“The BBC News Channel could be gone by April”

You may not know this, so here are a few tweets from BBC News Channel presenter Martine Croxall's Twitter feed today concerning the future of the BBC News Channel. 

She's not happy:

• I think The Papers will be a casualty of what the managers are planning with one single channel.
• I make my feelings known loud and clear. We are told that the audience has not made a fuss about what's planned...
• I do not believe the true extent of the damage to the News Channel has been made plain.
• It’s being closed. There will a new world-facing commercial one instead. The UK will get simulcast programmes you can see/hear elsewhere already. A strand of breaking news for the UK on merit that a standby team gets on air from a rudimentary studio.
• The replacement channel will be commercial and aimed at an overseas audience. The UK licence fee payer will not recognise it.
• There will be lots of ad breaks to fill for UK viewers.
• The focus is to be “digital first” but that requires content. UK content comes largely from the BBC News Channel. Anyone who understands BBC News should know that.
• These decisions are being made internally at the BBC. I am speaking the truth but I’m sticking my neck out. It’s the equivalent of threatening to jump off a cliff. Who loses?
• Be prepared to be told that the UK will still get rolling News. What you won’t be told is that the target audience is overseas.
• I was told on Thursday that the audience has not objected.
• But people won't complain if they haven't been properly informed of what's in the offing.
• You are not powerless. Object to the BBC DG and chairman. To Ofcom. To the DCMS select committee. Make noise about what you value. Our bosses say audiences don’t care. The BBC News Channel as we know it will be gone by April if we cannot shape the plans.
• Without the BBC News Channel the range of UK stories and voices will wither. We give time and space to issues and to the Nations and Regions squeezed of other national programming.
• The claim is that the plans were announced in May. But there’s to be no audience survey.
• The news channel news was announced on May 26 but the true scale of the change was not made clear.
• Yes and the front half hours will be aimed at a global audience. You’d get those recorded progs on weekdays too.
• The BBC News Channel feeds many other BBC News services. It does so on a modest budget and very little internal recognition.
• Managers claim it has been publicised.
• The standard reply is there will be a channel. It won’t say it’s designed for commercial overseas viewers.
• That’s about the size of it. The rest of the time you will get output aimed at a foreign audience. And any UK breaking news will have to be put on air from a standing start by a small team.
• The management line is there will still be a rolling news channel for the UK but the small print shows it will be commercial and aimed at a foreign audience. Little room for adequate UK news coverage.
• The BBC4 change is years away. The BBC News Channel could be gone by April.
• So short-sighted.

Insisted

  

One of the things you can do with TVEyes is check for the use of a particular word on a particular channel over a specific period of time. 

For instance, since June began till the time of writing this post [6am, Monday 27 June], there were 170 results for the word 'insisted' on the BBC News Channel. 

If you go through them and remove all the results that aren't comments made by BBC reporters/presenters - e.g. ones where non-BBC interviewees or children talking of their parents, etc - that shrinks to 161 uses. Then if you count the individual times the word is used about a specific person/organisation/government you might see patterns emerge. 

Here then are all the uses of 'insisted' by BBC journalists/presenters over the course of some 26 days this June:

Boris Johnson/The Prime Minister - 52

President Zelenskyy - 7

The Royal Household/Clarence House - 6

Royal officials - 17

The Government - 2

Priti Patel/The Home Secretary - 24

The Home Office - 1

Kwasi Kwarteng/The Business Secretary - 6

The RMT union - 3

Grant Shapps/The Transport Minister - 6

Naomi Long/ Alliance Party leader - 3

Gatwick Airport - 4

Donald Trump - 3

Therese Coffey, Work and Pensions Secretary - 3

Liz Truss, Foreign Secretary - 2

Brandon Lewis, NI Secretary - 8

The Kremlin - 1

Iran - 1

Breakaway golf tournament organisers - 2

Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Sri Lanka president - 4

Jim Fitton, British geologist accused of breaking Iraqi law - 1

The Queen, in a joke by Rod Stewart  quoted by the BBC - 1

Gustavo Petro, new Colombian president - 2

Liverpool FC - 1

The French authorities overseeing Champions League match - 1

As you can see, it's overwhelmingly the UK Government and the UK Royal Family that's been 'insisting' things so far this month, with Boris 'insisting' most of all. 

'Insisted' is, of course, potentially a neutral word describing someone stating something assertively, but - as in the example used by Merriam-Webster above - it can carry connotations of someone asserting something defensively. As I've written before, my ears always prick up at the BBC's use of the word "insisted" as (to me) it usually implies 'over-defensive pleading by someone the BBC thinks is wrong'. 

And the above list is largely - though not exclusively - a list of BBC 'wrong-uns', isn't it? You'll spot lots of government ministers but no-one from the Labour Party, plus Donald Trump but no Joe Biden.

Revealing, or not?

