward: John's tweet captures the problem perfectly. The reservations, the "buts"..., "let's represent the other side of the argument", "we'll feature it next month. Right now the burning issue is Corbyn may have said STUPID".
Dr Heidi Edmonds: That's not how I interpret it. He's simply saying that perhaps in this case direct action is necessary. Imho.
willgoodbin: You might be right, but it's far from the ringing endorsement XR deserves. It could also be that John Simpson is playing it safe with a deliberately ambiguous line.
Heather Luna: To me, this is progress. We should encourage @JohnSimpsonNews to keep going and not discourage him into silence (like most others) with criticism saying it isn't good enough. Keep going! Keep going! Be brave!
Ian Edward: I think the problem is that there is nothing in John's message that suggests he will do anything. And that is exactly what Extinction Rebellion is fighting. The situation is so urgent and dire that there's a moral obligation to act.
Heather Luna: Yeah, speaking out is doing something. I bet a lot of people on Twitter aren't acting yet but are just speaking out. That's the first thing we need to overcome: being silent about #ClimateBreakdown. One step at a time. By Monday, John Simpson could be getting arrested. 

John was evidently reading the thread, and gave Heather a retweet:

I'd say that willgoodbin came closest to 'getting it' there when he called John Simpson's line "deliberately ambiguous". When it comes to BBC reporting, there's a lot of that about.

The Angel of the Bronx

This week's Radio 4 Profile had a political subject. Usually (though not always) such editions have a reasonably fair spread of views. Not this one though. There was about half a minute of criticism in total in a programme that lasted last nigh on 14 minutes. (It came from a male US conservative.) And the narration was negativity-free too. The lucky lady was 'democratic socialist' US Democrat Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Maybe she should recycle parts of it for her reelection campaign? 

Brazil nut

Well, the new 'far-right' President of Brazil strikes me as being "a bit much", but then again so did this week's Profile of him on Radio 4 by Mr. Edward Stourton.

It was critical voice after critical voice for the first eight minutes or so before 'BBC balance' arrived, first in the shape of a declared admirer who then proceeding to slag off Mr Bolsonaro (thus sounding more like a critic than an admirer) and then with a voter who said something nice about him (for a few, short seconds).

Incidentally, the tool I use to help transcribe things - TV Eyes - isn't brilliant at capturing radio programmes. Its brave attempt to render the name 'Jair Bolsonaro', for example, came out as 'Jail above scenario', which is nice.

Radio 4 profiles George Soros

For the first few minutes it sounded as if Edward Stourton's Radio 4 Profile of George Soros was going to be nothing but a hagiography but, towards the end, we did get some brief, dissenting comments - one from the spokesman of the Hungarian government, the other from a journalist whose beef with Mr. Soros is that his Open Society projects (such as the ones in Russia) haven't been anywhere near as effective as they should have been. (Not the usual criticism we hear of the meddling Mr. Soros). Plus we also heard a comment from a friend who described him as a benevolent feudal prince (which could be taken as a criticism or a compliment or a mixture of both).  

Ed's language was typically 'BBC' - e.g. In introducing the spokesman from the Hungarian government and describing its immigration policy he didn't just call it "hardline" (in the usual BBC way), he called it "very hardline". ("Hungary has taken a very hardline indeed on immigration and refugees"). 

In Praise of David Lammy MP

To be sarcastic or not to be sarcastic, that is the question....

We don't often complain about Radio 4's Profile. 

Speaking for myself (and, so, not presuming on Sue!), I find it to be generally very engaging and pretty scrupulous when it comes to questions of balance and bias.

This week's edition, however, took me by surprise - so much so that I'm now posting (and strongly moaning) about it.

*******

It profiled a prominent UK politician. 

Now, Profile often profiles politicians and, I'd say, usually succeeds in giving a fair and balanced view of them. 

Not this time though. 

*******

Seriously, O Dear Reader, please listen to it for yourselves and see if you agree with me that (this week) Profile came far, far too close to sounding like a puff piece for the politician concerned.

Even presenter Mark Coles (a very engaging presenter) dropped his trademark John Peel-style deadpan irony. 

