Red v blue

The idea that the BBC has a position on many stories cannot be shaken on certain kinds of subject. Before overturning Roe v Wade, the US Supreme Court ruled on gun ownership. Here's a short transcript of how it was reported. The colour-coding sets out the positions of the two sides, but - as you can see - one side gets the lion's share. And it probably won't surprise you which one:

Nada Tawfik, BBC Radio 4 Six O'Clock News Thursday 23 June

The New York case is the most significant involving gun rights that the justices have heard since 2008 when they ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right to have a hand gun in the home for self-defence. The conservative justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, declared that the Constitution also secures that right outside the home in public. New York and a handful of other Democratic states have licensing frameworks in place which require people to show proper cause to carry a concealed weapon. That required, until now, a special need for self-protection beyond a vague self defence argument in an effort to limit firearms in the street. The nation's most powerful gun lobby, the National Rifle Association, was quick to declare victory, but the Governor of New York state Kathy Hochul expressed a very different sentiment. “The Supreme Court of The United States of America has stripped away the state of New York's right and responsibility to protect its citizens. And the language we're reading is shocking. Today the Supreme court is sending us backwards in our efforts to protect families and prevent gun violence. We are still dealing with families in pain from mass shootings.” President Joe Biden said he was disappointed by the ruling. He said “it contradicted common sense, the constitution and should deeply trouble everyone.” The Liberal justices of the court expressed a similar concern. Justice Stephen Breyer, writing the dissenting opinion, said the decision “burdens states' ability to curb violence.” He cited figures showing that since the start of this year there have been 277 reported mass shootings in the United States, an average of more than one per day.

Did the other side say nothing? Was the actual Supreme Court ruling not worth quoting from?

Yes, really

 

I was curious to see, with just a few hours left till the Brexit transition period ends, quite how BBC Radio 4's Six O'Clock News would mark the approaching momentous moment. 

Would they opt for a positive angle, a neutral angle or a negative angle? 

I expected negative of course, and got it:

As the Brexit transition period comes to an end tonight, those trading goods between the UK and the EU are looking nervously to the future. The trade deal with the EU, which has signed into law last night, ensures there will be no tariffs or quotas but many businesses and hauliers are concerned that they will have to file new paperwork. Our transport correspondent Caroline Davies has been talking to some of them some of them. [Ed - Of course she has!]

Let's remember this moment too: 

This is how BBC Radio 4 chose to mark this historic day - by sticking with what it's been doing, relentlessly, for four and a half very long years, and focusing only on the negative side as far as Brexit is concerned.  

"Radio 4 used to be the home of sober reporting..."

Here's an interesting comment from Red Handler on the unofficial army forum ARRSE:

I caught the end of The Media Show. It struck me that quite a few opinions were presented as fact. They talked about BAME representation in the media, but two of the four persons on the programme were BAME {judging by their names}: 50% representation is much more than the proportion of BAME by overall population size.  

Then I caught the BBC Radio 4 News at Six, which included a lot of opinion presented as fact and, overall, came over either as (a) a lot of effort being made to spin stories against HMG, or (b) reporters not realising that they are biased.  

Example (a reporter talking about HMG's new internal markets bill) - "...but the provocative move [i.e. HMG's bill] has increased tensions with the EU as the two sides attempt to hammer out a trade deal..."  

'Provocative' is defined as: 'causing anger or another strong reaction, especially deliberately' so the reporter appeared to me to be commenting about the assumed motivation behind the bill. The reporter's sentence could easily have been rendered as '...but the proposed bill has increased tensions...'. This especially after she began the item with:  

'When the Northern Ireland Secretary admitted last week that the government's plan would break international law in a specific and limited way, many MPs could hardly believe what they were hearing! His admission caused outrage; former Prime Ministers; lawyers, the opposition and many conservative MPs said the move threatened the UK's reputation for upholding treaties and international laws...'  