Update, 8.07am: By coincidence, I just put on Radio 4 and literally within 10 seconds heard another 'insisted', this time from the BBC's Ben Wright. "While ministers insist the plan is legal Labour says unilateral actions would break international law," insisted Ben.

Labelling the IEA

There's another interesting new ruling by the BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU). 

The right-leaning Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) is a bogeyman for left-leaning types on Twitter. 'Who funds you?' is their repeated cry whenever someone from the IEA pops up, and they don't like it when IEA people appear on the BBC at all. 

Someone complained that The Papers on the BBC News Channel “repeatedly failed to provide an adequate description of the IEA”. I'm guessing they would like the BBC to label them with something negative. 

Anyhow, the BBC upheld their complaint and will oblige them from now on by making sure its presenters make “particular reference” to the IEA's “free market orientation”.

From what I can see, these instances relate to some rare appearances by Annabel Denham, Director of Communications at the IEA, alongside broadcaster John Stapleton. The latest ones, on 7 June, saw the IEA labelled as a “free-market think tank” each time she was introduced.

It will be most interesting to test again how consistent the BBC are with their labels, especially given that 'bias by labelling' is always a risk. Will they treat outfits from other parts of the political spectrum this way too?

I see, from a preliminary scan of TV Eyes, that the likes of the Resolution Foundation are being labelled “independent” or “a think tank that focuses on people of lower incomes” and Demos is “cross-party”. 

The BBC News Channel falls for an April Fools' Day joke

 

Eight times between 12:12pm and 12:24pm yesterday, April 1st, the BBC News Channel repeatedly ran a bit of breaking news across its screen. 

They were reporting that one of Boris Johnson's arch-critics Rory Stewart was to become Number Ten Director of Communications. The news then disappeared without comment. 

The BBC, who have long had a soft spot for Rory, must have been reading his Twitter feed. He'd tweeted as an April Fools' Day joke:

It is an honour to have been asked by the PM to serve as Director of Communications for No 10 Downing Street. I am looking forward to working with the PM, Ministers and Members of Parliament on the issues that matter most to our country.

And the geniuses at Jess Brammar's new channel fell for it. 

The i reports:

A spokesperson for BBC News said it would not comment on the incident.

Dame Cressida Dick's departure: Comparing BBC News and GB News

Many hereabouts will have welcomed Thursday's ousting of Dame Cressida Dick, even if it was provoked by Sadiq Khan. 

I was curious about how the BBC News Channel covered the breaking news that evening and have drawn up a list of those interviewed after the story broke just before 7pm that night. 

The following were specifically invite on to discuss the story: 

• Leroy Logan, founding member of the Black Police Association 
• Sir Peter Fahy, former chief constable of Greater Manchester Police 
• Parm Sandhu, senior female Asian police officer who accused the Met of racism 
• Caroline Russell, Green Party member of Greater London Assembly 
• Jamie Klingler, co-founder Reclaim These Streets, women's rights activist 
• Leroy Logan, founding member of the Black Police Association [2nd interview] 
• Sarah Sak, mother of victim of murderous homophobic attack 
• Munira Wilson, Lib Dem MP 
• Dal Babu, former chief superintendent Met and ex-president of the National Black Police Association

What was so interesting about those is that, with the exception of Sir Peter Fahy, who had a regretful but nuanced take, everyone else thought and said much the same things about the story. They all approved of Dame Cressida's ejection, and followed the BBC's focus on what BBC presenters called 'the central charge' against her: that she had failed to tackle a culture of 'racism, misogyny, sexism and homophobia' at the Met.

Others were pre-booked guests, so for Context there was: 

• Ed Vaizey, former Conservative MP, now a member of the House of Lords 
• Dahlia Scheindlin, left-leaning political analyst and fellow at Century International

They also sang from the same hymn sheet, especially Ed Vaizey, who sounded more like a Guardian columnist than a Tory peer. 

Tellingly, despite fewer guests, a much wider range of views was heard on GB News that evening, with specific invites to talk on the story going to:

• Stephen Roberts, former deputy assistant commissioner at the Met
• Paul Gambaccini, broadcaster
• Chris Phillips, formerly with the National Counter Terrorism Security Office

And there was a very diverse set of pre-booked guests - 'diverse' in all respects, including opinion:

• Jacqui Smith, former Labour home secretary
• Shaun Bailey, former London Tory candidate
• Amy Nickell, left-leaning author and broadcaster
• Dominique Samuels, right-leaning commentator

They talked about a broader range of areas of criticism that Dame Cressida faced and disagreed on her removal. 

It was a proper cross-section of views - unlike on the BBC News Channel, which was almost entirely monochrome in terms of diversity of opinion. 

Thank goodness for GB News.

“Let's get more analysis of that verdict now”...

               

The BBC certainly knows how to put its foot in it.