Indeed, listening to it, I thought of it as being a radio version of one of those notoriously hagiographic Wikipedia entries which turn out to have been edited (on the sly) by the very politician in question!

*******

The politician profiled by Radio 4's Profile, if you were wondering, was Labour's David Lammy. 

Every voice featured -

his godmother Auntie May; his sister; Alastair Campbell; his school friend Patrick; his fellow choir member Kate; his former deputy head Trevor; his former Harvard professor Alan Stone; and Huff Post editor Paul Waugh 

- had only good things to say about him, and defended him against the very rare mentions of criticisms of Saint David of Tottenham featured in the programme...

...(including a fleeting mention of his, ahem, slightly embarrassing Mastermind experience).

*******

I was genuinely taken aback by this Radio 4 Profile. (Should I have been?)

I expected (from past experience) to hear at least one or two dissenting voices - (that's what Radio 4's Profile usually does as far as profiling UK party politicians goes) - but there were no dissenting voices...

...and that is very unusual for Radio 4 Profile.

*******

What got into the BBC here? Why didn't they dare to bring balance and irony into their profile of David Lammy? Why the near hagiography? Did the excellent Mark Coles cringe whilst reading out this script? What were they up to?

*******

If you think I'm in any way exaggerating, please listen for yourselves and feel free to to disagree (and I'd love to hear an attempted defence of the BBC here).

Meanwhile, in the wake of this programme, I'm off to pray at the premature shrine of Saint David of Lammy, as he makes our present saints (on the evidence of Radio 4's Profile) sound like sinners.

In which Craig becomes a Samira Ahmed-style snowflake...

Me

Today's Radio 4 Profile of Oprah Winfrey, presented by the accomplished John Peel impersonator Mark Coles (one of those people who always sounds as if they're being sarcastic even when they aren't being sarcastic), featured the following anecdote: 

Mark Coles: And there were plenty more says Sandra Pinckney, who shared a flat with Oprah Winfrey for a while. 

Sandra Pinckney: Oh my God, her dates! I mean, this one night she was going out. It was a Friday night. She said, "Sandra, when he comes don't say one word to me!", and I said, "What are you talking about?". So the doorbell rings and I'm waiting for her to answer the door. She's nowhere to be found. I answered the door  and [laughing] here's this guy. I mean, with all respect to short people, I mean, he was short and he was very funny-looking. And [laughing] so I said, "Oh! Well, come in and let me just get Oprah. She's ready. She's somewhere. Just hold on". I looked into my room, the closet, her room, the bathroom. And then I heard something in her closet. I opened the closet door [laughing] and there she is sitting in the dirty clothes hamper, hysterical, tears running down her eyes cos she knew what this guy looked like, and she knew what I was thinking.

Well, I have to say, as a short, funny-looking man myself, I found that anecdote grossly offensive and am appalled at the BBC for broadcasting it. 

I will be writing to Newswatch, Feedback and Points of View and tweeting about it endlessly for the next five years until Mark Coles, Sandra and Oprah are sent to join Toby Young in Virtual Reality Siberia. 

It's completely unacceptable.

As Samira Ahmed might say, there's surely a case to be answered that broadcasting anecdotes like this has an assault/normalising effect.

Should the next President of the United States be a heightist, appearance-obsessed bigot like Oprah - someone who can't see beyond a short man's funny face to the human being who shines like an angel behind it, and who laughs with her friends at the expense of funny-faced, short men? 

The worse-than-Carrie-Gracie-level problem here is that short, funny-looking men just don't have the social media clout of other vulnerable minority groups. We're never likely to get taken up by BBC Trending.

That won't stop me though. I'm on a mission to interfere in the next US election now. I'm like Nick Bryant, Katty Kay, Anthony Zurcher and Jon Sopel on steroids. Oprah will become the next President of the United States over my (short) dead body!

How to use a wet towel

On a much-needed lighter note, I did enjoy this week's Profile on Radio 4 from John-Peel-impersonator Mark Coles.

It was on the subject of 'the lady of last week', Laura Trott.

Among the many striking factoids featured I was particularly struck by how superstitious R Laura is. 