There was no representation of the government's reasons for bringing the bill forward. And I don't want hyped phrases such as '...many MPs could hardly believe what they were hearing! His admission caused outrage...': 

Radio 4 used to be the home of sober reporting...

Fair comment? 

Well, here's the offending report from Vicky Young: 

When the Northern Ireland Secretary admitted last week that the Government's plan would break international law in a specific and limited way, many MPs could hardly believe what they were hearing! 

His admission caused outrage; former Prime Ministers; lawyers, the opposition and many conservative MPs said the move threatened the UK's reputation for upholding treaties and international laws. 

The growing rebellion ahead of a vote next week has forced the Government to seek a compromise and the BBC understands that it will give Parliament an extra layer of oversight. 

But that has not been enough to assuage the concerns of the Advocate General for Scotland Lord Keen. He's resigned from the Government. Appearing in front of the Liaison Committee the Prime Minister insisted his duty was to protect the country from what he calls "an irrational interpretation of the Withdrawal Agreement". 

But the provocative move has increased tensions with the EU as the two sides attempt to hammer out a trade deal. Hilary Benn, the chairman of the Brexit Select Committee asked Mr. Johnson whether he believed the EU was negotiating in good faith. 

[Clip of Mr Johnson and Mr Benn.] 

Mr. Johnson's offer of compromise may persuade enough of his own MPs to fall into line over the Internal Market Bill in a vote next week, but many think Downing Street's approach has done serious damage to the UK's reputation.

Preaching?

Charles Moore told Nick Robiuson last Saturday that what he particularly objected to was the BBC "preaching". 

Am I wrong in thinking that, in the wake of Greta Thunberg's guest-editorship of Today on Monday, BBC Radio is taking its "preaching" on climate change to new levels of intensity? 

Three out of the five headlines on tonight's Radio 4 Six O'Clock News related to climate change (Australia, Indonesia, Norway) with a fourth story appearing unannounced, courtesy of the BBC's environment (activist) analyst Roger Harrabin. 

Add that to Today's ongoing focus on the issue (Zambia today), plus programmes throughout the day on how climate change is creating "a boom town for rats" and "our psychological relationship with the climate crisis" - and tonight's In Business ended by telling us that next week's programme would look at how Zimbabwean farmers "are struggling to adapt to climate change", then I do think that there seems to be a sharp ratcheting-up on the BBC's focus on 'the climate crisis'. 

If so, and if it continues, Greta and Extinction Rebellion will be proud of them.

On the BBC's Nick Bryant

Nick Bryant

I've just found a post I prepared in July 2010. I was between blogs at the time, so I never published it.

(I'd forgotten I hadn't published it though, so I've had to look hard to find it tonight as it wasn't where I expected it to be).

It concerned the BBC's then Australia correspondent Nick Bryant, now the BBC's New York correspondent (though, famously, it's a rare day that you hear him reporting on news from New York).

This is it:

No worries

The BBC is nothing if not consistent on illegal immigration. It is always 'intensely relaxed' about it.

Looking at Nick Bryant's Australia blog shows this to be the case.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/nickbryant

The BBC's Australia correspondent is always on message on the issue of immigration. He is squeamish about Australia's "messy debate over asylum seekers, which never arouses the nobler aspects of the Australian character". He repeatedly characterises illegal immigration as "the most paranoiac issue in Australian politics" (that word 'paranoiac' crops up in at least three of his posts) and is fond of using the phrase "dog whistle" whenever a politician talks tough on the immigration issue.

He quotes at significantly greater length from those advocating a liberal immigration policy and peppers his blog with posts praising Australia's 'multi-culturalism'.

***

The BBC, represented by Nick Bryant, is clearly disappointed by Australia's new Labor prime minister Julia Gillard. Whereas the chucked-out Kevin Rudd was an out-and-out left-liberal (and a pal of Obama), Julia is rather more conservative and isn't wholly on message over immigration - and isn't pushing hard enough either over 'climate change' (for the BBC's tastes).    
   