Within minutes of news breaking of Ghislaine Maxwell being found guilty on five charges, the BBC News Channel interviewed Professor Alan Dershowitz.

This has provoked a backlash against the BBC, both here and abroad. 

To summarise the case against the BBC: 

Despite being personally involved in the case himself and previously being involved with Jeffrey Epstein, Professor Dershowitz was merely introduced as a “constitutional lawyer”, and someone who had been brought on to give “more analysis”. Moreover, his BBC interviewer, Ben Boulos, failed to challenge him in any way when he used the platform granted to him by the BBC to try to discredit Virginia Giuffre, the woman accusing both him and Prince Andrew.

Here's a flavour of the reaction: 

Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC: Sorry, what?! BBC News now have Alan Dershowitz on to analyse Ghislaine Maxwell’s conviction, without any reference to his background;he’s simply introduced as “constitutional lawyer” as if he’s a neutral expert. Shocked. Utterly bizarre decision & does the audience a disservice. 

Sarah Churchwell, writer: So BBC News has decided that the expert witness they need on the Maxwell trial is Alan Dershowitz. Who has taken the opportunity to say that it shows how accusations against him and Prince Andrew are wrong. I’d really like to understand how BBC News treats as an expert witness someone who literally admits without being asked that he is among the people implicated in the case. “The question is when will Giuffre be charged rather than her charging people like Prince Andrew and me.” I am not a lawyer, so I can’t comment on the legality. But journalistically, he should not have been presented as an impartial expert witness only to say the verdict vindicates him, personally. People have taken this thread as an opp to bash the BBC, so let me be clear I’m a fan and a beneficiary of brilliant people at BBC News. But this- Dershowitz as “constitutional lawyer” without explaining his screaming conflicts of interest - is not ok.

Rob Burley, ex-BBC: I don’t work there, but suspect bids being thrown out for relevant guests with little time to consider the implications. Very bad choice of first guest. In mitigation, probably small number of staff and possibly not enough editorial leadership. The cuts have gutted the newsroom.

When someone wondered what Jess Brammar, head of the BBC's news channels, Rob stuck up for her, saying, “I’d blame the Government for cuts to the licence fee for years if worried about this, not an individual and blameless (in Jess’ case) manager.”

And here are some headlines about it:

Rolling Stone: Alan Dershowitz, Accused of Involvement in Epstein Sex Ring, Analyzes Ghislaine Maxwell Guilty Verdict. BBC inexplicably brought on the Harvard professor, who has been accused of (and denied) sexually assaulting Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre.

The Times: Ghislaine Maxwell verdict: BBC criticised for interviewing lawyer implicated in Ghislaine Maxwell case.

Newsweek: Alan Dershowitz Interview on Ghislaine Maxwell Leaves Viewers Outraged: 'Inexcusable'. The BBC is facing criticism for hosting constitutional law expert Alan Dershowitz.

If anyone needs it, here's a transcript:

Ben Boulos, BBC: Let's get more analysis of that verdict now. We can now speak to constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz, who joins us now. This was a much-watched trial and after a long set of deliberations, spanning Christmas with a break, suddenly the jury reached a verdict.

Alan Dershowitz: Well, I think the most important thing, particularly for British viewers, is that the government was very careful who it used as witnesses. It did not use as a witness the woman who accused, for example, Prince Andrew, accused me, accused many other people, because the government didn't believe she was telling the truth. In fact, she, Virginia Giuffre, was mentioned in the trial as somebody who brought young people to Epstein for him to abuse. And so this case does nothing at all to strengthen in any way the case against Prince Andrew; indeed it weakens the case of Prince Andrew considerably because the government was very selective in who it used. It used only witnesses who they believed were credible, credible, and they deliberately didn't use the main witness, the woman who started the whole investigation, Virginia Giuffre, because, ultimately, they didn't believe she was telling the truth. They didn't believe that a jury would believe her. And they were right in doing so. So it was very smart on the part of the government.

Ben Boulos, BBC: And yet, the version, the image, that was portrayed of Ghislaine Maxwell as a sophisticated predator is the one that the jury have agreed with.

Alan Dershowitz: Well, the jury agreed that she helped Jeffrey Epstein and his activities, and the question is then whether or not she will be sentenced as if she were Jeffrey Epstein or sentenced as if she were simply somebody who facilitated and helped. And the other question is who else will be charged? Because the testimony introduced evidence that other people where guilty and involved. Again, Virginia Giuffre. She was alleged by the same women who the jury believed to have brought them to Jeffrey Epstein knowing that they were under age, of getting undressed, having sex with Jeffrey Epstein in front of them when they were under age in order to encourage them also to have sex with Epstein. So I think the next question is when will Virginia Giuffre be indicted and charged rather than her accusing people like Prince Andrew and myself and Ehud Barak and George Mitchell and dozens of other people who she has accused. So the next question is who else will be charged for facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's misconduct?