She has a lucky hairband, a lucky bracelet (which her mother gave her), a lucky toy dog which she always carries with her - and a lucky towel. 

It has to be a wet towel, and she stands on it before every race. 

I think I ought to start standing on a wet towel before blogging. Would there be fewer posts like this if I did? Or more?

Profiles

Tonight's profile of Theresa May on Radio 4's Profile (presented by John Peel impersonator Mark Coles) was an attempt to unwrap the riddle wrapped in a mystery inside a contemporary BBC One drama plot inside an enigma that is our new PM. 

What did it 'tell' us about her (if we can trust it)?

Well, her long-term friends say she always wanted to lead her country, even from childhood. Her aim was to be Britain's first female PM, so she was "quite irritated" when Mrs Thatcher "got there first" (according to one friend). 

Her dad died in a car crash when she was 25. Her mum died a year later. She leaned on her new banker husband Philip. 

Jenni Russell of the Times said that a Number 10 source said to her, after she was appointed to David Cameron's cabinet in 2010, "Well, we don't think much of her but we had to have a token woman and she is the best of an unimpressive bunch".

Lib Dem David Laws remembers her looking "extremely nervous" when she become home secretary" - an "uncomfortable fit", he called her, "looked down upon by some of the Prime Minister's inner circle". She said she often seemed "quite a lonely figure in cabinet...not part of the [public school] club", he said. 

"Even the Prime Minister allegedly had a rude name for her", Mark said. "Her nickname about her was such that I probably shouldn't record it on a family programme", said David Laws. 

I have to say (if all this is fair) that it's getting far easier to understand why Theresa has taken such ruthless and relentless-seeming revenge against the Cameroons in the past few days! (Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.)

She's the longest-serving home secretary in half a century - "a remarkable achievement in itself", said Mark Coles.

But what of her record? Her defenders (including Justine Greening and Eric Pickles) defended her, and Mark Coles said that "from the start she seemed determined to be her own woman" and that "in her six years at the Home Office Theresa May certainly didn't shy away from difficult decisions".

Profile raises a few concerns, however - especially from David Laws over civil liberties = but, all in all, her record sounded very impressive here. Even her failure to reduce levels of immigration was given a positive spin, courtesy of Chris Grayling.

That said, there was something that didn't go down well with Profile. Her "hawkish" party conference speech on immigration last year "positioned her to the right of the party", according to Mark. And Jenni Russell of the Times found it "wrong" and "almost menacing". It was so "hard right" and "chilly" that the Conservative conference "completely held back". Eric Pickles denied that and said she was just being "ahead of the curve". 

"Many" see her as "a reluctant Remainer", said Mark, adding that "her critics" think she played "a clever game" by "keeping her head down". Eric Pickles admires her though and thinks she believes in Britain, social opportunity and meritocracy while David Laws is confused, calling her "very difficult to pigeonhole". 

Mark reported her Downing Street speech. People were astounded. It sound like a sermon. What did it tell us about her outlook?

Profile left that question hanging.

All in all, that was a Profile which gave Mrs May a pretty positive take. 

Last week's Profile of Andrea Leadsom, also presented by Mark Coles, was noticeably less positive.

As Mark said, early on, her CV was the focus and "we're going to put it through the wringer to see if it hold up".

Though not entirely a hatchet job, last week's Profile was pretty unambiguous in suggesting it didn't hold up, thus reinforcing the views of those critics who said, at Mark phrased it, "she's an untested lightweight who's exaggerated her City career to try to impress". 

Its tone was much drier in wit and far more sarcastic in intent that this week's episode.

We're in 'compare and contrast' territory again. And the contrast was clear.

Of course, it's perfectly possible that Andrea Leadsom wasn't up to being PM and that Theresa May (PBUH) is up to the job, and that Profile was only reflecting this.

We'll never know, of course, about the former now, but we'll certainly know in the near future about the latter.

In brief

A quick run through of some of my usual subjects...

I didn't get very far with this week's From Our Own Correspondent. Kate Adie's introduction to the first report, talking of "The desperate and dispossessed...attempting to make the journey from Turkey to Europe", saw me off.