Nick Bryant, of course, still prefers her to the Liberal leader Tony Abbott, who is far more conservative than his predecessor, the Cameron-like Malcolm Turnbull. Tony Abbott once famously described climate change as "absolute crap" and Bryant is fond of quoting attacks on his immigration policies (lots of 'dog whistles'). Nick Bryant's welcome for the "highly erratic" Abbott's election? "By installing Mr Abbott, have the turkeys just voted for Christmas?"  
   
Several of Bryant's posts swoon (at length) over the memory of Gough Whitlam's left-wing Labor government of the 1970s. He even seems to believe the conspiracy theory that the CIA was involved in Whitlam's removal from office.    
   
Kevin Rudd is viewed as a tragic figure by Byrant - a fallen hero, once feted by Barack Obama, brought down brutally by his failure to force through plans for an emission trading scheme.    
   
On Obama: "I said that a new cadre of politicians was emerging, like Barack Obama, who find partisan politics rather tiresome, counter-productive and ugly." Really?     

In fairness to Nick Bryant though, he is surprisingly fair in his reporting of the debate over AGW. He acknowledges there is a debate for starters -  and, unlike so many of his BBC colleagues, has done for some time now. He even quotes opinion polls that Richard Black wouldn't touch with a ten-mile barge-pole (namely one showing that less than 40% of Ozzies supported Rudd's emissions trading scheme in February.)

How's that for a trip down Memory Lane? (Ex-Ozzie PM) Julia Gillard and (ex-BBC environment reporter) Richard Black in one post? Ah, happy days!

And I did enjoy Nick's typical BBC failure to make predictions. Rather than "turkeys voting for Christmas" by installing the "high erratic" Tony Abbott as Liberal leader in 2010, the Liberal/National Coalition beat Labour in the following 2013 election (under his leadership) by over 12%.

So why am I mentioning all of this?

Well, firstly, because it will make it much easier for me to find it again....

....and, secondly, because that post did put in print some very clear examples of Nick Bryant's often highly overt bias during his time as the BBC's Australia correspondent - especially over the issue of immigration.

But, thirdly, because Nick Bryant has subsequently gone on to be non-too-impartial BBC US correspondent.

On listening to yesterday's Radio 4 Six O'clock News, and hearing that Nick Bryant was doing a report on the G20 Summit in Japan, I began playing my usual Nick Bryant game. I knew some biased comment or other was bound to come, and I guessed it would about Donald Trump (not exactly a difficult guess!), but where would it be - the beginning, middle or end of his report?

I guessed (from past experience, so - again - not a difficult guess!), the end. (It's a bit of a habit of his).

And, yes, his perfectly-coiffured and heavily-loaded dig at Donald Trump, President of the USA, re his proposal to shake hands with Fat Boy Kim of North Korea during his visit to South Korea, landed just where I expected it to do - and with just as much of a deadpan sneer as I expected too at the very end with these sneering words:

...but will he get his date at the DMZ the with his friend from the totalitarian North?

In what way are those words not a sneer from 'impartial' BBC reporter Nick Bryant?

Another one bites the dust

Sir Roger Scruton

Once identified as right-wing you are beyond the pale of argument; your views are irrelevant, your character discredited, your presence in the world a mistake. You are not an opponent to be argued with, but a disease to be shunned. This has been my experience.                                                                                Sir Roger Scruton

There are certain things that no sensible person can deny, don't you think?

(As ever, please feel free to deny them if you want.)

Such as:

(a) that 'Islamophobia' is a term originally foisted upon us by Islamic supremacists intent on rendering Islam beyond criticism, subsequently taken up by (their) useful idiots,

(b) that multi-billionaire George Soros pours masses of money into country after country after country, including his native Hungary, in order to influence their political direction in the way he favours,

and

(c) that the authoritarian Chinese communist regime has reverted to trying to turn out an obedient population in the usual Orwellian manner of such regimes.