Ben Boulos, BBC: Just returning to the issue of the guilty verdicts again Ghislaine Maxwell, as a lawyer where you expect the sentencing to fall on the spectrum of prison terms that are available to the judge?

Alan Dershowitz: Well, I think she will get a substantial prison term because she was convicted on five counts, and the guidelines provide for fairly high sentencing. So it will certainly be in the double figures. It won't be five years or six years or seven years. It will more likely be in the teens. She will get credit, of course, for the time she has already served. I don't think she is going to get 30 or 40 years - that would be utterly inconsistent with what prior sentences have been in comparable cases - but I think she probably can expect a significant sentence. She will also appeal, obviously. She will not get bail pending appeal, but she will appeal, and within, say, eight months or so, three judges will decide whether the trial was fair. The fact that the jury stayed out so long and did distinguish counts - five yes, one no - will make it a little bit more appealing for her to successfully appeal. But there will be an appeal.

Ben Boulos, BBC: OK, we will leave it there, but thank you very much indeed for speaking to us.

On a lighter note, Ben Boulos kept calling 'Ghislaine Maxwell'  “Glenn Maxwell” through his stint as presenter. At least he didn't have to try saying “Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC”. 

UPDATE [11.30am] - Given that many of the people complaining are precisely the kind of people the BBC takes notice of, this was inevitable:

BBC navel-gazing and metropolitan elitism

Here's a little Tuesday morning reading from the newspapers, starting with Anita Singh in the Daily Telegraph:

There is navel-gazing, and then there is the sight in The Princes and the Press (BBC Two) of BBC presenter Amol Rajan reporting on media editor Amol Rajan reporting on the Royal family criticising the BBC. Absurd doesn’t cover it.

After the second and final episode of a series that has caused so much controversy, what have we learned? That there was rivalry between the Royal households. That Harry hates the press, and Meghan got terrible headlines. That Palace sources, whose job it is to secure favourable press coverage for their royals, may have briefed certain journalists in the hope of doing exactly that. Any and all of this information has been available to read in the newspapers for several years. Recycling it for television has achieved nothing, except to sour relations between the BBC and the Royal family.

And David Blunkett is back on the subject of 'woke' BBC Radio 4, this time writing a piece for the Daily Mail. He says:

Radio 4 has become so determined to address multicultural diversity, gender issues and identity politics that it forgets about all-embracing inclusion. People who live outside a narrow class of well-off professionals with rigidly right-on opinions, almost all of them in London, no longer feel included by the station. If you’re not part of the self-proclaimed metropolitan elite, you are unlikely to hear your views reflected. The BBC seems to ignore the obvious fact that ‘B’ stands for British — and its remit is to broadcast to the whole country, not just a few fashionable streets around Islington.

Meanwhile, The Times has a piece by Jawad Iqbal headlined The BBC has a blind spot over the bias of its Covid expert Susan Michie. It begins...and ends:

The BBC is guilty of a grave disservice to its audiences in continuing to give prominent airtime to a communist-supporting scientist as one of its go-to experts on pandemic restrictions, without any real attempt to contextualise or counterbalance her criticisms. Professor Susan Michie, of University College London, a super-rich longstanding member of the Communist Party of Britain, was lined up as a main expert to pass judgment on the prime minister’s announcement of measures to tackle the new Omicron variant....Michie’s revolutionary views — she is said to be dedicated to establishing a socialist order in the UK — are surely relevant when evaluating her critique of pandemic policies. The BBC, which prattles on endlessly about the importance of impartiality and objectivity, seems to have a blind spot when it comes to Michie. Its first duty must be to its audiences, who have a right to be told much more about the experts given valuable airtime.  

On which theme, by the way, I noted down the names of the first four interviewees on the BBC News Channel immediately following Boris's press conference the other day. All were what might be called 'lockdown hawks'. In order of appearance they were: Professor Susan Michie, University College London; Alex Norris MP, Shadow Health Minister; Professor Devi Sridhar, Chair of Global Public Health at the University of Edinburgh; and Dr Sarah Pitt, University of Brighton.

Sending a dangerous message

Every hour on the BBC News Channel since around 5pm yesterday a report has been broadcast by Nomia Iqbal where she says of Kyle Rittenhouse, ''But many Democrats are worried that by not being held accountable for killing two men and injuring a third, it sends a dangerous message. The Vice President said the decision reflected poorly on the justice system.'' Given that he was put on trial for murder and four other offences and found innocent on all counts, surely that is accountability? Of course, what she means is that he should have been found guilty.

Transcript: BBC NEWS CHANNEL, 19 November 2021, 7.06pm - The Kyle Rittenhouse Verdict

  

Shaun Ley: Nomia Iqbal has been following the trial in Kenosha and she joins us from outside the courthouse. A highly charged situation the night of these killings and it's been a highly controversial trial. Tell us what happened today.