******

The Now Show probably doesn't use canned laughter, but I do wonder sometimes. I barely raised a titter this week. The audience sounded as if it was about to collectively wet itself with laughter. It didn't help that Jon Holmes did a bit on the Queen, Brexit and the Sun which relied on jokes about the Queen being German and Prince Philip being Greek. How lazy is that? 

******

I forget to round off our survey of political bias on the latest series of Radio 4's From Fact to Fiction (aka From Fact to Propaganda). We left our running tally at 6 episodes for the Left, 1 with no obvious agenda (disputed), and a big fat (undisputed) 0 for the Right. The final episode - a piece about José Mourinho by Mark Lawson - was unpolitical, so the final tally remains as above - except, of course, for the 'with no obvious agenda' category going up to 2. Clear bias.

******

One of the things I've spotted before about BBC Breakfast paper reviewers is that they tend to be drawn from an uncontroversial, vaguely centrist pool. The rare strongly-opinionated ones. however, tend to come from the centre-left wing of the political spectrum. Simon Fanshawe - by my reckoning the most regular Breakfast reviewer, is one example, and this morning's reviewer, writer and social justice campaigner Paul Vallely, also falls into that category. He denounced the government over social justice issues and joined the presenters in the latest BBC 'two minute hate' against Donald Trump. Labour's John McDonnell, however, was also held up for criticism. (It's that 'soggy BBC centre-left' again).

******

Ted Cruz was the subject of this week's Profile on Radio 4. It was presented by intermittent John Peel-sound-alike Mark Coles. The blurb on the programme's website begins, "Senator Ted Cruz is a hardliner, even by the standards of his native Texas..." The reaction on Twitter was unanimous: Mr Cruz is "even worse than Trump", "totally terrifying", "deeply unpleasant", a "political horror" and "basically the total nutter version of TheDonald". Having listened myself, it's not hard to work out why they reacted like that. Mark Coles will be pleased.

******

Talking about the BBC's US election coverage: Charges of overkill and bias (against Trump) were featured on both this week's Newswatch and Feedback, and Jon Sopel was on both defending himself and his colleagues. Oddly both programmes steered clear of the 'Curious Incident of the Candidate in the BBC's coverage', as per Conan Doyle - the candidate being Hillary Clinton, plus all the scandals surrounding her and the startling fact that her candidacy might be at risk because of them:

Inspector Gregory: "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"

Holmes: "To the curious incident of the candidate in the BBC's coverage."

Inspector Gregory: "The candidate did nothing in the BBC's coverage."

Holmes: "That was the curious incident."

******

It wouldn't be Feedback if Roger Bolton wasn't doing his pro-BBC spin job on the charter renewal. This week saw Radio 4's 'champion of the listener' (beginning at 15:39) cited Tony Hall's response to a government report about the BBC's governance. He then went on to say, "Tony Hall pointed out that if this happened" the corporation's independence could be at threat. The words "pointed out" were Roger Bolton's. He could have said "said", or "argued" or "claimed". But, no, he went for "pointed out", as if something true was being "pointed out".

******

To end on a more positive note though: Dateline London was good this week, especially on Obama's criticism of the UK and France and the EU-Turkish deal over the migrants. The range of contrasting views was to its credit. The programme's resident Eurofanatic, Marc Roche, unsurprisingly grabbed the opportunity to try and persuade us to stay in his beloved EU. Gavin congratulated him on being awarded the Légion d'honneur by the French government. "What on earth have you done to deserve that?", he joked. "Exactly what I will say next", replied the deadpan Marc before launching into a defence of France and the UK against Obama's criticisms. Unlike The Now Show, that made me laugh. 

A wolf in Armani

If I wake up early enough on a Sunday I enjoy listening to the radio 4‘s Profile. This morning, the clocks worked in the programme’s favour, and I listened with interest to the episode on Sir Andrew Green.

However I missed the previous episode about Hassan Rouhani so I thought I ought to listen to it on the iPlayer, to see if it would help me understand the BBC’s approach to  Sir Andrew Green, and to see if Mary Ann Sieghart would agree with Jack Straw, that Rouhani is a twinkle-eyed softie, or Benjamin Netanyahu, that he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. (Rouhani wears Armani suits -  Islamic style.)