And yet saying those reasonable things has resulted in our finest philosopher Sir Roger Scruton being sacked by the hapless, gutless weather vanes in  our present Government.

Why? Because they caved in to yet another hue-and-cry from the usual fools, frauds and firebrands, this time following a New Statesman interview.

I really would like to see the full interview too, rather than just read the NS edited quotes in a heavily-authored NS article. Forgive me if I don't trust them. I specifically want to see the full context of Sir Roger's remarks about the Chinese tyranny and its effects on the Chinese people. I'm particularly suspicious of the dots in the quote cited in the NS. (“They’re creating robots out of their own people… each Chinese person is a kind of replica of the next one and that is a very frightening thing.”)

Back to the BBC.

This is how the BBC News website presented the story.

(Note how the even-more-edited-than-in-the-New-Statesman quote in the third paragraph makes Sir Roger sound like he's being racist):

Conservative academic Sir Roger Scruton has been sacked as head of a government housing body following critical comments about Islam and China. 

The philosopher's appointment to head the Building Beautiful Commission in November was criticised at the time. 

He has now been dismissed after claiming Islamophobia was "a propaganda word" and "each Chinese person is a kind of replica of the next one". 

The Ministry of Housing said the remarks were "unacceptable".

Sir Roger left his position "with immediate effect" after an interview with the New Statesman in which he restated past comments about Islamophobia, and Jewish financier and philanthropist George Soros.

He said that "anybody who doesn't think that there's a Soros empire in Hungary has not observed the facts" while he said China was "creating robots out of their own people" which he said was a "frightening thing". 

He said he stood by comments he has made in the past that Islamophobia was a "propaganda word invented by the Muslim Brotherhood in order to stop discussion of a major issue". 

The Conservatives have been accused of failing to act over Islamophobia in the party. 

Communities Secretary James Brokenshire defended Sir Roger at the time of his appointment amid claims his views made him unsuitable for the job, saying many of the attacks on him were "misinformed and ill-judged". 

A government spokesman said on Wednesday: "Sir Roger Scruton has been dismissed as Chairman of the Building Better Building Beautiful Commission with immediate effect, following his unacceptable comments." 

And Radio 4's Six O'Clock News gave us this take on the story:

A government adviser has been sacked for making comments about Islamophobia which Labour said invoked the language of white supremacists. A government spokeswoman said Sir Roger Scruton, who had an unpaid role as a housing adviser, had made unacceptable remarks to a political magazine. The New Statesman says the philosopher repeated comments he first made last year in which he described Islamophobia as a propaganda word invented by the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Labour person who used the 'white supremacist' charge against Professor Scruton, if you were wondering, was Dawn Butler.

You may remember her as being the one who accused Jamie Oliver of "cultural appropriation" over a jerk rice product, and who called Theresa May "racist" over the Windrush affair, and who's called Donald Trump "racist" and Sir Alan Sugar "racist" and yet who appointed an advisor who said that "all whites" are racist.

I think I'll stick with Sir Roger rather than Dawn. I suspect he's vastly less racist at heart than she is.


Update: Aha, the New Statesman journalist responsible was challenged over those dots in the quote “They’re creating robots out of their own people… each Chinese person is a kind of replica of the next one and that is a very frightening thing”.

The ellipses stood for "by constraining what can be done".