Nomia Iqbal: It has been. After more than 26 hours of deliberations, the juror made up of seven women and five men finally released their verdict today and have cleared the 18-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse on every single charge. I just want to read you a statement that has just been released from the family of the second man that he shot dead last year. Anthony Huber. They have said that 'it sends the unacceptable message that armed civilians can show up in any town, incite violence and then use the danger they have created to justify shooting people in the streets.' And that is the core argument that many liberal groups are making about the fact that Mr Rittenhouse has been cleared because this isn't just about what happened here in Kenosha. This verdict has been seen as almost a referendum on the very polarising issue of gun ownership in America. For conservative, who largely backed Mr Rittenhouse, he is the Second Amendment personified, and for them, pro-gun rights groups, this a victory. They say it's a victory for the Second Amendment, that he is a patriot that was standing up to lawlessness. But liberal groups back this argument that's been made by the family, that what sort of message does this send out that people can turn up to protests with guns and not face any consequences. and not face any consequences. Kyle Rittenhouse was very emotional when that verdict was read out, but I suppose for a lot of people here - there are a lot of protestors outside the courthouse - it just leaves a very worrying conclusion. I spoke to the family, the uncle of Jacob Blake. Now he was...he is a black man that was shot by a white police officer last year, which sparked the protests in the first place which then ended up with Kyle Rittenhouse entering the city on the third night. He said to me that if Kyle Rittenhouse had been black he believes that the police would have shot him. And so there's so many issues that this trial embodies, but as I say, for the many liberal groups this is sending out a worrying message. And because of the rule double jeopardy as well in this case, Kyle Rittenhouse can never be tried for this case again. There can be no appeal and he's walked out of court a free man today.

Shaun Ley: Nomia Iqbal, thank you very much.

Control of the mics

This is quite something. Victoria Derbyshire was interviewing a Conservative MP [Miriam Cates, MP  for Penistone and Stockbridge] and every time Victoria Derbyshire interrupted her the BBC faded out and cut off the MP's microphone. The MP was left talking away unheard as Vic D had her say at length, again and again. Ms Cates was forcibly silenced by technology 9 times. I've counting Vic D's 'talking time' and she talked for 37.8% of the entire interview. Many left-wingers on Twitter were delighted:

 

An absolutely glorious masterclass in how a journalist should hold a Government accountable for its lies & broken promises by @vicderbyshire

Absolutely superb #liarsandcharlatons
pic.twitter.com/O9Ce6eVUH9

— Peter Stefanovic (@PeterStefanovi2) November 18, 2021

Others disagree:

BBC Waste: Is it now BBC policy to cut the mic on guests, Jess Brammar? This is a very slippery slope and ill-advised.

It's an interesting question as to whether Jess Brammar - the controversial new head of the BBC's news channels - was behind this. 

I've seen interviewers faded down but never anything so systematic before.

Choosing the best guest

As I now get my news from many places, the remarkable tale of General Mark Milley apparently going behind President Trump's back to directly reassure the Chinese communist regime both before and after the 2020 US election is a story I've kept my eye on. 

It's not one that's interested the BBC News Channel much though. I can find only one discussion about it, when Christian Fraser interviewed an American security expert about it on 15 September at 9.30pm.

The American security expert fully backed General Milley's actions and repeatedly went on the attack about Donald Trump, so I smelt a rat and looked him up on Wikipedia. And Wikipedia - unlike the BBC - was very informative about his background:

Miles Taylor is an American former government official in the George W. Bush and Trump administrations, best known for his previously anonymous criticisms of Donald Trump.

In 2018, after being appointed DHS deputy chief of staff, Taylor wrote The New York Times op-ed "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration" under the pen-name "Anonymous", which drew widespread attention for its criticism of Trump. In 2019, he published the book A Warning, later revealing himself to be "Anonymous" in October 2020 while campaigning against Donald Trump's reelection. 

In August 2020, while on leave of absence from his work at Google, he produced an ad for Republican Voters Against Trump, denouncing Trump and endorsing Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election. Taylor was the first former Trump administration officials who endorsed Joe Biden.

Hm, the BBC certainly know how to select their guests.

It's a shame they can't give us a little context though about where that guest is 'coming from', especially if it's relevant - as it surely was here.

Sloppiness

 

Luxmy Gopal, not the first female newsreader

This week's Newswatch with Samira Ahmed began with viewers complaining about BBC journalistic ''sloppiness'' after the BBC News Channel's 4pm headlines on Wednesday said this:

The Prime Minister is re- shuffling his top team of government ministers. In the past few minutes, the former Trade Secretary Liz Truss has been appointed Foreign Secretary, the first woman to hold the role.

I checked that out at the time and found that the BBC corrected it within 7 minutes, noting that Labour's Margaret Beckett had got there first [in 2006]. 