I think they’re portraying him as a canny tightrope walker -  trying to keep a balance between pleasing reformers and hard-liners. A skill that might propel him to the top job, said someone. 

I thought Mary Ann Sieghart hedged her bets, but on the whole it was a slightly more affectionate portrait than I would have liked of a man who heads an Islamic republic that is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons with which to annihilate Israel and surrounding region, and hangs people at the drop of a hat, if you’ll pardon the expression. But that’s the ‘no value-judgement’ BBC for you. 

Sir Andrew Green has already ruffled the feathers of the left with his concerns about mass immigration. The Profile, however was at pains to emphasize that as an Arabist, Sir Andrew was no racist. In fact his motive for advocating the monitoring and limiting of mass immigration was to prevent ghettoisation.

It seems that his former colleagues assume that the founder of Migration Watch and opponent of mass immigration must be a racist.  But no, not at all, say others. He didn’t like Robin Cook or Tony Blair and regarded the Iraq war as culturally insensitive. He wasn’t to be characterised as a sort of Ukip type. He was a good guy, said nearly everyone, and to prove it, added the presenter Jo Fidgen, he is “Pro Palestinian” .

Okay, so the BBC thinks being pro Palestinian is a symbol of righteousness. But does his pro Palestinianism amount to the ugly anti-Israelism that besmirches much of the pro-Palestinianism we know and love? “Jews to the gas” and so on. 

I see Sir Andrew chairs something called Medical Aid for Palestine. Well, who would oppose the principle of ailing Palestinians receiving medical aid? It’s just when medical aid morphs into terrorism aid that some of us balk. 

Imagine that the other way round. Therein lies the difference. Just as most Israelis support the two state solution so that they can get on with their lives in peace, many Palestinians want their state so that they can get on with their lives without any Jews. They want their state to be a stepping stone to an Israel-free region.

So is Sir Andrew Green is actually one of those pro-Palestinians whose pro-Palestinianism stems from anti-Israelism? The BBC is taking the trouble to do his profile, so while they’re at it shouldn’t we be told?  

Profiling Shane Smith

Man who likes red wine 

Radio 4's Profile doesn't just bring the personalities of its subjects alive, it also reflects the personalities of its presenters. A Profile by Edward Stourton, for example, will have a very different character to one by, say, Mark Coles.

This week's profile of VICE Media co-founder Shane Smith, for example, not only projected the hipster-businessman character of its subject but the John Peel-like warmth, dry humour and vocal inflections of its presenter, Mark Coles - plus his Peel-like love of music.

Shane Smith, a punk-loving Canadian, comes from Irish immigrant stock and has made it big in New York, and the world.

Shane...punk...Irish...New York? Shane MacGowan...The Pogues...A Fairytale of New York. Cue Pogues songs.

Mark's profile of Shane Smith projected the image of Shane that Shane clearly wants to be projected - that of the heavy-drinking/drug-taking, amoral slacker whose exceptional business acumen and 'immersionist' style of reporting wowed Generation Y and won over Rupert Murdoch. Because of Mark's dry style, however, I was left simultaneously won over by and sceptical about Shane Smith's public image. Too good/bad to be true?

The controversy over VICE getting into bed with...er, embedding with...Islamic State and going where no mainstream media outlet has gone before was aired, tending towards the view that it was - on balance - a good thing.

In contrast, the controversy over VICE getting into bed with the regime in North Korea by embedding itself with Dennis Rodman (best known as the Celebrity Big Brother friend of George Galloway and Pete Byrne of Dead or Alive "fame", apparently also a basketball player) and Kim Jong-un (best known as an obese dictator) was also aired, tending towards the view that it was, emphatically (em-fatty-cally as regards young Kim) a bad thing.

Curiously for a BBC Profile, it didn't touch on the man's political views. Shane had nothing but contempt for the Occupy movement (remember that?) and said this of European-style socialism:

I grew up being a socialist and I have problems with it because I grew up in Canada [and] I’ve spent a lot of time in Scandinavia, where I believe countries legislate out creativity. They cut off the tall trees. Everyone’s a C-minus... 