Apparently there wasn't "space" for those six words in the New Statesman!:

Lots of people weren't happy with George Eaton's behaviour (even more after he then deleted the above tweet):

Freddie Sayers: So the full Scruton quote is about tyrannical Chinese government overreach - that is the sense in which Chinese people are being made into replicas of one another. The only thing "outrageous" about this quote is the way it was edited.
Kristian Niemietz: The edit totally changes the meaning. In the edited version, it sounds as if Scruton were using racial stereotypes. In the full version, it's clear that he does nothing of the sort. He's critiquing conformity-enforcing government policies.
Claire Fox: Regardless of what one thinks of Scruton, twisting of his quote that attacks Chinese authoritarianism (& how it treats its citizens) presented as attack on Chinese people, is a worrying sign of 'hit' journalism.  Who'll ever give an interview if their words edited this way?
Adrian Hilton:  This is unethical journalism. You can't interview someone and then edit their comments so that readers will infer racism, when clearly Roger Scruton was referring to the generational replication of communist ideology. Has George Eaton deleted his tweet because of disk space?
Maajid Nawaz: Hi, George Eaton, agree or not with Scruton, it is simply *dishonest* to edit his quote. What’s happening here is not a neat picture of “my side good, your side bad”, but rather bad actors deliberately misrepresenting people who have said some (other) bad things. This, just to achieve a “gotcha” moment for selfish reasons, which ultimately undermines honest debate. You’re a left-wing anti-racist journalist. I’m a survivor of a recent violent racist attack, leaving me scarred for life. Can you justify to me why you lied about Roger Scruton’s quote about the Chinese, making it harder for racism victims like me to be believed?
Michael Brendan Dougherty: For reasons of space, George Eaton had to excise the precise five words that entirely change the meaning of his subject's quote. Imagine forfeiting your self-respect as a journalist and the respect of every half-literate reader for the backslapping of Owen Jones.
Ryan Bourne: Leaving aside other quotes, libertarians and conservatives should refuse to give comment to George Eaton after seeing the way he disgracefully partially quoted Scruton to change the meaning of China remark. Eaton has proved himself a partisan hit man.
Simon Evans: I've just looked up his comments on Chinese people. They are actually an attack on the Chinese regime and in fact supportive of Chinese people. Completely the opposite of what George Eaton is dishonestly reporting. How is he allowed to get away with this? 

Choosing an angle

Has anyone ever noticed how much Mrs Merkel looks like Ken Clarke in drag?

Listening to tonight's Radio 4 Six O'Clock News and its coverage of Mrs Merkel's calls for a European army, I was very struck by its angle. 

The angle I've been reading this afternoon/evening concerns lots of pro-Brexit people saying that the likes of Nick Clegg have been proved to be liars, so you'd expect the idea of a European army to be at least acknowledged, in the usual BBC terminology as "controversial" - if only in passing. 

But, no. 

Instead we got Jenny Hill presenting it almost as if Mrs Merkel had finally, thankfully, got off the fence and done the right thing.

For here was Jenny telling us that "an uncharacteristically impassioned Angela Merkel was on fighting form" today and that, "after months of fudging her position on the subject", Mrs Merkel  had "unequivocally" backed President Macron in calling for the creation of a European army ("..albeit one day.."). And Mrs Merkel didn't just back M. Macron; her statement was also likely to "enrage" Donald Trump. Meanwhile, Donald Trump "took aim" at M. Macron "over Nato contributions, the Second World War and wine production". 

So the angle was: Mrs Merkel taking M. Macron's side against President Trump. 

Cast it in that way and the idea of a European army might well appear uncontroversial and might especially appeal to people who don't like Donald Trump.

Cast it, in contrast, as being the latest federalist move from the increasingly unpopular leaders of France and Germany and as something which will inevitably arouse concern among the EU's Eurosceptic voices and reinforce UK Eurosceptic voices then a different audience reaction might very well result.

It really is how you choose to angle it.

Attempting to play up

A comment at Biased BBC this evening:

quisquose

October 16, 2016 at 8:09 pm

I’ve been listening to the BBC R4 news bulletins occasionally today, and each time they have mentioned the Johnson pro-EU essay ‘story’ they have said “Boris is trying to play down”. Talk about a loaded statement. “Trying to play down” is what guilty people do. The message they are trying to convey is quite obvious.

You can hear an example of that ("Boris Johnson has attempted to play down...") on tonight's Radio 4 Six O'Clock News (at 05:48).