It was a bit 'sloppy' but I didn't think it was worth pointing out here given the speed of the correction and the fact that such things can happen during 'breaking news'. 

I didn't realise till Newswatch though that this wasn't an isolated example. The mistake was repeated on the following morning's Today programme...

More ministerial appointments are expected to be announced today after Boris Johnson carried out an extensive cabinet reshuffle yesterday. Liz Truss became the first female Foreign Secretary after Dominic Raab was demoted to Justice Secretary.

...''and elsewhere'', as Samira put it.

Who are the militants in Afghanistan [and India]?

BBC World News, broadcast overnight on BBC One, looks to be recognising the new Taliban regime, even if the UK government hasn't yet.

Here BBC newsreader Karin Giannone describes the people opposing the Taliban as 'militants':

Now there are reports of from Afghanistan of heavy fighting between Taliban forces and militants who oppose the Islamist takeover around the Panjshir Valley.

The Daily Express today has it the other way round, with the Taliban remaining ''the militants'' and the forces of former vice-president Amrullah Saleh and Ahmad Massoud in the Panjshir Valley being ''resistance fighters'':

The Taliban have clashed with a group of resistance fighters in Afghanistan's Panjshir province as the final stronghold against the militants hangs in the balance. 

---------------- 

On a possibly related theme, this glowing headline following the death of a leading pro-Pakistan, Islamist Kashmiri separatist hasn't gone down well in India, where he's a highly controversial figure - understandably so given his pronouncements about Osama bin Laden and the Mumbai attackers:

The introductory paragraph goes on to say: 

Kashmir's top separatist leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani, who spearheaded the resistance movement against Indian rule, has died, aged 92. 

This is the language of approval. 

Here's a flavour of the reaction:

• As expected, the BBC turns Syed Ali Shah Geelani into a freedom fighter when even Al Jazeera refers to him as "separatist". Is the BBC completely tone deaf when it comes to reporting? What's the reason behind this sustained anti-India stance? What kind of biased journalism is this?
• Geelani fought to make Kashmir a totalitarian Islamist hellhole. He was partially responsible for massacres and ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus. He was an enemy of freedom. BBC's headline is unbelievable but reflects their anti-India and anti-Hindu bias.
• If Geelani was a Hindu, the tone of the article would have been very different. 
• Interesting. BBC News calls a Talibani-style terrorist Geelani a freedom fighter. The way it is BBC will stitch a burqa for the British queen. 

''Why do some horrors cause outrage and others do not?''

This is an important exchange about a horrific incident that took place on 24 July:

Benedict Spence, writer and commentator - I’m still staggered that the death of a woman who was set on fire in a street in England isn’t the biggest story in the country. 

Benedict Spence - Civilised people should be appalled and enraged by this primitive savagery in our midst. Everyone needs to know this happened. 

Ben Cobley, author of The Tribe - On the contrary, it is not in the least bit surprising.  

Stella Coppard - Cold blooded premeditated murder & it is almost hidden from mainstream news channels. Shame on them. The pain & horror this women suffered is unthinkable. NOTHING honourable about murder, downright malicious evil.

Lord Milton Damerel - I'm even more amazed that MPs such as Jess Phillips who've worked so hard to highlight violence toward women, don't seem interested. Of all the atrocities we've seen in the news this needs to be spoken of in Parliament.

And this is a telling question:

Emma Webb, The Free Speech Union - A Muslim woman from Bury has died after she was found on fire in the street. Three men in their 20s and 30s have been arrested. It’s barely been covered. Why do some horrors cause outrage and others do not?  

As far as I can see, searching via TVEyes, this story has received no coverage on BBC One or BBC Two's national news programmes and just two brief mentions on the BBC News Channel on 24 July at 7.14pm and 8.14pm. North West Tonight, the BBC local news programme hereabouts, also gave it two short mentions on 24 July, adding little but the ages of the victim and the three men arrested.

Clarification Time (again)

Aficionados of the BBC's Corrections and Clarifications page have been treated to five new specimens this week. 

The oddest one is the Andrew Marr correction at the bottom of this post. Why on earth did it take 11 months to correct that?

The most striking one is the George Floyd one, because it's a lapse in journalistic accuracy that they've made before, for it's not the first time that the BBC's been forced into 'correcting and clarifying' that the police officers involved in his death weren't all white. (Two out of four were non-white). This is surely a classic case of BBC groupthink in action, leading to false and inaccurate reporting. 

News at Six

BBC One and BBC News Channel, Friday 26 February 2021

We reported Alex Salmond had said Nicola Sturgeon had broken the ministerial code and that he thought she should resign in his evidence to a Scottish Parliament Inquiry. 

In fact Mr Salmond did not say that the First Minister should resign; he told the Inquiry “I've got no doubt that Nicola has broken the ministerial code but it’s not for me to suggest what the consequences should be”. 