[...incidentally rather like the UK's present political class for that matter!]

That kind of politics does seem to tally with the Generation Y we in the UK know.

Why am I telling you all this on a blog supposedly about BBC bias? Either 'God knows!' or you know, as I sure as heck don't - unless the preceding few paragraphs add up to something significant about BBC bias, and, frankly, I'm getting beyond knowing whether they do or don't.

A (Sun)Day in the Life (of the BBC) - I.

As I'm prone to posting about BBC programmes broadcast on Sunday - especially Radio 4's Sunday - I thought it might be worth tracking a(n almost) whole Sunday's worth of Radio 4 programmes, and seeing what emerges. The following posts will be a blog diary of what results. (If I get bored, it will end prematurely).

Let's start at 5:43, this last Sunday. Yes, 5:43 in the morning, when you were all probably fast asleep, awaiting the arrival of your morning-after hangovers.

5:43 Bells on Sunday

I like bells on Sunday, and Bells on Sunday. 

Here we heard the eight bells of St Mary and St Chad in Brewood, Staffordshire, pealing out very brightly. Ah yes, timelessly English! Yet, with my classical music hat on, it also sounded a bit like the kind of upbeat American minimalism exemplified by the music of Michael Torke. (Thought I'd share that with you.) No mournful bells these.

The one snag, as ever, was that we were allowed to hear a mere two minutes of bell-ringing. That's nowhere near enough. (Another complaint to the BBC will be going in about that.) Scrap Broadcasting House and give us an hour of Bells on Sunday instead!

Talking of church bells, our vicar was walking to church this Sunday morning and spotted me working in the garden.

"Can't you hear those bells summoning you to church?" said the vicar.

"I'm afraid you'll have to speak a little louder, vicar!" I replied.

"CAN'T YOU HEAR THOSE BELLS SUMMONING YOU TO CHURCH?!" shouted the vicar.

"I'm sorry, vicar," I said, "I can't hear you because of those effing bells!"

5:45 Profile

This was an early morning repeat for a programme broadcast the evening before, profiling the SNP deputy first minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon. It was written and presented by BBC business reporter Lesley Curwen.

Sometimes it hard to imagine that the person being profiled by Profile would enjoy the experience of actually listening to the programme. This wasn't one of those occasions.

I would (figuratively-speaking) wager a small bet that Nicola will have been listening to it - especially as one of the programme's 'talking heads' was her own mum, Joan. If so, she will have had a pleasant quarter of an hour's worth of listening, hearing political friend and foe alike singing her praises. Besides Joan Sturgeon, we heard from her SNP colleague Fiona Hyslop, the political commentator David Torrance, and the (Lib Dem) coalition government minister Michael Moore.

Unusually, there was barely a shadow of sourness to be heard. Even Mr Moore was full of praise for her qualities as a politician.

The nearest we got to that elusive shadow was a hint that the very political Miss Sturgeon had a single, non-political obsession - that Danish...er...political drama Borgen (broadcast on BBC Four). That's hardly a bad thing of course. Such things humanise politicians - or, at any rate, are assumed to do. (Incidentally, Clive James also likes Borgen. He fancies the lead actress).

Nicola Sturgeon does appear to be a bit like a stick of SNP rock. She's been SNP since her mid teens, her mum's an SNP councillor and she's married to the present chief executive of the SNP.

The programme left us with the suggestion that the sky could be the limit for her, especially if the independence referendum goes her way.

Here's a joke that didn't appear on Profile but it's one that I'm sure (having a feel for such things) is guaranteed to have every red-blooded SNP supporter rolling in the Isles with laughter:

The SNP has stated today that every Scot would be six hundred pounds a year better off in an independent Scotland.

Or as it's been promoted north of the border...an extra 1300 units of alcohol.

In the next post (due this evening): Sunday, On the Farm and an edition of Something Understood which meditates on the subject of anticipation. Aren't you simply tingling with anticipation to read it?