03/03/2021 

World at One, Tuesday 2 February 2021

We said Israel had vaccinated 5 million people with the Pfizer jab and that a million of these had had two doses. 

In fact, more than 5 million doses of vaccine had been given to Israeli citizens. Over 3 million people had received the first dose of the vaccine at that point and over 2 million the second. 

01/03/2021 

Midday Bulletin

BBC Radio 4, 6 February 2021

We reported that it was the 70th anniversary of the Queen’s accession to the throne. As the Queen acceded the throne in 1952, this was in fact the 69th anniversary.

01/03/2021

BBC News Channel, Friday 23 July 2020 

We referred to George Floyd’s death as occurring during an encounter with white police officers. The officer who knelt on his neck is white, but two of the other three involved are not. 

01/03/2021

Andrew Marr 

BBC One, 19 April 2020 

We referred to the Black Death, which it’s estimated killed millions of people in medieval times, as a virus. In fact it was a bacterial infection. 

01/03/2021

"I do get to correct when you make either misstatements or a statement that needs clarification. That's how it works when you come onto the BBC. I ask a question. You answer it. If you make a misstatement I jump in anytime I want."

There's been discussion over at Biased BBC about a feisty BBC News Channel interview this morning. It took place at 12.07am and featured James Reynolds. I can't supply a video, but here's a transcript:

*******

James Reynolds, BBC: We can now speak to Republican strategist Seth Weathers who joins us from Atlanta. Hey Seth, good to see you. It was an acquittal, but was it really an exoneration? 

Seth Weathers, Republican strategist: Clearly. The reality was it wasn't even a real impeachment, which is why the head of the Supreme Court refused to sit over the trial. It...

James Reynolds: (interrupting) No, that's not...no, no, no. He refused to sit over the trial because he only presides when a sitting president is there. That is not...That is a very separate issue from whether impeachment goes ahead or not. 

Seth Weathers: No.

James Reynolds: You know that. The Senate voted 56 to 34 to let the trial continue. You can carry on, but when you make a statement like that I jump in. Seth, all yours.

Seth Weathers: I'd love for you to jump in. The reality is the Constitution makes it very clear that you cannot impeach someone who is not a sitting president. You can impeach...

James Reynolds: (interrupting) No, come on Seth! We are not going to keep talking about this because...

Seth Weathers: Do I get to finish? Do I get anything to say?

James Reynolds: You can talk.

Seth Weathers: You're just going to talk over me?

James Reynolds: Well, I do get to correct when you make either misstatements or a statement that needs clarification. That's how it works when you come onto the BBC. I ask a question. You answer it. If you make a misstatement I jump in anytime I want. So, Seth, can we carry on and not keep talking about the unconstitutionality? Can we talk about what Donald Trump will do now? Seth, can you talk about what Donald Trump will do now?

Seth Weathers: Do you want to discuss what happened or do you want to talk over me when I make statements?  So you're the decider of what is fact? You're the constitutional scholar of the Constitution of the United States of America? You know all, and you get to correct me and shut me up on air if I say something you disagree with? The reality is you cannot impeach someone who is not a sitting president. The Constitution makes that clear, which is why they say the purpose is to remove a president from office. That's the only point I'm trying to make. I don't know why that sets you off...

James Reynolds: (interrupting) I get that, and I think you also know...just let me speak...and you also know that the Senate voted the other way, to let that trial continue. 

Seth Weathers: Right.

James Reynolds: Now, we know you disagree with that, but they did vote. Let's just talk about today. OK. 57 to 43. That included seven Republican senators. Does it sting to have them vote against President...former President Trump? 

Seth Weathers: No, it doesn't sting at all. I mean the kind of people that voted against him are little weasels like Ben Sasse and others, Mitt Romney etc. These are people that if there were an election anytime soon in their states, specifically someone like Ben Sasse, they're very likely going to lose that reelection. And these are people who have just...they've had it out for Donald Trump from before he became president, from the time he first ran. They've hated him. They are establishment hacks. The Republican Party, the people on the base, they don't...we don't like these people. DC likes them. The media likes them. That's pretty much it. And so, again, these are the people that are not going to be in sound situations when it comes to reelection. And again, everything about this was a farce. There is no legitimacy to this. It's a joke...

James Reynolds: (interrupting) Hey, we've just said...You've said all that. Let's...You've said all that.

Seth Weathers: Both sides of the aisle are [indecipherable because of talking over] in discredit. 

James Reynolds: I did hear you. You did say that. Let me move on...Donald Trump talked about moving on with Making America Great Again. Does he want to get back into active politics? 

Seth Weathers: I think he's going to be very active when it comes to 2022 and supporting people that were opposed to him, whether it is in this impeachment or in other areas, and that is specifically speaking as to Republicans. And so I do think...I don't personally really believe he is going to run in 2024. I think he would rather in essence use the fear of him potentially running for other Republicans to keep that position open and eventually to be a kingmaker on whoever that individual ultimately is. And I do think he will have a kingmaker role in that. 

James Reynolds: Seth, we did get there in the end. 

Seth Weathers: (laughing) I hope next time we can have more of a back-and-forth conversation. 

James Reynolds: OK, we'll try again next time. Seth Weathers, thank you so much for speaking to us. 

Seth Weathers: Any time. 

Lukwesa is the bearer of good tidings

 

Talking of Lukwesa Burak...

Straight after Dharshini's latest performance on the BBC News Channel, Lukwesa turned to something completely different. 

And I've never seen a BBC News Channel newsreader look so happy about announcing something. She beamed with what looked like delight, and her voice became excessively loud and giddy with seeming excitement. 

Now what could have so lifted Lukwesa's face and voice into the stratosphere and beyond? Well, a bit of identity politics, that's what!

The actual words really don't do justice to just how over-the-moon she gave the impression of being. (Of course, she could have been faking it). It was quite startling. That woman in the big pink frock on North Korean news couldn't have looked happier if Kim Jong-un had opened a new nuclear weapons factory. 

Anyhow, here's the news wot did it:

The UK's largest umbrella organisation for Muslim groups has elected a woman as its head for the first time. 

Zara Mohammed, who has a background in human rights law, is not only the first woman in the role, she's also the youngest. 

She said she hoped her election as Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain would inspire more women and young people to come forward to leadership roles. 

Not only is she the first woman in the role, she is also the youngest and the first Scottish person to be Secretary General. 

Great honour to say that the new Secretary-General herself, Zara Mohammed, has joined us here on BBC News. Thank you for joining us, and huge congratulations to you.

So the deeply dodgy MCB has gone woke? Hmm.......

Colourful language from Christian Fraser

 

As we know, it's a very, very, very bad thing to say 'coloured people'. 

You've got to put the word 'people' first, move the 'coloured' bit to the end and take off the '-ed' (most important of all), and pop an 'of' bang in the middle, making: 'people of colour'. 

That makes all the difference.

If you're still unsure, please read this BBC Newsbeat article headlined Warning: Why using the term 'coloured' is offensive. 

Transgress, even accidentally, and say 'coloured' rather than 'of colour', and you seriously risk all hell breaking loose, especially if you're in the limelight.

Enter Christian Fraser at 9:40 pm on the BBC News Channel this very evening, plonked on the other side of the split screen from Katty Kay, and talking to an American person of colour placed between them. 

Here's what Christian said:

I suppose the ultimate litmus test right off the bat is how the country reacts to Covid, because we know there is a disproportionate effect within coloured communities, within poor communities, and it tends to be those communities where poverty is so endemic.

OMG!, as Katty would say (though, in fact, she said nothing here).

Poor, poor Christian. Straight into the Slough of Despond. 

That's his career over, surely?

Let's not forget this from the BBC News website on 11 November 2020:

Greg Clarke: Why FA chairman's comments are so offensive
Warning: This report contains offensive language.

Greg Clarke had to quit for using the term "coloured footballers" while speaking to MPs about diversity and racial abuse against black players. His pro-diversity, anti-racist intent proved irrelevant as far as the baying mob - and the BBC's Newsbeat - went. He was a goner.

Oh, Christian! What can you do to be saved?

And maybe the mouth of hell beckons for Katty too for not speaking out against such a damnable choice of words, live on BBC TV. 

Snowflakes

  

If you were watching the paper reviews on the BBC News Channel last night, you might have caught presenter Lewis Vaughan Jones talking about the snow, and snowmen. Guess what this Lewis calls 'snowmen' though? 

22:44 We'll stick with the front page of The Daily Telegraph seeing as we're there. There's a snowperson there wearing a mask. Very good. Giles, very quickly because we're almost out of time. Did you get out and throw a snowball today?

23:43 OK, let's go back to the front page of The Times, because a conversation isn't really a conversation here without talking about the weather, and that's exactly what we're going to do. The snow. And now the front page of The Times. Unfortunately...This is a lovely story. People out building snowpeople, throwing snowballs at each other. The Times has gone with a picture with a police van in the middle of the snow scene. Lizzie, what's going on?  

Larry King 1933-2021

 

An interviewer with a very different style to most interviewers today, Larry King has died aged 87.

The BBC News Channel bungled their announcement of his passing this afternoon:

Characteristically, Piers Morgan has combined a tribute with something about himself, but I do like the quote from Larry King here:

Larry King was a hero of mine until we fell out after I replaced him at CNN & he said my show was ‘like watching your mother-in-law go over a cliff in your new Bentley.’ (He married 8 times so a mother-in-law expert). But he was a brilliant broadcaster & masterful TV interviewer.